FLORIDA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION
COMMISSION CONFERENCE AGENDA
CONFERENCE DATE AND
TIME: Tuesday, July 7,
2026, 1:30 p.m.
LOCATION: Betty Easley Conference Center, Joseph P. Cresse Hearing Room 148
DATE ISSUED: June 29, 2026*
NOTICE
Persons affected by Commission action on certain items on this agenda
may be allowed to address the Commission, either informally or by oral
argument, when those items are taken up for discussion at this conference.
These items are designated by double asterisks (**) next to the item number.
To participate informally, affected persons need only appear at the
conference and request the opportunity to address the Commission on an item
listed on the agenda. Informal participation is not permitted: (1) on
dispositive motions and motions for reconsideration; (2) when a recommended
order is taken up by the Commission; (3) in a rulemaking proceeding after the record
has been closed; or (4) when the Commission considers a post-hearing
recommendation on the merits of a case after the close of the record. The
Commission allows informal participation at its discretion in certain types of
cases (such as declaratory statements and interim rate orders) in which an
order is issued based on a given set of facts without hearing. See Florida
Administrative Code Rules 25-22.0021 (agenda conference participation) and
25-22.0022 (oral argument).
Conference agendas, staff recommendations, vote sheets, and
transcripts are available online at https://www.floridapsc.com,
by selecting Conferences
& Meeting Agendas and
Commission Conferences of the FPSC.
An official vote of "move staff" denotes that the Item's
recommendations were approved.
In accordance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, persons needing
a special accommodation to participate at this proceeding should contact the
Office of Commission Clerk no later than five days prior to the conference at
2540 Shumard Oak Boulevard, Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0850 or 850-413-6770
(Florida Relay Service, 1-800-955-8770 Voice or 1-800-955-8771 TDD). Assistive
Listening Devices are available upon request from the Office of Commission Clerk,
Gerald L. Gunter Building, Room 152.
The Commission Conference has a live video broadcast the day of the
conference, which is available from the FPSC website. Upon completion of the conference, the
archived video will be available from the website by selecting Conferences & Meeting Agendas, then Audio and Video Event Coverage.
EMERGENCY CANCELLATION OF CONFERENCE: If a named storm or other
disaster requires cancellation of the Conference, Commission staff will attempt
to give timely notice. Notice of cancellation will be provided on the
Commission’s website (https://www.floridapsc.com) under
the Hot Topics link on the home page. Cancellation can also be confirmed by
calling the Office of Commission Clerk at 850-413-6770.
If you have any questions, contact the Office of Commission Clerk at 850-413-6770 or Clerk@psc.state.fl.us.
1** Docket No. 20260036-OT – Proposed amendment of Rules 25-6.109, Refunds; 25-6.0435, Interim Rate Relief; 25-7.040, Interim Rate Relief; 25-7.091, Refunds; 25-30.117, Accounting for Pension Costs; and 25-30.360, F.A.C., Refunds.
|
Rule Status: |
Rule must be proposed by 9/21/26 pursuant to Section 120.54(2)(a)2., F.S. |
||
|
Commissioners Assigned: |
All Commissioners |
||
|
Prehearing Officer: |
Ortega |
||
|
Staff: |
GCL: Sapoznikoff AFD: Vogel ECO: Guffey |
||
(Proposal May Be Deferred)
Issue 1:
Should the Commission propose the amendment of Rules 25-6.0435, 25-6.109, 25-7.040, 25-7.091, 25-30.117, and 25-30.360, F.A.C.?
Yes. The Commission should propose the amendment of Rules 25-6.0435, 25-6.109, 25-7.040, 25-7.091, 25-30.117, and 25-30.360, F.A.C., as set forth in Attachment A of staff’s memorandum dated June 24, 2026. The Commission should also certify the rules as minor violation rules.
Issue 2:
Should this docket be closed?
Yes. If no requests for hearing are made or comments from the Joint Administrative Procedures Committee (JAPC) are filed, and no proposals for lower cost regulatory alternatives are submitted pursuant to Section 120.541(1)(a), F.S., then the rules should be filed with the Department of State for adoption and the docket should be closed.
