Florida Public Service Commission native order document 02368-2024

FILED 4/25/2024
DOCUMENT NO. 02368-2024
FPSC - COMMISSION CLERK
BEFORE THE FLORIDA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION
In re: Commission review of numeric
conservation goals (Florida Power & Light
Company).
In re: Commission review of numeric
conservation goals (Duke Energy Florida,
LLC).
In re: Commission review of numeric
conservation goals (Tampa Electric Company).
DOCKET NO. 20240012-EG
DOCKET NO. 20240013-EG
DOCKET NO. 20240014-EG
ORDER NO. PSC-2024-0132-PCO-EG
ISSUED: April 25, 2024
ORDER GRANTING INTERVENTION
FOR FLORIDA INDUSTRIAL POWER USERS GROUP
On 	January 	5, 	2024, 	Docket 	Nos. 	20240012-EG, 	20240013-EG, 	20240014-EG,
20240015-EG, 20240016-EG, and 20240017-EG were established to review and adopt the
corresponding utility's conservation goals pursuant to Sections 366.80-366. 83 and 403.519,
Florida Statutes. (F.S.), known collectively as the Florida Energy Efficiency and Conservation
Act (FEECA). By the Order Consolidating Dockets and Establishing Procedure, Order No. PSC-
2024-0022-PCO-EG, issued January 23, 2024, the dockets were consolidated for purposes of
hearing and controlling dates were established. These dockets are currently scheduled for hearing
on August 6-9, 2024.
Petition for Intervention
On April 5, 2024, Florida Industrial Power Users Group ("FIPUG") filed a Petition to
Intervene in Docket Nos. 20240012-EG, 20240013-EG, and 20240014-EG. FIPUG states it is an
ad hoc association of industrial users of electricity and, in many cases, natural gas in Florida.
FIPUG has a number of members that receive electric service from Florida Power & Light
Company (FPL), Duke Energy Florida (DEF), and Tampa Electric Company (TECO). FIPUG
asserts that its members require adequate, reasonably-priced electricity in order to compete in
their respective markets. FIPUG argues the Commission's decisions in these dockets will affect
the substantial interests of customers of FPL, DEF, and TECO, including those customers that
are FIPUG members. FIPUG argues that the subject matter is within FIPUG's general scope of
interest and activity. FIPUG argues that the relief sought is appropriate for it to receive on behalf
of its members. No party indicated an objection to FIPUG' s intervention.

ORDER NO. PSC-2024-0132-PCO-EG
DOCKET NOS. 20240012-EG,
20240013-EG, 20240014-EG
PAGE 2
Standards for Intervention
Pursuant to Rule 28-106.205, F.A.C., persons, other than the original parties to a pending
proceeding, who have a substantial interest in the proceeding and who desire to become parties,
may move for leave to intervene. Motions for leave to intervene must be filed at least twenty (20)
days before the final hearing, must comply with Rule 28-106.204(3), F.A.C., and must include
allegations sufficient to demonstrate that the intervenor is entitled to participate in the proceeding
as a matter of constitutional or statutory right, pursuant to Florida Public Service Commission
(“Commission”) 	rule, 	or 	that 	the 	substantial 	interests 	of 	the 	intervenor 	are 	subject 	to
determination or will be affected through the proceeding. Intervenors take the case as they find
it.
The test for associational standing was established in Florida Home Builders Association
v. Department of Labor and Employment Security1 and Farmworker Rights Organization, Inc. v.
Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services,2 which is based on the basic standing
principles 	established 	in 	Agrico 	Chemical 	Company 	v. 	Department 	of 	Environmental
Regulation.3 Associational standing may be found where: (1) the association demonstrates that a
substantial 	number 	of 	an 	association’s 	members 	may 	be 	substantially 	affected 	by 	the
Commission's decision in a docket; (2) the subject matter of the proceeding is within the
association’s general scope of interest and activity; and (3) the relief requested is of a type
appropriate for the association to receive on behalf of its members.4
Analysis and Ruling
Based on the above representations, it appears that FIPUG meets the associational
standing requirements of Florida Home Builders. FIPUG asserts that a substantial number of its
members will be substantially affected by the Commission’s approval, modification, or rejection
of FPL’s, DEF’s, and TECO’s conservation goals under FEECA in these dockets. The
implementation of the utilities’ conservation goals, as approved or modified by us, could result in
future adjustment of rates. The subject matter of these dockets are within the general scope of
FIPUG’s interest and activity. The relief sought is of the type that is appropriate for FIPUG to
receive on behalf of its members, because the outcome of the proceeding will have implications
for FIPUG members that are FPL, DEF, and TECO customers. FIPUG meets the requirements
1 Fla. Home Builders Ass’n v. Dep’t of Labor & Emp’t Sec., 412 So.2d 351 (Fla. 1982).
2 Farmworker Rights Org., Inc. v. Dep’t of Health & Rehab. Servs., 417 So.2d 753 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982).
3 Agrico Chem. Co. v. Dep’t of Envtl. Regulation, 406 So. 2d 478, 481–82 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981). Under Agrico, the
individual intervenor must show that (1) they will suffer injury in fact which is of sufficient immediacy to entitle
them to a Section 120.57, Florida Statutes (“F.S.”), hearing, and (2) this substantial injury is of a type or nature
which the proceeding is designed to protect. The first aspect of the test deals with the degree of injury. The second
deals with the nature of the injury. Id. at 482. The "injury in fact" must be both real and immediate and not
speculative or conjectural. Int’l Jai-Alai Players Ass’n v. Fla. Pari-Mutuel Comm’n, 561 So.2d 1224, 1225–26 (Fla.
3d DCA 1990); see also Vill. Park Mobile Home Ass’n, Inc. v. State Dep’t of Bus. Regulation, 506 So.2d 426, 434
(Fla. 1st DCA 1987), rev. den., 513 So.2d 1063 (Fla. 1987) (noting speculation on the possible occurrence of
injurious events was too remote).
4 Fla. Home Builders Ass’n, 412 So.2d at 353–54; Farmworker Rights Org., Inc., 417 So.2d at 754.

