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
© 2025 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 AllPlaintiffs Attorneys Awarded $113K on $1 Judgment in Noise Ordinance Dispute
4 minute readUS Judge Cannon Blocks DOJ From Releasing Final Report in Trump Documents Probe
3 minute readRead the Document: DOJ Releases Ex-Special Counsel's Report Explaining Trump Prosecutions
3 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Charlie Javice Fraud Trial Delayed as Judge Denies Motion to Sever
- 2Holland & Knight Hires Former Davis Wright Tremaine Managing Partner in Seattle
- 3With DEI Rollbacks, Employment Attorneys See Potential for Targeting Corporate Commitment to Equality
- 4Trump Signs Executive Order Creating Strategic Digital Asset Reserve
- 5St. Jude Labs Sued for $14.3M for Allegedly Falling Short of Purchase Expectations
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
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