Shortly thereafter, Commissioners Argenziano and Skop were not allowed to reapply for their jobs on the PSC – even though it is customary practice to allow commissioners to do so. Ms. Argenziano has previously highlighted the coziness between the big power companies and the agency charged with regulating them, the PSC. Two more appointees to the PSC, David Klement and Steve Stevens, were not confirmed by the Florida Senate. In other words, four of the five PSC commissioners that voted against the FPL rate hike and the setting of higher conservation goals were gone within a few months.
Since then, the “new” PSC (essentially) threw out the conservation goals set by FPL and Duke, with the apparent support of the governor, by allowing them to continue relatively weak energy efficiency programs established to meet goals set in 2005 – going against even its staff’s recommendation to increase goals for FPL.
Likewise, the same commissioners in 2012 approved a FPL rate increase over the strenuous objection of the Office of Public Council (OPC) – the state office tasked with looking out for residential customers’ best interests. OPC is challenging the PSC-approved deal at the Florida Supreme Court. According to the brief filed by OPC, the purported settlement agreement approved by the PSC will allow FPL to collect more revenues from residential customers than what the company had requested in its original petition.
Coincidence, or big power company influence? You be the judge.
Duke Energy's new proposed programs simply shift clean energy from one customer group to another. SACE considers this to be fundamentally inequitable and inconsistent with the statutory language of HB 951.
Our fourth annual "Transportation Electrification in the Southeast" report unpacks market trends and policy levers underpinning growth in electric car, truck and bus adoption, including skyrocketing investments in manufacturing and job growth.