FLORIDA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION
COMMISSION CONFERENCE AGENDA
CONFERENCE DATE AND
TIME: Tuesday, June 2,
2026, 9:30 a.m.
LOCATION: Betty Easley Conference Center, Joseph P. Cresse Hearing Room 148
DATE ISSUED: May 20, 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**................. Consent Agenda
9..................... Docket No.
20260026-GU – Application for rate
increase by Florida City Gas.
PAA A) Application for Certificate of Authority to Provide Telecommunications Service.
|
DOCKET NO. |
COMPANY NAME |
|
Kinetic ABS FL LLC |
|
|
20260073‑TX |
GENIOX US LLC |
|
20260074‑TX |
DCB Dark Fiber, LLC |
Recommendation: The Commission should approve the action requested in the dockets referenced above and close these dockets.
2** Docket No. 20260022-WS – Proposed amendment of Rules 25-30.115, Uniform System of Accounts for Water and Wastewater Utilities; 25-30.033, Application for Original Certificate of Authorization and Initial Rates and Charges; 25-30.037, Application for Authority to Transfer; 25-30.0372, Alternative Procedure for Establishing Rate Base Value of Acquired Utility System; 25-30.110, Records and Reports, Annual Reports; 25-30.140, Depreciation; 25-30.433, Rate Case Proceedings; 25-30.444, Utility Reserve Fund; and 25-30.445, General Information and Instructions Required of Water and Wastewater Utilities in an Application for a Limited Proceeding.
Critical Date(s): 9/22/26 – Date by
which rules must be proposed pursuant to Section 120.54(2)(a)2., F.S.
|
Rule Status: |
Proposal May Be Deferred |
||
|
Commissioners Assigned: |
All Commissioners |
||
|
Prehearing Officer: |
La Rosa |
||
|
Staff: |
GCL: Augspurger, Bloom AFD: Vogel, Norris ECO: Guffey |
||
Issue 1:
Should the Commission propose the amendment of Rule 25-30.115, F.A.C., Uniform System of Accounts for Water and Wastewater Utilities; Rule 25-30.033, F.A.C., Application for Original Certificate of Authorization and Initial Rates and Charges; Rule 25-30.037, F.A.C., Application for Authority to Transfer; Rule 25-30.0372, F.A.C., Alternative Procedure for Establishing Rate Base Value of Acquired Utility System; Rule 25-30.110, F.A.C., Records and Reports; Annual Reports; Rule 25-30.140, F.A.C., Depreciation; Rule 25-30.433, F.A.C., Rate Case Proceedings; Rule 25-30.444, F.A.C., Utility Reserve Fund; and Rule 25-30.445, F.A.C., General Information and Instructions Required of Water and Wastewater Utilities in an Application for a Limited Proceeding?
Yes. The Commission should propose the amendment of Rules 25-30.115, 25-30.033, 25-30.037, 25-30.0372, 25-30.110, 25-30.140, 25-30.433, 25-30.444, and 25-30.445, F.A.C., as set forth in Attachments A and B of staff’s memorandum dated May 20, 2026. Pursuant to Section 120.695, F.S., the Commission should certify that Rules 25-30.115, 25-30.033, 25-30.037, 25-30.0372, 25-30.110, 25-30.140, 25-30.433, and 25-30.445, F.A.C., are rules for which a violation would constitute a minor violation. However, Rule 25-30.444 is a not a rule for which a violation would constitute a minor violation and therefore should not be certified as such.
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 Department of State, and the docket should be closed.
3** Docket No. 20260040-OT – Proposed amendment of Rules 25-6.003, Definitions; 25-30.255, Measurement of Service for Water Utilities; and 25-30.434, FAC, Application for Allowance for Funds Prudently Invested (AFPI) Charges; and proposed repeal of Rules 25-9.020, Front Cover; 25-9.060, Front Cover; 25-9.071, Back Cover; and 25-30.010, F.A.C., Rules for General Application
Critical Date(s): 9/21/26 – Date by which rules must be proposed pursuant to Section 120.54(2)(a)2., F.S.
|
Rule Status: |
Proposal May Be Deferred |
||
|
Commissioners Assigned: |
All Commissioners |
||
|
Prehearing Officer: |
Ortega |
||
|
Staff: |
GCL: Sapoznikoff ECO: Bruce, Guffey, Hampson, Hudson ENG: King |
||
Issue 1:
Should the Commission propose the amendment of Rules 25-6.003, 25-30.255, and 25-30.434, F.A.C., and the repeal of Rules 25-9.020, 25-9.060, 25-9.071, and 25-30.010, F.A.C.?
