Florida Supreme Court Justices Question Approval of FPL Rates
Base-rate issues are closely watched, as they involve billions of dollars, make up large portions of customers' monthly bills and help determine how much profit that utilities can earn.
February 09, 2023 at 11:11 AM
4 minute read
State Supreme Court justices questioned whether regulators adequately justified the approval of a settlement that increased base electric rates for Florida Power & Light.
The Supreme Court heard arguments in two challenges to the Florida Public Service Commission's approval in late 2021 of the four-year settlement, which began increasing FPL customers' rates last year.
FPL reached the settlement with the state Office of Public Counsel, which represents consumers in utility issues, and other parties including the Florida Retail Federation, the Florida Industrial Power Users Group and the Southern Alliance for Clean Energy.
But groups that were not part of the settlement filed legal challenges, arguing that it was not in the "public interest" and contending that some parts of the agreement violated state law.
During Wednesday's hearing, Chief Justice Carlos Muniz and other justices questioned whether the Public Service Commission should have done more to justify approval of the settlement. Muniz also appeared to question whether it was a true settlement, as some parties were not included.
Muniz said that "at the end of the day, the PSC has the responsibility to set the rates."
"The PSC can't delegate to these [settling] parties just the responsibility to decide what's in the public interest," Muniz said in questioning commission attorney Douglas Sunshine. "So you still have the same obligations you would have had in the absence of a settlement agreement."
As an example, Muniz and Justice John Couriel said the commission's final order approving the settlement did not detail expansion of an FPL program known as SolarTogether. That program drew objections from parties that were not included in the settlement.
The program involves some customers paying more on their electric bills to help finance solar projects and then getting credits that result in a payback. Critics contend the program is unfair to other customers who don't take part, a contention that FPL disputes.
"There's no explanation whatsoever for the PSC's thinking on how it got to approving this," Muniz said. "From a judicial review perspective and from a matter of the PSC complying with its obligations, how can the order not address the major issues that are in dispute in a way that allows us to kind of have a window into what the rational process was that led to the finding that it was in the public interest?"
"I would submit that the commission's final order … lays out all of the aspects that it found in the settlement agreement and provided the analysis that is within the final order," Sunshine responded.
"But the chief [justice] is right, isn't he, that the final order doesn't talk about SolarTogether at all. Right? You concede that?" Couriel replied.
"I concede that," Sunshine said. "But again, the parties, the signatories to the settlement agreement, they negotiated this document, and there's a give and take in that process."
Later, Daniel Nordby, an attorney for FPL, said the SolarTogether part of the settlement was a "change in magnitude, rather than a change in kind from the way that the pre-existing SolarTogether program was structured."
"What the commission was considering with SolarTogether in the context of this expansion proposed here was not the underlying authority to approve the program. Because that had been done in a prior order in 2020 that was not challenged," Nordby said. "The commission was considering simply whether this expansion was fair, just and reasonable and in the public interest."
The Supreme Court typically takes months to issue rulings after hearing arguments.
The group Floridians Against Increased Rates and a coalition of three other organizations, Florida Rising, the Environmental Confederation of Southwest Florida and the League of United Latin American Citizens of Florida filed the challenges at the Supreme Court. The cases were later consolidated.
Base-rate issues are closely watched, as they involve billions of dollars, make up large portions of customers' monthly bills and help determine how much profit that utilities can earn.
FPL filed a base-rate proposal in early 2021 and ultimately reached the settlement, which includes numerous issues. After approval by the commission, the settlement led to a $692 million rate increase in January 2022 and another $560 million hike that took effect last month. The settlement also will allow increases in 2024 and 2025 to pay for solar-energy projects that are not part of the SolarTogether program.
Jim Saunders reports for the News Service of Florida.
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllWhich Courts are Closed and Open? Hurricane Forms off Florida Coast
Morgan & Morgan Sues Law Firm, Managing Partner for Violating Settlement Over Misleading Ads
3 minute readRising Tide of Litigation: Navigating the Growing Legal Challenges Against State Cannabis Programs and Its Impact
8 minute read'$20 Billion in Damages': FTX Bankruptcy Estate and MDL Resolve Differences
5 minute readTrending Stories
- 1'I'm Staying Everything': Texas Bankruptcy Judge Halts Talc Trials Against J&J
- 2What We Know About the Kentucky Judge Killed in His Chambers
- 3Ex-Prosecutor and Judge Fatally Shot During Attempted Arrest on Federal Corruption Charges
- 4Judge Blasts Authors' Lawyers in Key AI Suit, Says Case Doomed Without Upgraded Team
- 5Federal Judge Won't Stop Title IX Investigation Into Former GMU Law Professor
Who Got The Work
Joseph J. Mueller and Rachel Bier of Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have entered appearances for Omachron Alpha, Omachron Intellectual Property and SharkNinja Operating in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The action, filed Sept. 16 in Massachusetts District Court by Kirkland & Ellis, asserts three patents in connection with SharkNinja's sale of the 'Vertex' and 'Stratos' cordless vacuum cleaners. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Allison D. Burroughs, is 1:24-cv-12373, Dyson, Inc. et al v. SharkNinja, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Shloime Fellig of Latham & Watkins has entered an appearance for Ardelyx the company's CEO and CFO in a pending securities class action related to Xphozah, a drug which treats kidney disease and end-stage renal disease. The complaint, filed Aug. 16 in Massachusetts District Court by Pomerantz LLP, contends that the defendants failed to disclose that the company would not be seeking the drug’s acceptance into the Transitional Drug Add-on Payment Adjustment, a bundled payment system regulated by the Medicare Improvements for Patients and Providers Act. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Leo T. Sorokin, is 1:24-cv-12119, Yarborough v. Ardelyx, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Alexander P. Ott, Megan Corrigan and Karen Gover of McDermott Will & Emery have entered appearances for Analog Devices, a Massachusetts-based manufacturer of semiconductor processing equipment, in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, which asserts two patents, was filed July 9 in Massachusetts District Court by Arrowood LLP and the Devlin Law Firm on behalf of Ocean Semiconductors. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Patti B. Saris, is 1:24-cv-11759, Ocean Semiconductors LLC v. Analog Devices Inc.
Who Got The Work
Forrest M. 'Teo' Seger of Clark Hill has entered an appearance for Equifax Information Services in a pending lawsuit for claims under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The case was filed Aug. 13 in Texas Western District Court by Halvorsen Klote on behalf of Quinton Humphrey. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Fred Biery, is 5:24-cv-00892, Humphrey v. LVNV Funding, LLC et al.
Who Got The Work
Winston & Strawn partners Amanda Groves and Shawn R. Obi have entered appearances for Wells Fargo Bank in a pending consumer class action. The case, filed Aug. 13 in California Northern District Court by the Kazerouni Law Group and Kellett & Bartholow, contends that Wells Fargo overcharged tens of thousands of customers on their mortgage loan accounts and attempted to downplay liability by sending out 'cryptic' letters and cashier checks. According to the suit, the defendant's failure to disclose to customers how their accounts were overcharged or to provide any accounting or itemization of actual damages constitutes a violation of California's Unfair Competition Law. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Peter H. Kang, is 3:24-cv-05105, Prado v. Wells Fargo & Company et al.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250