|
ORDER NO. PSC -2020 -0293 -AS -EI
<br />DOCKET NOS. 20200067 -EI, 20200069 -EI, Attachment C
<br />20200070-EI,20200071-EI,20200092-EI
<br />PAGE 52
<br />8. The standard for approving a settlement agreement .is whether it is in the public
<br />interest.,
<br />9. The Parties to the Stipulation and Settlement Agreement agree that the Agreement
<br />is in the public interest and should be approved. The Parties entered into the, Agreement, each for
<br />their own reasons, ;but all in recognition that the cumulative total of the regulatory activity before
<br />the Commission involving Tatmpa Electric and the other investor owned electric utilities — now
<br />and for the rest of 200 - is. greater than normal. Approving these stipulations is in the public
<br />interest because dontg so will, among other things: (a) allow Tampa Electric to implement its
<br />Storni Protection Plan and begin cast recovery through the SPPCRC without delay; (b) reduce the
<br />regulatory and administrative costs and risks that would have been associated with two contested
<br />hearings before the FPSC and (c) give the FPSC and consumer parties an opportunity to review
<br />the company's next SPP one (1) year earlier Phan required by law while retaining the opportunity
<br />:to participate in future proceedings on thepradency of costs to be recovered through the SPPCRC
<br />through the norfnal FPSC cost recovery clause' process,
<br />10. The Stipulation and Settlement Agreement represents a reasonable compromise of
<br />divergent positions and frilly .resolves all of the issues raised in the Tainpa Electric SPP and
<br />SPPCRC, dockets. Considered as a whole, the Stipulation mid. Settlement Agreement fairly acid
<br />See Order No. PSC -200-6684-S-131, issued March 20, 2020, in Docket No. 201400617EI (Petition for Approval of
<br />SnlarToeether program and tariff; by Florida Power &,Tright Company) at 5, citing Sierra Club v. Brow1l 2243 So. 3d
<br />903,916- 913 (Fla. 2018); Order:No. PSC-13-0023-S-Ei; issued on January 14, 2013, in DocketNo. 120015-Ei, In re:
<br />Petition for increase in rates by Florida Power & Light. Company; Order No. PSC -I 1-0089' S -EI, issued February I.,
<br />2011, in Docket Nos. 080677 -EI and 090130 -EI; In re: Petition for increase in rates by Florida Power & Light
<br />Company and Titre: 2009 depreciation and dismantlement study by Florida Power & Light Company; Order No. PSC -
<br />10 -0398 -5 -El, issued June 18, 2010, in locket Nos. 090079-E1, 090144 -EL 090145-E1,and 100.13643 I,In re: Petition
<br />for increase in.rates by Progress Energy Florida, Inc., In re: Petition for limited proceeding to include Bartow
<br />repowering project in base rates, by Progress Energy Florida, Inc., In re: Petition fir expedited approval ofthe deferral
<br />of pension expenses, authorization to charge stone hardening expenses to the storm damage reserve, and variance
<br />from or waiver of Rule 25-6.0143(Ixc), (d), and (f), F.A.C., by Progress Energy Florida; Inc.,. and In re:.'Pctition for
<br />approval of an accounting order to record a depreciation' expense credit, by Progress Energy Florida, Ino., Order No.
<br />PSC -05 -0945 -S -E1, issued September 28, 2005, in locket No. 050078-F1, In re: Petition for rate increase by"Progress
<br />Energy Florida, Inc.
<br />
|