Yes. The Commission should propose the amendment of Rules 25-6.003, 25-30.255, and 25-30.434, F.A.C., and the repeal of Rules 25-9.020, 25-9.060, 25-9.071, and 25-30.010, F.A.C., as set forth in Attachment A of staff’s memorandum dated May 20, 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 Rules 25-6.003, 25-30.255, and 25-30.434, F.A.C., should be filed with the Department of State for adoption, Rules 25-9.020, 25-9.060, 25-9.071, and 25-30.010, F.A.C., should be filed for repeal with the Department of State, and the docket should be closed.
4** Docket No. 20260072-OT – Petition to initiate rulemaking to require all Florida-licensed utilities to provide immediate live-agent access in automated telephone and artificial intelligence customer service systems, by Kerry Lutz.
|
Critical Date(s): |
06/05/26 (Statutory deadline pursuant to Section 120.45(7). F.S., waived until this date) |
||
|
Commissioners Assigned: |
All Commissioners |
||
|
Prehearing Officer: |
Clark |
||
|
Staff: |
GCL: Sapoznikoff |
||
OCA: Kendrick
Issue 1:
Should the Commission grant the “Petition for Rulemaking to Require All Florida-Licensed Utilities to Provide Immediate Live-Agent Access in Automated Telephone and Artificial Intelligence Customer Service Systems” (Petition)?
No. The Commission should deny the Petition.
Issue 2:
Should this docket be closed?
Yes. If the Commission approves staff’s recommendation in Issue 1, this docket should be closed.
5**PAA Docket No. 20260014-EI – Complaint by Juan Merchan and Gonzalo Lever against Tampa Electric Company.
|
Critical Date(s): |
None |
||
|
Commissioners Assigned: |
All Commissioners |
||
|
Prehearing Officer: |
Payne |
||
|
Staff: |
GCL: J. Crawford OCA: Plescow ENG: Brown |
||
Issue 1:
What is the appropriate resolution of the Petitioners’ complaint?
Staff recommends that the Petitioners’ formal complaint be denied. It does not appear that TECO violated its Commission-approved tariff or any statutes, rules, or orders of the Commission in its relocation of the pole and guy wires within its right of way.
Issue 2:
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.
6**PAA Docket No. 20260044-EI – Petition for limited proceeding to approve rate adjustments associated with the One Big Beautiful Bill, by Duke Energy Florida, LLC.
|
Critical Date(s): |
None |
||
|
Commissioners Assigned: |
All Commissioners |
||
|
Prehearing Officer: |
Ortega |
||
|
Staff: |
AFD: Souchik, D. Buys ECO: Hampson, P. Kelley GCL: M. Thompson |
||
Issue 1:
Should the Commission approve DEF’s calculations of the base rate revenue requirement impact of federal income tax law changes enacted through the One Big Beautiful Bill Act?
Yes. The Commission should approve DEF’s calculations of the base rate revenue impacts from the OBBBA. The base rate revenue impacts are a net decrease of $2,788 for the 2025 tax year, and an increase of $338,970 for the 2026 tax year.
Issue 2:
Should the Commission approve DEF’s request to combine the tax reform base rate adjustment with the Bailey Mill Solar Base Rate Adjustment effective September 1, 2026?
Yes. In this proceeding the Commission should approve DEF’s request to combine the tax reform base rate adjustment with the Bailey Mill Solar Base Rate Adjustment effective September 1, 2026.
Issue 3:
Should the Commission approve DEF’s request to include the tax reform base rate adjustment of $225,980 for the period January 1, 2026, through August 31, 2026, in the Capacity Cost Recovery Clause?
Yes. The Commission should approve the inclusion of the tax reform base rate adjustment of $225,980 for the period January 1, 2026 through August 31, 2026 in the Capacity Cost Recovery Clause (CCRC).
Issue 4:
Should this docket be closed?
If no person who substantial interests are affected by the proposed agency actions 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**PAA Docket No. 20250088-WU – Application for staff-assisted rate case in Lake County by Sun Communities Finance, LLC d/b/a Water Oak Utility.
|
Critical Date(s): |
11/8/26 (15-Month Effective Date (SARC)) |
||
|
Commissioners Assigned: |
All Commissioners |
||
|
Prehearing Officer: |
La Rosa |
||
|
Staff: |
AFD: Cohn, Higgins, G. Kelley ECO: Bruce, Hudson, Sibley ENG: Ramirez-Abundez, Ramos GCL: Marquez, Imig |
||
(Proposed Agency Action - Except for Issues
Nos. 11, 12, and 13.)