2** Docket No. 20260038-OT – Proposed amendment of Rules 25-9.001, Application and Scope; 25-9.004, General Filing Instructions; 25-9.006, Size and Form of Tariffs; 25-9.007, Gas - Electric - Water - Wastewater Utility Tariffs; 25-9.009, Numbering and General Data Required for Each Sheet; 25-9.010, Numbering of Supplements and Additions; 25-9.021, Title Page; 25-9.023, Description of Territory Served; 25-9.029, Index of Rate or Exchange Schedules; 25-9.033, Standard Forms; 25-9.034. Contracts and Agreements, 25-9.045, Withdrawal of Tariffs; 25-9.051, Definitions; 25-9.054, Size and Form of Documentation; 25-9.0555, Electric Utility Documentation; 25-9.061, Title Page; and 25-9.069, F.A.C., Standard Forms and Blank Bill Form
|
Rule Status: |
Rule must be proposed by 9/21/26 pursuant to Section 120.54(2)(a)2., F.S. |
||
|
Commissioners Assigned: |
All Commissioners |
||
|
Prehearing Officer: |
Ortega |
||
|
Staff: |
GCL: Sapoznikoff ECO: Hampson, Guffey |
||
(Proposal May Be Deferred)
Issue 1:
Should the Commission propose the amendment of Rules 25-9.001, 25-9.004, 25-9.006, 25-9.007, 25-9.009, 25-9.010, 25-9.021, 25-9.023, 25-9.029, 25-9.033, 25-9.034, 25-9.045, 25-9.051, 25-9.054, 25-9.055, 25-9.061, and 25-9.069, F.A.C.?
Yes. The Commission should propose the amendment of Rules 25-9.001, 25-9.004, 25-9.006, 25-9.007, 25-9.009, 25-9.010, 25-9.021, 25-9.023, 25-9.029, 25-9.033, 25-9.034, 25-9.045, 25-9.051, 25-9.054, 25-9.055, 25-9.061, and 25-9.069, F.A.C., as set forth in Attachment A of staff’s memorandum dated June 24, 2026. The Commission should also certify the rules as minor violation rules.
Issue 2:
Should this docket be closed?
Yes. If no requests for hearing are made or comments from the Joint Administrative Procedures Committee (JAPC) are filed, and no proposals for lower cost regulatory alternatives are submitted pursuant to Section 120.541(1)(a), F.S., then all the rules addressed by this docket should be filed with the Department of State for adoption and the docket should be closed.
3**PAA Docket No. 20260045-EI – Formal complaint of Justin Gage against Duke Energy Florida, LLC for alleged violations of Commission rules, orders, and statutes governing electric utility safety standards, compliance certifications, and truthfulness in Commission filings.
|
Critical Date(s): |
None |
||
|
Commissioners Assigned: |
All Commissioners |
||
|
Prehearing Officer: |
Clark |
||
|
Staff: |
GCL: J. Crawford, Newman ENG: Brown OCA: Kendrick |
||
Issue 1:
Should the Commission grant DEF’s Motion to Dismiss?
No, the Commission should deny DEF’s Motion.
Issue 2:
What is the appropriate disposition of Mr. Gage’s complaint?
Staff recommends that Mr. Gage’s formal complaint should be denied. It does not appear that DEF violated its Commission-approved tariff or any statutes, rules, or orders of the Commission in the condition or maintenance of the PME-4 unit.
Issue 3:
Should this docket be closed?
If no person whose substantial interests are affected by the proposed agency action files a protest within 21 days of the issuance of the order, this docket should be closed upon the issuance of a consummating order.
4**PAA Docket No. 20260042-TP – Commission approval of Florida Telecommunications Relay, Inc.'s fiscal year 2026/2027 proposed budget.
|
Critical Date(s): |
None |
||
|
Commissioners Assigned: |
All Commissioners |
||
|
Prehearing Officer: |
Ortega |
||
|
Staff: |
IDM: Williams, Fogleman GCL: Imig, Stiller |
||
Issue 1:
Should the Commission approve FTRI’s proposed Fiscal Year 2026/2027 budget as presented in Attachment A of staff’s memorandum dated June 24, 2026?
Yes. Staff recommends the Commission approve FTRI’s proposed budget expense of $4,694,189 for Fiscal Year 2026/2027, effective upon issuance of the consummating order. Staff recommends the Commission allow FTRI to transfer $2,454,849 from the Reserve Account to offset the projected revenue shortfall.
Issue 2:
Should the Commission order FTRI to file quarterly reports for Fiscal Year 2026/2027 providing details on specialized communications technology device distribution?
Yes. Staff recommends the Commission order FTRI to file quarterly reports for Fiscal Year 2026/2027 providing details on specialized communications technology device distribution.
