FLORIDA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION
COMMISSION CONFERENCE AGENDA
CONFERENCE DATE AND
TIME: Tuesday, August
4, 2026, 9:30 a.m.
LOCATION: Betty Easley Conference Center, Joseph P. Cresse Hearing Room 148
DATE ISSUED: July 23, 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.
PAA A) Application for Certificate of Authority to Provide Telecommunications Service.
|
DOCKET NO. |
COMPANY NAME |
|
Clear Rate Communications, LLC |
|
|
20260103‑TX |
Vero Networks ABS, LLC |
Recommendation: The Commission should approve the action requested in the dockets referenced above and close these dockets.
2** Docket No. 20260041-OT – Proposed amendment of Rules 25-4.0161, Regulatory Assessment Fees; Telecommunications Companies; 25-6.0131, Regulatory Assessment Fees; Investor-owned Electric Companies, Municipal Electric Utilities, Rural Electric Cooperatives; 25-7.101, Regulatory Assessment Fees; Natural Gas Transmission Companies; 25-7.0131, Regulatory Assessment Fees; Gas Utilities, Gas Municipals, and Gas Districts; and 25-30.120, F.A.C., Regulatory Assessment Fees; Water and Wastewater Utilities.
|
Rule Status: |
Rule must be proposed by 09/22/26 pursuant to Section 120.54(2)(a)2., F.S. |
||
|
Commissioners Assigned: |
All Commissioners |
||
|
Prehearing Officer: |
Administrative |
||
|
Staff: |
GCL: Augspurger, Bloom AIT: Kissell ECO: McNulty, Smith |
||
(Proposal May be Deferred)
Issue 1:
Should the Commission propose the amendment of Rules 25-4.0161, 25-6.0131, 25-7.0131, 25-7.101, and 25-30.120, F.A.C.?
Yes. The Commission should propose the amendment of Rules 25-4.0161, 25-6.0131, 25-7.0131, 25-7.101, and 25-30.120, F.A.C., as set forth in Attachments A and B of staff’s memorandum dated July 23, 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, no 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., the rules should be filed for adoption with the Florida Department of State, and the docket should be closed.
3 Docket No. 20260090-WS – Petition for declaratory statement, by Rekisha Codogan.
|
Critical Date(s): |
09/08/26 (Deadline for final order on the petition for declaratory statement.) |
||
|
Commissioners Assigned: |
All Commissioners |
||
|
Prehearing Officer: |
La Rosa |
||
|
Staff: |
GCL: Augspurger, Bloom ECO: Hudson |
||
(Participation is at the Discretion of the
Commission)
Issue 1:
Should the Commission grant the Petition for Declaratory Statement?
No. The Commission should deny the petition for declaratory statement as the Commission does not have jurisdiction to issue the declaratory statement requested under Section 120.565, F.S.
Issue 2:
Should this docket be closed?
Yes. If the Commission votes to either grant or deny the Petition for Declaratory Statement, a final order will be issued, and the docket should be closed.
4**PAA Docket No. 20260078-EI – Complaint by Karen Kostantis against Duke Energy Florida, LLC.
|
Critical Date(s): |
None |
||
|
Commissioners Assigned: |
All Commissioners |
||
|
Prehearing Officer: |
Payne |
||
|
Staff: |
GCL: Newman, J. Crawford ECO: Draper OCA: Plescow |
||
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 Petitioner’s complaint?
Staff recommends that Ms. Kostantis’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.
Issue 3:
Should this docket be closed?
5 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: D. 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.
6**PAA Docket No. 20250108-WS – Application for staff-assisted rate case in Lake County, by Sunlake Estates Utilities, L.L.C.
|
Critical Date(s): |
1/12/2027 (15-Month Effective Date (SARC)) |
||
|
Commissioners Assigned: |
All Commissioners |
||
|
Prehearing Officer: |
Payne |
||
|
Staff: |
AFD: Lenberg, Higgins ECO: Bruce, Rashawn ENG: Ellis, King, Willis GCL: Farooqi, Imig |
||
(Proposed Agency Action - Except for Issue
Nos. 12, 13, and 14)
Is the quality of service provided by Sunlake Estates Utilities, L.L.C. satisfactory?
No. While Sunlake’s product is in compliance with the rules and regulations of the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (DEP), staff does not believe the Utility adequately demonstrated an ability to address customer satisfaction due to concerns regarding recordkeeping and communications with its customers. Staff recommends the quality of service be considered marginal, and the Utility be required to file a plan outlining how it will improve its recordkeeping and customer communications within 30 days of an Order becoming final. Staff does not recommend a penalty at this time.