Is the quality of service provided by Water Oak Utility satisfactory?
Yes. Water Oak’s product is in compliance with the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) and staff believes the Utility adequately demonstrated its ability to address customer concerns; therefore, staff recommends that the quality of service be considered satisfactory.
Is the infrastructure and operating conditions of Water Oak Utility in compliance with DEP regulations?
Yes. The Water Oak water system is currently in compliance with the DEP.
What are the used and useful (U&U) percentages of Water Oak Utility’s water treatment plant and water distribution system?
Water Oak’s water treatment plant and its distribution
system should both be considered 100 percent U&U. Additionally, an 29.7 8.8 percent adjustment for Excessive
Unaccounted for Water (EUW) should be made to operating expenses for chemicals
and purchased power.
What is the appropriate average test year rate base for Water Oak Utility?
The appropriate average test year rate base for Water Oak
is $1,635,857 $1,492,390.
What is the appropriate return on equity and overall rate of return for Water Oak Utility?
The appropriate return on equity (ROE) is 8.51 percent with a range of 7.51 percent to 9.51 percent. The appropriate overall rate of return is 8.51 percent.
What are the appropriate amount of test year operating revenues for Water Oak Utility?
The appropriate test year operating revenues for Water
Oak’s water system are $168,055 $208,330.
What is the appropriate amount of operating expense for Water Oak Utility?
The appropriate amount of operating expense for Water Oak
is $323,271 $325,473.
Does Water Oak Utility meet the criteria for application of the operating ratio methodology?
No. Water Oak does not meet the criteria for application of the operating ratio methodology for calculating the revenue requirement.
What is the appropriate revenue requirement for Water Oak Utility?
The appropriate revenue requirement is $462,434 $452,430,
resulting in an annual increase of $294,379 $244,100 (175.17 117.17 percent).
What are the appropriate rate structure and rates for Water Oak Utility?
The recommended rate structure and monthly water rates are shown on Schedule No. 4 of staff’s memorandum dated May 20, 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 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 May 20, 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. Water Oak 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 Water Oak Utility on a 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. Water Oak 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 sheets, 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 May 20, 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 of money 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 Water Oak Utility 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. Water Oak 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 National Association of Regulatory Commissioners (NARUC) Uniform System of Accounts (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.
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 proposed agency action 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, and that the Utility submitted its letter confirming all adjustments to applicable NARUC USOA primary accounts were made. Once these actions are complete, this docket should be closed administratively.
8**PAA Docket No. 20260006-WS – Water and wastewater industry annual reestablishment of authorized range of return on common equity for water and wastewater utilities pursuant to Section 367.081(4)(f), F.S.
|
Critical Date(s): |
None |
||
|
Commissioners Assigned: |
All Commissioners |
||
|
Prehearing Officer: |
Payne |
||
|
Staff: |
AFD: McGowan, D. Buys, Higgins GCL: Bloom |
||
Issue 1:
What is the appropriate range of returns on common equity for water and wastewater utilities pursuant to Section 367.081(4)(f), Florida Statutes?
The appropriate range of returns on common equity is 8.58 percent at 100 percent equity to 10.25 percent at 40 percent equity. This range was determined using the leverage formula methodology approved by Order No. PSC-2018-0327-PAA-WS applied to a proxy group comprised of natural gas and water and wastewater utilities using the most recent financial data. Accordingly, the following leverage formula should be used until this matter is addressed again in 2027:
Return on Common Equity = 7.46% + (1.115 ÷ Equity Ratio)
Where: Equity Ratio = Common Equity ÷ (Common Equity + Preferred Equity + Long-Term Debt + Short-Term Debt)
Range of Returns: 8.58% at 100% equity to 10.25% at 40% equity
The equity ratio should be calculated using the averaging methods pursuant to Rule 25-30.433(5), Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C). Additionally, the Commission should cap returns on common equity at 10.25 percent for all WAW utilities with equity ratios less than 40 percent, which serves to discourage imprudent financial risk.
Issue 2:
Should this docket be closed?
No. Upon expiration of the protest period, if a timely protest is not received from a substantially affected person, the decision should become final and effective upon the issuance of a Consummating Order. However, this docket should remain open to allow staff to monitor changes in capital market conditions and to readdress the reasonableness of the leverage formula as conditions warrant.
