South Florida Sun Sentinel. April 18, 2022.
Editorial: For consumers, one last chance against FPL rate hike
Florida Power & Light customers are down to their last shot at relief from the company’s excessive rate increase.
Floridians Against Increased Rates (FAIR) has filed its brief asking the Florida Supreme Court to overturn the settlement that the Public Service Commission approved last year. Under the agreement, customers will pay FPL an additional $4.9 billion through 2025.
Political Cartoons
As a regulated monopoly, FPL can be guaranteed enough profit to provide efficient, reliable service. FAIR argues persuasively, as it did last year, that the settlement grants the company excessive profits at the public’s expense.
The PSC allowed FPL a midpoint profit margin of 10.6%. At roughly the same time, however, commissioners approved settlements with two other investor-owned utilities that gave them lower midpoint margins. Tampa Electric got 9.95%. Duke Energy got 9.85%.
To put that benefit to FPL in perspective, FAIR calculates that Duke’s profit margin would have meant $477 million less for FPL and that much more for customers this year. Over the four years of the agreement, the difference would be nearly $2 billion. At Tampa Electric’s margin, the four-year difference would be $1.6 billion.
Regulators offered no justification for why FPL needed to make so much more money than the other companies. FPL argued that the revenue will allow it to keep modernizing the grid and invest more in solar power.
In addition, the PSC allowed FPL to use an accounting practice known as reserve surplus amortization mechanism (RSAM) that FAIR and other critics contend also would unduly enrich the company.
The agreement allows FPL a profit margin of as high as 11.7% before it would have to begin returning money to customers. FAIR argues that, using RSAM as the commission permitted, the utility’s profit could exceed the maximum without the company having to issue refunds.
Such accounting, FAIR claims, exists nowhere else in the country. The group calls it “an alternate depreciation study” designed to “avoid over-earning.” It sounds a little like the alternate legal theory that Gov. DeSantis is using to gerrymander the state’s congressional districts.
Finally, FAIR challenges the provision in the settlement under which FPL automatically could make more money based on tax policy changes in Washington or Tallahassee.
The Public Service Commission ruled in 2019 that FPL could keep nearly $800 million from the 2017 corporate-friendly federal tax cut. If the tax rate rose, customers would have to pay more, FAIR claims, “without regard” to whether FPL actually needed the money to maintain its level of service.
Stacked against consumers
We have explained many times how FPL, which soon will ask customers to pay most of the $15 billion bill to further harden the grid, has worked to stack the regulatory system against consumers. The explanation bears repeating.
Customers have their own representative before the commission, called the Office of Public Counsel. Under J.R. Kelly’s leadership, the office regularly challenged FPL’s rate increases, if not always successfully.
Two years ago, however, DeSantis and the Legislature forced out Kelly. A legislative panel replaced Kelly as public counsel with Richard Gentry, a former lobbyist for homebuilders with little experience in utility regulation.
Kelly would have fought the settlement. Under Gentry, the Office of Public Counsel accepted it.
So did other groups, such as the Florida Retail Federation, that had opposed previous rate settlements. Critics claim that the deal shifts roughly $1 billion in costs over four years from businesses to homeowners.
FPL has spent 12 years co-opting the system after losing a rate case.
As news reports showed, FPL has branched out from merely controlling those in office. Money from the company appeared to go to groups that ran “ghost candidates” to defeat Democrats in three Senate races. That amounts to interference in democracy, though FPL has denied its employees had any role in the ghost-candidate scheme.
There is precedent for the Florida Supreme Court overruling the Public Service Commission. It happened in 2016.
The commission had allowed FPL to bill customers as much as $500 million annually for a natural gas drilling in Oklahoma. Kelly argued that Florida law allowed FPL to collect only for generating power, not exploring for fuel.
The justices agreed. Three remain from that panel. Justice Ricky Polston wrote the 6-1 majority opinion, which Justice Jorge Labarga joined. Justice Charles Canady dissented.
Three of the seven justices are DeSantis appointees. The governor made clear that he wanted a business-friendly, anti-regulation court, and a look at the justices’ resumes suggests that only Federalist Society members need apply.
But the case against the settlement has been strong all along. FAIR’s brief, to which FPL still must respond, nicely summarizes that case.
To restate, we believe that the region and state have benefited from FPL’s improvements to the grid. The company’s rates remain comparatively low.
