Florida Public Service Commission native order document 03235-2026

FILED 6/1/2026
DOCUMENT NO. 03235-2026
FPSC 	- COMMISSION CLERK
BEFORE THE FLORIDA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION
In re: Petition for determination of need for
Andytown-Oasis transmission lines project in
Broward and Miami-Dade Counties, by Florida
Power & Light Company._
DOCKET NO. 20260020- EI
ORDER NO. PSC-2026-0179-FOF-EI
ISSUED: June 	1, 2026
The following Commissioners participated in the disposition of this matter:
GARY F. CLARK
BOBBY PAYNE
ANA ORTEGA
FINAL ORDER APPROVING DETERMINATION OF NEED
FOR ELECTRICAL TRANSMISSION LINES
APPERANCES:
WILLIAM P. COX and CHRISTOPHER WRIGHT, ESQUIRES, 700 Universe
Boulevard, Juno Beach, Florida 33408
On behalf of Florida Power & Light Company (FPL)
WALT TRIERWEILER, CHARLES 	J. REHWINKEL, 	and PATRICIA 	A.
CHRISTENSEN, ESQUIRES, 	c/o The 	Florida 	Legislature, 	111 	West Madison
Street, Suite 812, Tallahassee, Florida 32399
On behalf of the Office of Public Counsel (OPC)
ROBERT SCHEFFEL WRIGHT, JOHN 	T. LAVIA 	III, 	and TIMOTHY 	J.
PERRY, ESQUIRES, 	Gardner 	Bist King & Wood, 	1300 Thomaswood 	Drive,
Tallahassee, Florida 32308
On behalf of Environmental Defense Fund, Inc. (EPF)
CARLOS M. MARQUEZ 	II and SHAW STILLER, ESQUIRES, 	Florida Public
Service Commission, 2540 Shumard Oak Boulevard, Tallahassee, Florida 32399-
0850
On behalf of the Staff of the Florida Public Service Commission (Staff)
MARY ANNE HELTON, ESQUIRE, Deputy General 	Counsel, 	Florida 	Public
Service Commission, 2540 Shumard Oak Boulevard, Tallahassee, Florida 32399-
0850
Advisor to the Florida Public Service Commission

ORDER NO. PSC-2026-0179-FOF-EI
DOCKET NO. 20260020-EI
PAGE 2
ADRIA 	E. 	HARPER, 	ESQUIRE, 	General 	Counsel, 	Florida 	Public 	Service
Commission, 2540 Shumard Oak Boulevard, Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0850
Florida Public Service Commission General Counsel
BY THE COMMISSION:
BACKGROUND
On February 9, 2026, pursuant to Section 403.537, Florida Statutes (F.S.), and Rule 25-
22.075, Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.), Florida Power & Light Company (FPL) filed a
Notice of Intent to File Petition for Transmission Lines Need Determination. FPL subsequently
filed its Petition to Determine Need for Electrical Transmission Lines on March 11, 2026, in
accordance with Section 403.537, F.S., Chapter 120, F.S., and Rules 25-22.076 and 28-106.201,
F.A.C.
FPL petitioned for an affirmative determination of need for the construction of four new
high-voltage transmission lines: (a) one 500-kilovolt (kV) line starting at FPL’s existing
Andytown substation in Broward County and ending at FPL’s planned Oasis substation in
Miami-Dade County; (b) one 500-kV line starting at FPL’s existing Quarry substation in Miami-
Dade County and ending at FPL’s planned Oasis substation in Miami-Dade County; (c) one 230-
kV line starting at FPL’s planned Oasis substation in Miami-Dade County and ending at FPL’s
existing Quarry substation in Miami-Dade County; and (d) one 230-kV line starting at FPL’s
planned Oasis substation in Miami-Dade County and ending at FPL’s existing Levee substation
in Miami-Dade County (collectively, the Andytown-Oasis Transmission Lines Project or AOP).
A formal administrative hearing was held on April 23, 2026. Post-hearing briefs were
filed by the parties on April 29, 2026. On May 11, 2026, we held a Special Agenda Conference
where Florida Public Service Commission (Commission) staff provided us with an oral
recommendation on each issue. After reviewing all the evidence, and with the benefit of post-
hearing briefs as well as Commission staff’s recommendation, we rendered our official vote and
decision for purposes of Section 403.537, F.S., on May 11th approving each of the four
transmission lines of the AOP, as discussed within the body of this Order.
