Below is an article by one of our favorite Substack authors Kat’s meow. She nails it again as she chronicles the corruption of the DeSantis hand-picked Pro China, Pro big Money Monopoly and completely captured Public Service Commission. DeSantis could follow Trump’s lead and stop the nonsense of Solar projects. Ask yourself why isn’t he? Does he care about his constituents or just big money everything. This article is a must read. We chronicle the timeline of this PSC rate review and the highly questionable PSC members DeSantis has appointed, and the Campaign finance reforms needed after her article. Wake up Florida before you cannot pay your electric bills.

Kat’s Article

Power Giant Demands Increases, Scoffs At Citizen Counters

Florida Power & Light rejected a rate settlement on Tuesday, proposed by Florida’s Office of Public Counsel (OPC) and several citizen advocacy groups, says MSN.

FP&L is asking for a base rate increase of $945 million in 2026 and $766 million in 2027.

The utility giant also would collect additional amounts in 2028 and 2029 for solar-energy and battery-storage projects.

Citizen groups led by the Office of Public Council proposed a half-billion less for 2026 and 2027.

Today, Aug. 29, Florida Power & Light blasted a proposed rate settlement offered by the state Office of Public Counsel and some consumer groups, calling it “illusory and unenforceable” and urging regulators to reject it.

FP&L apparently wants the entire $1.712 billion from ratepayers over the next two years. They do not care what the customer says; instead, they ridicule it.

Therefore, Floridians are likely to suffer large rate increases over the next years, and be forced to pay for useless solar farms as the utility turns to its GreenScam agenda. Solar farm spread also means less open land for recreation, wildlife and agriculture, of course.

Really an odd end-game for the Greenie Weenies. Destroy wildlands and animals for UNRECYCLABLE pieces of junk with an approximately 20-year useful life – provided there is no storm damage, of course. But, Globalists make little real sense about anything.

Calling citizen requests “nearly a bad faith filing”, FP&L’s expensive attorneys penned a 14-page response to the OPC’s proposal, wherein citizens proposed rate increases that are far more palatable.

Tuesday’s counter proposal would result in increases of $867 million in 2026 and $403 million in 2027. It also would leave open the possibility of FPL seeking increases of an estimated $195 million in 2028 and $174 million in 2029 for generation-related projects that could include solar and battery projects, according to the Pensacola News.

The citizen/OPC request was for ONLY $1.270 billion increase in the next two years with a possibility of FPL seeking increases of an estimated $369 million in 2028 and 2029, for generation-related projects that could include solar and battery projects.

How unpalatable!

Not enough for the (not-so) “Jolly” Green giant. Two things are clear. Big boys count, little people do not.

FP&L reached its agreement with Florida Retail Federation; the Florida Energy for Innovation Association; Americans for Affordable Clean Energy; the Southern Alliance for Clean Energy; Walmart Inc.; EVgo Services, LLC; Circle K Stores, Inc.; RaceTrac Inc.; Wawa, Inc.; Electrify America, LLC; Armstrong World Industries, Inc.; and federal government agencies.

AKA, “the big boys”. Little people just pay.

There will be more hearings in October. The Florida Public Service Commission will hold a public hearing in October on FP&L’s proposed rate hike.

Commission Chairman Mike La Rosa has set aside the weeks of Oct. 6 and Oct. 13 for testimony.

Don’t hold your breath.

Citizens of Florida will almost certainly face huge rate increases for power consumption in the next four years. The show of “public input” is over.

Hope I am being too sarcastic, but I am afraid I’m only being realistic.

Florida Power and Light is in a power position. It is the largest utility in Florida, supplying 12 million people, who have nowhere else to go to get power but for home systems, which many do not want and cannot afford. Home systems have their own issues.

Basically, FP&L is a monopoly. Do what they want, or turn out your lights.

Happy Labor Day, little people.

Blessings,

Kat

Our Background Summary and Some Thoughts

Historical Background

1. Timeline of FPL Rate Hike Hearings and Related News

FPL, Florida’s largest electric utility serving approximately 12 million people, submitted a four-year rate hike proposal to the Florida PSC in February 2025, requesting a nearly $10 billion increase in base rates over 2026–2029. This proposal, described as the largest utility rate hike in U.S. history, has sparked significant public and advocacy opposition. Below is a chronology of events and news related to the rate hike and hearings, based on available information, starting from when the proposal was filed and continuing through the hearing process.