Issue 3:
Should the Commission maintain the current Telecommunications Relay Service (TRS) surcharge of $0.08 per line, per month for Fiscal Year 2026/2027?
Yes. Staff recommends the Commission maintain the current TRS surcharge of $0.08 per line, per month for Fiscal Year 2026/2027. Staff recommends the Commission order all local exchange companies to continue billing the $0.08 TRS surcharge for Fiscal Year 2026/2027.
Issue 4:
Should this docket be closed?
No. If no person whose substantial interests are affected by the proposed agency action files a protest within 21 days of the issuance of the order, this docket should be placed in monitoring status during Fiscal Year 2026/2027 upon the issuance of a consummating order.
5**PAA Docket No. 20240149-EI – Petition for limited proceeding for recovery of incremental storm restoration costs related to Hurricanes Debby, Helene, and Milton, by Florida Power & Light Company.
|
Critical Date(s): |
None |
||
|
Commissioners Assigned: |
All Commissioners |
||
|
Prehearing Officer: |
Ortega |
||
|
Staff: |
AFD: Vogel, Gatlin, Holloway ENG: P. Buys, Thompson, Ramos GCL: Brownless, Crawford |
||
Issue 1:
Should the incremental cost and capitalization approach (ICCA) found in Rule 25-6.0143, Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C), be used to determine the reasonable and prudent amounts to be included in the restoration costs?
Yes, the ICCA approach in Rule 25-6.0143, F.A.C., should be used to determine the reasonable and prudent amounts included in the storm restoration costs.
Issue 2:
What is the reasonable and prudent amount of regular payroll expense to be included in the total storm related restoration costs?
The reasonable and prudent amount of payroll expense to be included in the total storm restoration costs is $19.083 million.
Issue 3:
What is the reasonable and prudent amount of overtime payroll expense to be included in the total storm related restoration costs?
The reasonable and prudent amount of overtime payroll expenses to be included in the total storm restoration costs is $44.762 million.
Issue 4:
What is the reasonable and prudent amount of contractor costs to be included in the total storm related restoration costs?
The reasonable and prudent amount of contractor costs to be included in total storm restoration costs is $624.764 million.
Issue 5:
What is the reasonable and prudent amount of line clearing costs to be included in the total storm related restoration costs?
The reasonable and prudent amount of line clearing costs to be included in total storm restoration costs is $202.020 million.
Issue 6:
What is the reasonable and prudent amount of vehicle and fuel costs to be included in the total storm related restoration costs?
The reasonable and prudent amount of vehicle and fuel costs to be included in total storm restoration costs is $32.417 million.
Issue 7:
What is the reasonable and prudent amount of materials and supplies expense to be included in the total storm related restoration costs?
The reasonable and prudent amount of materials and supplies expense to be included in total storm restoration costs is $56.059 million.
Issue 8:
What is the reasonable and prudent amount of logistics costs to be included in the total storm related restoration costs?
The reasonable and prudent amount of logistics costs to be included in total storm restoration costs is $182.369 million.
Issue 9:
What is the reasonable and prudent amount of other costs to be included in the total storm related restoration costs?
The reasonable and prudent amount of other costs to be included in the total storm restoration costs is $14.742 million.
Issue 10:
What is the reasonable and prudent total amount of costs to be included in the total storm related restoration costs?
The reasonable and prudent amount of total expenses to be included in the total storm restoration costs is $1,176 million ($1.176 billion).
Issue 11:
What is the reasonable and prudent amount of storm-related costs that should be capitalized?
The reasonable and prudent amount of storm-related costs that should be capitalized is $131.091 million.
Issue 12:
What is the reasonable and prudent amount of storm-related costs that should be ICCA non-incremental O&M adjustments?
The reasonable and prudent amount of storm-related costs that should be ICCA non-incremental O&M adjustments is $10.699 million.
Issue 13:
What is the reasonable and prudent amount of retail recoverable storm costs?
The reasonable and prudent amount of retail recoverable storm costs is $1,125 million ($1.125 billion).
Issue 14:
What is the amount that was recovered thorough the storm cost recovery surcharge?
The amount recovered through the storm cost recovery surcharge is $1.205 billion.
Issue 15:
If applicable, how should any under-recovery or over-recovery be handled?
Any under-recovery or over-recovery should be recovered or refunded through an adjustment to the non-fuel energy charge.
Issue 16:
Should the Stipulations filed by OPC and FPL on June 18, 2026, be approved?
