As a former member of the Florida Public Service Commission, the government body that regulates utility companies, I’ve seen firsthand how passionate people can get about utility rate cases. Still, I’ve been surprised and concerned by some of the recent rhetoric from critics of Florida Power and Light’s petition for new rates for 2026 through 2029.
FPL filed its petition in February. The utility and the 13 parties who intervened were scheduled to present evidence and argue their positions before the commission during two weeks of technical hearings in August. But three days before the hearings were to begin, FPL and 10 of the intervenors announced they had reached an agreement on a settlement. They asked the commission to suspend the hearings so they could have time to put the settlement terms in writing and present the finalized agreement to the commission. The commission granted that request.
Ronald A. Brisé is a former Florida Public Service Commission chair and commissioner. (courtesy, Ronald A. Brisé)
I was not surprised. Settlements are common in Florida rate cases, and these agreements have historically benefited utility customers because they bring the proponents and opponents together to find common ground — which is exactly how most of us wish all political or policy disagreements were solved.
Critics expressed outrage about so-called “backroom deals” when referring to the settlement and the commission’s postponement of hearings. One activist accused the commission of disregarding the due process rights of FPL customers. This was all before the details of the settlement were even revealed.
These kinds of claims mislead the public about the thorough, transparent process the Public Service Commission follows when it considers utility rates. Florida statutes task the commission with determining and setting “fair, just, and reasonable rates” and acting in the public interest, and every commissioner I’ve known takes those responsibilities seriously. Settlements are often a healthy and constructive part of this process. I haven’t always agreed with the commission’s decisions, even when I was a member, but I’ve never doubted the sincerity with which commissioners undertake their statutory duties.
Some critics have also raised alarm that the Office of Public Counsel, which represents Florida consumers, is not a party to the FPL settlement. Of course, it’s beneficial to have the public counsel onboard, and the public counsel was a party to FPL’s last two settlement agreements. But the public counsel’s absence is not unprecedented.
I chaired the commission in 2012 when we went through a full hearing process and ultimately approved an FPL settlement that did not include the Office of Public Counsel. The public counsel challenged the settlement all the way to the Florida Supreme Court, where the justices ruled unanimously in favor of the commission and FPL’s rate agreement.
The justices also ruled, unanimously, that there is no legal requirement that the public counsel join a settlement. The commission had allowed the public counsel to fully participate in 10 days ofhearings and in submitting testimony, participating in discovery, presenting evidence in opposition to the settlement and filing post-hearing briefs. In other words, we did our jobs by being fair and giving the public counsel every opportunity to make its case on behalf of customers.
The recent filing of a so-called settlement by the public counsel and the other two intervenors that were not party to the agreement with FPL is a tactic that I have not seen before. A true settlement will always reflect compromise between adverse parties — in this case, between the utility and some or all of the intervenors. Here, the public counsel and the two supporting intervenors have essentially offered nothing more than a proposal designed not only to reflect their opposition to the actual settlement agreement filed with the commission, but also to inject chaos into the regulatory environment. I’m confident that the commission will reject the public counsel’s attempt to infuse instability and uncertainty into the regulatory process.
The current commission has given every indication that it will be fair and thorough in hearing FPL’s petition and the arguments against it. And history has shown settlements can work to the benefit of all customers. So don’t be alarmed by the rhetoric to the contrary — the process is working exactly how it should.
Millions of Americans have made Florida home over the past several years — they come here for the weather, but they stay here because we believe in free, fair and constructive government, not in demagoguery. The commission and its processes embody these ideals.
Ronald A. Brisé is a former Florida Public Service Commission chair and commissioner. Previous to that, he served as a Democratic state representative from Miami-Dade County.