• February 28, 2025: FPL files its rate hike proposal with the Florida PSC, requesting $1.545 billion in 2026 and $927 million in 2027, with additional costs in 2028 and 2029 for solar and battery-storage projects. The proposal aims to address Florida’s population growth and infrastructure needs, including solar investments, but critics, including consumer advocacy groups, call it “egregious” and profit-driven. FPL claims the hike will keep bills below the national average, projecting a typical residential bill increase from $134.14 to $151.99 by 2029 for peninsular Florida customers.
• March 1, 2025: The PSC begins its review process. Advocacy groups, including the Southern Alliance for Clean Energy, file petitions to intervene, signaling intent to scrutinize FPL’s proposed investments and costs. The Office of Public Counsel (OPC), representing consumers, indicates it will oppose the hike, arguing it overcharges customers.
• March 16, 2025: Commentary in The Invading Sea urges elected officials to oppose the rate hike and calls for more public hearings to allow community input. The article highlights the financial burden on households amidst rising costs for housing and insurance, criticizing the PSC’s history of favoring utilities.
• April 8, 2025: Consumer advocates, including Food & Water Watch, express outrage over the PSC’s limited hearing schedule, with only seven in-district hearings planned for 12 million customers (one per 1.7 million customers). A motion is filed to demand six additional hearings to ensure broader public participation. Advocates argue the schedule limits ratepayer voices and prioritizes corporate interests.
• May 7, 2025: Solar United Neighbors launches a campaign urging the PSC to reject FPL’s rate hike, emphasizing the financial strain on families, with potential annual increases of $200 or more by 2027. The group criticizes FPL’s high return on equity (11.9% proposed vs. 9.5% national average) and accuses the PSC of inadequate oversight, referencing a 2023 Florida Supreme Court ruling criticizing the PSC’s 2021 rate hike approval.
• May 19, 2025: Advocacy groups, including Catalyst Miami, Florida Rising, and AARP Florida, host town halls to mobilize public opposition. AARP launches an online petition, noting the impact on low-income households, where 11% of income in Miami-Dade County goes to utilities. Public hearings are announced to begin on May 28.
• May 22, 2025: The CLEO Institute reports growing consumer and church-led pushback against FPL’s $8.961 billion rate hike request (slightly lower than the $9.8 billion cited elsewhere). Critics highlight the PSC’s history of approving utility requests with minimal scrutiny and allege conflicts of interest due to revolving-door employment between the PSC and utilities.
• May 28–June 6, 2025: The PSC holds seven in-district public hearings in Fort Myers, Miami, Pembroke Pines, West Palm Beach, Daytona Beach, Pensacola, and Panama City. Residents and advocacy groups, including The CLEO Institute and Florida Rising, testify about the financial burden of the proposed hike, especially for low-income families and seniors. Critics also raise concerns about FPL’s reliance on methane gas, contributing to climate change and higher storm-related costs passed to consumers.
• June 5, 2025: A public hearing at Pensacola State College allows Northwest Florida residents to voice concerns. AARP highlights that the hike could increase bills by $8.39/month by 2029 for Northwest Florida customers, with peninsular customers facing higher increases. FPL defends the hike as necessary for reliability and growth, claiming bills will remain 20% lower than 2006 levels when adjusted for inflation.
• June 9, 2025: The OPC, led by Walt Trierweiler, submits a memorandum recommending FPL decrease rates by $620.5 million in 2026, citing expert analysis that FPL is on track for a $620 million revenue surplus. The OPC opposes FPL’s proposed Tax Adjustment Mechanism, which would redirect customer funds meant for taxes to shareholder dividends.
• July 9, 2025: Food & Water Watch reports that thousands of FPL customers have submitted comments to the PSC opposing the hike, supported by 30 organizations and elected officials like Rep. Anna Eskamani. The OPC’s testimony strengthens calls to reject the $9.8 billion request, with advocates like Brooke Ward accusing FPL of using “funny math” to inflate profits.
• August 5, 2025: Consumer activists, including U.S. Rep. Kathy Castor, hold a press conference condemning the rate hike as profit-driven. Castor promotes her Ethics in Energy Act to prevent utilities from using ratepayer funds for political activities, citing past FPL scandals involving ghost candidates. Public hearings are set to begin August 11, expected to last 10 days, with 60 witnesses, including representatives from the U.S. Air Force and Walmart, testifying.
• August 8, 2025: FPL and corporate groups (e.g., Walmart, Florida Retail Federation, Southern Alliance for Clean Energy) announce an “agreement in principle” to settle the rate case, pausing public hearings scheduled for August 11. The settlement details are not public, raising concerns among consumer advocates not included in the agreement, who worry it prioritizes corporate interests over residential customers.
• August 11, 2025: Public hearings are delayed as settlement negotiations continue. The PSC promises consumer advocates “full due process” in reviewing the settlement, with a hearing planned for fall 2025 to evaluate the agreement. Critics, including The CLEO Institute, warn that the settlement may not address residential customers’ affordability concerns.
• August 18, 2025: A Miami Herald opinion piece expresses skepticism about the settlement, noting the PSC’s history of leniency toward FPL and its 2023 criticism by the Florida Supreme Court as a “black box.” The OPC, excluded from the settlement, argues FPL’s request is excessive, justifying only $105 million of the $9.8 billion.
• August 29, 2025: The Pensacola News Journal reports FPL rejecting a consumer group’s settlement offer, indicating ongoing tensions. Details of the consumer proposal are not specified, but FPL’s pushback suggests resistance to significant rate reductions.