Are the infrastructure and operating conditions of Sunlake Estates Utilities, L.L.C. in compliance with DEP regulations?
Yes. Sunlake Estates Utilities, L.L.C.’s water system is in compliance with the rules and regulations of the DEP.
What are the used and useful (U&U) percentages of Sunlake Estates Utilities, L.L.C.’s water treatment plant (WTP) and water distribution system?
Sunlake’s WTP and water distribution system should both be considered 100 percent U&U. Additionally, an 11.78 percent adjustment should be made to reduce the operating expenses for chemicals and purchased power for excessive unaccounted for water (EUW).
What is the appropriate average test year rate base for Sunlake Estates Utilities, L.L.C.?
The appropriate average test year rate base for Sunlake is $677,077.
What is the appropriate return on equity and overall rate of return for Sunlake Estates Utilities, L.L.C.?
The appropriate return on equity (ROE) is 8.58 percent with a range of 7.58 percent to 9.58 percent. The appropriate overall rate of return is 8.58 percent.
What are the appropriate test year operating revenues for the water system of Sunlake Estates Utilities, L.L.C.?
The appropriate test year operating revenues for Sunlake Estates’ water system are $134,638.
What are the appropriate operating expenses for Sunlake Estates Utilities, L.L.C.?
The appropriate operating expenses for Sunlake are $160,038.
Does Sunlake Estates Utilities, L.L.C. meet the criteria for application of the operating ratio methodology?
No, Sunlake Estates Utilities, L.L.C. does not meet the requirement for application of the operating ratio methodology for calculating the revenue requirement.
What is the appropriate revenue requirement for Sunlake Estates Utilities, L.L.C.?
The appropriate revenue requirement is $218,097, resulting in an annual increase of $83,459 (61.99 percent).
What are the appropriate rate structure and rates for Sunlake Estates Utilities, L.L.C.?
The recommended rate structure and monthly water rates are shown on Schedule No. 4 of staff’s memorandum dated July 23, 2026. The Utility should file revised tariff sheets and a proposed customer notice to reflect the Commission-approved rates. The approved rates should be effective for service rendered on or after the stamped approval date on the tariff sheets pursuant to Rule 25-30.475(1), F.A.C. In addition, the approved rates should not be implemented until staff has approved the proposed customer notice and the notice has been received by the customers. The Utility should provide proof of the date notice was given by affidavit within 10 days of the date of the notice.
What are the appropriate revisions to miscellaneous service charges for Sunlake Estates Utilities, L.L.C.?
The appropriate revisions to miscellaneous service charges are to remove the initial connection and normal reconnection charges and update the definition of the premises visit charge to be consistent with Rule 25-30.460, F.A.C. The Utility should be required to file a proposed customer notice to reflect the removal of those charges. The changes should be effective for service rendered or connections made on or after the stamped approval date on the tariff sheet pursuant to Rule 25-30.475, F.A.C. In addition, the tariff sheets should be approved upon staff’s verification that the tariffs are consistent with the Commission’s decision and that the proposed customer notice is adequate.
What is the appropriate amount by which rates should be reduced four years after the published effective date to reflect the removal of the amortized rate case expense?
The rates should be reduced as shown on Schedule No. 4 of staff’s memorandum dated July 23, 2026, to remove rate case expense grossed-up for RAFs and amortized over a four-year period. Pursuant to Section 367.081(8), F.S., the decrease in rates should become effective immediately following the expiration of the rate case expense recovery period. Sunlake should be required to file revised tariffs and a proposed customer notice setting forth the lower rates and rationale no later than one month prior to the effective date of the new rates. If the Utility files revised tariffs reflecting this reduction in conjunction with a price index or pass-through rate adjustment, separate data should be filed for the price index and/or pass-through increase and the reduction in the rates due to the amortized rate case expense.
Should the recommended rates be approved for Sunlake Estates Utilities, L.L.C. on temporary basis, subject to refund with interest, in the event of a protest filed by a party other than the Utility?
Yes. Pursuant to Section 367.0814(7), F.S., the recommended rates should be approved for the Utility on a temporary basis, subject to refund with interest, in the event of a protest filed by a party other than the Utility. Sunlake should file revised tariff sheets and a proposed customer notice reflecting the Commission-approved rates. The approved rates should be effective for services rendered on or after the stamped approval date on the tariff sheet, pursuant to Rule 25-30.475(1), F.A.C. In addition, the temporary rates should not be implemented until staff has approved the proposed notice, and the notice has been received by the customers. Further, prior to implementing any temporary rates, the Utility should provide appropriate financial security.
