Florida Public Service Commission native order document 03689-2026

FILED 6/23/2026
DOCUMENT NO. 03689-2026
FPSC 	- COMMISSION CLERK
BEFORE THE FLORIDA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION
DOCKET NO. 20250143-EI
ORDER NO. PSC-2026-0236-PAA-EI
ISSUED: June 23, 2026
The following Commissioners participated in the disposition of this matter:
GABRIELLA PASSIDOMO SMITH, Chairman
GARY F. CLARK
MIKE LA ROSA
BOBBY PAYNE
ANA ORTEGA
NOTICE OF PROPOSED AGENCY ACTION
ORDER APPROVING FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY’S
2025 NUCLEAR DECOMMISSIONING STUDY
BY THE COMMISSION:
NOTICE 	is 	hereby 	given by 	the 	Florida 	Public 	Service Commission 	that 	the 	action
discussed herein 	is preliminary 	in nature and will become 	final unless a person whose 	interests
are 	substantially 	affected 	files a petition 	for a formal proceeding, pursuant 	to Rule 	25-22.029,
Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.).
BACKGROUND
On December 	12, 2025, Florida Power & Light Company (FPL or the Company) filed 	its
2025 	Nuclear Decommissioning 	Cost 	Study 	(2025 	study 	or 	current 	study) 	for Turkey 	Point
Nuclear Generating 	Station (Turkey Point) Units 3 and 4 and 	St. Lucie Nuclear Power Plant 	(St.
Lucie) Units 	1 and 2.
Rule 	25-6.04365, 	F.A.C., 	requires 	that 	any 	utility 	under 	the 	Florida 	Public 	Service
Commission’s (Commission) jurisdiction 	that owns a nuclear generating unit 	file a 	site-specific
decommissioning 	cost 	study 	at 	least 	once 	every 	five 	years. 	The 	purpose 	of 	periodic
decommissioning reviews 	is 	to recognize changes and developments affecting decommissioning
cost estimates of the Company’s nuclear units and to also consider factors such as improvements
in technology, regulatory changes that have transpired since the 	last decommissioning study, and
any 	relevant 	additional 	updates 	and 	information. An 	explanation 	of 	the 	basic 	concepts
surrounding a decommissioning study follows.
In re: Petition for approval of 2025 nuclear
decommissioning study, by Florida Power &
Light Company._

ORDER NO. PSC-2026-0236-PAA-EI
DOCKET NO. 20250143-EI
PAGE 2
I. 	Nuclear Decommissioning
Decommissioning involves the physical dismantling and removing of plant buildings,
materials, and equipment that are no longer used and useful, but remain following the retirement
of a nuclear generating unit. With respect to the funding of decommissioning activities, the
Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s (NRC) Rule, 10 C.F.R. Section 50.75, requires that licensees
provide reasonable financial assurance that funds will be available for decommissioning through
prepayment prior to the start of operation, an external sinking fund or a surety method, insurance,
or other guarantee method. An external sinking fund is defined as:
A fund established and maintained by setting funds aside periodically in an
account segregated from licensee assets and outside the administrative control of
the licensee and its subsidiaries or affiliates in which the total amount of funds
would 	be 	sufficient 	to 	pay 	decommissioning 	costs 	at 	the 	time 	permanent
termination of operations is expected. An external sinking fund may be in the
form of a trust, escrow account, or Government fund, with payment by certificate
of deposit, deposit of Government or other securities.1
FPL’s 	funding 	program 	has 	historically 	provided 	for 	financial 	assurance 	through
contributions to its nuclear decommissioning trust (NDT) funds. As discussed later, the
Company’s currently authorized annual base rate decommissioning contribution (Accrual) is set
at zero dollars per year.2 Thus, financial assurance standards have been satisfied solely by fund
growth since 2005.
In 1989, we approved the external sinking funding method by Order No. 21928.3 In
determining the annual provision for decommissioning, the current cost estimate is escalated to
the expected dates of actual decommissioning. The escalation rate used is determined by using a
combination of general economic inflation rates and inflation rates for decommissioning labor,
transportation, and burial of nuclear waste. Once the escalated decommissioning cost is known, a
sinking fund annuity is calculated to determine the annual annuity. This annual annuity plus the
earnings on the NDT fund, net of taxes, will grow to the escalated cost of decommissioning.
The primary objective of a NDT fund is to have enough money on hand at the time of
decommissioning to meet all required expenses at the lowest possible cost to utility ratepayers.
No set of investment policies will meet this goal with certainty. The management of the fund,
therefore, must be concerned with both the preservation of contributions and the purchasing
power of the contributions. To this end, by Order No. 21928 we required that the fund’s assets
1 10 C.F.R. § 50.75(e)(1)(ii).
2 Order No. PSC-05-0902-S-EI, issued September 14, 2005, in Docket No. 050045-EI, In re: Petition for rate
increase by Florida Power & Light Company; and Docket No. 050188-EI, In re: 2005 comprehensive depreciation
study by Florida Power & Light Company.
3 Order No. 21928, issued September 21, 1989, in Docket No. 870098-EI, In re: Petitions for approval of an
increase in the accrual of nuclear decommissioning costs by Florida Power Corporation and Florida Power &
Light Company.

ORDER NO. PSC-2026-0236-PAA-EI
DOCKET NO. 20250143-EI
PAGE 3
earn a consistent positive real return over a market cycle.4 The imposed minimum fund earnings
rate is at least the rate of inflation measured by the Consumer Price Index (CPI) over each five-
year review period.
Considerations for the treatment of spent fuel generated during the operation of FPL’s
nuclear units first appeared in FPL’s 1994 Nuclear Decommissioning Cost Study (1994 study).5
While the storage and disposal of spent nuclear fuel (SNF) assemblies generated during plant
operations were not considered a decommissioning expense, the presence of SNF on-site does
impact the cost of decommissioning. Faced with the uncertainties of the Department of Energy
(DOE) meeting its 1998 deadline for the acceptance of SNF (see Section II below), we
recognized that SNF may have to remain on-site long after decommissioning begins. For this
reason, an allowance for on-site dry storage costs was made in determining decommissioning
accruals for each nuclear unit.
The primary goal in requiring an on-site dry storage allowance was to ensure that the
funds needed to fully decommission FPL’s nuclear units are available when the plants retire,
while being recovered from customers who received nuclear generated energy. We found that
these costs shall continue to be reviewed to determine the prudence of their inclusion in
decommissioning accruals. We note that FPL’s 2025 study does include provisions for on-site
SNF management.
II. 	Uncertainty Regarding DOE Obligations
The Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 committed the DOE to accept and dispose of SNF
and high-level radioactive waste (HLRW). The acceptance and disposal of SNF and HLRW by
the DOE was to begin by January 31, 1998, as stipulated under its Standard Disposal Contract
with waste generators. With respect to a final SNF repository, the DOE submitted its license
application to the NRC on June 3, 2008, seeking authorization to construct a storage facility
located at Yucca Mountain, Nevada.
The 	NRC 	formally 	docketed 	DOE’s 	license 	application 	for 	the 	Yucca 	Mountain
Repository on September 8, 2008, triggering a congressional deadline for the NRC to decide
whether to authorize construction. The review was suspended in 2011, prompting legal action,
and in 2013 the U.S. Court of Appeals ordered the NRC to resume the review. The NRC later
issued final Safety Evaluation Report volumes in 2015 and an Environmental Impact Statement
supplement in 2016.6 However, due to continued political opposition, lack of congressional
4 Id
.
5 Order No. PSC-95-1531-FOF-EI, issued December 12, 1995, in Docket No. 941350-EI, In re: Petition for increase
in annual accrual for Turkey Point and St. Lucie nuclear unit decommissioning costs by Florida Power & Light
Company; and Docket No. 941352-EI, In re: Petition for Approval of Increase In Accrual for Nuclear
Decommissioning Costs by Florida Power Corporation.
6 The NRC’s Yucca Mountain Repository Safety Evaluation Report details the evaluation of the DOE's license
application for a construction authorization. The NRC’s Environmental Impact Statement supplement examines the
potential environmental impacts with respect to potential contaminant releases from the geologic repository for SNF
and HLRW at Yucca Mountain, Nye County, Nevada.