Since the Stipulations are in agreement with Commission staff’s recommendations with regard to Issue Nos. 1, 13, 14, and 15, staff recommends that the Stipulations be approved if the Commission votes to accept staff’s recommendations on those issues. With regard to the FPL process issues, staff recommends that they be approved.
Issue 17:
Should this docket be closed?
If no timely protest is received to the proposed agency action, a Consummating Order should be issued upon the expiration of the protest period, and this docket should be closed.
6**PAA Docket No. 20260080-EI – Request for approval of change in rate used to capitalize allowance for funds used during construction (AFUDC) from 6.89% to 6.97%, effective January 1, 2026, by Florida Power & Light Company.
|
Critical Date(s): |
None |
||
|
Commissioners Assigned: |
All Commissioners |
||
|
Prehearing Officer: |
Administrative |
||
|
Staff: |
AFD: D’Sa, D. Buys GCL: Brownless |
||
Issue 1:
Should the Commission approve FPL’s request to change its AFUDC rate from 6.89 percent to 6.97 percent?
Yes. The appropriate AFUDC rate for FPL is 6.97 percent based on a 13-month average capital structure for the period ended December 31, 2025.
Issue 2:
What is the appropriate monthly compounding rate to achieve FPL’s requested annual AFUDC of 6.97 percent?
The appropriate compounding rate to achieve an annual AFUDC rate of 6.97 percent is 0.563065 percent.
Issue 3:
Should the Commission approve FPL’s requested effective date of January 1, 2026, for implementing the AFUDC rate?
Yes. The AFUDC rate should be effective January 1, 2026, for all purposes.
Issue 4:
Should this docket be closed?
If no person whose substantial interests are affected by the proposed agency action files a protest within 21 days of the issuance of the order, this docket should be closed upon the issuance of a consummating order.
7 Docket No. 20250130-WS – Petition for
an acquisition adjustment for a non-viable utility, by CSWR-Florida Utility
Operating Company, LLC.
Docket No. 20250136-WS – Petition for an acquisition adjustment for a
non-viable utility, by CSWR-Florida Utility Operating Company, LLC.
|
Critical Date(s): |
None |
||
|
Commissioners Assigned: |
All Commissioners |
||
|
Prehearing Officer: |
Ortega (20250130-WS) Clark (20250136-WS) |
||
|
Staff: |
AFD: Kelley, Buys, Cicchetti, Cohn, D’Sa, Higgins, Norris, Souchik, Worrall ECO: Bruce, Hudson ENG: Ramirez-Abundez, Ramos, Thompson GCL: Bloom, J. Crawford |
||
(Motion to Dismiss - Oral Argument Not
Requested - Participation is at the Commission's Discretion)
Issue 1:
Should OPC’s Motions to Dismiss the Neighborhood and Rolling Oaks acquisition adjustment petitions be granted?
No, staff recommends that the Commission deny OPC’s Motions to Dismiss the Neighborhood and Rolling Oaks acquisition adjustment petitions. Staff recommends that changed circumstances and the public interest warrant consideration of CSWR’s requests for positive acquisition adjustments concerning its Neighborhood and Rolling Oaks utilities. Additionally, staff disagrees with OPC’s contention that CSWR is seeking retroactive application of amended Rule 25-30.0371, F.A.C.
Issue 2:
Should these dockets be closed?
Docket Nos. 20250130-WS and 20250136-WS should remain open to allow the Commission to address CSWR’s requested acquisition adjustments for Neighborhood and Rolling Oaks.
8 Docket No. 20260026-GU – Application for rate increase by Florida City Gas.
|
Critical Date(s): |
07/07/26 (60-day provision of Section 366.071(2), F.S., waived by Company until 07/07/26) |
||
|
Commissioners Assigned: |
All Commissioners |
||
|
Prehearing Officer: |
La Rosa |
||
|
Staff: |
ENG: Wooten, Ellis, King, Ramos, Sanchez, Willis AFD: D. Buys, D’Sa, Gatlin, Higgins, Mason ECO: Hampson GCL: Thompson, Hixon |
||
(Decision on Interim Rates - Participation
is at the Commission's Discretion)
Issue 1:
Is FCG's proposed interim rate base appropriate?
Yes. The appropriate interim rate base is $551,813,687 for the purposes of determining interim rates.
Issue 2:
Is FCG's proposed interim return on equity and overall rate of return appropriate?
Yes. The appropriate return on equity for FCG is 8.50 percent and the overall average weighted cost of capital should be 7.16 percent for the purposes of determining interim rates.