If the recommended rates are approved on a temporary basis, the rates collected by the Utility should be subject to the refund provisions discussed in the staff analysis portion of staff’s memorandum dated July 23, 2026. In addition, after the increased rates are in effect, pursuant to Rule 25-30.360(6), F.A.C., the Utility should file reports with the Commission’s Office of Commission Clerk no later than the 20th of each month indicating both the current monthly and total amount subject to refund at the end of the preceding month. The report filed should also indicate the status of the security being used to guarantee repayment of any potential refund.
Should Sunlake Estates Utilities, L.L.C. be required
to notify the Commission within 90 days of an effective order finalizing this
docket, that it has adjusted its books for all the applicable NARUC USOA?
Yes.
Sunlake should be required to notify the Commission, in writing, that it has
adjusted its books in accordance with the Commission’s decision. The Utility
should submit a letter within 90 days of the Commission’s final order in this
docket, confirming that the adjustments to all applicable NARUC USOA primary
accounts have been made to the Utility’s books and records. In the event the
Utility needs additional time to complete the adjustments, a notice providing
good cause should be filed not less than seven days prior to the deadline
requesting an extension. Upon providing a notice of good cause, staff should be
given administrative authority to grant an extension of up to 60 days.
Issue 15:
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, a consummating order
should be issued. The docket should remain open for staff’s verification that
the revised tariff sheets and customer notice have been filed by the Utility
and approved by staff. In addition, the docket should stay open for staff’s
verification that the Utility has filed its plan outlining how it will improve
its recordkeeping and customer communications as set forth in Issue 1. Once
these actions are complete, the docket should be closed administratively.
7**PAA Docket No. 20260097-SU – Joint motion to approve settlement agreement regarding disposition of 2026 overearnings for West Lakeland, by Office of Public Counsel and West Lakeland Wastewater, LLC.
|
Critical Date(s): |
None |
||
|
Commissioners Assigned: |
All Commissioners |
||
|
Prehearing Officer: |
Ortega |
||
|
Staff: |
AFD: Gatlin, Ford-Green, Vogel ECO: Bethea, Bruce GCL: Stiller |
||
Issue 1:
Should the Commission grant the Joint Motion and approve the Settlement Agreement by the Parties?
Yes. The proposed Settlement Agreement adequately addresses the potential overearnings staff identified during its ongoing earnings surveillance activities. As outlined in the proposed Settlement Agreement, West Lakeland should reduce its rates by 2.65 percent. Additionally, West Lakeland should refund customers 2.65 percent of wastewater revenues billed from May 1, 2026, until the effective date of the rate reduction. The refund should be made pursuant to Rule 25-30.360, Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C). The Utility should file a proposed customer notice reflecting the Commission’s decision within 15 days of the Commission vote. The approved rates should be effective for service rendered on or after the stamped approval date of the tariff sheets pursuant to Rule 25-30.475(1), F.A.C. In addition, the approved rates should not be implemented until staff has approved the proposed customer notice and the notice has been received by the customers. The Utility should provide proof of the date notice was given within 10 days of the date of the notice.
Issue 2:
Should this docket be closed?
No. If no timely protest is received from a substantially affected person upon expiration of the protest period, this docket should be placed into monitoring status upon issuance of the consummating order to allow staff to verify completion of the refunds discussed in Issue 1. Staff should be granted administrative authority to close this docket after verifying that the Utility has completed the refunds in accordance with Rule 25-30.360, F.A.C.
8** Docket No. 20250032-EI – Review of incentive mechanisms for the electric investor-owned utilities.
|
Critical Date(s): |
None |
||
|
Commissioners Assigned: |
All Commissioners |
||
|
Prehearing Officer: |
Clark |
||
|
Staff: |
ENG: Ellis, King, Ramirez-Abundez, Ramos GCL: Marquez, Stiller |
||
Issue 1:
What action, if any, should the Commission take regarding asset optimization activities and revenue-sharing incentives?
No further action is needed, and this docket should be closed as discussed in Issue 2. As required by the Order, staff established a docket to review allowable optimization activities and revenue-sharing incentives for all electric IOUs. Staff conducted a workshop and elicited post-workshop comments. Based upon review of the existing AOMs and comments received at and after the workshop, staff recommends there is no need at this time for the Commission to establish AOM standards for allowable activities or revenue sharing thresholds.
Issue 2:
Should this docket be closed?
Yes. Because staff’s recommendation is that the agency take no action, a procedural order closing this file should be entered.
