Ameristeel Corp. v. Clark
1997 WL 166244, 691 So.2d 473 (1997)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
To establish standing to intervene in an administrative proceeding approving a utility territorial agreement, a party must demonstrate both an immediate, non-speculative injury in fact and that the injury is of a type the proceeding is designed to protect. A customer's pre-existing economic desire for lower rates from a different utility does not confer standing when the agreement merely maintains the status quo for that customer.
Facts:
- In 1963, Jacksonville Electric Authority (JEA) and Florida Power & Light Company (FPL) entered into a territorial agreement establishing an exclusive service boundary line.
- In 1974, AmeriSteel Corporation established its plant within the Jacksonville municipal limits but inside the area designated as FPL's exclusive service territory under the 1963 agreement.
- AmeriSteel became a customer of FPL, whose electricity rates over time became significantly higher than those of JEA.
- In 1995, following a dispute, JEA and FPL negotiated a new, broad-based territorial agreement.
- This new agreement reaffirmed the existing boundary lines but arranged for the transfer of several hundred customers to eliminate instances where one utility was serving customers in the other's designated territory.
- The agreement did not alter AmeriSteel's service status; its plant remained within FPL's territory and would continue to be served by FPL.
- AmeriSteel asserted that FPL's high rates threatened the long-term viability of its Jacksonville plant and the local economy.
Procedural Posture:
- Jacksonville Electric Authority (JEA) filed a petition against Florida Power & Light (FPL) with the Florida Public Service Commission (the Commission) to resolve a territorial dispute.
- JEA and FPL subsequently filed a joint motion with the Commission to approve a new, comprehensive territorial agreement that resolved the dispute.
- AmeriSteel Corporation filed a motion to intervene in the Commission's proceedings, arguing it had a substantial interest that would be affected by the agreement's approval.
- The Commission denied AmeriSteel's motion to intervene, concluding the company lacked legal standing.
- Following an agenda conference, the Commission issued a proposed agency action approving the territorial agreement.
- AmeriSteel filed a petition protesting the Commission's preliminary approval, which the Commission dismissed in a final order, again finding a lack of standing.
- AmeriSteel filed a direct appeal of the Commission's final order to the Supreme Court of Florida.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a customer whose electricity provider is unaffected by a new territorial agreement between two utilities have standing to intervene in the Public Service Commission's approval proceedings merely because it desires service from the other, lower-cost utility?
Opinions:
Majority - Per Curiam
No. A customer whose electricity provider remains unchanged by a new territorial agreement does not have standing to intervene in the regulatory approval proceedings based on a desire to obtain service from a lower-cost utility. To establish standing under the Agrico test, a party must show an immediate injury in fact and that their interest falls within the zone of interests protected by the proceeding. AmeriSteel failed both prongs. First, the company suffered no immediate injury in fact because the agreement merely preserved the status quo; its position as an FPL customer was unchanged. The alleged economic harm from high rates was deemed too speculative and remote to constitute an immediate injury. Second, the purpose of Commission proceedings on territorial agreements is to prevent 'uneconomic duplication of facilities' and ensure grid reliability for the public interest, not to protect an individual customer's purely economic interest in obtaining lower rates. The court also rejected AmeriSteel's due process claim, finding that notice was only required for customers whose service provider was actually changing, which did not include AmeriSteel.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the high threshold for standing in challenges to administrative agency actions, particularly in the context of utility regulation. By strictly applying the Agrico test, the court reinforced that a purely economic interest in lower costs, without a direct and immediate injury caused by the challenged action, is insufficient to confer standing. The ruling enhances the stability of long-standing utility territorial agreements by protecting them from challenges by customers who are merely dissatisfied with their designated provider. This precedent limits the ability of individual customers to disrupt broad regulatory objectives, such as preventing duplicative infrastructure, by prioritizing systemic efficiency over individual rate preferences.