Still, Florida should not allow a utility to make excess profits, especially now. This settlement is unfair. The court should agree.
Tampa Bay Times. April 19, 2022.
Editorial: Where’s the state’s evidence for rejecting 54 math textbooks?
The state Department of Education recently assessed 132 math books.
When is transparency not so transparent? When it comes to selecting math textbooks for Florida schools.
Republican lawmakers recently passed a law they said would give parents more say in the books taught in classrooms and found in school libraries. They cloaked the move in a veneer of pursuing transparency. Last week, the powers-that-be announced they had rejected 54 of 132 math textbooks, saying many of them included references to critical race theory and other “prohibited topics” and “unsolicited strategies.” (That’s 41%, since we’re doing math.)
Naturally, you might ask a simple question: What were the offending passages?
The answer from the state: None of your business.
In its announcement last week, the state did not provide any specific examples of objectionable content from the books, nor when asked did officials fill in the obvious omission. No, no, no. Floridians can’t handle that kind of truth. How’s that for transparency?
The announcement — as transparent as a Russian press release — made it seem like state education officials were hiding something. Could that be? If the books were so offensive, if they were so chock-full of “prohibited topics,” plucking out a few examples of offending passages for us all to see would hardly have taken much effort. Instead we are left to imagine the possibilities, like these two we made up:
Offending question: A woman who committed a felony has served her time and wants to vote again, but first she wants to pay all her fines and fees, as the Legislature requires. How much does she owe? (Answer: Good question. Often, no one can say for sure.)
Offending question: At the end of March, the state had 5,145,983 registered Republicans and 5,034,448 registered Democrats. There are 28 congressional districts. How many seats should Republicans be favored to win? (Answer: 14. Wrong! You mistook this for a math question. It’s all about politics. Under Gov. Ron DeSantis’ personal congressional maps, Republicans would likely win 20 seats and Democrats 8.)
It’s unlikely the passages the state education officials found offensive were that obvious, but why oh why did they want to keep the evidence to themselves? Could it be that their case was as flimsy as a damp paper towel? Could it be that they wanted to score political points without having to play any defense? Maybe they have their own definition of transparency?
”Show your work!” is the mantra of many math teachers. They don’t accept an answer without students showing how they arrived at their conclusions. When it comes to rejecting math books, state education officials wanted you to skip that step. Instead, we should all insist that they always show their work.
Orlando Sentinel. April 14, 2022.
Editorial: Florida’s war of deception on women’s freedom
For decades, Florida’s leaders have been chipping away at the reproductive freedom of desperate women, using tools crafted from falsehood.
The big lie, of course, is that lawmakers are acting out of concern for women’s health. Every time a new abortion restriction comes up, that paternalistic pretense dissolves to expose the real target: Women’s freedom.
That sentiment was clear during the recent legislative session, when lawmakers passed HB 5, a near-absolute ban on abortion after 15 weeks’ gestation. The bill makes no provision for women impregnated through rape, incest or human trafficking. And it includes a biologically implausible definition of conception, which could shave two weeks or more off that time frame.
Florida courts should be quick to slap down laws laden with bold-faced deception, especially when they allow the government to intrude on private medical decisions. Florida’s long-established, and unusually strong, right to privacy should be enough to protect women from meddling in their medical decisions But last week, a ruling by a Leon County circuit judge bought into the misleading rhetoric, in a ruling reinstating the state’s mandatory 24-hour waiting period before a woman can have an abortion.
Circuit Judge Angela Dempsey’s ruling recited misleading talking points that supported a distressing conclusion: Women seeking abortions in Florida have to be instructed to think — no, really think — about the ramifications of their decision for at least 24 hours before they can terminate a pregnancy.
As if Floridian women were in the habit of stumbling into abortion clinics on a whim.
Dempsey’s ruling included this obvious whopper: “The plain purpose of the act,” she wrote, “is to enhance a pregnant woman’s voluntary and informed consent…” Baloney. The plain purpose of the law, passed in 2015 as SB 724, is to throw yet another roadblock in the path of a woman who has already considered her options and knows what she needs to do. For many low-income women, requiring two doctor’s visits within a 24-hour period will constitute a significant hardship. Only 17 of Florida’s 67 counties have at least one abortion provider, meaning some women must travel an hour or more to find a clinic.
