Citizens of the State of Florida, Appellant v. Art Graham

Summary

Justice Canady dissented from the majority’s interpretation of the settlement agreement, concluding that the agreement barred recovery through the fuel clause only for increases in existing base-rate costs, not entirely new transmission-investment costs. He also concluded that the Commission correctly applied its fuel-clause exception and that competent, substantial evidence supported recovery of the FPL interconnection costs because the project was not anticipated in base rates and would produce customer savings. The dissent would have affirmed the Commission’s order.