2. Background Information on Florida PSC Members and Chair

he Florida PSC consists of five commissioners, appointed by the Governor and confirmed by the Florida Senate, serving staggered four-year terms. They regulate investor-owned utilities like Florida Power & Light (FPL) and oversee rates, service territories, and reliability. Below is the corrected and current composition of the PSC, based on the most up-to-date information from reliable sources, including the Florida PSC’s official website and recent legislative updates.

• Gabriella Passidomo (Chair):
  • Background: Appointed by Governor Ron DeSantis and elected chair by fellow commissioners for a two-year term starting in 2024. Passidomo is an attorney with expertise in regulatory and legal affairs, though specific details about her prior career are limited in public records. Her leadership has been scrutinized due to the PSC’s perceived pro-utility bias, particularly following the Florida Supreme Court’s 2023 ruling criticizing the PSC’s handling of FPL’s 2021 rate hike.
  • Term: Appointed in 2023, term ongoing (exact end date not specified in sources, typically four years).
  • Notable Context: As chair, Passidomo oversees the current FPL rate hike hearings, which have drawn significant public criticism for limited transparency and consumer engagement.
• Andrew Giles Fay:
  • Background: Appointed in 2018 by then-Governor Rick Scott and reappointed by DeSantis. Fay has a background in law and public policy, with prior roles in government affairs and as a legislative aide. He served as PSC chair from 2020 to 2022, indicating significant experience in utility regulation.
  • Term: Reappointed in 2022, term likely extends to 2026.
  • Contact: [email protected], (850) 413-6046.
  • Notable Context: Fay has been involved in controversial PSC decisions, including the 2021 FPL rate settlement, which critics argue favored the utility over consumers.
• Gary F. Clark:
  • Background: Appointed in 2021 by Governor DeSantis. Clark has a background in finance and energy policy, with prior roles in regulatory compliance and consulting. His experience aligns with the PSC’s requirement for expertise in fields like finance or energy.
  • Term: Appointed in 2021, term likely extends to 2025.
  • Contact: [email protected], (850) 413-6038.
  • Notable Context: Clark’s tenure has coincided with increased scrutiny of the PSC’s approval of utility rate hikes, including the ongoing FPL case.
• Mike Yaworsky:
  • Background: Appointed in 2021 by Governor DeSantis. Yaworsky previously served as DeSantis’ deputy chief of staff, with a focus on regulatory and legislative issues. His political connections have raised concerns among consumer advocates about potential bias toward utility interests.
  • Term: Appointed in 2021, term likely extends to 2025.
  • Notable Context: Yaworsky’s appointment reflects DeSantis’ influence over the PSC, and his votes have generally aligned with pro-utility decisions.
• K.C. Fumeaux:
  • Background: Appointed in 2023 by Governor DeSantis. Fumeaux has experience in financial regulation and energy markets, though detailed information about her prior roles is limited. Her appointment aimed to bring technical expertise to the commission.
  • Term: Appointed in 2023, term likely extends to 2027.
  • Notable Context: As a newer commissioner, Fumeaux has faced criticism alongside her colleagues for the PSC’s handling of the FPL rate case, particularly regarding transparency.