9** Docket No. 20260027-WS – Application for transfer of CPI Citrus Park Utility TRS, L.L.C.'s water and wastewater facilities, in Lee County, to Bonita Springs Utilities, Inc., an exempt entity under Section 367.022(7), F.S., and cancellation of Certificate Nos. 675-W and 576-S.
|
Critical Date(s): |
None |
||
|
Commissioners Assigned: |
All Commissioners |
||
|
Prehearing Officer: |
Ortega |
||
|
Staff: |
ENG: Wooten, Ellis, King GCL: Thompson |
||
Issue 1:
Should the Commission approve the transfer of CPI Citrus Park Utility TRS, L.L.C.’s water and wastewater facilities in Lee County, to Bonita Springs Utilities, Inc., an exempt entity under Section 367.022(7), F.S., and cancellation of Certificate Nos. 675-W and 576-S?
Issue 2:
Should this docket be closed?
No. This docket should remain open until the executed purchase agreement has been filed confirming the actual date of closing. Upon receipt, the docket should be closed administratively.
10** Docket No. 20260050-EI – Petition for approval of revised underground residential distribution tariff, by Tampa Electric Company.
|
Critical Date(s): |
12/01/26 (8-Month Effective Date) |
||
|
Commissioners Assigned: |
All Commissioners |
||
|
Prehearing Officer: |
Administrative |
||
|
Staff: |
ECO: P. Kelley GCL: Farooqi |
||
(Tariff Filing)
Issue 1:
Should the Commission approve TECO's proposed underground residential distribution tariffs and associated charges?
Yes, the Commission should approve TECO’s proposed underground residential distribution tariffs and associated charges, effective on the date of the Commission vote. The proposed URD charges are cost-based and staff
recommends approval of the tariffs shown in Attachment A of staff’s memorandum dated July 23, 2026.
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.
11 Docket No. 20260094-GU – Petition of Coastal Connect Services, LLC for approval of natural gas pipeline transmission company tariff and firm transportation service agreement.
|
Critical Date(s): |
07/23/26 (45-Day Suspension Date) |
||
|
Commissioners Assigned: |
All Commissioners |
||
|
Prehearing Officer: |
Administrative |
||
|
Staff: |
ECO: Ward ENG: Brown GCL: Marquez, Stiller |
||
(Tariff Suspension - Participation is at
the Commission's Discretion)
Issue 1:
Should Coastal Connect Services, LLC’s natural gas pipeline transmission company tariff be suspended?
Yes. The proposed tariffs should be suspended to allow staff sufficient time to review the petition and gather all pertinent information in order to present the Commission with an informed recommendation on the tariff proposals.
Issue 2:
Should this docket be closed?
No. This docket should remain open pending the Commission’s decision on the proposed tariffs and transportation service agreement.
12 Docket No. 20260101-GU – Petition for approval of 2027 subsequent year adjustment, by Peoples Gas System, Inc.
|
Critical Date(s): |
08/31/26 (60-Day Suspension Date) |
||
|
Commissioners Assigned: |
All Commissioners |
||
|
Prehearing Officer: |
Administrative |
||
|
Staff: |
ECO: Nguyen, Hampson GCL: Thompson |
||
(Tariff-Suspension - Participation is at
the Commission's Discretion)
Issue 1:
Should Peoples Gas System, Inc.'s tariffs implementing the 2027 Subsequent Year Adjustment be suspended?
Yes. Staff recommends that the proposed tariffs be suspended to allow staff sufficient time to review the petition and gather all pertinent information in order to present the Commission with an informed recommendation on the tariff proposals.
Issue 2:
Should this docket be closed?
This docket should remain open pending the Commission’s decision on the proposed tariffs.
13**PAA Docket No. 20260012-WS – Application for revised service availability charges and policy for water and wastewater service in Duval, Baker, and Nassau Counties, by First Coast Regional Utilities, Inc.
|
Critical Date(s): |
10/25/26 (8-Month Effective Date) |
||
|
Commissioners Assigned: |
All Commissioners |
||
|
Prehearing Officer: |
Administrative |
||
|
Staff: |
ECO: Bethea, Bruce GCL: Farooqi |
||
Issue 1:
Should FCRU's existing water and wastewater service availability charges and policy be revised, and if so, what are the appropriate charges?
Issue 2:
Should this docket be closed?
If a protest is filed within 21 days of the issuance date of the Order, the tariff should remain in effect with the charge held subject to refund pending resolution of the protest. If no timely protest is filed, a consummating order should be issued and, once staff verifies that the revised tariff sheet has been filed and the notice of the charge has been approved by staff and provided to property owners, the docket should be administratively closed.