ORDER NO. PSC-2026-0236-PAA-EI
DOCKET NO. 20250143-EI
PAGE 4
funding, and limited federal support, the licensing process has remained effectively stalled for
nearly a decade.
Separate and apart from the Yucca Mountain license application and NRC reviews, in
January 2013, the DOE released its “Strategy for Management and Disposal of Used Nuclear
Fuel and High-Level Radioactive Waste.” This serves as a statement of its policy regarding the
disposition of used nuclear fuel and HLRW. 7 Under this strategy, the DOE plans to make
“demonstrable progress on the siting and characterization of repository sites to facilitate the
availability of a geologic repository by 2048.”8 Recently, the DOE has been pursuing a “consent-
based siting” approach, in which states must voluntarily agree to host nuclear waste sites, in
exchange for “federal support and help attracting investment towards developing nuclear power
plants.” 9 We understand that the ultimate purpose of this policy direction and approach is to
establish a number of high-level nuclear waste sites specializing in specific classes of waste.
However, to date, no national or regional repositories have been identified and fully licensed to
receive commercial SNF or HLRW.
Due to the DOE’s non-performance of terms contained in the Standard Disposal Contract
with FPL, litigation was brought by the Company against the federal government. Ultimately, in
2009, FPL entered into a settlement agreement with the federal government for damages incurred
relating to SNF storage and management.10 As part of the settlement agreement, the Company
receives annual payments to cover the costs incurred for managing and storing SNF that it would
otherwise not have incurred if the original terms of its Standard Disposal Contract with the DOE
had been met. FPL is currently projecting that SNF management costs incurred before years
2066 at Turkey Point and 2070 at St. Lucie, are eligible for reimbursement, and the credits are
included as part of this current study, consistent with the Company’s 2020 Study. From 1997
through 2020, the federal government has reimbursed FPL $352,811,616 for storing and
managing SNF, 11 with FPL’s reimbursement requests for years 2021-2024 still pending.12
7 U.S. Department of Energy, “Strategy for the Management and Disposal of Used Nuclear Fuel and High-Level
Radioactive Waste,” January 2013.
8 Id.
9 Timothy Gardner, “US seeks interest from states in nuclear waste and reprocessing sites, ”Reuters, January 28,
2026, 	https://www.reuters.com/sustainability/climate-energy/us-seeks-interest-states-nuclear-waste-reprocessing-
sites-2026-01-28/.
10 Order No. PSC-16-0560-AS-EI, issued December 15, 2016, in Docket No. 160021-EI, In re: Petition for rate
increase by Florida Power & Light Company; Docket No. 160061-EI, In re: Petition for approval of 2016-2018
storm hardening plan, by Florida Power & Light Company; Docket No. 160062-EI, In re: 2016 depreciation and
dismantlement study by Florida Power & Light Company; and Docket No. 160088-EI In re: Petition for limited
proceeding to modify and continue incentive mechanism, by Florida Power & Light Company.
11 FPL’s Responses to Staff’s Second Data Request, No. 37, filed March 05, 2026.
12 Id. at No. 33 (detailing how FPL has outstanding DOE reimbursement claims related to SNF management costs
incurred during 2021–2023 and is currently engaged in settlement discussions with the DOE regarding those claims.
The 2024 reimbursement claim has been submitted; however, the DOE has deferred issuing its findings until the
2021–2023 claims are resolved.).

ORDER NO. PSC-2026-0236-PAA-EI
DOCKET NO. 20250143-EI
PAGE 5
III. 	End of Life Materials and Supplies and Last Core of Nuclear Fuel
In the review of FPL’s 1998 Nuclear Decommissioning Cost Study (1998 study), we
addressed, for the first time, recovery of nuclear materials and supplies (M&S) costs,13 as well as
the costs of unburned nuclear fuel (Last Core)14 expected to remain at the end of each generating
unit’s life (EOL). We found that these costs are unique to a nuclear unit and are the direct result
of unit shut down.15 However, we also recognized that these costs do not meet the intent of
nuclear decommissioning because they do not involve the removal of plant facilities. We
concluded that the costs associated with EOL M&S inventories and Last Core shall be amortized
over the remaining life span16 of each unit. We found that amortizing EOL M&S and Last Core
costs over the remaining life span of each plant allocates the costs to customers receiving nuclear
generated power.
We ordered that the amortization of costs associated with EOL M&S inventories be
accounted for as a debit (increase) to nuclear maintenance expense with a corresponding credit to
an unfunded Account 228 reserve. For costs associated with the Last Core, we ordered that the
amortization shall be recorded as a base rate fuel expense with a credit to an unfunded Account
228 reserve.17 Finally, we found that the costs associated with EOL M&S and the Last Core shall
be addressed in subsequent decommissioning studies so that the related annual amortization
expenses could be revised, if warranted. We note FPL has provided updates for its respective
EOL M&S and Last Core costs in the current study.
IV. 	Recent Decommissioning Orders Pertaining to FPL
By Order No. PSC-05-0902-S-EI, issued September 14, 2005, we approved a Settlement
Agreement that suspended FPL’s then annual nuclear decommissioning accrual.18 Per the terms
of the Stipulation and Settlement, FPL was to file a decommissioning study on or before
December 31, 2005, and the results of the study will have no impact on customer rates for the
term of the settlement. FPL’s annual base rate nuclear decommissioning accrual (which is
exclusive of EOL M&S and Last Core amortization expenses) has remained at zero dollars per
year from 2005 forward.
FPL’s last decommissioning proceeding, in accordance with Rule 25-6.04365, F.A.C.,
occurred in 2020. The Company’s cost analysis and continuation of a zero annual accrual was
13 EOL M&S inventories are the level of unique inventories that will remain at the end of each nuclear site’s life
(license expiration of the last nuclear unit at the site).
14 The Last Core is the unburned fuel that will remain in the fuel assemblies at the end of the last operating cycle of
each nuclear unit when it ceases operation.
15 Order No. PSC-02-0055-PAA-EI, issued January 7, 2002, in Docket No. 991931-EG, In re: Determination of
appropriate method of recovery for the last core of nuclear fuel for Florida Power & Light Company and Florida
Power Corporation.
16 Remaining life span for each nuclear unit is the period of years from the decommissioning study date to the
nuclear license expiration date.
17 Order No. PSC-02-0055-PAA-EI.
18 Order No. PSC-05-0902-S-EI.

ORDER NO. PSC-2026-0236-PAA-EI
DOCKET NO. 20250143-EI
PAGE 6
approved by Order No. PSC-2021-0232-PAA-EI. 19 FPL’s current study is similar to its 2020
Decommissioning 	Study 	(2020 	study 	or 	prior 	study) 	in 	terms 	of 	the 	general 	scope 	of
decommissioning and plant inventory levels.
We are vested with jurisdiction over these matters through several provisions of Chapter
366, Florida Statutes (F.S.), including Sections 366.04, 366.05, and 366.06.
DECISION
The purpose of FPL’s updated site-specific decommissioning cost study is to recognize
changes and developments affecting decommissioning cost estimates of the Company’s nuclear
units and to also consider such factors as improvements in technology, regulatory changes that
have transpired since the last decommissioning study and review in 2020, and any relevant
additional updates and information.
Current Decommissioning Costs
Operating License
FPL’s Turkey Point began service in 1972 (Unit 3) and 1973 (Unit 4). St. Lucie began
service in 1976 (Unit 1) and 1983 (Unit 2). All four units were originally licensed by the NRC to
operate for a maximum of forty years, but have received subsequent license renewals from the
NRC, allowing continued operation. The most current license extension for Turkey Point Units 3
and 4 was approved by the NRC in December 2019,20 while the most current license extension
for St. Lucie Units 1 and 2 was recently approved by the NRC in April of this year.21 The current
study reflects FPL’s 20-year license extensions for both units at the St. Lucie, shifting
decommissioning later than assumed in its 2020 study and thereby extending the period over
which costs are escalated and trust fund earnings accrue. For the purposes of the current study,
FPL assumes all units will operate through their respective license expiration dates, which are as
follows:
 	Turkey Point Unit 3 - July 19, 2052
 	Turkey Point Unit 4 - April 10, 2053
 	St. Lucie Unit 1 - March 1, 2056
 	St. Lucie Unit 2 - April 6, 2063
19 Order No. PSC-2021-0232-PAA-EI, issued June 28, 2021, in Docket No. 20200257-EI, In re: Petition for
approval of 2020 nuclear decommissioning study, by Florida Power & Light Company.
20 David Drucker, U.S Nuclear Regulatory Commission, letter to Mr. Mano Nazar, Florida Power & Light
Company, December 4, 2019, Adams Ascension No. ML19305C879
https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML1930/ML19305C879.pdf
21 Michele Sampson, U.S Nuclear Regulatory Commission, letter to Mr. Robert Coffey, Florida Power & Light
Company, April 28, 2026, Adams Ascension No. ML26026A008
https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML2602/ML26026A008.pdf