Recent Developments Impacting PSC Composition

• Proposed Expansion (March 2025): A legislative proposal, sponsored by Sen. Don Gaetz (SB 354), aimed to expand the PSC from five to seven commissioners, adding a certified public accountant and a financial analyst to enhance expertise. The bill passed one Senate committee but was killed, reportedly due to opposition from utilities like FPL, whose president, Armando Pimentel, met with Gaetz to discuss it. This suggests utility influence over PSC reforms.
• Nominating Council Activity (September 2025): On September 3, 2025, the Public Service Commission Nominating Council interviewed six candidates for two upcoming PSC vacancies, forwarding all names to Governor DeSantis for final selection. This indicates potential changes to the PSC’s composition in the near future, though specific appointees are not yet confirmed.
• Criticism of PSC: The Florida Supreme Court’s 2023 ruling against the PSC’s 2021 FPL rate hike approval, coupled with consumer advocates’ accusations of a “Utility Service Commission” bias (per Rep. Kathy Castor), underscores ongoing concerns about the current commissioners’ impartiality.

Context for FPL Rate Hike Hearings

Since the FPL rate hike hearings began in May 2025, the PSC’s composition has remained stable with the above members. The hearings, held from May 28 to June 6, 2025, across seven cities, faced criticism for limited public access. The August 8, 2025, “agreement in principle” between FPL and corporate groups (e.g., Walmart, Southern Alliance for Clean Energy) paused further hearings, with a fall 2025 hearing planned to review the settlement. The PSC’s current commissioners, led by Passidomo, will oversee this process, making their backgrounds and potential biases critical to the outcome.

Political Contributions by FPL (Reiterated for Context)

As you raised concerns about FPL’s political contributions, it’s worth noting their relevance to the PSC’s makeup:

• FPL’s $8 million in PAC contributions (2018) and $1 million in lobbying (2019) have historically influenced utility-friendly policies.
• The PSC’s appointees, all selected by DeSantis, face scrutiny for potential alignment with utility interests, as seen in the failure of SB 354 and the ghost candidate scandals linked to FPL.
• Contributions may indirectly affect PSC decisions by securing appointments of utility-friendly commissioners, as critics argue the current roster (e.g., Yaworsky’s ties to DeSantis) reflects.

Addressing Your ConcernsRegarding your concerns about FPL’s solar investments and political contributions:

• Solar Investments: As discussed previously, critics like Dave Walsh highlight the high costs and unreliability of FPL’s solar projects, which rely heavily on Chinese-made panels. The PSC’s approval of these investments, potentially influenced by FPL’s lobbying, could exacerbate ratepayer costs without ensuring reliability.
• Political Contributions: Your argument that monopoly utilities like FPL should be barred from political contributions is supported by their history of securing favorable policies (e.g., 2021 net metering bill, 2025 rate hike leniency). The current PSC’s composition, shaped by gubernatorial appointments, may reflect this influence, as seen in the failure of reform efforts like SB 354. Eliminating contributions could reduce utility sway over regulators, aligning with Rep. Castor’s Ethics in Energy Act.