An affirmative determination of need is a condition precedent to the conduct of the siting
processes under Chapter 403, F.S.1 As we have noted in prior orders, it is prudent for a utility to
continue to evaluate whether a project remains in the best interests of its ratepayers. If conditions
change from those presented at the need determination proceeding, then a prudent utility is
expected to respond appropriately. 2
1 Section 403.507(4)(b), F.S. (siting of electrical power plants); Section 403.537(1)(d), F.S. (siting of electric
transmission lines); Section 403.9422(1)(c), F.S. (siting of natural gas transmission pipelines).
2 See e.g., Order No. PSC-2018-0263-FOF-EC, issued May 25, 2018, in Docket No. 20170267-EC, In re: Joint
petition for determination of need for Shady Hills combined cycle facility in Pasco County, by Seminole Electric
Cooperative, Inc. and Shady Hills Energy Center, LLC, p. 28; Order No. PSC-2018-0150-FOF-EI, issued March 19,
2018, in Docket No. 20170225-EI, In re: Petition for determination of need for Dania Beach Clean Energy Center

ORDER NO. PSC-2026-0179-FOF-EI
DOCKET NO. 20260020-EI
PAGE 3
We are vested with subject matter jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to Section
403.537, F.S.
LEGAL STANDARD
Any transmission line3 proposed by a Florida electric utility4 which is designed to operate
at 230-kV or more is subject to the Florida Electric Transmission Line Siting Act (TLSA) and,
unless it meets one of four statutory exemptions, must receive an affirmative determination of
need prior to construction. Section 403.524, F.S. This Commission is the sole forum for a
transmission line need determination under the TLSA. Section 403.537(1)(b), F.S.; see Fla.
Power Corp. v. State of Florida, Siting Bd., 513 So. 2d 1341, 1344 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987).
Transmission lines that “are located in a single county in the state” are statutorily exempt
from the TLSA need determination requirements. Section 403.524(2)(d), F.S. Of the four
substations 	involved 	in 	this 	proceeding 	as 	starting 	and 	ending 	points 	for 	the 	proposed
transmission 	lines, 	only 	Andytown 	is 	located 	in 	Broward 	County. 	The 	remaining 	three
substations will be within Miami-Dade County. As a result, three of the four transmission lines
of the AOP will be constructed entirely within Miami-Dade County and, although designed to
operate at a minimum of 230-kV, would normally be exempt from certification under the TLSA.
However, the statutory provision that exempts intra-county lines from the TLSA does not apply
if “the applicant has applied for certification under this act.” Section 403.524(2)(d), F.S. Because
one of the four lines that comprise the AOP is subject to the TLSA and required an application
for a need determination (in this case the 500-kv Andytown-Oasis transmission line), FPL
included the other three lines in its petition as permitted by the statute to allow for a more
comprehensive review of the project as a whole.
Pursuant to Section 403.537(1)(c), F.S., in determining the need for transmission lines,
we shall take into account:
(1) the need for electric system reliability and integrity;
(2) the need for abundant, low-cost electrical energy to assure the economic well-being of the
residents of this state;
(3) the appropriate starting and ending point of the line; and
(4) other matters within the Commission’s jurisdiction deemed relevant to the determination
of need.
Unit 7, by Florida Power & Light Company, p. 14; Order No. PSC-14-0557-FOF-EI, issued October 10, 2014, in
Docket No. 140110-EI, In re: Petition for determination of need for Citrus County Combined Cycle Power Plant, by
Duke Energy Florida, Inc., pp. 6, 18.
3 Section 403.522(22), F.S.
4 Section 403.522(12), F.S.

ORDER NO. PSC-2026-0179-FOF-EI
DOCKET NO. 20260020-EI
PAGE 4
ANALYSIS AND DECISION
I. 	Impacts of Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Orders
All parties to this proceeding correctly recognize that Section 403.537, F.S., governs
transmission line need determinations before this Commission. However, the parties disagree
regarding the scope of considerations that we must take into account during such proceedings.
