TALLAHASSEE -- The Florida Public Service Commission, minus one commissioner and hobbled by a distrustful governor, will decide Tuesday whether to allow Florida Power & Light to charge customers $1.6 billion for a 280-mile natural gas pipeline.

The pipeline charges wouldn't go onto customer bills until 2014, but they would be added to the controversial 30 percent base rate increase sought by FPL beginning in 2010, if the PSC approves it.

The pipeline decision by the PSC, which shrank to four members Monday with the resignation of Commissioner Katrina McMurrian, precedes the decision on the FPL rate case scheduled for December.

Unlike private pipeline companies, which must rely on shareholders to finance their ventures, FPL's proposal is different. It wants state regulators to allow the company to charge customers about $288 million a year beginning in 2014 to pay for the pipeline that would snake through the state from Bradford County to FPL's Martin County plant. The company may also ask for additional fuel fees to be added to customers bills before then to finance much of the construction, though FPL has not yet detailed exactly how it will divide up the costs of the construction.

The PSC first must decide if the pipeline is needed to transport fuel to new power generators sought by FPL. Then it must either agree with FPL that the pipeline costs should be added to electric customers' bills, or require it to create a separate business, seek investors and raise the cash without directly affecting customer rates.

During hearings on the case in August, FPL officials told the PSC that if they couldn't charge customers directly for the cost of the pipeline, they wouldn't build it.

Transporting natural gas to power plants is a competitive market but the rates and access to the lines are regulated by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission or, as in Florida's case, state regulators. Several other pipelines companies submitted bids to provide the natural gas to FPL plants, including some at lower cost.

But FPL argues that constructing the pipeline itself will create 3,500 construction jobs, diversify natural gas supplies and save customers in the long run. It wants to build a pipeline large enough to hold more gas than it needs and supply the rest to the open market. Questions remain whether that's a viable option.

The debate has sparked a rare public battle within the ranks of the PSC. Staff members in one division accused staff members in another division of using intimidation tactics to promote a position that agreed with FPL.

The tiff became so explosive last month that one PSC staffer filed an anonymous complaint that prompted the PSC inspector general to investigate possible misconduct.

``It has been alleged that some staff in the Office of Strategic Analysis and Governmental Affairs (SGA) attempted to exert undue influence on the recommendations and to intimidate other staff to adopt their position,'' PSC Inspector General Steven Stolting wrote in the resulting Sept. 16 report.

At the time of the dispute, the director of the SGA was Ryder Rudd, the PSC lobbyist who resigned last month after admitting he attended a Kentucky Derby Party at the home of FPL Vice President Ed Tancer. Stolting concluded Rudd had no role in the dispute and said he could find no basis for questioning SGA staff motives ``or to support allegations of bias.''

Nonetheless, the inspector general's report prompted the Florida Gas Transmission Company, the company that would be FPL's chief competitor in the pipeline business, to demand that the pipeline case be dropped by the PSC. The company argued that inspector general's report proved that staff members were ``prejudging a matter'' and that ``questions the integrity of the entire staff advisory process.''

FGT's lawyer, Floyd Self, asked that the matter to be moved to the state Division of Administrative Hearings to decide.

The unique circumstances presented in the report ``present a picture of potential staff bias, intolerance, and intimidation that cannot be ignored,'' Self wrote in his motion.

FPL fired back a response, calling FGT's motion a ``sham pleading,'' and accusing it of ``forum shopping.''

``Once again, FGT is grasping at straws to protect its stranglehold on gas transportation into the state of Florida, to the detriment of FPL customers and the state as a whole,'' wrote FPL Vice President and lawyer Wade Litchfield.

Documents obtained by the Herald/Times showed that staff disagreed over how much FPL would ultimately save over the first 30 years of the pipeline. SGA staff members and FPL argued that the company would save between $200 million and $500 million by not having to pay another company to transport the gas. Other staffers indicated that the net savings calculated by FGT puts the number closer to $26 million.

In the end, the primary PSC staff recommendation is to deny adding the pipeline costs to the base rate for electric service paid by consumers. But the SGA staff members -- who are more closely aligned with FPL's position -- made an alternate recommendation that favors charging customers. The result: the PSC has two staff recommendations to choose from.

Also at issue: whether FPL is even allowed by law to charge consumers for the pipeline costs. The company relied on an obscure law -- used once before, 16 years ago -- to make the case that it can transfer the pipeline's cost to its electric customers.

Mary Ellen Klas can be reached at meklas@ MiamiHerald.com