ORDER NO. PSC-2026-0236-PAA-EI
DOCKET NO. 20250143-EI
PAGE 7
Decommissioning Methods
The 	NRC 	accepts 	the 	following 	three 	decommissioning 	methods: 	prompt
removal/dismantling 	(DECON), 	mothballing 	with 	delayed 	dismantling 	(SAFSTOR), 	and
entombment. Consistent with the 2020 study, the 2025 study continues to utilize a combination
of DECON and SAFSTOR decommissioning methods. FPL selected DECON for the Turkey
Point units because this method provides the lowest cost and employs those individuals familiar
with the nuclear facility to support the dismantling effort. Further, DECON eliminates a potential
long-term safety hazard and relieves the Company of the long-term obligation and liability for
continuing maintenance of the property. For the St. Lucie units, due to the timing difference in
operating license expiration dates, a hybrid approach (SAFSTOR for Unit 1 followed by
concurrent DECON of both units) is utilized. This allows for a one-time mobilization of
contractor personnel and equipment by mothballing Unit 1 until the expiration of Unit 2’s
license.
The Company projects that SNF will remain at each plant site after the majority of
nuclear facilities have been removed. We note that in order for a nuclear plant to be considered
fully decommissioned, no on-site SNF may be present. Consistent with the Company’s 2020
study, the current study includes the costs associated with interim storage of SNF, via
Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installations (ISFSIs), until the DOE is able to accept SNF from
the sites. The DOE is expected to make payments to FPL to cover SNF management costs
incurred by FPL prior to 2070 for St. Lucie and 2066 for Turkey Point. FPL projects all SNF will
be transferred from the on-site ISFSI to the DOE by 2072 for Turkey Point and by 2082 for St.
Lucie.
In addition, FPL is required to submit a License Termination Plan (LTP) to the NRC
toward the end of the decommissioning process. Once the physical decommissioning process
(including removal of SNF and storage facilities) is complete, the NRC will determine if site
remediation has been performed in accordance with the LTP; and if envisioned by the LTP, the
site 	will 	be 	released 	by 	the 	NRC 	for 	unrestricted 	use. 22 	We 	note 	that 	FPL’s 	current
decommissioning study assumes site remediation to the level of unrestricted use. At this point,
the nuclear license will be terminated, thus concluding NRC oversight.
Decommissioning Cost Estimates
FPL 	commissioned 	EnergySolutions, 	LLC, 	to 	develop 	the 	decommissioning 	cost
estimates for its 2025 study. EnergySolutions utilized the decommissioning cost model based on
the fundamentals laid out in the Atomic Industrial Forum/National Environmental Studies
Project Report AIF/NESP-036, “Guidelines for Producing Commercial Nuclear Power Plant
Decommissioning Cost Estimates,” and in accordance with NRC Regulatory Guide 1.202,
“Standard 	Format 	and 	Content 	of 	Decommissioning 	Cost 	Estimates 	for 	Nuclear 	Power
Reactors.”
22 10 C.F.R. § 20.1401 - § 20.1406 (2026).

ORDER NO. PSC-2026-0236-PAA-EI
DOCKET NO. 20250143-EI
PAGE 8
The major decommissioning cost drivers in FPL’s 2025 study are: program management
(staffing/labor), insurance and regulatory fees, site security, spent fuel management, waste
packaging/transportation/disposal, site characterization and license termination surveys, energy
costs, decontamination and removal-related activities, and low-level radioactive waste (LLRW)
inspection 	fees. 	The 	cost 	estimates 	incorporate 	site-specific 	plant 	systems 	and 	building
inventories, proprietary unit cost factors,23 historical data, project execution strategies, waste
volumes/classifications, estimated man-hours, and local labor rates. Contingencies (typically 10–
25%) and jurisdictional factors (e.g., 95.89%) are applied as appropriate.
The total estimated cost to decommission Turkey Point has increased by approximately
15.1 percent from the 2020 study. The total estimated costs to decommission St. Lucie increased
by 9.1 percent during the same timeframe. Tables 1 and 2 below present the cost comparisons
from 2020 to 2025 by major category of activity using the selected methods of decommissioning.
We note that the two vintages of cost figures shown below are unadjusted (nominal) and
presented as they were in the year of study, or 2020 dollars and 2025 dollars, respectively.
Table 1
Turkey Point Decommissioning Cost Comparison 2020-2025
Plant Turkey
Point
Units 3 and 4
2020
Study
($1000s)
2025
Study
($1000s)
Difference
($1000s)
Percent
Difference
(%)
License
Termination 1,018,355 	1,181,679 	163,324 16.0
Spent Fuel
Management 282,949 	312,767 	29,818 10.5
Site Restoration 	59,888 	71,702 	11,814 	19.7
Total* 	1,361,192 	1,566,148 	204,956 	15.1
Source: Order No.PSC-2021-0232-PAA-EI and FPL’s 2025 Decommissioning Study
*May not add due to rounding
23 Unit cost factors are developed for activities such as concrete and steel removal, cutting, demolition,
transportation, and waste disposal using local labor rates. These costs are estimated on a per-unit basis, such as per
cut, per cubic yard demolished, per ton removed, or per disposal trip. The resulting unit cost factors are then applied
to the plant inventory of equipment and structures to be removed to develop an overall cost estimate.

ORDER NO. PSC-2026-0236-PAA-EI
DOCKET NO. 20250143-EI
PAGE 9
Table 2
St. Lucie Decommissioning Cost Comparison 2020-2025
Plant St. Lucie
Units 1 and 2
2020
Study
($1000s)
2025
Study
($1000s)
Difference
($1000s)
Percent
Difference
(%)
License Termination 	1,254,740 	1,400,996 	146,256 	11.7
Spent Fuel Management 	427,313 	432,431 	5,118 	1.2
Site Restoration 	63,409 	71,360 	7,951 	12.5
Total* 	1,745,462 	1,904,787 	159,325 	9.1
Source: FPL’s 2020 and 2025 Decommissioning Studies
*May not add due to rounding
On an individual unit basis, the current estimated costs in 2025 dollars for the
decommissioning of FPL’s nuclear plants are as follows:
Table 3
Turkey Point/St. Lucie Individual Nuclear Unit Cost
Nuclear Unit 	Cost (2025 Dollars)
Turkey Point Unit No. 3 	$746,407,000
Turkey Point Unit No. 4 	$819,741,000
St. Lucie Unit No. 1 	$999,057,000
St. Lucie Unit No. 2 	$905,730,000
We note that due to St. Lucie Unit No. 2 being jointly-owned with the Orlando Utilities
Commission and Florida Municipal Power Agency (Joint Owners), FPL is responsible for
approximately 86.63 percent of the unit’s total decommissioning cost. The Joint Owners fund the
remaining amount. We further note that the Joint Owners maintain separate (from FPL) external
sinking funds for satisfying both their decommissioning cost obligations and the NRC’s financial
assurance rule. The funding level status of the Joint Owners’ NDTs as of October 31, 2025 are
sufficiently above the NRC’s required minimum. 24
24 Document No. 15414-2025, filed in Docket 20250143-EI In re: Petition by Florida Power & Light Company for
approval of 2025 nuclear decommissioning study, St. Lucie Unit Nos. 1 and 2, Section 2, page 7 of 11, chart titled
“St. Lucie Unit No. 2 Participant Owners Funding Status.”

ORDER NO. PSC-2026-0236-PAA-EI
DOCKET NO. 20250143-EI
PAGE 10
As discussed above, all costs are ultimately classified as those relating to the activities of
license termination, spent fuel management, or site restoration. However, these major cost
classifications are comprised of individual cost elements. Below, we analyzed estimated cost
variances between FPL’s current and 2020 study by these individual elements.
The total estimated costs in the 2025 study reflect increases relative to the total estimated
costs in the 2020 study, primarily due to escalation factors, as no major methodology or scope
changes are noted. As mentioned in the case background, the escalation factor utilized for each
cost category is determined by using a combination of general economic inflation rates and
inflation 	rates 	for 	decommissioning 	labor, 	transportation, 	and 	burial 	of 	nuclear 	waste.
Explanations and updates to each cost category are detailed below.
Site Characterization and License Termination Surveys25
These costs are associated with baseline radiological surveys, final site surveys, and
verification surveys required for NRC license termination and release of the property for
unrestricted 	use. 	The 	2025 	estimates 	incorporate 	refined 	methodologies 	to 	optimize
decontamination 	efforts. 	Site 	characterization 	and 	license 	termination 	costs 	increased 	by
approximately $4.6 million, or 23.0 percent, for Turkey Point, and $4.6 million, or 22.3 percent
for St. Lucie compared to the Company’s 2020 study costs. These increases are due to
escalation.26
Corporate Support (Fixed Overhead)
This category includes costs associated with site operation support. EnergySolutions
states that these cost estimates are based on the information provided by FPL in 2020 and
escalated to 2025. Corporate support costs increased by approximately $4.3 million, or 13.1
percent, for Turkey Point, and $2.4 million, or 13.9 percent for St. Lucie compared to the
Company’s 2020 study costs.
Decontamination and Removal-Related Activities
Decontamination and removal costs primarily capture costs related to the disassembly of
plant components and the placement of those components into a central area or zone for
processing/disposal, controlled removal of contaminated and activated concrete, remediation of
any hazardous waste, excavation of soil, and demolition of site structures. Removal costs
increased by approximately $66.9 million, or 27.3 percent, for Turkey Point, and $55.0 million,
or 21.7 percent for St. Lucie compared to the Company’s 2020 study costs. These increases are
due to escalation.
25 Site Characterization refers to the process of obtaining and analyzing information relating the types, quantities,
and chemical/physical states of radionuclides that will affect the decommissioning process.
26 Escalation refers to the increase in estimated future decommissioning costs over time due to projected changes in
labor, materials, contractor services, energy, and other inflationary cost factors.