Subsection (1)(c) of Section 403.537, F.S., directs us to “take into account . . . other matters
within [our] jurisdiction deemed relevant to the determination of need.” To fall within this catch-
all provision, something must be both within our jurisdiction and deemed relevant by us to the
determination of need. EDF and OPC argue that Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
(FERC) Order Nos. 1000, 1920, 1920-A, and 1920-B are relevant to this proceeding and within
our jurisdiction. Given the totality of circumstances presented in this case, with the benefit of a
full evidentiary record, we disagree and find that those FERC Orders are not relevant to this
proceeding and are beyond our jurisdiction, as discussed more fully below.
A. 	FERC Order No. 1000
1. 	Jurisdiction
FERC Order No. 1000, issued July 2011, was intended to improve transmission planning
and cost allocation mechanisms by requiring FERC-jurisdictional transmission providers to
participate in a regional planning process that accounts for reliability, cost-effectiveness, and
public policy. FERC Order No. 1000, ¶¶ 1–12. Under the regional transmission planning
framework of FERC Order No. 1000, a project is considered “regional” if it provides benefits to
two or more FERC-jurisdictional transmission providers. See FERC Order No. 1000, ¶¶ 63–66
(referring to cost-allocation principles in addressing a regional transmission need).
EDF argues that FERC Order No. 1000 is within our jurisdiction to consider because of
our jurisdiction over the planning and development of transmission facilities to ensure reliability
and avoid uneconomic duplication of transmission facilities as well as our overarching statutory
mandate to regulate utilities in the public interest. EDF adds that under principles of federal
supremacy, state regulatory commissions must consider and give effect to FERC-approved tariffs
and federal transmission regulations. OPC averred that Rule 25-22.076(3), F.A.C., indicates
regional information subject to FERC’s jurisdiction is appropriate for us to consider. FPL
counters 	that 	nothing 	in 	either 	Section 	403.537 	or 	Section 	366.04(5), 	F.S., 	grants 	this
Commission authority to enforce, implement, revise, supervise, or entertain complaints or
collateral attacks on regional transmission planning processes. For the following reasons, we
conclude FERC Order No. 1000 is beyond our jurisdiction.
“As the State entity charged by law with planning and regulating the generation and
transmission of electrical power throughout Florida, the [Commission] is to determine its own
jurisdiction.” Roemmele-Putney v. Reynolds, 106 So. 3d 78, 80 (Fla. 1st DCA 2013). In Florida
Public Service Commission v. Bryson, the Florida Supreme Court recognized our discretion “to
interpret the statutes that empower [us], including jurisdictional statutes, and to make rules and

ORDER NO. PSC-2026-0179-FOF-EI
DOCKET NO. 20260020-EI
PAGE 5
issue orders accordingly.” 569 So. 2d 1253, 1255 (Fla. 1990). In resolving jurisdictional issues,
courts have looked to the nature of the relief sought “because it is the nature of the relief sought,
not the language of the complaint, that ultimately determines which tribunal has jurisdiction over
the claim.” Fla. Power & Light Co. v. Albert Litter Studios, Inc., 896 So. 2d 891, 893 (Fla. 3d
DCA 2005) (emphasis in original). Although “states retain authority over transmission-line
siting, 	permitting, 	and 	construction, 	and 	apply 	state 	law 	in 	reviewing 	transmission-line
applications,” Transource Pennsylvania, LLC v. DeFrank, 156 F. 4th 351, 364 (3d Cir. 2025),
jurisdiction over the regional transmission planning process contemplated in FERC Order No.
1000 rests with FERC pursuant to the Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. §§ 791, et seq. See also
Transource, 156 F. 4th at 377. Florida’s statutes do not confer upon us a comparable scope of
authority over that specific process.
We disagree with EDF’s argument that Section 366.04(5), F.S., expands our jurisdiction
over the issues in this case to include FERC Order No. 1000. That statute empowers us to avoid
“uneconomic 	duplication 	of 	generation, 	transmission, 	and 	distribution 	facilities” 	between
utilities. Nothing therein brings FERC Order No. 1000 within this Commission’s jurisdiction.
