Microtel, Inc. v. FLA. PUBLIC SERVICE COM'NMicrotel, Inc. v. FLA. PUBLIC SERVICE COM'N
These cases are before us for review of orders of the Public Service Commission. We are required to hear these appeals by
Microtel was the first company certified by the Commission to provide competitive intrastate long distance service. The company urges that subsequent certification of other telephone companies, appellees here, should be denied or delayed for several reasons. We find appellant‘s arguments completely without merit and affirm the Commission.
Appellant Microtel first argues that the Commission is required to consider the criteria enumerated in
Microtel asserts that this construction of the statutes gives the Commission unbridled discretion in making the initial certification decision. Unbridled discretion is prohibited by this state‘s adherence to the doctrine of nondelegation of legislative power, pursuant to
Under this doctrine fundamental and primary policy decisions shall be made by members of the legislature who are elected to perform those tasks, and administration of legislative programs must be pursuant to some minimal standards and guidelines ascertainable by reference to the enactment establishing the program.
Askew v. Cross Key Waterways, 372 So.2d 913, 925 (Fla. 1978). In the instant situation, the legislature made the “fundamental and primary policy decision” that there be competition in long distance telephone service.
In implementing this policy decision, the legislature is obliged by the nondelegation doctrine to establish adequate standards and guidelines. Subordinate functions may be transferred by the legislature to permit administration of legislative policy by an agency with the expertise and flexibility needed to deal with complex and fluid conditions. State, Department of Citrus v. Griffin, 239 So.2d 577 (Fla. 1970). Otherwise, the legislature would be forced to remain in perpetual session and devote a large portion of its time to regulation. Id. “Obviously, the very conditions which may operate to make direct legislative control impractical or ineffective may also, for the same reasons, make the drafting of detailed or specific legislation impractical or undesirable.” Id. at 581.
In the instant situation, the legislature has provided standards and guidelines in
Finally, Microtel claims it is entitled to be protected from competition until it has had a reasonable time to establish itself in the marketplace. This argument is based on what can kindly be called a wishful reading of
The orders are supported by competent substantial evidence, and accordingly are affirmed.
It is so ordered.
BOYD, C.J., and ADKINS, OVERTON, ALDERMAN, McDONALD and SHAW, JJ., concur.
Notes
(1) Each applicant for a certificate shall:
(a) Provide all information required by rule or order of the commission, which may include a detailed inquiry into the ability of the applicant to provide service, a detailed inquiry into the territory and facilities involved, and a detailed inquiry into the existence of service from other sources within geographical proximity to the territory applied for.
(b) File with the commission schedules showing all rates for service of every kind furnished by it and all rules and contracts relating thereto.
.....