Dempsey went on to recite a laundry list of emotions she says can result from abortion, including “regret, severe depression, loss of esteem, grief and sorrow.” But studies of abortion reveal a significantly different reality. According to the American Psychological Association, the real risk to a woman’s mental health comes when she wants to terminate a pregnancy — but is not allowed to do so.
Most women make these decisions thoughtfully. And they can point to solid reasons behind their choice. The Alan Guttmacher Institute, which studies reproductive issues, found that about three-quarters of women who have had abortions say unwanted pregnancies would have hurt their ability to work, go to school or care for other dependents — including children they’re already raising. By the same ratio, women express fear that an unwanted pregnancy could significantly hamper their economic stability. And there’s a strong connection between domestic violence and a woman’s decision to abort.
That’s the biggest fallacy of Florida’s 24-hour ban, and one Dempsey swallowed whole: The state can’t claim to offer “informed consent” out of false concern for women’s well-being, while ignoring the far greater disruption that an unwanted pregnancy can create.
It’s been nearly 50 years since Roe vs. Wade promised reproductive liberty to American women. Yet those freedoms seem under attack like never before, and it’s impossible to know how far the backsliding could extend. That’s why voters should put reproductive freedom high on their list when evaluating candidates. It’s easy to take this progress for granted. But as recent events prove, there’s still plenty of ground to lose.
Palm Beach Post. April 17, 2022.
Editorial: What’s so special about this special session?
If there were ever a special session of the Florida Legislature to earn the dubious distinction of not being all that special, it’s the one scheduled this Tuesday. In effect, state lawmakers are returning to Tallahassee to kowtow to the governor, who wants to redraw congressional districts to give Republicans a significant advantage in the next Congress.
Partisan politics again trumps policy. Last week legislative leaders threw in the towel and assured Gov. Ron DeSantis could usurp the redistricting process. After threatening to veto any maps lawmakers had drawn, the Governor will get his way, with a map he drew that boosts Republican representation at the expense of Black and Brown voters.
“At this time, legislative reapportionment staff is not drafting or producing a map for introduction during the special session,” Senate President Wilton Simpson and House Speaker Chris Sprowls wrote in a memo. “We are awaiting a communication from the Governor’s Office with a map that he will support.”
Hoist the white flag, and hold a special session to rubberstamp a new map that will end up in costly litigation. So much for the equal branches of government, not to mention any concern about spending $100,000 a day for a suspect session.
For that type of money, lawmakers should be spending time fixing real problems, not creating them. The good news, if indeed any comes to pass, is that some legislators are still trying to address one issue that eluded them during the regular 60-day session — the state’s soaring property insurance rates. SB 1728 would have helped but it died on the last day of the regular session, after Senate President Wilton Simpson failed to win support for the bill from House Speaker Chris Sprowls.
Credit state Sen. Jeff Brandes, R.-St. Petersburg, for starting the process of forcing the issue onto this week’s agenda. Using a procedural vote, he and 20% of the Legislature forced a vote to determine if three-fifths of the Legislature would agree to make it happen. Now, if only Simpson and Sprowls could come to terms, which hasn’t happened yet and makes the likelihood of reconsidering property insurance iffy at best.
Fixing property insurance is complicated. It takes time and needs consensus. No wonder Gov. DeSantis has been comfortable leading from behind on this issue, unlike his badmouthing The Walt Disney Co., signing voter suppression laws on “Fox and Friends,” or going after black majority congressional districts, which are legally rooted in federal law and the Florida Constitution.
The governor is fixated on creating “race-neutral” congressional districts. Translation: diluting minority votes. His priority is to redraw congressional districts in north Florida and Orlando, to strip Black and Brown voters there of having minority representation in Washington. The change would give Republicans a chance at 20 of the state’s projected 28 congressional seats, up from their current, 16-11 majority.
So, residents who have seen their home insurance premiums raised beyond belief or cancelled outright are left to rely on a special session that may not address their concerns. For Annette Taddeo, a state senator and Democratic candidate for governor, there is another option. She’s urging her colleagues to boycott. “If the governor wants to make a real difference in Floridians’ lives and tackle the insurance rate crisis or the housing crisis, I’ll see him in Tallahassee,” she tweeted. “But, I’ll be damned if I’m showing up to kiss his ring and waste taxpayer money for an unconstitutional map that erases Black and Brown voices from the electoral process.”
Lawmakers can still address property insurance but only if enough of them agree to push for it. Otherwise, the idea of boycotting a meaningless session is as good as any.