EDF’s assertion that the possible use of technological alternatives somehow renders the proposed
AOP duplicative would mean every project presented to us was, under EDF’s reading, always
duplicative 	of 	some 	other 	theoretical 	option. 	The 	record 	before 	us, 	however, 	does 	not
demonstrate that the underlying need for the AOP is already being addressed by facilities
approved for, or facilities to be put in place by, Florida’s electric utilities.
In 	Florida, 	the 	Florida 	Reliability 	Coordinating 	Council 	(FRCC) 	is 	charged 	with
considering FERC’s orders and rules as it facilitates the regional planning process. The FRCC is
a member-services organization comprised of utilities. This Commission is not a part of the
FRCC, and as such, we do not participate in the planning, operation, or recommendations
developed by the FRCC. The testimonies of EDF witnesses Cranston and Thomas seek to call
into question the efficacy of the FRCC as a regional planning entity. However, we do not
regulate the FRCC and cannot grant the relief requested by EDF’s witnesses as it relates to
forcing FPL to conduct the so-called “true” FERC Order No. 1000 regional transmission
planning analyses with full and timely opportunities for stakeholder involvement in that process.
Nor can we adjudicate EDF’s allegation that FPL has violated its FERC Open Access
Transmission Tariff. Whether or not the FRCC adequately furthers the letter or spirit of FERC’s
regional planning regime is a question beyond this Commission’s jurisdiction to answer. As FPL
witness McLain correctly testified, the proper forum for such complaints is through FERC.
Therefore, we find that FERC Order No. 1000 is beyond our jurisdiction.
2. 	Relevancy
We also find FERC Order No. 1000 irrelevant to the need determination before us. FPL
offered testimony and evidence that FERC Order No. 1000 is not “regional” and is irrelevant to
this proceeding because the AOP benefits only FPL and its customers, was not identified through
the 	FRCC’s 	most 	recent 	Biennial 	Transmission 	Planning 	Process, 	and 	seeks 	to 	resolve
anticipated local North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC) reliability standards
violations. Meanwhile, EDF offered testimony and evidence in support of the assertion that

ORDER NO. PSC-2026-0179-FOF-EI
DOCKET NO. 20260020-EI
PAGE 6
FERC Order No. 1000’s regional planning processes required FPL to evaluate whether a regional
solution would meet the energy grid’s needs more efficiently or cost-effectively than the AOP
and that FPL failed to do so. Finally, OPC argued that Rule 25-22.076(3), F.A.C., can be broadly
construed so as to permit our consideration of FERC Order No. 1000.
Under the regional transmission planning framework of FERC Order No. 1000, a project
is considered “regional” if it provides benefits to two or more FERC-jurisdictional transmission
providers. See FERC Order No. 1000, ¶¶ 63–66 (referring to cost-allocation principles in
addressing a regional transmission need). In this case, there is only one transmission provider
who benefits—FPL. Importantly, the most recent Biennial Transmission Planning Process
conducted by the FRCC did not identify any regional transmission needs within FPL’s service
area. This fact alone supports the conclusion that the AOP is not a regional project.
Nonetheless, we are also persuaded that the four transmission lines comprising the AOP
are a localized solution to an identified local reliability problem, meaning that the AOP only
benefits FPL and its customers, not other providers. FPL witness Yanes explained that Miami-
Dade County is a load-dense area and is geographically constrained. Located at the southern end
of mainland, peninsular Florida, Miami-Dade County is bordered by the Everglades National
Park 	to 	the 	west 	and 	the 	Atlantic 	Ocean 	to 	the 	east. 	Miami-Dade 	County’s 	electrical
interconnection is thus limited to northward ties into Broward County, which is also part of
FPL’s service territory.
As testified to by FPL witness Yanes, transforming the AOP into a regional project
(assuming FRCC had identified a regional need) could mean extending transmission from
Miami-Dade County to central or west Florida (i.e., into the service territories of Duke Energy
Florida, LLC (DEF) or Tampa Electric Company (TECO)), a distance exceeding 250 miles per
line. In such a scenario, “to transfer the magnitude of power needed, such facilities would
necessarily be constructed at the 500 kV voltage level, with at least two 500 kV lines required,
resulting in a project involving a minimum of approximately 500 miles of new 500 kV
transmission,” compared to the approximately 75 miles of line associated with the AOP.