ORDER NO. PSC-2026-0236-PAA-EI
DOCKET NO. 20250143-EI
PAGE 11
Energy Costs
Energy costs reflect current assumptions for energy sources during decommissioning
activities. Energy costs increased by approximately $0.3 million, or 3.3 percent, for Turkey
Point, and $1.4 million, or 12.7 percent for St. Lucie compared to the Company’s 2020 study
costs. These increases are due to escalation.
Florida Low-Level Radioactive Waste Inspection Fee
This category includes costs associated with Rule 64E-5.1508, F.A.C., which states:
“(6) Each generator of radioactive waste whose shipment is inspected by the
department’s representative will be billed quarterly by the department a fee of
$1.95 per cubic foot (0.02832 cubic meter) of waste shipped or $150.00 per
shipment inspected, whichever is greater.”
These costs have been adjusted for updated debris volumes and regulatory fees. LLRW
costs have increased by approximately $1.6 million, or 29.2 percent, for Turkey Point, and $3.0
million, or 29.2 percent for St. Lucie compared to the Company’s 2020 study costs. These
increases are due to escalation.
Insurance and Regulatory Fees
This cost category includes Nuclear Liability Insurance Premiums (per unit), Nuclear
Property Insurance Premiums (site), NRC License Fees (per unit), and Emergency Planning Fees
(County and FEMA). Each of the aforementioned sub-categories’ cost estimates decreased from
2020 to 2025, with the exception of the Nuclear Liability Insurance Premiums. The result is an
overall cost decrease of approximately $3.2 million (4.3 percent) for Turkey Point and $15.8
million (15.5 percent) for St. Lucie compared to the Company’s 2020 study costs. The larger
decrease for St. Lucie is primarily driven by Period 5 of the decommissioning process being
shortened from 25 to 19 years.27
Miscellaneous Equipment/Site Services
This cost category includes costs associated with tooling and equipment needed to
support 	decontamination 	and 	dismantling 	activities. 	These 	costs 	have 	increased 	by
approximately $1.1 million, or 11.6 percent for Turkey Point and by approximately $1.7 million,
or 18.0 percent for St Lucie, compared to the 2020 Study costs. The primary driver for the
increases is escalation.
27 Period 5 refers to the post-shutdown phase during which SNF is stored onsite in dry cask systems and managed
through fuel transfer operations, with costs primarily consisting of security, regulatory compliance, and storage-
related activities rather than active dismantlement. For individual costs that are duration-driven (e.g. insurance,
property taxes, etc.), the shortening of Period 5 by six years will serve to reduce these costs, all else being equal.

ORDER NO. PSC-2026-0236-PAA-EI
DOCKET NO. 20250143-EI
PAGE 12
Program Management
Program 	management 	represents 	the 	largest 	single 	cost 	category 	of 	the 	overall
decommissioning cost estimate for Turkey Point and the second largest cost category for St.
Lucie. The program management cost element primarily captures costs relating to the staffing
(both plant personnel and contractors) and organization during the decommissioning process.
This includes overall project oversight as well as management of day-to-day activities. Program
management costs increased by approximately $40.3 million, or 9.7 percent, for Turkey Point,
and decreased by approximately $29.9 million, or 5.9 percent, for St. Lucie compared to the
Company’s 2020 study costs. The primary driver for the increase for Turkey Point is escalation
while the primary cause for the decrease for St. Lucie is Period 5 of the decommissioning
process being shortened from 25 to 19 years.
Property Taxes
The 2025 study assumes property taxes will be paid post shutdown and will be carried
until the ISFSI demolition is complete. Property taxes estimates have increased by approximately
$12,000, or 1.8 percent, for Turkey Point, and decreased by approximately $1.5 million, or 43.9
percent, for St. Lucie compared to the Company’s 2020 study costs. The large decrease for St.
Lucie is attributable to Period 5 of the decommissioning process being shortened from 25 to 19
years, as well as FPL’s projected annual taxes being lower in 2025 than in 2020.
Security
This cost category reflects costs associated with security during the decommissioning
process. These costs reflect reduced staffing needs once SNF is removed from the spent fuel
pools and transferred to dry cask storage at the ISFSI. Security expenses decrease significantly
once the majority of the radiological inventory is removed from the reactor buildings and
associated structures, allowing for a transition to a less intensive security posture (e.g., reduced
guard force and perimeter monitoring requirements). This reduction is consistent with the 2020
Study’s approach but has been updated for current license periods and projected SNF transfer
schedules. 	In 	the 	2025 	study 	estimates, 	security 	costs 	are 	front-loaded 	during 	active
decommissioning phases and then taper off substantially post-ISFSI loading, reflecting NRC
security regulations that scale with remaining radiological hazards. The updates incorporate
refined timelines based on extended operating licenses, resulting in escalation-driven increases.
Security costs overall increased for both units (approximately $12.0 million, or 11.4 percent for
Turkey Point and $23.8 million, or 16.0 percent for St. Lucie) compared to the Company’s 2020
study costs.

ORDER NO. PSC-2026-0236-PAA-EI
DOCKET NO. 20250143-EI
PAGE 13
Spent Fuel Management (Direct Expenditures)28
This category includes costs for wet pool cooling and maintenance prior to fuel transfer,
loading and transfer of SNF to dry cask storage at the ISFSI, ongoing ISFSI operations and
maintenance (including monitoring, security, and environmental controls), and eventual retrieval
and shipment when the DOE takes title and removes the spent fuel.
Direct expenditures are projected based on adjusted ISFSI storage periods, which vary by
unit depending on DOE acceptance assumptions. The 2025 study reflects current projections for
SNF removal timelines (e.g., DOE pickups begin in 2035 from Turkey Point, complete by 2072;
DOE pickups begin in 2037 from St. Lucie, complete by 2082). 29 Spent Fuel Management costs
have increased by approximately $12.0 million, or 13.4 percent for Turkey Point and by
approximately $5.1 million, or 3.6 percent for St Lucie, compared to the Company’s 2020 study
cost estimates. The primary driver for the increases is escalation.
Spent Fuel Pool Isolation
This category includes costs associated with isolating the spent fuel pools from the
adjacent power block buildings so that decontamination and dismantlement can proceed in
adjacent power block buildings without impacting spent fuel storage and fuel transfer activities.
Spent Fuel Pool Isolation costs have increased by approximately $3.4 million, or 14.0 percent for
Turkey Point and by approximately $3.4 million, or 14.6 percent for St Lucie, compared to the
2020 study costs. The primary driver for the increases is escalation.
Waste Packaging, Transportation, and Disposal (Class A, B, and C)
This cost category includes the costs to package, transport, and dispose of LLRW. LLRW
is the contaminated and activated material generated during a nuclear reactor decontamination
and dismantling process and is further classified based on levels of radioactivity (lowest-to-
highest) as either Class A, B, C, or Greater than Class C (GTCC). The majority of LLRW
assumed for disposal in FPL’s analysis, in terms of both volume and mass, is Class A waste.30
This cost category represents the largest single cost category for St. Lucie, and second largest for
Turkey Point.
For LLRW disposal cost estimation and planning purposes, FPL has a Life of Plant
Agreement with EnergySolutions to dispose of Class A nuclear waste at EnergySolutions’
facility in Clive, Utah. EnergySolutions’ facility in Clive does not have a license to dispose of
Class B or C radioactive waste, which is more highly radioactive than Class A. On November
28 Direct spent fuel management expenditures exclude program management costs but include costs for dry shielded
storage canisters and horizontal storage modules, spent fuel loading/transfer/spent fuel pool O&M fees.
29 For purposes of this estimate, FPL has assumed the DOE pickup of commercial fuel to begin in 2034. The
acceptance rate is consistent with the 2004 "Acceptance Priority Ranking & Annual Capacity Report" (Ref. No. 6),
which is the most current information regarding the acceptance of spent fuel.
30 Waste disposal volumes and costs, itemized by packaging, transportation, surcharges and disposal costs by waste
class and facility, are provided in Appendix E of FPL’s 2025 study, for both Turkey Point and St. Lucie.

