By Staff Report
State regulators on Thursday approved a four-year rate settlement that will result in Florida Power & Light customers paying billions of dollars more in the coming years — a decision opponents say they expect to challenge at the Florida Supreme Court.
The Florida Public Service Commission unanimously signed off on the agreement, which FPL negotiated with several businesses and industry groups. The settlement includes base-rate increases of $945 million in 2026 and $705 million in 2027, with additional charges in 2028 and 2029 tied to solar and battery-storage projects.
Commissioners acknowledged concerns about parts of the plan but said the overall agreement was acceptable. Commissioner Gary Clark called the settlement a “balanced resolution” that produces “fair, just and reasonable rates.”
FPL President and CEO Armando Pimentel praised the ruling, saying it will allow the utility to continue delivering reliable service while keeping bills below the national average “through the end of the decade.”
But the state Office of Public Counsel — which represents consumers — and several consumer groups argued the settlement remains excessive. They estimate cumulative bill impacts over the four-year period could reach about $6.9 billion and signaled they expect a legal fight.
“I certainly think that this case will wind up in front of the Florida Supreme Court,” said Bradley Marshall, an attorney representing Florida Rising, the League of United Latin American Citizens of Florida and the Environmental Confederation of Southwest Florida.
Under the settlement, a residential customer using 1,000 kilowatt hours a month in FPL’s main service area would see a typical bill increase from $134.14 to $136.64 in 2026, with additional increases projected each following year. Northwest Florida customers would see their bills decrease slightly in 2026 before rising in later years.
The agreement lowers the overall request from FPL’s original proposal, which sought $1.545 billion in increases in 2026 and $927 million in 2027. That initial plan would have resulted in nearly $9.8 billion in added costs over four years.
Still, critics argued the revised agreement retains key elements they consider unreasonable — particularly an allowed return on equity of 10.95 percent, a major profitability measure.
Commissioner Gabriela Passidomo Smith acknowledged concerns about the return on equity, calling it the “big kahuna,” but said that when weighed against the rest of the settlement and the full record of evidence, she was “comfortable” the figure meets legal standards.