Issue 3:
Is FCG's proposed interim test year net operating income appropriate?
Yes. The appropriate interim test year net operating income is $27,498,041 for the purpose of determining interim rates.
Issue 4:
Is FCG's proposed interim net operating income multiplier appropriate?
Yes. The appropriate interim net operating income (NOI) multiplier is 1.3511.
Issue 5:
Should FCG's requested interim revenue increase be granted?
Yes. The requested interim revenue increase of $16,244,207 should be granted.
Issue 6:
Should Florida City Gas' proposed interim rates and associated tariffs be approved?
Issue 7:
What is the appropriate security to guarantee the amount subject to refund?
The appropriate security to guarantee the funds collected subject to refund is a corporate undertaking guaranteed by Chesapeake Utilities Corporation on behalf of FCG.
Issue 8:
Should this docket be closed?
No. This docket should remain open pending the Commission’s final resolution of the Company’s requested rate increase.
9** Docket No. 20260046-EI – Petition for approval of revised underground residential distribution tariffs, by Duke Energy Florida, LLC.
|
Critical Date(s): |
11/30/26 (8-Month Effective Date) |
||
|
Commissioners Assigned: |
All Commissioners |
||
|
Prehearing Officer: |
Administrative |
||
|
Staff: |
ECO: Nguyen, Hampson GCL: Brownless |
||
(Tariff Filing)
Issue 1:
Should the Commission approve DEF's proposed underground residential distribution tariffs and associated charges?
Issue 2:
Should this docket be closed?
If Issue 1 is approved and a protest is filed within 21 days of the issuance of the order, the tariffs should remain in effect, with any revenues held subject to refund, pending resolution of the protest. If no timely protest is filed, this docket should be closed upon the issuance of a Consummating Order.
10 Docket No. 20260064-EI – Petition for a limited proceeding to approve large load tariff, by Duke Energy Florida, LLC.
|
Critical Date(s): |
None |
||
|
Commissioners Assigned: |
All Commissioners |
||
|
Prehearing Officer: |
Clark |
||
|
Staff: |
ECO: Guffey, Hampson, Nguyen, Ward ENG: Davis, Ellis GCL: Thompson, Farooqi |
||
(Motion to Dismiss - Participation is at
the Commission's Discretion)
Issue 1:
Should the Commission grant the Office of Public Counsel and Florida Rising, Inc.’s Joint Motion to Dismiss?
No. Staff recommends that the Commission deny the Joint Motion to Dismiss because there are material questions of fact to be resolved at an evidentiary hearing.
Issue 2:
Should this docket be closed?
No. This docket should remain open pending the Commission’s decision on DEF’s petition.
11** Docket No. 20260051-EI – Petition for approval of revisions to underground residential differential, underground commercial differential, and contribution-in-aid-of-construction tariffs, by Florida Power & Light Company.
|
Critical Date(s): |
12/01/26 (8-Month Effective Date) |
||
|
Commissioners Assigned: |
All Commissioners |
||
|
Prehearing Officer: |
Administrative |
||
|
Staff: |
ECO: Ward GCL: Thompson |
||
(Tariff Filing)
Issue 1:
Should the Commission approve FPL's proposed URD tariffs and associated charges?
Yes. Staff believes FPL’s proposed URD tariffs and associated charges as filed in the petition are cost-based and recommends approval. The Commission should approve FPL’s proposed URD tariffs and associated charges as shown in Attachment A of staff’s memorandum dated June 24, 2026, effective 30 days after the Commission vote.
Issue 2:
Should the Commission approve FPL's proposed UCD tariffs and associated charges?
Yes. The Commission should approve FPL’s proposed UCD tariffs and associated charges as shown in Attachment A of staff’s memorandum dated June 24, 2026, effective 30 days after the Commission vote. Staff reviewed FPL’s supporting documentation for the UCD charges and believes the charges are cost based and reasonable.
Issue 3:
Should the Commission approve FPL’s proposed CIAC tariffs?
Yes. Staff reviewed FPL’s proposed modifications to its CIAC tariffs and believes that the modifications provide better clarity and transparency for its customers. The Commission should approve FPL’s proposed CIAC tariffs, effective 30 days after the Commission vote.
Issue 4:
Should this docket be closed?
If a protest is filed within 21 days of the issuance of the order, the tariffs should remain in effect, with any revenues held subject to refund, pending resolution of the protest. If no timely protest is filed, this docket should be closed upon the issuance of a consummating order.