ORDER NO. PSC-2026-0236-PAA-EI
DOCKET NO. 20250143-EI
PAGE 14
10, 2011, Waste Control Specialists (WCS) opened the Texas Low-Level Radioactive Waste
Disposal Compact Facility in Andrews County, Texas. This facility is licensed to dispose of
Class A, B, and C LLRW. For purposes of the current study, Classes B and C waste are assumed
to be shipped and disposed of at the WCS facility.
The total estimated cost of Waste Packaging, Transportation & Disposal (Class A, B, &
C) increased by $51.2 million, or 18.1 percent for Turkey Point, and $92.5 million, or 21.0
percent for St. Lucie, compared to the Company’s 2020 study costs. These increases are due to
escalation.
Waste Packaging, Transportation, and Disposal – Greater-than-Class C
This cost category includes the costs to package, transport, and dispose of GTCC waste.
We note that a facility does not exist that accepts the disposal of such waste. The total estimated
cost of Waste Packaging, Transportation & Disposal increased by $9.6 million, or 25.3 percent
for Turkey Point, and $13.7 million, or 25.3 percent for St. Lucie compared to the Company’s
2020 study costs. These increases are also due to escalation.
Contingency Allowances
The practice of budgeting a cost contingency allowance is common in large-scale
construction and demolition projects. Such project cost estimates generally include a baseline
cost estimate, which is formulated based on ideal conditions, and a contingency allowance. A
contingency allowance is a specific provision for unforeseeable elements and associated costs
within the defined project scope. For large, complex, and long-running projects such as nuclear
plant decommissioning, unforeseeable events are likely to occur; therefore, a contingency
allowance is necessary.
For each of FPL’s four nuclear units, EnergySolutions applied contingency allowances
(typically ranging from 10–25%) to each specific decommissioning activity on a line item basis
to produce a contingency value (in dollars). These specific line item contingency allowances are
based on guidelines developed by the Atomic Industrial Forum (now Nuclear Energy Institute) in
its report "Guidelines for Producing Commercial Nuclear Power Plant Decommissioning Cost
Estimates,” AIF/NESP-036. Dividing the sum of the line item contingency values by the total
decommissioning costs (excluding contingencies) for each unit respectively, results in the
proposed weighted average contingency factors for the 2025 study. The weighted average
contingency factors for all four nuclear units are displayed in the table below:

ORDER NO. PSC-2026-0236-PAA-EI
DOCKET NO. 20250143-EI
PAGE 15
Table 4
Weighted Average Contingency Factors
Nuclear Unit 	Contingency
Turkey Point Unit 3 	16.66%
Turkey Point Unit 4 	17.07%
St. Lucie Unit 1 	16.72%
St. Lucie Unit 2 	17.07%
Source: FPL’s 2025 Decommissioning Study
We find the contingency provisions presented in FPL’s 2025 study, which are based on
industry standards and guidelines, as discussed above, are reasonable.
Conclusion
We find the 2025 study, in estimating current decommissioning costs for Turkey Point
and 	St. 	Lucie 	as 	discussed 	above, 	appropriately 	recognize 	and 	reflect 	the 	changes 	and
developments affecting decommissioning cost estimates of the Company’s nuclear units. Thus,
based on information contained in FPL’s 2025 study and FPL’s responses to our staff’s data
requests, we find that 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.
Annual Accruals
This section addresses the appropriate annual accrual amounts to be charged to customers
for satisfying the future cost of decommissioning FPL’s nuclear power plants. The currently
authorized overall annual decommissioning accrual is set to zero dollars per year (suspended) as
last approved by Order No. PSC-2021-0232-PAA-EI. 31 We note the annual decommissioning
accrual has been continuously suspended since September of 2005.32
In general, to determine the annual accrual, the cost of decommissioning is first estimated
in 	current 	dollars 	and 	then 	escalated 	to 	its 	future 	value 	using 	specific 	cost 	escalation
assumptions. The question becomes how much revenue needs to be collected from current
customers in equal monthly payments, earning at a given rate, to equal the future value of
decommissioning costs. The determination of the annual accrual then resembles an annuity
calculation. The specific cost escalation rates and the assumed funds earning rate are discussed in
greater detail later in this section. However, in considering current or “on hand” funding levels,
the very need for an annual decommissioning accrual is determined by a similar process. To
determine the need for an annual decommissioning accrual, the assumed funds earnings rate is
used to develop the present value of the future funding requirement. A comparison is then made
31 Order No. PSC-2021-0232-PAA-EI.
32 Order No. PSC-05-0902-S-EI and Docket No. 050188-EI, In re: 2005 comprehensive depreciation study by
Florida Power & Light Company.

ORDER NO. PSC-2026-0236-PAA-EI
DOCKET NO. 20250143-EI
PAGE 16
between the present value of the future funding requirement and the current funds on hand
including certain assumed future tax implications. The results of this analysis will be the present
value of the net funding requirement (which includes the scenario/result of no current additional
customer funding being required). These updated calculations reflect a revised operating license
which is valid for an additional 20 years.
The results of the annual accrual analysis presented with FPL’s 2025 study indicates that
no new customer funding (positive annual accrual for nuclear plant decommissioning) is required
at this time. We note that unless ordered otherwise, the continued adequacy of FPL’s
decommissioning accrual will be reviewed by us at least once every five years as required by
Rule 25-6.04365(3), F.A.C.
Current Cost of Decommissioning
The current overall system decommissioning cost estimates included in FPL’s 2025 study
are shown in Table 5. The estimated costs are as of December 31, 2025.
Table 5
Current Decommissioning Cost Estimates by Plant
Nuclear Unit Estimated Decommissioning Costs
(2025 Dollars)
St. Lucie Unit No. 1 	$999,057,000
St. Lucie Unit No. 2 	$905,730,000
Turkey Point Unit No. 3 	$746,407,000
Turkey Point Unit No. 4 	$819,741,000
Total 	$3,470,934,000
Source: FPL’s 2025 Decommissioning Study, Support Schedule G.
Cost Escalation Rates
Specific cost escalation rates are used to convert the current estimated decommissioning
cost to the future decommissioning cost for each nuclear unit. The current decommissioning cost
estimates are delineated into five summary cost categories. These categories are: labor,
equipment/materials, transportation, low-level radioactive waste disposal, and other. The current
decommissioning 	cost 	estimates 	are 	escalated 	to 	future 	values 	at 	the 	respective 	license
termination dates for each nuclear unit using separate inflation forecasts applicable to the
forelisted cost categories. With the exception of burial rates, FPL relied upon “The U.S.
Economy, The 30-Year Outlook, November 2025,” published by Global Insight as the source for
its specific escalation forecasts. FPL’s escalation rate for burial is based on Company-specific
data. We note the estimated burial costs contained in the 2025 study are assumed to escalate at an
annual rate of 2.0 percent. The specific year-by-year escalation rates for all cost categories are
shown on page one of Schedule G (for both St. Lucie and Turkey Point) of the 2025 Study. 33
33 Document No. 15414-2025, filed December 12, 2025.

ORDER NO. PSC-2026-0236-PAA-EI
DOCKET NO. 20250143-EI
PAGE 17
The methodology used by FPL in the 2025 study to determine the assumed average
escalation rates is consistent with the methodology used in its prior or 2020 study. The plant-
specific average annual escalation rates used in the 2020 Study and the 2025 Study to convert the
current decommissioning costs to the future decommissioning costs for each nuclear unit are
shown in Table 6 below:
Table 6
Average Annual Escalation Rate Comparison
Nuclear Unit 	2020 Study 	2025 Study
St. Lucie Unit No. 1 	3.15% 	3.99%
St. Lucie Unit No. 2 	3.19% 	4.24%
Turkey Point Unit No. 3 	3.15% 	4.03%
Turkey Point Unit No. 4 	3.13% 	3.97%
Source: FPL’s 2020 and 2025 Decommissioning Studies, Support Schedule G.
Future Cost of Decommissioning
The estimates of the total future cost to decommission each nuclear unit are based on the
current costs to decommission, operating license termination and release dates, and the specific
cost escalation rates. The estimated future costs to decommission each nuclear unit at their
respective assumed license release dates are listed in Table 7. We note the cost figures listed
below are on a system basis and net of the estimated DOE reimbursements for costs incurred
related to the on-site storage of SNF.
Table 7
Future Cost of Decommissioning
Nuclear Unit Future Net Decommissioning Costs
(Nominal)
St. Lucie Unit No. 1 	$3,651,292,335
St. Lucie Unit No. 2 	$3,969,821,968
Turkey Point Unit No. 3 	$2,128,079,245
Turkey Point Unit No. 4 	$2,459,406,869
Total 	$12,208,600,417
Source: FPL’s 2025 Decommissioning Study, Support Schedule G.
Current Funding
The NRC requires that licensees provide reasonable financial assurance that funds will be
available for decommissioning through one of three methods: (a) prepayment prior to the start of
operation, (b) an external sinking fund, or (c) surety, insurance or other guarantee method.34 The
Company provides for financial assurance for plant decommissioning through its NDT funds
34 10 C.F.R. § 50.75 (2025).