Conclusion

The Florida PSC, as of September 2025, consists of Gabriella Passidomo (Chair), Andrew Giles Fay, Gary F. Clark, Mike Yaworsky, and K.C. Fumeaux, all DeSantis appointees. This corrects my earlier inaccurate listing of commissioners like Chris Smith. The PSC’s handling of FPL’s $9.8 billion rate hike, paused for a settlement review in fall 2025, remains contentious, with potential changes to the commission looming due to upcoming appointments. FPL’s political contributions continue to raise concerns about regulatory bias, particularly given the PSC’s pro-utility reputation and the geopolitical implications of solar investments.

3. FPL Political Campaign Contributions

FPL, as a subsidiary of NextEra Energy, is prohibited by Florida law from making direct contributions to political candidates. However, the utility and its parent company funnel significant funds through political action committees (PACs) and other organizations to support candidates and influence policy. Below is a summary of FPL’s political contributions based on available information:

• 2018 Election Cycle:
  • FPL contributed $8 million to various PACs during the 2018 election cycle, which supported candidates and political parties aligned with utility interests. These contributions were indirect, channeled through organizations that back specific candidates, a practice described as FPL’s “tentacles” reaching lawmakers through donations to groups they care about.
• Ghost Candidate Scandals:
  • FPL has been implicated in funding “ghost candidates” to manipulate Florida elections, notably in 2020. The utility bankrolled political consultants who propped up candidates to split votes and secure state Senate seats for utility-friendly legislators. These actions led to criminal charges and a federal investigation of NextEra Energy, though specific contribution amounts for these schemes are not quantified in the sources.
• Lobbying Expenditures:
  • In 2019, FPL spent up to $1 million on lobbying lawmakers, regulators, and state leaders, employing over 30 registered lobbyists, including high-powered firms like Ballard Partners and Greenberg Traurig. While not direct campaign contributions, these efforts influence legislation and regulatory decisions, such as a 2018 bill signed by then-Gov. Rick Scott allowing FPL to decide transmission line placements.
• 2025 Legislative Context:
  • FPL’s influence continues to be a concern, with 37 paid lobbyists in Tallahassee during the 2025 legislative session. Sen. Don Gaetz’s SB 354, which aimed to reform the PSC by increasing transparency and limiting utility profits, faced direct opposition from FPL President Armando Pimentel, who met with Gaetz to discuss the bill. The bill passed one Senate committee but was killed, reportedly due to utility pressure.
• Specific Contributions to Politicians:
  • Exact contributions to individual Florida politicians in recent years are not detailed in the sources, as FPL’s donations are typically routed through PACs. However, critics, including U.S. Rep. Kathy Castor, have highlighted FPL’s history of using ratepayer funds for political activities, such as funding ghost candidates and lobbying, which indirectly supports utility-friendly candidates.
• Ethics in Energy Act:
  • In response to FPL’s political influence, Rep. Kathy Castor introduced the Ethics in Energy Act in 2025, aiming to prevent utilities from using ratepayer funds for lobbying or political campaigns. This bill reflects ongoing concerns about FPL’s financial influence over Florida politics.

Limitations: Comprehensive data on FPL’s contributions to specific PACs or politicians in 2025 is not fully available in the sources. The lack of transparency in utility lobbying and indirect contributions makes it challenging to provide an exhaustive list. For detailed records, you may need to access Florida’s campaign finance database or request information from the Florida Division of Elections.

Summary of Above

• Rate Hike Hearings: FPL’s $9.8 billion rate hike proposal, filed in February 2025, sparked public hearings from May 28 to June 6, 2025, across seven Florida cities. Consumer opposition grew, with the OPC recommending a $620.5 million rate decrease instead. A settlement with corporate groups was announced on August 8, pausing hearings, with a fall 2025 hearing planned to review the agreement. Critics fear it favors corporate interests over residential customers.
• PSC Members: All five commissioners (Gabriella Passidomo, Mike Yaworsky, Kimberly McMurray, K.C. Fumeaux, Chris Smith) are DeSantis appointees with backgrounds in law, policy, or regulation. The PSC’s pro-utility stance has drawn criticism, particularly after a 2023 Supreme Court ruling.
• FPL Contributions: FPL spent $8 million in 2018 through PACs and up to $1 million on lobbying in 2019. The utility has been linked to ghost candidate scandals and faces ongoing scrutiny for political influence, though specific 2025 contributions are not fully documented.