Immediate Impact:
- For typical residential customers using 1,000 kilowatt hours monthly:
- Northwest Florida (former Gulf Power area): Bills actually decrease from $143.60 to $141.36 in 2026
- Bills are going up in other areas, though less than FPL originally wanted
- Traditional FPL territory: Bills rise from $134.14 to $136.64 in 2026 (about $2.50/month increase initially)
- Additional increases for all of us will continue through 2027, 2028, and 2029
Total Cost Over Four Years:
- Customers will collectively pay about $6.9 billion more through 2029
- Base-rate increases: $945 million in 2026, $705 million in 2027
- Additional charges in 2028-2029 for solar and battery storage projects
Could Have Been Worse:
- FPL’s original proposal would have cost customers $9.8 billion over four years
- The settlement reduced those increases by about $3 billion
What’s Next:
- Consumer advocates plan to appeal to the Florida Supreme Court
- They argue that the approved profit margin (10.95% return on equity) is excessive
- Until any court ruling, the settlement stands, and the rates will increase as approved
FPL Rate Settlement Approved
By Jim Saunders, The News Service of Florida
TALLAHASSEE — State regulators Thursday approved a rate settlement that will lead to Florida Power & Light customers paying billions of additional dollars in the coming years, though opponents said they expect to fight the plan at the Florida Supreme Court.
The state Public Service Commission signed off on the four-year settlement, which FPL reached with numerous businesses and groups. The settlement is expected to lead to base-rate increases of $945 million in 2026 and $705 million in 2027. FPL also would collect additional amounts in 2028 and 2029 for solar-energy and battery-storage projects.
The settlement involves myriad financial and technical issues, and some members of the commission said they had what Commissioner Andrew Fay described as “heartburn” about parts of it. But they said they supported the overall agreement.
Commissioner Gary Clark spoke most strongly in favor of the settlement, saying he thinks it is a “balanced resolution” of the rate case and is in the public interest.
“It results in fair, just and reasonable rates,” Clark said. “The bill impacts are very reasonable for all customer classes (different types of customers).”
In a statement issued after the vote, FPL President and CEO Armando Pimentel described the approval as a “win for our customers and a win for the entire state.”
“Today’s vote enables FPL to continue to deliver some of America’s most reliable electric service and meet the needs of our fast-growing state — and we project will keep customer bills well below the national average through the end of the decade,” Pimentel said.
But the settlement was opposed by the state Office of Public Counsel, which is designated in law to represent utility customers, and some consumer groups that intervened in the case. Attorneys Bradley Marshall and Robert Scheffel Wright, who represent consumer groups, said they expect a battle at the Florida Supreme Court over the settlement.
“I certainly think that this case will wind up in front of the Florida Supreme Court,” said Marshall, who represents Florida Rising, the League of United Latin American Citizens of Florida and the Environmental Confederation of Southwest Florida. Wright represents the group Floridians Against Increased Rates.
As a common benchmark, utilities cite bills for residential customers who use 1,000 kilowatt hours of electricity a month. FPL in recent years also has had different bill amounts for customers in its traditional service area and Northwest Florida customers who were previously served by Gulf Power Co.
Under the settlement, residential customers who use 1,000 kilowatt hours a month in the traditional FPL territory would see their bills go from the current $134.14 to $136.64 in 2026 and are projected to see additional increases in 2027, 2028 and 2029.
Such customers in Northwest Florida would see their bills decrease from the current $143.60 to $141.36 in 2026 before seeing increases in the subsequent years.
The Office of Public Counsel and its allies have said the settlement could lead to cumulative increases over four years of about $6.9 billion.
FPL reached the settlement with the Florida Industrial Power Users Group; the Florida Retail Federation; the Florida Energy for Innovation Association; Americans for Affordable Clean Energy; the Southern Alliance for Clean Energy; Walmart Inc.; EVgo Services, LLC; Circle K Stores, Inc.; RaceTrac Inc.; Wawa, Inc.; Electrify America, LLC; Armstrong World Industries, Inc.; and federal government agencies. The commission, however, ruled Thursday that the Southern Alliance for Clean Energy had not properly established legal standing.
FPL has been operating under a rate settlement that will expire at the end of this year. It filed an initial rate proposal in February but announced in August that it had reached agreement on the settlement approved Thursday.
The initial proposal sought increases of $1.545 billion in 2026 and $927 million in 2027, along with passing along costs in 2028 and 2029 for solar and battery projects. The Office of Public Counsel has said that plan would have cumulatively led to customers paying an additional $9.8 billion over four years.
The commission held a two-week hearing in October on the initial proposal and the settlement. While the settlement reduced the overall amounts of money that FPL sought, opponents argued it would continue to lead to exorbitant increases..
As an example, a disputed issue has been FPL’s allowed “return on equity,” a measure of profitability. The settlement includes a 10.95 percent target for return on equity, which opponents contend is excessive.
Commissioner Gabriela Passidomo Smith on Thursday described the return-on-equity issue as the “big kahuna.”
“In and of itself, I don’t love this ROE,” she said. “But evaluating a proposed ROE cannot be reviewed in a vacuum and neither can a single component of the settlement agreement.”
Passidomo Smith, an attorney, said that taking into account other parts of the settlement and evidence presented in the case, she was “comfortable” the proposed return on equity meets legal standards.
