FPL Customers Pay for Others' Mistakes

http://www.miamiherald.com/opinion/editorials/story/770480.html
OUR OPINION: Public Service Commission should stand up for utility consumers
If a bad employee makes a costly error -- whether intentional or not -- there isn't much mystery about who will pay for the damage. The company pays, of course, and if the owners are smart, they will rigorously review their hiring and management practices. With Florida Power & Light, this isn't always the case.The Public Service Commission said customers -- not FPL -- should pay for costs the company incurred when an angry worker drilled a hole in a pipe at the Turkey Point nuclear plant two years ago. Fortunately, the Office of Public Counsel, which represents utility customers, challenged the decision in hearings this week. The PSC should reverse its ruling. Fairness demands it. Public Counsel lawyer Stephen Burgess says customers should be reimbursed nearly $6.2 million, plus interest.
Customers paid bill
Other than Mr. Burgess, no one else in the case has stood up for FPL customers' interests. A string of decisions by the PSC, FPL, FBI, U.S. attorney's Office and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission all ended up excusing those involved in the incident while leaving FPL customers stuck with the bill, even though they had nothing to do with what happened.
The investigations lasted more than a year. The FBI said the worker who drilled the hole had a long criminal record, including arrests for criminal recklessness and mischief, public intoxication, reckless driving, driving under the influence and discharging a firearm in public. Most of the charges, but not all, were dismissed. One witness, a co-worker, quoted the worker who drilled the hole as saying he ``finally showed the m-----f------.''
Company `exonerated?'
The NRC said FPL was not liable because it had followed all of NRC's ''rigorous'' procedures in hiring and supervising the worker. The U.S. attorney said the year-long investigation didn't garner enough evidence to take the case to trial, notwithstanding the eyewitness account of the worker's revenge comment. Adding insult to injury, the PSC found that FPL could charge its customers for the costs the utility incurred because of the worker's disruptive behavior. Asked why FPL management should not be held responsible for its decision to hire a worker with a spotty past and assign him to a sensitive area, a spokesman said the NRC's finding exonerates the company.
There's plenty wrong with this scenario. If this is how the NRC, FPL, PSC, FBI and U.S. attorney protect South Florida from a possible catastrophic event at a nuclear facility, they should rethink their priorities. As for FPL customers, they didn't cause the disruption and shouldn't have to pay for FPL's mistakes.