FPL rate hike would double-charge customers to pad profits, filings say Company shareholders would make the highest rate of profit in the nation, according to opponents. https://www.tampabay.com/news/business/2025/07/24/florida-power-light-fpl-bill-increase-rate-hike-profit/ Florida Power & Light's rate hike request includes a rate of shareholder profit that would be the highest in the nation, opposing lawyers wrote. The photo depicts one of the company's nuclear power plants. [ D.A. VARELA | Miami Herald ] By Emily L. MahoneyTimes staff If state utility regulators approve Florida Power & Light’s request to hike base rates by more than $9.8 billion over four years, it would mean charging Floridians billions more than necessary solely to fund soaring shareholder profits, the state consumer advocate wrote in filings to utility regulators. The company’s requested range for its rate of return has a midpoint of 11.9%, which would be the highest for any electric utility in the nation, lawyers opposing the hike said. In comparison, Tampa Electric shareholders earn a midpoint of 10.5% while Duke Energy Florida’s get 10.3%. Both are higher than the national average. But if its rate hike request is approved in full, Florida Power & Light’s shareholders could actually earn more at the expense of customers. According to the Legislature-appointed consumer advocate, called the public counsel, the company is also proposing a first-of-its-kind mechanism to double-charge customers to cover its federal taxes, allowing the company to max out its profits at the top of its range at 12.9%. When authorizing shareholder profits, utility regulators permit companies to earn a rate within a two-percentage-point range, expecting actual returns to hover near the middle. For the past four years, though, Florida Power & Light has already been...
David Jenkins, president of Conservatives for Responsible Stewardship, is featured in an op-ed published in The Invading Sea titled Here’s why FPL, Duke and TECO want the Public Service Commission to raise your power bills. The piece looks at a request from Florida’s largest utilities asking state regulators to approve higher electricity rates. It explains how companies like Florida Power & Light, Duke Energy, and Tampa Electric rely heavily on natural gas and other fossil fuels, which are tied to volatile global markets. When fuel prices rise, those costs are passed directly through to customers’ monthly bills. The op-ed also points to the role of aging power plants and long-term infrastructure costs, which utilities recover through rate increases approved by the Public Service Commission. The result, according to the piece, is that many of these underlying costs ultimately show up in what households pay each month for electricity. Read the full op-ed here:...
While most Floridians were enjoying some time off over the holidays, the folks at the state’s monopoly utilities — Florida Power & Light (FPL), Duke and Tampa Electric (TECO) — were busy playing Scrooge. They were asking permission from the Public Service Commission (PSC) to batter their customers with yet another post-hurricane rate hike. On Dec. 27, Duke and TECO filed requests with the PSC to hit their customers up for an extra $262 million and $281 million, respectively. FPL shopped early, securing approval for a $1.2 billion hike on Dec. 4. This is all on top of base rate hikes. The PSC recently approved huge base rate hikes for Duke and TECO. Duke customers are paying an extra $21 per month, with TECO customers on the hook for an extra $9 per month. Those base rates will go up even further in 2026 — and that’s not counting the requested storm-related hikes. FPL customers will likely get the same double whammy. In addition to its hurricane-related charges, on Dec. 30 the utility filed a base rate request to charge customers an extra $1.55 billion starting in 2026. And thanks to some clever, if disingenuous, utility talking points, much of the press coverage has parroted their spin, ludicrously framing these hikes as a win for consumers. For example, when Duke secured its base rate hike, the headline in the Tampa Bay Times was: “Florida Duke Energy customers will see smaller rate hikes on their bills next year.” Smaller than what? Well, smaller than the $820 million hike Duke initially said it wanted. The real headline should have been the...
When it comes to Florida state officials, the lyrics from an old Sam Cooke song come to mind: “Don’t know much about … ,” but instead of “history,” the word here is “energy.” And that would be putting it mildly. Mind-numbing ignorance would be a more accurate description, and Floridians are paying the price with skyrocketing utility bills and unbearable insurance costs. In fact, in 2023 Florida’s energy bills were the fourth highest in the nation. One problem is that most Florida decision-makers either don’t understand, or are unwilling to acknowledge, the basic fundamentals of today’s energy market. While that market, both in the U.S. and globally, has changed dramatically over the past decade, the attitudes of Florida’s officials have not. Energy sources that used to be the cheapest, like coal and natural gas, have gotten much more expensive, while sources that used to be cost prohibitive, like solar, wind and nuclear, are now often the cheapest. There are a few reasons for this change. First, our remaining coal and natural gas-fired power plants are old — between 30 and 50 years old — and cost much more to maintain and operate than they used to. Also, because we now export roughly 13% of U.S. natural gas overseas — and that percentage is expected to double by 2028 — gas prices here are not only increasing, they are becoming more volatile. Just like with gasoline, natural gas is now a global commodity, and its price can suddenly spike due to events halfway around the world. By contrast, the price of solar is cheap and getting cheaper. In sunny states,...
David Jenkins, president of Conservatives for Responsible Stewardship, is featured in a Newsweek article covering a dispute over federal land management policy involving Colorado Representative Lauren Boebert and the Bureau of Land Management. The piece focuses on a proposed federal land rule tied to oil and gas leasing and efforts in Congress to overturn it. Jenkins’ comments highlight concerns that rolling back the policy could shift cleanup and environmental restoration costs away from industry and onto taxpayers, particularly when it comes to abandoned wells and long-term land impacts. The broader discussion centers on how public lands are managed and how energy development policies intersect with environmental responsibility and government accountability. Read the full article:...