ORDER NO. PSC-2026-0236-PAA-EI
DOCKET NO. 20250143-EI
PAGE 18
which are held in trust with The Bank of New York Mellon Corporation (BNY Mellon) as
trustee. This financial provisioning and trust arrangement constitutes an external sinking fund.
An external sinking fund is defined as a: “fund established and maintained by setting funds aside
periodically 	in 	an 	account 	segregated 	from 	licensee 	assets 	and 	outside 	the 	licensee’s
administrative 	control 	in 	which 	the 	total 	amount 	of 	funds 	would 	be 	sufficient 	to 	pay
decommissioning cost at the time termination of operation is expected.” 35
The current projected NDT balances and the estimated present values of funding
requirements on a jurisdictional basis are shown in Table 8 below. We note that generally for the
purposes of an annual decommissioning accrual, a fund balance greater than or equal to the
estimated present value of the future funding requirement at the date of study indicates the
current funding level is sufficient, and that no new customer money is presently required.
Table 8
Current Total Fund Balances and Estimated Present Values of Future Funding
Requirements
Nuclear Unit
Projected Fund Balance
at 12/31/2025
(Jurisdictional)
Estimated Present Value of
Future Funding
Requirements
at 12/31/2025
(Jurisdictional)
St. Lucie Unit No. 1 	$1,061,140,942 	$510,940,366
St. Lucie Unit No. 2 	$874,978,943 	$459,681,158
Turkey Point Unit No. 3 	$894,485,866 	$429,731,079
Turkey Point Unit No. 4 	$1,006,407,832 	$487,531,728
Total 	$3,837,013,583 	$1,887,884,331
Source: FPL’s 2025 Decommissioning Study, Support Schedule G.
Funding Period
The funding period is the period over which revenues are collected from customers for
purposes of decommissioning the nuclear units. Plant-specific funding periods are assumed to
expire on the last day of the month preceding the month in which the plant’s operating license is
due to expire. The operating license expiration dates for the nuclear units are listed in Table 9
below:
Table 9
Current NRC Operating License Expiration Dates
Nuclear Unit 	Expiration Date
St. Lucie Unit No. 1 	March 1, 2056
St. Lucie Unit No. 2 	April 6, 2063
Turkey Point Unit No. 3 	July 19, 2052
Turkey Point Unit No. 4 	April 10, 2053
35 Id.

ORDER NO. PSC-2026-0236-PAA-EI
DOCKET NO. 20250143-EI
PAGE 19
Source: FPL’s 2025 Decommissioning Study, Section 2.
Years of Fund Expenditures
The years in which the accumulated NDT funds will be expended for purposes of plant
decommissioning are listed in Table 10 below:
Table 10
Years of Fund Expenditures
Nuclear Unit 	Period
St. Lucie Unit No. 1 	2056-2083
St. Lucie Unit No. 2 	2063-2083
Turkey Point Unit No. 3 	2052-2073
Turkey Point Unit No. 4 	2053-2073
Source: FPL’s 2025 Decommissioning Study, Support Schedule G.
Fund Earnings Rate
The fundamental purpose of the our review of a decommissioning study is to ensure there
will be adequate funding on hand at the time the nuclear unit is decommissioned. An assumed
fund earnings rate is integral to this process. The assumed fund earnings rate shall be
conservative enough to avoid a situation whereby future customers are burdened by inadequate
funding for decommissioning. However, an assumed fund earnings rate that is too conservative
inappropriately burdens current customers with expenses to be incurred in the future. As such, a
certain amount of judgment is necessary to determine a fair balance between generations of
customers.
The annual accrual amount moves inversely to the fund earnings rate. In other words, the
higher the assumed fund earnings rate, the lower the annual accrual and vice versa. In its 2020
Study, FPL used an assumed fund earnings rate of 4.5 percent, which is applicable to all four of
its NDT funds. This assumption is based on a projected real long-term, after tax and net of fees,
earnings rate of 2.0 percent plus an estimated long term average inflation rate of 2.5%.
This is the same approach FPL used in its approved 2020 Study where the assumed
earnings rate is compared to the CPI to assure that the overall return remains above CPI.36 The
assumed fund earnings rate of 4.5 percent, as compared to a CPI of 2.0 percent reflects the
projection of continued adequacy of the funds. This projection assumes an investment strategy of
establishing a conservative mix of assets to achieve long-term growth of principal coupled with
an attempt to minimize downside volatility. Asset mix policy as of December 31, 2025 was 50
percent equity/growth assets and 50 percent income-oriented assets.37
36 Order No. PSC-2021-0232-PAA-EI.
37 FPL’s Responses to Staff’s First Data Request, No. 3, filed February 11, 2026.

ORDER NO. PSC-2026-0236-PAA-EI
DOCKET NO. 20250143-EI
PAGE 20
As demonstrated by the range of earnings displayed in Table 11, the total fund returns
have experienced some volatility from period to period. However, since fund inception, the NDT
has returned an overall level of 7.2 percent. Given the projected long-term CPI of 2.0 percent,
and the actual returns since inception, we find FPL’s estimated fund earnings rate of 4.5 percent
is reasonable for the purposes of determining the appropriate annual accrual amounts.
Table 11
Period NDT Time-Weighted Returns
Period 	Fund Return 	CPI 	Spread
1-Year 	11.70% 	2.70% 	9.00%
2-Year 	12.30% 	2.70% 	9.60%
3-Year 	13.70% 	3.00% 	10.70%
5-Year 	7.70% 	4.50% 	3.20%
10-Year 	8.50% 	3.20% 	5.30%
Since Fund Inception 	7.20% 	2.80% 	4.40%
Source: FPL’s Responses to Staff’s First Data Request, No. 1.
Given the parameters discussed above, the funding analysis indicates the current funding
position as of December 31, 2025, is more than sufficient to satisfy the present value of future
nuclear plant decommissioning cost requirements and that no new customer monies are required
at this time.
Minimum Fund Earnings Rate
Separate from the issue of the assumed fund earnings rate is the matter of whether the we
shall impose a minimum fund earnings rate. In Order No. 21928, we determined that a minimum
fund earnings rate equivalent to the level of inflation over each five-year review period would be
appropriate.38 We reaffirmed this approach in FPL’s 1994 and 1998 Studies. In those orders we
stated:
Rather than attempting to set a prospective minimum fund earnings rate which
may or may not be reasonable under future economic conditions, we will require
that the companies set aside funds sufficient to meet the Commission’s best
estimate of the decommissioning liability and require the companies to maintain
the purchasing power as well as the principal amount of these contributions. The
companies’ investment performance will be evaluated along with all other
decommissioning activities every five years. If it is found that the companies’
investment earnings, net of taxes and all other administrative costs charged to the
trust fund, did not meet or exceed the CPI average for the period, then we will
consider ordering the utility to cover this shortfall with additional monies to keep
the trust fund whole with respect to inflation. We therefore find a minimum fund
38 Order No. 21928.

ORDER NO. PSC-2026-0236-PAA-EI
DOCKET NO. 20250143-EI
PAGE 21
earnings rate equivalent to the level of inflation over each five-year review period
would be appropriate.39
FPL believes a minimum funds earnings rate should not be imposed and the current
approach, as approved by us, should remain in effect.40 The Company explained that economic
and financial market conditions can vary widely over time and are difficult, if not impossible, to
predict. FPL also indicated that it is reasonable that the Company be accountable for taking
appropriate steps intended to preserve the principal value and the purchasing power of
contributions collected from its customers. We concur with FPL and find this approach is
reasonable and find that it remain in effect; that is, no minimum earnings rate shall be imposed at
this time.
Conclusion
The 	current 	annual 	expense 	requirements 	to 	satisfy 	the 	estimated 	future 	nuclear
decommissioning costs presented in the 2025 study support a zero accrual as of December 31,
2025. Based on the current estimated cost to decommission each nuclear unit, the assumed
escalation rates to derive future cost values, current funding levels, and the assumed fund
earnings rate of 4.5 percent, we find the continued suspension of any decommissioning accruals
is reasonable. Thus, we find 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.
End-of-Life Materials and Supplies
The EOL M&S inventories of a nuclear-powered electrical plant consist of spare
replacement parts and supplies that are required to ensure safe and reliable operations of the
nuclear plant.41 These inventories are unique and will have little value other than scrap when the
associated nuclear units are decommissioned. Recognizing that a level of EOL M&S inventories
will remain at the final shut down of each nuclear plant and therefore equates to an unrecovered
cost, we authorized FPL to amortize the cost of EOL M&S inventories over the remaining life
span of each nuclear plant in order to ratably allocate the costs to those receiving the benefit of
39 Order No. PSC-95-1531-FOF-EI; Order No. PSC-02-0055-PAA-EI. See Docket No. 941352-EI, In re: Petition
for Approval of Increase in Accrual for Nuclear Decommissioning Costs by Florida Power Corporation; Docket
No. 001835-EI, In re: Petition for approval of revised annual accrual for nuclear decommissioning costs by Florida
Power Corporation; Docket No. 990324-EI, In re: Disposition of Florida Power & Light Company’s accumulated
amortization pursuant to Order PSC-96-0461-FOF-EI; and Docket No. 991931-EG, In re: Determination of
appropriate method of recovery for the last core of nuclear fuel for Florida Power & Light Company and Florida
Power Corporation.
40 FPL’s Responses to Staff’s First Data Request, No. 2, filed February 11, 2026.
41 EOL M&S inventories include assets such as spare pumps and subassemblies, motors, control modules, circuit
boards, switch gear, circuit breakers, valves and valve parts, ventilation parts and filters, radiation monitoring parts,
and similar types of equipment. In FPL’s Response to Staff’s Second Data request, Nos. 7 and 14, FPL stated that
valves and electrical switching equipment are the items with the highest value in the respective EOL M&S
inventories.

ORDER NO. PSC-2026-0236-PAA-EI
DOCKET NO. 20250143-EI
PAGE 22
the nuclear generated power.42 For administrative ease, we further required FPL to address the
amortization status of EOL M&S inventories in the Company’s subsequent updated nuclear
decommissioning cost studies so the related annual amortization expense could be revised, if
necessary.
In accordance with Order No. PSC-02-0055-PAA-EI, effective May 2002, FPL began
recording the annual amortization expense associated with the EOL M&S inventories as a debit
to nuclear maintenance expense with a credit to an unfunded Account 228 reserve. FPL’s current
level of annual amortization expense was required in its 2020 Study and approved by us by
Order PSC-2021-0232-PAA-EI. Because we previously found that the recovery of the costs
associated with the EOL M&S inventories shall be considered as a base rate component,43 we
ordered that changes in amortization of the EOL M&S inventory-related expenses shall be
considered in conjunction with changes in other base rate costs and revenue requirement
determinations at the time of a base rate proceeding. Consequently, FPL’s currently-authorized
annual amortization determined in its 2020 Study became effective in July 2021, consistent with
the Stipulation and Settlement Agreement approved by us in FPL’s 2025 base rate case. 44
In 	a 	decommissioning 	study, 	a 	Company’s 	required 	EOL 	M&S-related 	annual
amortization is determined by dividing the remaining net unrecovered cost associated with the
EOL M&S inventories by the remaining amortization period. The remaining net unrecovered
cost is the difference between the estimated cost of EOL M&S inventories and the actual reserve
balance accrued at a point in time. The remaining amortization period is usually assumed to be
from the considered point in time to the end of operating license of the last nuclear unit at a
nuclear site.
In its study, FPL estimated the remaining net unrecovered cost associated with the EOL
M&S inventories, as of January 1, 2026, to be $65.934 million, with approximately $36.330
million at St. Lucie45 and $29.604 million at Turkey Point. These amounts reflect increases in the
estimated Adjusted Ending Inventory Value at the end of the license compared to the 2020
Study, including an approximate $20 million increase for St. Lucie Unit 2 and a $14 million
increase for Turkey Point Unit 4.
The overall increase of approximately $22 million in the estimated Adjusted Ending
Inventory Value for St. Lucie is primarily attributable to the subsequent 20-year license
extensions for Units 1 and 2, which require FPL to maintain higher inventory balances over a
longer period and delay the onset of the inventory ramp-down phase. For Turkey Point, the $12.6
42 Order No. PSC-02-0055-PAA-EI; Order No. PSC-13-0023-S-EI, issued January 14, 2013, in Docket No. 120015-
EI, In re: Petition for increase in rates by Florida Power & Light Company; and Order No. PSC-16-0250-PAA-EI,
issued June 29, 2016, in Docket No. 150265-EI, In re: Petition for approval of 2020 nuclear decommissioning
study, by Florida Power & Light Company.
43 Order No. PSC-02-0055-PAA-EI.
44 Order No. PSC-2026-0022-S-EI, issued January 22, 2026, in Docket No. 20250011-EI, In re: Petition for rate
increase by Florida Power & Light Company.
45 The calculations in the 2025 study reflect that other parties have small ownership interests in the St. Lucie units.
FPL's ownership share for these units is reflected as 92.552245 percent, net of participants. FPL owns all interests in
the Turkey Point units.

ORDER NO. PSC-2026-0236-PAA-EI
DOCKET NO. 20250143-EI
PAGE 23
million increase in the estimated Adjusted Ending Inventory Value is primarily due to updated
inflation factors applied over the study period, as well as a lower assumed inventory turnover
rate of 18.24 percent in the 2025 study compared to 26.34 percent in the 2020 study.46
On February 28, 2025, FPL filed a Petition for Base Rate Increase and Rate Unification.47
After filing its Rate Case petition, the Company updated its analysis associated with the EOL
M&S inventories in the instant docket in order to align with the proposed effective date
identified in FPL’s Rate Case, January 1, 2026. We recently established base rates through 2029
via settlement, with EOL M&S accruals continuing based on the results of the prior study.48
Accordingly, the 2025 study results for EOL M&S, as projected forward to January 1, 2030,
reflect the estimated remaining amounts to be recovered and the revised annual amortization
amounts as presented in Table 12 below.
Table 12
EOL M&S - Associated Amortization Expenses ($1000s)
Plant
Site/
Unit
(a)
EOL M&S
Inventories
as of
1/1/2030
(FPL
ownership
share)
(b)
Reserve
Balance
as of
1/1/2030
(c) = (a) – (b)
Remaining
Amounts to
be Recovered
(d)
Current
Annual
Amortization
(2020 Study)
(e)
Revised
Annual
Amortization
(as of
1/1/2030)
(f) = (e) – (d)
Change in
Annual
Amortization 49
SL2 * 	50,047 	17,656 	32,391 	985 	973 	(12)
TP4 ** 	54,428 	27,470 	26,958 	662 	1,157 	495
Total 	104,475 	45,126 	60,934 	1,647 	2,130 	483
*St. Lucie 2 is the last unit to be decommissioned at the St. Lucie nuclear site.
** Turkey Point 4 is the last unit to be decommissioned at the Turkey Point nuclear site.
Data Source: FPL's response to Staff's Second Data Request, Nos. 2 (SL) and 9 (TP); FPL 2025 Decommissioning
Study, Assumptions and Schedule E; and Order No. PSC-2021-0232-PAA-EI.
Based on the information contained in FPL’s 2025 study and associated data request
responses as well as prior our orders, we find that the revised estimated amortization amounts
presented in Table 12 are reasonable. FPL proposed that any change in amortization accruals
relating to EOL M&S inventories should be addressed in FPL's next base rate proceeding.50 We
concur with FPL that the EOL M&S accruals currently in effect shall remain in effect, and that
EOL M&S changes in accruals, if any, shall be addressed in FPL’s next rate case.
46 FPL’s response to Staff’s Second Data Request, Nos. 4 (SL) and 11 (TP), filed March 05, 2026.
47 See footnote 44.
48 See footnote 44.
49 The Change in Annual Amortization is presented for informational purposes only.
50 Docket No. 20250143-EI, In re: Petition of Florida Power & Light Company for Approval of its 2025
Decommissioning Study.

ORDER NO. PSC-2026-0236-PAA-EI
DOCKET NO. 20250143-EI
PAGE 24
We find 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
shall be addressed in FPL’s next rate case.
Last Cores Amortization Expense
Last Core is defined as the unburned nuclear fuel that will remain in the fuel assemblies
at the end of the last operating cycle of each nuclear unit when it ceases operation. Recognizing
that the Last Core is associated with the final shut down of a nuclear unit and therefore equates to
an unrecovered cost at the end of each unit's life, we authorized FPL to amortize the cost of the
Last Core over the remaining life span of each nuclear unit in order to ratably allocate the costs
to those receiving the benefit of the nuclear generated power.51 For administrative ease, we also
required FPL to address the amortization status of the Last Core expense in the Company’s
subsequent updated nuclear decommissioning cost studies so the related annual amortization
expense could be revised, if necessary.
In accordance with Order No. PSC-02-0055-PAA-EI, FPL began recording the annual
amortization expense associated with the Last Core as a debit to nuclear maintenance expense
with a credit to an unfunded Account 228 reserve. FPL’s current level of annual amortization
expense was required in its 2020 study and approved by us by Order No. PSC-2021-0232-PAA-
EI. Because we previously found that the recovery of the cost associated with the Last Core shall
be considered as a base rate component, we ordered that changes in amortization of the Last
Core-related expense shall be considered in conjunction with changes in other base rate costs and
revenue requirement determinations at the time of FPL’s base rate proceeding.52 Consequently,
FPL’s authorized annual amortization determined in its 2020 Study became effective January 1,
2022. 53
In a decommissioning study, a company’s required Last Core-related annual amortization
is determined by dividing the difference between the estimated EOL value of the Last Core of
nuclear fuel and the cumulative amortization balance at a point in time, by the remaining
amortization period which is usually assumed to be at the end of operating license of the nuclear
unit. FPL calculated the estimated EOL value of the Last Core of nuclear fuel using the same
methodology applied in prior decommissioning studies. The EOL Last Core value reflects the
aggregation of estimated unamortized acquisition costs of each fuel batch prorated based on the
percentage of unburned fuel remaining at the conclusion of the final operating cycle.54,55 In its
2025 study, FPL estimated the remaining net unrecovered cost associated with Last Core at the
51 Order No. PSC-02-0055-PAA-EI; Order No. PSC-05-0902-S-EI; Order No. PSC-11-0381-PAA-EI; Order No.
PSC-13-0023-S-EI; Order No. PSC-16-0250-PAA-EI; and Order No. PSC-2021-0232-PAA-EI.
52 Order No. PSC-02-0055-PAA-EI.
53 Order No. PSC-2021-0232-PAA-EI.
54 FPL’s Responses to Staff’s Second Data Request, No. 20, filed March 05, 2026.
55 Calculation Formula: Unburned Fuel Cost = (Batch 1 Acquisition Cost × Remaining Burnup %) + (Batch 2
Acquisition Cost × Remaining Burnup %) + (Batch 3 Acquisition Cost × Remaining Burnup %)

