OPC fully represented Citizens in ten days of hearings regarding FPL’s petition for a rate increase and also fully participated in hearings regarding the proposed settlement agreement by submitting prefiled testimony, participating in discovery, presenting evidence in opposition to the settlement agreement, and filing post-hearing briefs. Thus, the OPC was not precluded from zealously representing Citizens, but was provided multiple opportunities to urge the public’s position on FPL’s petition and subsequent settlement agreement. Likewise, this Court’s holding in Jaber does not support Citizens’ argument. In Jaber, this Court found that the Commis sion did not err by approving a non-unanimous settlement agreement without conducting an evidentiary hearing. See id,., 887 So.2d at 1213 (<HOLDING>). Further, this Court’s reasoning in Jaber did
holding that an intervenor lacked standing to challenge a settlement agreement between the plaintiff and the united states on the grounds that one of the plaintiffs claims was fraudulent because the intervenors were not parties to the settlement and suffered no personal harm from it notwithstanding the potential that its tax dollars went to pay the allegedly fraudulent claim holding that a settlement agreement is not a court order and therefore a violation of the settlement agreement would not subject a party to contempt holding that the commissions approval of a nonunanimous settlement agreement did not violate intervenors due process rights because the record shows that the appellant presented arguments in opposition to the settlement during the agenda conference in which the appellant was allowed thirty minutes to present its views in opposition to the settlement agreement holding that the plaintiffs lawsuit which was filed despite a general release in the parties settlement agreement constituted a material breach of the settlement agreement holding that because the alleged settlement was never approved by the court under rule 9019 the settlement agreement was unenforceable