However, TECO does not own 500-kV facilities, and DEF’s 500-kV system is much further
north. FPL witness Yanes concluded that the “scale, scope, cost, and geographic reach of such
regional transmission solutions underscore why the AOP is appropriately planned as a local
reliability project rather than a regional transmission solution.”
For the foregoing reasons, we find that FERC Order No. 1000 is not relevant to this need
determination proceeding.
B. 	FERC Order Nos. 1920, 1920-A, and 1920-B
1. 	Jurisdiction
FERC Order Nos. 1920, 1920-A, and 1920-B are the most recent reforms by FERC to
regional and, to a lesser extent, interregional transmission planning processes. In accordance
with those orders, regional transmission planning must utilize a minimum 20-year planning

ORDER NO. PSC-2026-0179-FOF-EI
DOCKET NO. 20260020-EI
PAGE 7
horizon as well as consider alternative transmission technologies and right-sizing.5 While these
FERC Orders contemplate a robust regional planning procedure, they do not (in and of
themselves) mandate substantive outcomes. See Transource, 156 F. 4th at 365–66 (noting
regional transmission organization officially selected project and later FERC approved project).
Planning regions are only required to perform the long-term studies. They are not limited to
pursuing only those projects that were assessed in those studies.
With regard to these three orders, the parties raise jurisdictional arguments that are
substantially similar to those discussed in connection with FERC Order No. 1000. We need not
repeat them here. As mentioned previously, our jurisdiction is grounded in state statute. At best,
EDF would have us impose non-existent state planning requirements for alternatives in
transmission line need determination proceedings. At worst, EDF would have us overstep and
preemptively decide the adequacy of regional transmission planning in FERC’s place. Suffice it
to say that our rationale expressed in Section I.A.1 of this Order (addressing why FERC Order
No. 1000 is beyond our jurisdiction) is equally applicable to FERC Order Nos. 1920, 1920-A,
and 1920-B. Therefore, we find that FERC Order Nos. 1920, 1920-A, and 1920-B are beyond
our jurisdiction.
2. 	Relevancy
We also find FERC Order Nos. 1920, 1920-A, and 1920-B irrelevant to the need
determination before us. By way of background, Florida’s FERC-jurisdictional transmission
providers are required to make compliance filings with FERC pursuant to those orders. FPL,
DEF, and TECO jointly moved for an extension of time to implement the orders and complete
related compliance filings. FERC granted their joint motion and extended the deadline for those
compliance filings to June 12, 2026. FERC also found that the first Long-Term Regional
Transmission Planning Cycle must commence no later than June 12, 2028. FPL, DEF, and
TECO selected January 1, 2028 to commence the new planning cycle. Therefore, even assuming
arguendo that we have jurisdiction to consider the orders, the impacts of FERC Order Nos. 1920,
1920-A, and 1920-B on FPL’s regional transmission planning are not ripe for our review,
particularly in light of the extended compliance period FERC authorized.
While EDF argues that we must consider and give effect to the FERC-approved tariffs
and federal transmission regulations, FERC Order Nos. 1920, 1920-A, and 1920-B do not
expressly freeze or prohibit utilities from seeking to address current reliability needs in the
interim compliance period nor require project deferral pending future regional long-term studies.
As explained by FPL witness McLain, these three orders “supplement[] existing planning
processes by requiring transmission providers to incorporate long-term regional considerations
going forward” but do not otherwise “invalidate local or near-term projects developed outside
the long-term planning cycle,” like the AOP. In fact, FERC confirmed as much when it declined
to require “transmission providers to conduct a regional transmission planning process that
simultaneously plans for shorter-term reliability . . . needs . . . through a combined process.”
5 “Right-sizing” is defined as “the process of modifying a transmission provider’s in-kind replacement of an existing
transmission facility to increase that facility’s transfer capability.” FERC Order 1920, ¶ 1678 (emphasis added).

ORDER NO. PSC-2026-0179-FOF-EI
DOCKET NO. 20260020-EI
PAGE 8
FERC Order 1920-A, ¶ 214. Instead, FERC “continue[d] to find that local and regional
transmission planning processes serve essential and complementary roles.” FERC Order 1920-A,
¶ 818.