Editor’s Note: There is still a chance property insurance could make the cut in this week’s special session and we’d like to hear from you, to let state leaders know how serious this crisis is. Send your comments, detailing the challenges and the steps state leaders should take in making affordable property insurance available, to letters@pbpost.com. Letters shouldn’t exceed 200 words, are subject to editing and must include your name, address and daytime phone number (We will publish only your name and city). Let your voice be heard on this critical subject.
Miami Herald. April 19, 2022.
Editorial: Millions voted for Florida’s Fair Districts. Lawmakers may wipe it out in one session
Florida voters said clearly in 2010 that they wanted to put an end to political and anti-minority gerrymandering. More than 3.1 million Floridians — 63% — cast votes in favor of the Fair Districts amendments to the state’s Constitution.
Now, in 2022, Florida legislators are about to turn their backs on those voters by refusing to abide by the Fair Districts amendments during the congressional redistricting process. Instead of following the law approved by voters, they are letting Gov. Ron DeSantis draw the new district lines — an abdication of their legal responsibility — and run right over them in his pursuit of one-man rule in Florida.
Some may shrug off this debacle of a special session in Tallahassee and say it doesn’t matter. We’re all worn down by the drip-drip-drip of Florida’s government eroding before our eyes. But this matters. It’s about fair representation and Black and brown people’s ability to elect lawmakers who they think will truly represent them. It’s about legislators — who are elected to represent us, not the governor — refusing to honor the law, refusing to honor the voters who put them there.
And this time, the courts may not save us.
The Fair Districts amendments — one covers congressional representation, the other covers legislative representation — were specifically created as checks on legislative power, to make sure that lawmakers couldn’t use the once-a-decade redistricting process for their own gain. The responsibility for drawing new district lines for Congress and the Legislature is supposed to be one that Florida legislators take seriously because it affects who can get elected to office for the next 10 years, minority representation, in particular, and how federal funds are allocated.
But last time around, they let corruption in the door by allowing political operatives to conduct an illegal “shadow process” of map drawing behind the scenes, even as lawmakers publicly claimed their actions were honorable and transparent. It took years to sort out in the courts. In the end, Florida’s courts ruled that legislators violated the Fair Districts amendments.
This time the hypocrisy is even worse. For months, Florida legislators insisted they were working hard to come up with redistricting maps that would abide by the Fair Districts amendments and restore public trust. Back in September, when lawmakers were just beginning the process, Rep. Ray Rodrigues, an Estero Republican and chair of the Senate Reapportionment Committee, even said this: “I intend for this committee to conduct the process in a manner that is consistent with case law developed during the last decade, is beyond reproach and free from any kind of unconstitutional intent.’’
It seemed to work — for a while. Legislators carved out legislative districts with relatively little acrimony and no court challenges. But the governor has no say over those.
Then came the carving up of congressional districts, and that’s where DeSantis big-footed them in a manner never before displayed by any governor. He has veto power over that map, and he used it to force lawmakers to accept one that increases the number of Republican-majority districts from 16 to 20. (There are only 28, total.) That’s even more ridiculous when you know that there are 5.1 million registered Republicans in Florida, about 5 million Democrats and about 3.9 million no-party registrations, as of March 31. In other words, the electorate is far more evenly divided than his map, which is wildly unfair to voters.
And of course, his map would also reduce minority representation in North and Central Florida, prompting Black lawmakers including Sen. Shevrin Jones, a South Florida Democrat, to call the governor’s strategy “racist.” Less minority representation could be part of a slide back toward our Jim Crow past. The governor seems to have no problem with that.
For a moment, the Republican-controlled Legislature actually stood up to the governor, labeling his map a “novel legal argument.” Then, perhaps weak-kneed from that effort, they capitulated.
And now, despite the months of talk about following the law, the special session in Tallahassee this week has become merely a formality for the Legislature to give DeSantis the thumbs-up on his map.
A court challenge in this case seems very likely. And yet there may be hesitation, because it’s not without risks if it happens. DeSantis has openly said he would like to see the 12-year-old Fair Districts amendments thrown out in court as being incompatible with the Equal Protection Clause of 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which in essence says a state must govern impartially. DeSantis, a Harvard-trained lawyer, apparently wants to take his chances in court, with more conservative judges in place.
Copyright 2022 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