9 Docket No. 20260026-GU – Application for rate increase by Florida City Gas.
|
Critical Date(s): |
6/19/2026 (60-Day Suspension Date) |
||
|
Commissioners Assigned: |
All Commissioners |
||
|
Prehearing Officer: |
La Rosa |
||
|
Staff: |
ENG: Wooten ECO: Hampson GCL: M. Thompson, Hixon |
||
(Tariff Suspension - Participation is at
the Commission's discretion.)
Issue 1:
Should Florida City Gas’s (FCG) proposed tariffs to implement the request for a permanent increase in rates and charges be suspended?
Yes. Staff recommends that the proposed
tariffs be suspended to allow staff and the parties time to analyze the request
and for the Commission to conduct an administrative hearing.
Issue 2:
Should this docket be closed?
No. This docket should remain open pending the Commission’s final resolution of the Company’s requested rate increase.
10**PAA Docket No. 20250146-WS – Joint application for transfer of water and wastewater facilities, water Certificate No. 354-W and wastewater Certificate No. 310-S of Useppa Island Utilities Company, Inc. to UIP Utilities Company, LLC, in Lee County.
|
Critical Date(s): |
None |
||
|
Commissioners Assigned: |
All Commissioners |
||
|
Prehearing Officer: |
Clark |
||
|
Staff: |
ENG: Wooten, Ellis, King, Ramos AFD: McClelland, Norris, Sewards ECO: Bruce, Chambliss GCL: Bloom |
||
(Proposed Agency Action for Issues 2-4)
Issue 1:
Should the transfer of Certificate Nos. 354-W and 310-S from Useppa Island Utilities Company, Inc. to UIP Utilities Company, LLC, in Lee County be approved?
Yes. The transfer of the water and wastewater systems and Certificate Nos. 354-W and 310-S is in the public interest and should be approved effective the date of the Commission’s vote. The resultant Order should serve as the Buyer’s certificate and should be retained by the Buyer. With the exception of miscellaneous service charges and the initial customer deposit, the Utility’s existing rates and charges should be continued. The Seller is current, with respect to annual reports and regulatory assessment fees (RAFs), through December 31, 2025. Based on the application, the Seller will be responsible for RAFs and annual reports until Commission approval. The Buyer will be responsible for filing annual reports and paying RAFs for all future years.
Issue 2:
What is the appropriate net book value for UIP Utilities Company, LLC water and wastewater systems for transfer purposes?
The NBV of the water and wastewater system for transfer purposes is $890,239 for water and $277,327 for wastewater as of September 22, 2025. Within 90 days of the date of the Final Order, UIP should be required to notify the Commission in writing that it has adjusted its books in accordance with the Commission’s decision. The adjustments should be reflected in the Utility’s 2026 Annual Report when filed. The Buyer is not requesting a positive acquisition adjustment as part of this transfer docket, but may petition for a for a positive acquisition adjustment within the three years established in Rule 25-30.0371, F.A.C.
Issue 3:
What are the appropriate revisions to miscellaneous service charges for UIP Utilities Company, LLC?
The appropriate revisions to miscellaneous service charges shown on Table 3-2 of staff’s memorandum dated May 20, 2026, should be approved. The tariff should be revised to reflect the removal of initial connection and normal reconnection charges. UIP should be required to file a proposed customer notice to reflect the Commission-approved charges. The approved charges should be effective on or after the stamped approval date on the tariff sheet pursuant to Rule 25-30.475(1), F.A.C. UIP should be required to charge the approved miscellaneous services charges until authorized to change them by the Commission in a subsequent proceeding.
Issue 4:
Should Useppa Island’s initial customer deposits be revised?
Yes. The appropriate initial customer deposits are $150 for the residential 5/8 inch x 3/4 inch meter size for water, and $228 for wastewater. The initial customer deposits for all other residential meter sizes and all general service meter sizes for water and wastewater should be two times the average estimated bill. The approved initial customer deposits should be effective for service rendered on or after the stamped approval date on the tariff pursuant to Rule 25-30.475, F.A.C. UIP should be required to collect the approved deposits until authorized to change them by the Commission in a subsequent proceeding.
Issue 5:
Should this docket be closed?
Yes. If no protest to the proposed agency action is filed by a substantially affected person within 21 days of the date of the issuance of the Order, a Consummating Order should be issued and the docket should be closed administratively upon Commission staff’s verification that the revised tariff sheets have been filed, that proof has been provided that appropriate noticing has been done pursuant to Rule 25-30.475, F.A.C., the Buyer has notified the Commission in writing that it has adjusted its books in accordance with the Commission’s decision, and that the Buyer has submitted a copy of its application for permit transfer to the DEP.