For the foregoing reasons, we find that FERC Order Nos. 1920, 1920-A, and 1920-B are
not relevant to this need determination proceeding.
II. 	Need Determination Criteria
In determining the need for transmission lines, Section 403.537(1)(c), F.S., requires us to
take into account: (1) the need for electric system reliability and integrity; (2) the need for
abundant, low-cost electrical energy to assure the economic well-being of the residents of this
state; (3) the appropriate starting and ending point of the line; and (4) other matters within this
Commission’s jurisdiction deemed relevant to the determination of need. Having found FERC
Order Nos. 1000, 1920, 1920-A, and 1920-B outside our jurisdiction and not relevant to the
determination of need in this proceeding, we afford such evidence no weight in our disposition of
the remaining issues.
As discussed more fully below, we approve the four transmission lines of the AOP,
finding them needed and finding their starting and ending points to be appropriate.
A. 	Electric System Reliability and Integrity
FPL asserted that additional transmission lines are essential to prevent grid failure as
energy consumption in Miami-Dade County rises. With respect to system reliability and
integrity, FPL projects that by summer 2033, peak demand in the area will reach approximately
7,200 megawatts, resulting in thermal overloads and low-voltage conditions under several
contingency scenarios. The testimony indicates that absent the AOP, the system would violate
mandatory NERC reliability standards, creating a risk of load shedding to maintain grid stability.
While reliability need is triggered by the summer 2033 peak, the AOP is scheduled for
completion in two phases, with the initial 500-kV line placed in service by 2031, which will help
mitigate anticipated load issues on critical facilities based on the forecasted load growth.
EDF and OPC raised concerns about FPL’s usage of a P80 load forecast instead of a P50
load forecast in its transmission study. A P80 load forecast is more conservative in that it
assumes that the actual load has an 80 percent probability of being below the forecasted value.
FPL’s use of the more conservative load forecast was appropriate in this proceeding due to the
geographic constraints associated with Miami-Dade County. The primary interconnections are
only those towards Broward County in the north and due to the high density in the area the
ability to install generation is limited, in addition to fuel having similar import issues as the “end
of the line.”
Based on the evidence presented, we are persuaded that the AOP is essential to mitigate
the load growth of Miami-Dade County and to continue to maintain NERC reliability standards
in effect. Without the AOP, there is a significant risk of overloads and potential voltage issues.

ORDER NO. PSC-2026-0179-FOF-EI
DOCKET NO. 20260020-EI
PAGE 9
Therefore, we find that each of the four transmission lines of the AOP are needed to maintain
electric system reliability and integrity as well as to resolve the identified NERC reliability
standards violations.
B. 	Abundant, Low-Cost Electrical Energy
FPL analyzed two alternatives to the AOP. Each is capable of addressing the identified
reliability need, but both had significantly higher costs when compared to the AOP. Both
alternatives used four transmission lines, two 500-kV and two 230-kV. Alternative I utilized the
Conservation substation instead of Andytown as the starting point in Broward County. The other
three lines were the same as with the AOP. Alternative II was similar to the AOP, except one of
the 230-kV lines from the planned Oasis substation connected to the Flagami substation instead
of the Quarry substation. Specifically, the AOP’s cumulative present value revenue requirement
(CPVRR) is approximately $715 million, compared to $874 million and $923 million for
Alternatives I and II respectively.
Although 	the 	intervenors 	argued 	that 	grid 	enhancing 	technologies 	and 	non-wire
alternatives could be less expensive, we are persuaded that the proposed 500-kV and 230-kV
lines provide the necessary high-capacity transfer capability required for long-term grid stability.
Furthermore, while EDF argued that FPL failed to adequately evaluate advanced technologies
and possible larger regional solutions that could reduce costs when considered alongside
generation changes, the alternatives proposed by EDF either did not fully address cost, need, or
would not be available within the required timeframe. For example, FPL explained that advanced
power flow control devices would not resolve the identified transmission reliability need and
reconductoring would not sufficiently address the voltage and bulk power delivery limitations.