ORDER NO. PSC-2026-0236-PAA-EI
DOCKET NO. 20250143-EI
PAGE 25
St. Lucie and Turkey Point nuclear plants, as of December 31, 2025, was approximately
$495.728 million.
Consistent with the approach used with the EOL M&S balances in its 2025 study, FPL
proposed that any change in amortization accruals relating to the Last Core expense should be
addressed in FPL's next base rate proceeding. The approval of FPL’s 2025 rate case petition
resulted in the Company updating its analysis associated with Last Core to align with FPL’s
potential effective date for their next base rate proceeding of January 1, 2030.56 The updated
analysis reflects that FPL’s estimate of remaining net unrecovered cost associated with the Last
Core, 	as 	of 	January 	1, 	2030, 	is 	approximately 	$481.472 	million. 	The 	resulting 	annual
amortization expense is estimated to be $17.886 million, an increase of $14.322 million annually
from the current level. FPL indicated this estimate reflects the increase in the market-based
prices of nuclear fuel purchases since its prior 2020 Study.57 Details of the estimated Last Core-
related costs, reserve balances, remaining amounts to be recovered, and annual amortization
amounts, as of January 1, 2030, are presented in Table 13 below:
Table 13
Last Core - Associated Amortization Expenses ($1000s)
(a) 	(b) 	(c) = (a) - (b) 	(d) 	(e) 	(f) = (e) - (d)
Plant
Site /
Unit
Last Core
Costs as of
1/1/2030
(FPL
Ownership
share)
Reserve
Balance
as of
1/1/2030
Remaining
Amounts to
be
Recovered
Current
Annual
Amortization
(2020 Study)
Revised
Annual
Amortization
(as of
1/1/2030)
Change in
Annual
Amortization58
SL1 	231,500 	51,115 	180,385 	919 	6,883 	5,964
SL2 	197,800 	42,955 	154,845 	953 	4,651 	3,698
TP3 	98,300 	47,129 	51,171 	803 	2,270 	1,467
TP4 	138,100 	43,029 	95,071 	889 	4,082 	3,193
Total 	665,700 	184,228 	481,472 	3,564 	17,886 	14,322
Data Source: FPL's Response to Staff's Second Data Request, Nos. 21, 25.
Based on the review of information contained in FPL’s 2025 study and associated data
request responses as well as our prior orders, we find that the updated values for Last Core
amortization presented in Table 13 are reasonable. In addition, we concur with FPL that the Last
Core amortization amounts currently in effect shall remain in effect, and that Last Core
amortization amount changes shall be addressed in FPL’s next rate case.
The amortization expense associated with the cost of the Last Core of nuclear fuel shall
be revisited in FPL’s next base rate proceeding, and the current annual amortization expense
56 FPL’s Responses to Staff’s Second Data Request Nos. 23, 27, filed March 05, 2026.
57 Id. at Nos. 18 and 19.
58 The change in Annual Amortization is presented here for informational purposes only.

ORDER NO. PSC-2026-0236-PAA-EI
DOCKET NO. 20250143-EI
PAGE 26
from the 2020 Study shall remain in effect. Based on the proposed date of January 1, 2030, we
approve FPL’s revised estimate of annual amortization expense associated with the cost of the
Last Core of $17.886 million (system) for FPL’s 2025 study. The revised amortization represents
an increase of approximately $14.322 million from the authorized amortization in the 2020
Study.
Effective Date
In 	FPL’s 	2020 	Study, 	we 	found 	that 	FPL’s 	currently-approved 	zero 	annual
decommissioning accrual did not warrant revision at that time. A review of FPL’s 2025 study
indicates that decommissioning base cost estimates have increased since 2020. However,
assumptions relating to escalation rates and trust fund earnings, suggest that FPL’s currently
approved zero annual decommissioning accrual does not require revision at this time.
We find that revisions to the amortization of nuclear EOL M&S inventories and
amortization of the costs associated with the Last Core shall be revisited at FPL’s next base rate
proceeding. This is in accordance with our decision in the 1998 study review that the
amortization expenses associated with the Last Core and EOL M&S shall be considered base rate
obligations.59 The effective date of annual amortization amounts shall thus be effective at the
time revised base rates in FPL’s next rate case are approved.
There shall be no change to the currently-approved zero annual decommissioning accrual.
Therefore, the we need not establish an effective date at this time. Any revisions to annual
amortization amounts relating to EOL M&S inventories and the Last Core will be effective at the
time revised base rates are approved in FPL’s next base rate proceeding.
Next Nuclear Decommissioning Study
Rule 25-6.04365, F.A.C., requires a utility that owns a nuclear generating plant under
our jurisdiction to file a site-specific nuclear decommissioning cost study update at least once
every five years from the submission date of the previous study unless otherwise required by the
Commission. Given that FPL’s current study was filed on December 12, 2025, its next study
shall be filed no later than December 12, 2030.
Based on the foregoing, it is
ORDERED by the Florida Public Service Commission that Florida Power & Light
Company’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. It is further
ORDERED that the appropriate jurisdictional accrual amounts necessary to recover
future decommissioning costs over the remaining life of each nuclear power plant remain at the
59 Order No. PSC-02-0055-PAA-EI.

ORDER NO. PSC-2026-0236-PAA-EI
DOCKET NO. 20250143-EI
PAGE 27
currently authorized zero dollars per year as last approved by Order No. PSC-2021-0232-PAA-
EI. It is further
ORDERED that the annual amortization expense estimate associated with EOL M&S
inventories for Florida Power & Light Company 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 shall be addressed in Florida Power & Light Company’s next
rate case. It is further
ORDERED that we recognize the revised estimate of annual amortization expense
associated with the cost of the Last Core of nuclear fuel at Florida Power & Light Company
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. We also order that the updated estimates shall be
addressed in Florida Power & Light Company’s next base rate proceeding, and the appropriate
changes in accruals, if any, shall be made at that time. It is further
ORDERED that there is no change to the current approved zero decommissioning
accrual. Therefore, an effective date for adjusting the annual decommissioning accrual is moot.
Any revisions to the annual amortization amounts relating to EOL M&S inventories and the Last
Core shall be effective at the time revised base rates in Florida Power & Light Company’s next
rate case are approved. It is further
ORDERED that Florida Power & Light Company’s next decommissioning cost study for
the Turkey Point Nuclear Generating Station and the St. Lucie Nuclear Power Plant shall be filed
no later than December 12, 2030. It is further
ORDERED that the provisions of this Order, issued as proposed agency action, shall
become final and effective upon the issuance of a Consummating Order unless an appropriate
petition, in the form provided by Rule 28-106.201, Florida Administrative Code, is received by
the Commission Clerk, 2540 Shumard Oak Boulevard, Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0850, by the
close of business on the date set forth in the “Notice of Further Proceedings” attached hereto. It
is further
ORDERED that in the event this Order becomes final, this docket shall be closed.

ORDER NO. PSC-2026-0236-PAA-EI
DOCKET NO. 20250143-EI
PAGE 28
By ORDER of the Florida Public Service Commission this 23rd day of June , 2026 	.
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.
ZB
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 	that 	is 	available under 	Section 	120.57,
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 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.
The 	action 	proposed 	herein 	is 	preliminary 	in 	nature. Any 	person whose 	substantial
interests 	are 	affected by 	the 	action proposed by 	this 	order may 	file 	a 	petition 	for 	a 	formal
proceeding, 	in 	the 	form 	provided by 	Rule 	28-106.201, 	Florida 	Administrative 	Code. 	This
petition must be received by 	the 	Office of Commission 	Clerk, 2540 Shumard Oak Boulevard,
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0850, by the close of business on July 	14, 2026 	.
In the absence of such 	a 	petition, 	this 	order 	shall become 	final and 	effective upon 	the
issuance of a Consummating Order.
Any objection or protest filed in this/these docket(s) before the issuance date of this order
is 	considered abandoned unless 	it 	satisfies 	the foregoing 	conditions and 	is renewed within the
specified protest period.