01/16/2018 (2) - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

ORDER NO. PSC-2018-0028-FOF-EI DOCKET NO. 20180001 -El PAGE 3 Brief with its response attached. The new issue addressed jurisdictional recovery arguments for the SoBRA projects. We have jurisdiction over this subject matter pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 366, Florida Statutes (F.S.), including Sections 366.04, 366.05, and 366.06, F.S. SoBRA PROJECT RECOVERY JURISDICTION For the first time in its post hearing brief FIPUG argued that we lack jurisdiction to allow recovery in this docket of 2017 and 2018 solar base rate adjustment charges citing the Florida Supreme Court decisions Citizens v. Graham (Woodford), 191 So. 3d 897 (Fla. 2016) and Citizens v. Graham (FPUQ, 213 So. 3d 703 (Fla. 2017). FPL filed its Unopposed Motion for Leave to File Response to New Issue Raised in FIPUG's Post Hearing Brief (Motion) on November 16, 2017, with its response to the jurisdictional issue attached. FIPUG does not object to granting this Motion. The other parties to this docket, having taken no position on the SoBRA issues, Issues 2J through 2P, did not file briefs or take a position on the Motion or the underlying jurisdictional issue. Because no party has objected to FPL's request to file a written response to FIPUG's jurisdictional argument, and due process requires that FPL be given reasonable notice and a fair opportunity to be heard on this issue before a decision is made, we hereby grant FPL's Motion and address the jurisdictional issue below. FIPUG characterizes the recovery of SoBRA charges as FPL's effort to again use the fuel clause to recover predictable capital costs contrary to the purpose of the fuel clause which is to address the volatility of fuel prices between base rate cases. FIPUG points out that while the Legislature has created a clause for nuclear and environmental costs, it has not provided us with express, or implied, authority for a solar energy capital cost recovery clause. FIPUG acknowledges that the process for SoBRA cost recovery being followed here is included in FPL's 2016 Stipulation and Settlement (2016 Agreement), to which it did not object. However, FIPUG counters that jurisdiction cannot be conferred by agreement of the parties or by our approval of a rate case settlement agreement. FPL counters that FIPUG's reliance on the Woodford and FPUC decisions is misplaced for one simple reason: the capital and return on investment costs for the SoBRA projects are not being recovered through the 2017 and 2018 fuel cost recovery factors. These costs are instead being recovered through increases in FPL's base rate charge, beginning on the commercial operation date of each SoBRA project. In fact, the fuel factors to be implemented from January 1 to March 1, 2018, have been stipulated to by the parties and previously approved by us. These fuel factors cannot change no matter what our final decision on the SoBRA issues. FPL notes that this cost recovery mechanism is similar to the generation rate base adjustment (GBRA) mechanism found in FPL's 2013 Settlement Agreement to which FIPUG was a signatory. The use of a GBRA mechanism for base rate adjustments in years beyond a test year was approved by the Florida Supreme Court in Citizens v. Public Service Commission, 146 So. 3d 1143, 1157 n.7 (Fla. 2014). Further, between 2013 and 2016, three separate generation projects (Cape Canaveral, Riviera Beach and Port Everglades) utilized the GBRA process in the fuel clause without objection by FIPUG. 1 Citizens v. Florida Public Service Commission, 146 So. 3d 1143, 1154 (Fla. 2014).