CopyPublished | Supreme Court of Florida
...Public Service
Commission approving proposals from four electric utility
companies to improve the power grid’s ability to withstand extreme
weather. These initiatives are the first of their kind, submitted by
the utility companies pursuant to section 366.96, Florida Statutes,
which became law in 2019....
...Also, the Commission did not abuse its
discretion in striking the expert testimony at issue.
I
Finding it in the state’s interest to strengthen electric utility
infrastructure to withstand extreme weather conditions, the
Legislature enacted—in section 366.96, Florida Statutes (the SPP
Statute)—a comprehensive program requiring public utilities to
make adequate preparations for storms, allowing the utilities to
recover some of the costs of those preparations from rate-paying
customers....
...Each public utility
company must submit a Storm Protection Plan (SPP) “for the
overhead hardening and increased resilience of electric
transmission and distribution facilities, undergrounding of electric
distribution facilities, and vegetation management.” § 366.96(2)(b),
-2-
Fla. Stat. (2021). These improvements—intended to increase the
resiliency of the electric grid, reduce outages, and improve their
response times during extreme weather—are collectively called
“storm hardening.” See generally § 366.96, Fla....
...s regard for the next
decade. “Each plan must explain the systematic approach the
utility will follow to achieve the objectives of reducing restoration
costs and outage times associated with extreme weather events and
enhancing reliability.” § 366.96(3), Fla....
...The Commission reviews each SPP every three years
during the plan’s ten-year coverage period. At each three-year
mark, the Commission must determine if it is in the public interest
to approve the SPP measures proposed for the upcoming period.
See § 366.96(5)-(6), Fla....
...and its customers of making the improvements
proposed in the plan.
(d) The estimated annual rate impact resulting from
implementation of the plan during the first 3 years
addressed in the plan.
§ 366.96(4), Fla....
...Stat.
The Commission’s approval or denial of each SPP must occur
within 180 days of its submission. Once the Commission has
approved a plan, “proceeding with actions to implement the plan
shall not constitute or be evidence of imprudence” by the utility.
§ 366.96(7), Fla....
...did indeed adhere to what the statute requires.
A
The SPP Statute directs the Commission to “determine
whether it is in the public interest to approve, approve with
modification, or deny” the SPPs at issue. § 366.96(5), Fla....
...3d 594, 598 (Fla.
2022) (“[T]he plainness or ambiguity of statutory language is
determined by reference to the language itself, the specific context
in which that language is used, and the broader context of the
statute as a whole.” (quoting Robinson v. Shell Oil Co.,
519 U.S. 337,
341 (1997))).
Sections
366.96(2) and (3) lay the groundwork for a process
specific to the storm hardening context—as distinguished from rate
making—by defining relevant terms and setting a timeline for the
SPP proceedings.
The statute continues with subsections (4)(a)-(d), which lay out
the required content of each plan....
...- 10 -
costs and outage times . . . and enhance reliability”; whether the
plan is “feasible, reasonable, or practical”; the “estimated costs and
benefits”; and the “estimated annual rate impact” of the SPP in the
first three years. § 366.96(4)(a)-(d), Fla....
...plan is expected to reduce restoration costs and outage times,”
“estimated costs and benefits to the utility and its customers of
making the improvements proposed in the plan,” and any
“estimated annual rate impact resulting from implementation of the
plan.” § 366.96(4)(a), (c)-(d), Fla....
...If the commission determines that costs
were prudently incurred, those costs will not be subject
to disallowance or further prudence review except for
fraud, perjury, or intentional withholding of key
information by the public utility.
§ 366.96(6)-(7), Fla....
...ust
undertake “to determine the utility’s prudently incurred
transmission and distribution storm protection plan costs” which
decide the utility’s right “to recover such costs through a charge
separate and apart from its base rates.” § 366.96(7), Fla....
...It
is still the Commission’s duty at that point to determine which
costs were prudently incurred, for it is only “those costs [that] will
not be subject to disallowance or further prudence review except for
fraud, perjury, or intentional withholding of key information by the
public utility.” § 366.96(7) Fla....
...costs for capital investments” and its general review of settlements
for the public interest).
To determine what is in the public interest, the Commission
starts with what the relevant statute commands: here, at section
- 15 -
366.96(1) and (4)....
...[Florida’s] electric utility infrastructure to withstand extreme
weather conditions,” to promote “overhead hardening” of electrical
facilities and the “undergrounding” of electrical distribution lines,
and to “mitigate restoration costs and outage times.” See
§ 366.96(1)(c)-(e), Fla....
...drafted statute, prudent.
B
The Commission correctly determined that the SPPs at issue
are in the public interest. That is because it did as the SPP Statute
required and considered the factors provided in section 366.96(4),
as further detailed in the SPP Rule....
...reduction in outage times and restoration costs due
to extreme weather conditions;
2. If applicable, the actual or estimated start and
completion dates of the program;
4. “Each utility as defined in Section 366.96(2)(a), F.S., must
file a petition with the Commission for approval of a[n SPP] ....
...s SPPs
were in the public interest. Id. at 911.
- 20 -
The FPL final order, while it is no model of detailed reasoning,
adequately supports the Commission’s public interest
determination as required by section 366.96(4)....
...In
layman’s terms, the question to be answered is, “Are these projects
worth it?” A spreadsheet netting out expenditures and savings may
- 21 -
section V of the Commission’s final order addresses the “estimated
costs and benefits of FPL’s SPP.” See § 366.96(4)(c), Fla....
...t previously
approved SPP programs, which had been submitted as part of FPL’s
prior SPP. The Commission rejected other proposed programs that
did not meet the definition of storm hardening and therefore would
not be in the public interest. See § 366.96(2)(b), Fla....
...ate how its
be part of its answer, but nothing prevents the Commission from
saying more.
- 22 -
proposed SPP programs would harden its systems, and
consequently reduce restoration costs and outage times. See
§ 366.96(4)(a), Fla. Stat. The Commission also accepted FPUC’s
data representing the SPP programs’ estimated rate impact. See
§ 366.96(4)(d), Fla....
...key experts, and a conclusion that the proposed plans meet the
requirements of the SPP Statute. DEF’s SPP is estimated to reduce
restoration costs by approximately $50 million per year and reduce
customer interruption to around 400 million minutes on average
per year. See § 366.96(4)(a), Fla....
...sufficient data supporting its position”) or were not programs in the
public interest as intended by the SPP Statute (DEF collaboration
with Walmart not in the public interest as it “does not meet the
definition as laid out in the statute”). See § 366.96(2)(b), Fla....
