Florida Supreme Court Says FPL Can Charge Customers to Clean Up the Company’s Pollution

Florida Supreme Court Says FPL Can Charge Customers to Clean Up the Company's Pollution

Florida Power & Light’s Turkey Point Nuclear Generating Station in South Miami-Dade has leaked saltwater into the Biscayne Aquifer, South Florida’s main source of drinking water. But the Florida Supreme Court said yesterday in a unanimous ruling that FPL is allowed to make Florida residents pay to clean up the mess its equipment created.

“Safeguarding the Biscayne Aquifer from future saline intrusion requires the cleanup of existing saline intrusion, and that action protects the environment from future harm,” the judges wrote.

Turkey Point infamously uses a nuclear-waste cooling method that is unique in the world. Rather than using standard towers (as seen on the Simpsons), Turkey Point funnels nuclear waste through a 5,900-acre series of cooling canals that stretch out over Biscayne Bay. Unfortunately, those canals were built in 1972 and have since sprung some massive leaks. They’ve created a huge saltwater plume that now threatens Miami’s central source of drinking water.

Since the plume was discovered, FPL has been less than enthusiastic about cleaning it up. The state began monitoring the plant more closely in 2009. In 2014, regulators warned that the cooling canals were dumping as much as 600,000 pounds of salt per day into the aquifer. In June 2016, the state finally ordered FPL to fix its mess within ten years.

FPL then asked the Florida Public Service Commission (PSC) — the state body that oversees Florida’s electricity monopolies — if it could raise customer rates by $176 million to cover cleanup costs. The PSC eventually said the company could raise rates by a maximum of $132,577,031.

As a fix, FPL proposed a joint cleanup plan with Miami-Dade County that environmentalists also lambasted as potentially dangerous and a way to use government agencies to subsidize its cleanup. FPL instead argued the plan was mutually beneficial to both Miami-Dade and the power utility. Critics also warned that the cleanup plan could take 60 years, far longer than the power utility claims.

But the PSC’s ruling was, of course, controversial. For one, critics argue that FPL can easily afford to cover the costs by itself because its parent company — the Juno-based NextEra Energy — reported a $6.6 billion net profit in 2018 alone. (FPL has faced similar backlash after trying to raise rates to clean up after major storms, including Hurricane Irma.) And even if NextEra weren’t raking in that much cash, the company’s numerous environmental critics say FPL should cover the costs from a moral standpoint, because FPL’s own technology was responsible for the saltwater plume. Eventually, the Florida Office of Public Counsel, a state body representing the interests of Florida citizens and ratepayers, appealed the PSC’s ruling all the way to the Florida Supreme Court.

But the state’s highest court yesterday ultimately sided with FPL. In an 18-page opinion, the justices wrote that the company was within its rights to ask for the rate upgrade. Turkey Point has been under a state monitoring agreement since 2009, and the Supreme Court ruled that the 2009 legal agreement allows FPL to raise rates to fix water-quality issues — even if it created them. State law also allows FPL to raise rates to cover “prudently incurred environmental compliance costs.”

The judges explained:

In such a situation, the remediation of past harm through abatement of the pollution-causing source and cleanup of contaminated resources or ecosystems is an essential part of shielding as-yet uncontaminated ecosystems, or portions thereof, from harm. Perhaps unlike some other kinds of protective measures, actions prudently needed to “protect the environment” can primarily remedy existing conditions caused bypast actions, provided the harm in question continues to adversely impact the environment. This would be especially true where continuing environmental damage is expected to spread and increase if remedial action is not taken.

In a brief filed with the court, however, the Office of Public Counsel had argued FPL wasn’t trying to raise rates to keep up with environmental standards but to clean up its own mess.

“The money at issue will not pay for ‘compliance’ with laws or regulations designed to protect the environment, but instead will explicitly pay for FPL’s noncompliance because the costs are paying for cleaning up the effects of decades of FPL’s past, unlawful pollution,” the office argued.

How We Can Help


If you, a friend or a family member find themselves in a situation such as this, please call the Law Office of Scott A. Ferris, P.A. at 305 670-3330 right away. Scott A. Ferris, Esq. is a licensed civil litigation attorney who has been practicing law since 1987. He is available whenever you need him to pursue your rights. Please learn about our firm at www.FerrisLawFirm.com.

Republished by the Law Office of Scott A. Ferris, P.A.