11**PAA Docket No. 20250143-EI – Petition for approval of 2025 nuclear decommissioning study, by Florida Power & Light Company.
|
Critical Date(s): |
None |
||
|
Commissioners Assigned: |
All Commissioners |
||
|
Prehearing Officer: |
Payne |
||
|
Staff: |
ECO: Kunkler, Wu, Barrett, Clark, Pope AFD: D. Buys, D'Sa, Higgins GCL: Bloom, J. Crawford |
||
Issue 1:
What are the current total estimated costs to decommission Florida Power & Light Company’s Turkey Point Nuclear Units 3 and 4, and St. Lucie Nuclear Units 1 and 2, valued in 2025 dollar terms?
FPL’s total current estimated decommissioning costs of $1,566,148,000, for Turkey Point Nuclear Units 3 and 4 and $1,904,787,000 for St. Lucie Nuclear Units 1 and 2, in 2025 dollars, are reasonable.
Issue 2: What are the appropriate annual accruals, in equal dollar amounts, necessary to recover the future decommissioning costs of Florida Power & Light Company’s St. Lucie Nuclear Units 1 and 2, and Turkey Point Nuclear Units 3 and 4?
Staff recommends the appropriate jurisdictional accrual amounts necessary to recover future decommissioning costs over the remaining life of each nuclear power plant remain at the currently-authorized zero dollars per year as last approved by Order No. PSC-2021-0232-PAA-EI.
Issue 3:
Should the amortization expense associated with the unrecovered value of End-of-Life Materials and Supplies inventories that will exist at the nuclear site following shut down be revised?
Yes. Staff recommends that the annual amortization expense estimate associated with EOL M&S inventories for FPL of $2.130 million (system), based on the proposed date of January 1, 2030, is reasonable. The amortization of EOL M&S as estimated for that date is $0.483 million higher than the currently authorized accrual amount. Any changes to the current EOL M&S accruals should be addressed in FPL’s next rate case.
Issue 4:
Should the amortization expense associated with the cost of the Last Core of nuclear fuel be revised?
Yes. Staff recommends that the Commission recognize the revised estimate of annual amortization expense associated with the cost of the Last Core of nuclear fuel at FPL nuclear units of $17.886 million (system), based on the assumed accrual date of January 1, 2030. The revised amortization represents an increase of approximately $14.322 million from the authorized amortization in the 2020 study. Staff also recommends that the updated estimates should be addressed in FPL’s next base rate proceeding, and the appropriate changes in accruals, if any, should be made at that time.
Issue 5:
What should the effective date be for adjusting the annual decommissioning accrual amounts for FPL’s St. Lucie Nuclear Units 1 and 2, Turkey Point Nuclear Units 3 and 4, amortization of nuclear EOL M&S inventories, and amortization of the costs associated with the Last Core?
If the staff recommendations in Issues 1 and 2 are approved, there is no change to the current approved zero decommissioning accrual. Therefore, an effective date for adjusting the annual decommissioning accrual is moot. If the staff recommendations in Issues 3 and 4 are approved, any revisions to the annual amortization amounts relating to EOL M&S inventories (Issue 3) and the Last Core (Issue 4) should be effective at the time revised base rates in FPL’s next rate case are approved.
Issue 6:
When should Florida Power & Light Company file its next nuclear decommissioning study?
FPL’s next decommissioning cost study for the Turkey Point Nuclear Generating Station and the St. Lucie Nuclear Power Plant should be filed no later than December 12, 2030.
Issue 7:
Should this docket be closed?
If no protest to this proposed agency action is filed by a substantially affected person within 21 days of the issuance of the order, a consummating order should be issued and the docket should be closed.
12 Docket No. 20260064-EI – Petition for a limited proceeding to approve large load tariff, by Duke Energy Florida, LLC.
|
Critical Date(s): |
06/22/26 (60-Day Suspension Date) |
||
|
Commissioners Assigned: |
All Commissioners |
||
|
Prehearing Officer: |
Clark |
||
|
Staff: |
ECO: Guffey GCL: M. Thompson, Farooqi |
||
(Tariff Suspension - Participation is at
the Commission's Discretion)
Issue 1:
Should the Commission suspend DEF's proposed Large Load Customer Policy (LLCP), Large Load Customer Agreement (LLCA), and revised Contribution in Aid of Construction (CIAC) tariffs?
Yes. Staff recommends that DEF's proposed LLCP, LLCA, and revised CIAC 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 proposed tariff modifications.
Issue 2:
Should this docket be closed?
No. This docket should remain open pending the Commission decision on DEF's proposed request for approval of its new LLCP, LLCA, and revised CIAC tariff.