Of the alternatives presented, we find that the AOP is the most cost-effective with the
lowest CPVRR that meets the reliability requirements outlined in Section II.A. Therefore we find
that each of the four transmission lines of the AOP are needed for abundant, low-cost electrical
energy to assure the economic well-being of the citizens of the State.
C. 	Transmission Lines Starting and Ending Points
FPL argued that the proposed starting and ending points at the Andytown, Oasis, Quarry,
and Levee substations were selected to resolve predicted overloads and to use existing rights-of-
way, such as railroads and highways. The testimony and exhibits of FPL witness Yanes
demonstrate that the selected starting and ending points are appropriate because they will allow
FPL to address identified reliability needs and resolve NERC reliability standards violations in
the most cost-effective manner. As discussed in Section II.B, while alternative configurations
were considered, those alternatives were not selected due to higher costs, greater routing
complexities, and less favorable system performance.
EDF did not challenge the proposed starting and ending points other than to say that they
did not incorporate regional planning. Similarly, OPC did not dispute the starting and ending
points, but asserted that FPL did not provide sufficient transmission studies to establish the need

ORDER NO. PSC-2026-0179-FOF-EI
DOCKET NO. 20260020-EI
PAGE 10
for the AOP. Despite the concerns raised by EDF and OPC regarding planning and study depth,
the fundamental location of the project’s terminals remains largely unchallenged in this
proceeding.
Therefore, based on the evidence, we find that FPL’s proposed starting and ending points
for each transmission line are appropriate.
D. 	Transmission Lines Approval and Conclusion
First, as discussed in Section II.A, the AOP is needed to ensure grid reliability and
integrity in Miami-Dade County. Second, as discussed in Section II.B, the AOP is also the most
cost-effective option from available alternative solutions. Lastly, as discussed in Section II.C, the
evidence supports that the starting and ending points are appropriate and were selected to resolve
the identified reliability and integrity issues.
For all the reasons discussed above, we grant FPL’s petition for determination of need for
the proposed AOP and approve all four transmission lines comprising it.
Based on the foregoing, it is
ORDERED by the Florida Public Service Commission that there is a need for each of the
four transmission lines comprising the Andytown-Oasis Transmission Lines Project, when taking
into account the need for electric system reliability and integrity. It is further
ORDERED that there is a need for each of the four transmission lines comprising the
Andytown-Oasis Transmission Lines Project, when taking into account the need for abundant,
low cost electrical energy to assure the economic well-being of the residents of the state. It is
further
ORDERED that the proposed starting and ending points for each of the four transmission
lines comprising the Andytown-Oasis Transmission Lines Project are appropriate. It is further
ORDERED that Florida Power & Light Company’s Petition to Determine Need for
Electrical Transmission Lines is GRANTED as set forth herein. It is further
ORDERED that this docket shall be closed.

ORDER NO. PSC-2026-0179-FOF-EI
DOCKET NO. 20260020-EI
PAGE 11
By ORDER of the Florida Public Service Commission this 	1st 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.
CMM
NOTICE OF FURTHER PROCEEDINGS OR JUDICIAL REVIEW
The Florida Public Service Commission (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.
Any 	party 	adversely 	affected by 	the 	Commission’s 	final 	action 	in 	this 	matter may
request: 	1) reconsideration of the decision by 	filing a motion for reconsideration with the Office
of Commission Clerk, 2540 Shumard Oak Boulevard, Tallahassee, 	Florida 32399-0850, within
five 	(5) 	days 	of 	the 	issuance 	of 	this 	order 	in 	accordance 	with 	Rule 	25-22.075(1), 	Florida
Administrative 	Code, and 	in 	the form 	prescribed by Rule 	25-22.060, 	Florida 	Administrative
Code; 	or 	2) 	judicial review by 	the 	Florida Supreme 	Court 	in 	the 	case of an 	electric, 	gas, 	or
telephone 	utility by 	filing a notice of appeal with the Office of Commission Clerk, and 	filing a
copy of the 	notice of appeal and 	the 	filing fee with the 	appropriate 	court. 	This 	filing must be
completed within thirty (30) days after the issuance of this order, pursuant to Rule 9.1 10, Florida
Rules 	of Appellate 	Procedure. The 	notice 	of appeal must 	be 	in 	the 	form 	specified 	in Rule
9.900(a), Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure.