Floridians Against Increased Rates, Inc. v. Clark
The Florida Supreme Court reviewed the PSC's approval of an FPL rate settlement agreement and held that the Commission's roughly one-page public-interest explanation, drawn from a 70,000-page record, did not permit meaningful judicial review. Departing from prior indications in Sierra Club v. Brown, the Court held that whether a settlement is in the public interest and produces fair, just, and reasonable rates is not a pure fact finding reviewed for competent, substantial evidence but a mixed law/policy determination reviewed for abuse of delegated discretion under section 120.68(7)(e). The order was remanded for a reasoned explanation addressing the statutory factors and the parties' main disagreements.
Key facts
- Floridians Against Increased Rates, Inc. challenged the Public Service Commission's approval of a settlement agreement between the Commission and Florida Power & Light regarding utility rates.
- The PSC issued a one-page public-interest explanation approving the settlement as fair, just, and reasonable, drawn from a 70,000-page administrative record.
- +2 more key facts with a free trial
Why it matters
This is a major recalibration of Florida judicial review of agency action: the Court expressly walks back Sierra Club v. Brown's treatment of the public-interest determination as a pure fact finding and imports… — full analysis with a trial
Read the full opinion, holdings & search — free for 30 days
The full opinion PDF, the rules the court applied, our significance analysis, the background facts, and full-text search across every tracked Florida decision — in your hands.
- Search every tracked Florida decision in seconds
- Save, tag & file the cases that matter into your own library
- Read the full plain-English analysis and holdings
Not ready to sign up? Get the free Friday digest — the week's key Florida decisions by email, no login required.
Florida Court Tracker provides summaries of publicly available court opinions for informational and research purposes only. This is not legal advice and does not create an attorney–client relationship. Always verify holdings against the official opinion.