ORDER NO. PSC-2024-0132-PCO-EG
DOCKET NOS. 20240012-EG,
20240013-EG, 20240014-EG
PAGE 3
for associational standing and will be permitted to intervene in Docket Nos. 20240012-EG,
20240013-EG, and 20240014-EG as a party in this proceeding. FIPUG takes the case as it finds
it.
Based on the above representations, it is
ORDERED by Commissioner Arthur Graham, as Prehearing Officer, that the Petition to
Intervene filed by Florida Industrial Power Users Group is hereby granted as set forth in the body
of this Order. It is further
ORDERED that Florida Industrial Power Users Group takes the case as it finds it. It is
further
ORDERED that all parties to this proceeding shall furnish copies of all testimony,
exhibits, pleadings, and other documents which may hereinafter be filed in this proceeding to:
Jon C. Moyle, Jr.
Karen A. Putnal
Moyle Law Firm, P.A.
118 North Gadsden Street
Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Telephone: (850) 681-3828
Facsimile: (850) 681-8788
jmoyle@moylelaw.com
kputnal@moylelaw.com

ORDER NO. PSC-2024-0132-PCO-EG
DOCKET NOS. 20240012-EG,
20240013-EG, 20240014-EG
PAGE 4
By ORDER of Commissioner Art Graham, as Prehearing Officer, this 25th day of April,
2024.
ART GRAHAM
Commissioner and Prehearing Officer
Florida Public Service Commission
2540 Shumard Oak Boulevard
Tallahassee, Florida 32399
(850) 413-6770
www.floridapsc.com
Copies furnished: 	A copy of this document is
provided to the parties of record at the time of
issuance and, if applicable, interested persons.
JDI
NOTICE OF FURTHER PROCEEDINGS OR JUDICIAL REVIEW
The Florida Public Service Commission is required by Section 120.569(1), Florida
Statutes, to notify parties of any administrative hearing or judicial review of Commission orders
that is available under Sections 120.57 or 120.68, Florida Statutes, as well as the procedures and
time limits that apply. This notice should not be construed to mean all requests for an
administrative hearing or judicial review will be granted or result in the relief sought.
Mediation may be available on a case-by-case basis. If mediation is conducted, it does
not affect a substantially interested person's right to a hearing.
Any 	party 	adversely 	affected 	by 	this 	order, 	which 	is 	preliminary, 	procedural 	or
intermediate in nature, may request: (1) reconsideration within 10 days pursuant to Rule 25-
22.0376, Florida Administrative Code; or (2) judicial review by the Florida Supreme Court, in
the case of an electric, gas or telephone utility, or the First District Court of Appeal, in the case
of a water or wastewater utility. A motion for reconsideration shall be filed with the Office of
Commission Clerk, in the form prescribed by Rule 25-22.0376, Florida Administrative Code.
Judicial review of a preliminary, procedural or intermediate ruling or order is available if review
of the final action will not provide an adequate remedy. Such review may be requested from the
appropriate court, as described above, pursuant to Rule 9.100, Florida Rules of Appellate
Procedure.