Florida Public Service Commission native order document 05078-2024

FILED 6/10/2024
DOCUMENT NO. 05078-2024
FPSC - COMMISSION CLERK
BEFORE THE FLORIDA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION
In re: Petition for rate increase by Duke Energy 	DOCKET NO. 20240025-EI
Florida, LLC. 	ORDER NO. PSC-2024-0187-FOF-EI
--------------~ ISSUED: June 10, 2024
The following Commissioners participated in the disposition of this matter:
MIKE LA ROSA, Chairman
ART GRAHAM
GARY F. CLARK
ANDREW GILES FAY
GABRIELLA PASSIDOMO
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
BY THE COMMISSION:
BACKGROUND
Duke Energy Florida, LLC (DEF or Utility) provides elect ri c service to approximately 2
million customers across the state. DEF filed its P et ition for Rate Increase, minimum filing
requirements (MFRs), and testimony on April 2, 2024. DEF filed its MFRs based on three
projected test years, from January l to December 31, 2025; January l to December 3 1, 2026; and
January 1 to December 31, 2027.
OPC's intervention in this docket was acknowledged by Order No. PSC-2024-0041-
PCO-EI, issued February 26, 2024. On April 19, 2024, intervention in this proceeding was
granted 	to 	Florida Rising and 	the 	League of United 	Latin 	American Ci ti zens 	of Florida
(FR/LULAC); Florida Industrial Power Users Group; Florida Retail Federation (FRF); and
Sierra Club. 	On 	April 	24, 2024, 	intervention was 	granted 	to 	White Springs 	Agricultural
Chemicals, Inc. d/b/a PCS Phosphate - White Springs (PCS Phosphate); and Nucor Steel Florida,
Inc. (Nucor). Petitions for intervention were pending for Southern Alliance for Clean Energy
and Americans for Affordable Clean Energy, Inc.; Circle K Stores, Inc.; RaceTrac Inc.; and
Wawa, Inc. (Fuel Retailers) as of filing date of the s taff recommendation.
On 	March 	8, 2024, 	OPC filed 	a 	Motion 	for 	Expedited 	Joint Docket 	Scheduling
Conference, together with an April 3, 2024 supplement to that motion, by which OPC requested
a conference "to consider fair and equitable key activities and hearing dates, consistent with due
process." DEF responded in opposition on April 3, 2024, stating that OPC's proposed schedule
does not provide adequate time for post-hearing proceeding s. OPC's request for a scheduling
conference 	was 	denied 	as 	its 	motion 	set forth 	in detail 	OPC's arguments and 	proposed
controlling dates. Ha ving considered the parties' proposals, the Order Establishing Procedure

ORDER NO. PSC-2024-0187-FOF-EI
DOCKET NO. 20240025-EI
PAGE2
(OEP) No. PSC-2024-0092-PCO-EI, issued April 11 , 2024, established controlling dates and
procedures for this proceeding, including for the filing of prefiJed testimony and exhibits,
conducting discovery, and other prehearing and hearing activities. Included among these events
was the requirement that, in advance of the hearing, parties provide electronic copies of all
exhibits they intend to offer into evidence at the hearing. Finally, the OEP scheduled these
matters for an administrative hearing for August 	12-16, 2024, with August 	19-23, 2024,
reserved for the continuation and conclusion of this hearing, if necessary.
On April 22, 2024, OPC timely filed a Motion for Reconsideration or , in the Alternative,
Motion for Continuance (OPC Motion), concurrently with a request for oral argument on its
Motion. OPC's Motion was filed with respect to this docket as well as Docket No. 20240026-EI,
In r e: 	Petition for 	rate increase by Tampa Electric Company. 	As these dockets are not
consolidated, a separate ord er will be filed with respect to the Tampa Electric Company (TECO)
rate case, in Docket No. 20240026-EI. In its Motion, OPC argues that the "severely compressed"
hearing schedule established by the OEP does not allow sufficient time for the intervenors to
prepare testimony and doesn ' t account for the workload created by DEF requesting three
projected test years, and that scheduling the DEF and TECO hearings within three weeks of each
other unfairly prejudices OPC's ability to represent the customers of DEF and TECO. OPC
contends that DEF is not entitled to have its rates go into effect on January I, 2025, and the
certainty that OPC does not have enough time to prepare its case for the TECO and DEF
hearings outweighs the possibility that the statutory timeline may need to be delayed.
Joinders to OPC's Motion were filed by FR/LULAC (April 22), PCS Phosphate (April
23), Sierra Club (April 24), and FRF (April 29), contending that the time afforded for the
intervenors to conduct discovery and prepare their case is unfairly curtailed, especially given the
magnitude of the requested increase and the complexity of the issues presented.
On April 29, 2024, DEF filed a Response in Opposition (Response) to OPC' s Motion and
OPC's request fo r oral argument. DEF contends that OPC 's arguments essentially say the same
thing as OPC's initial March 8, 2024 Motion for Expedited Joint Docket Scheduling Conference:
that OPC believes it does not have adequate time to prepare its case. DEF contends that OPC has
not identified any new information that would justify reconsideration of the OEP; therefore,
OPC 's Motion should be denied.
This order addresses OPC's Request for Oral Argument and Motion for Reconsideration,
and the joinders and Response thereto. We have jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to Chapter
366, Florida Statutes (F.S.), including Section 366.06, F.S.
DECISION
Denying OPC's Request for Oral Argument
Granting or denying oral argument on a dispositive motion is within our sole discretion.
Having found the pleadings sufficient on their face, oral argument was denied.

ORDER NO. PSC-2024-0187-FOF-EI
DOCKET NO. 20240025-EI
PAGE3
Denying OPC's Motion for Reconsideration
The appropriate standard of review for reconsideration of a Commission order is whether
the motion identifies a point of fact or law that we overlooked or failed to consider in rendering
the order under review. See Stewart Bonded Warehouse, In c. v. Bevis, 294 So. 2d 315 (Fla.
I 974); Diamond Cab Co. v. King, 146 So. 2d 889 (Fla. 1962); and Pingree v. Quaintance, 394
So. 2d 162 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981 ). It is not appropriate to reargue matters that have already been
considered. Sherwood v. State, 111 So. 2d 96 (Fla. 3d DCA 1959) (citing State ex. rel. Jaytex
Realty 	Co. 	v. 	Green, 	105 So. 2d 	817 (Fla. 	l st DCA 	1958)). 	Furthem,ore, a motion for
reconsideration should not be granted "based upon an arbitrary feeling that a mistake may have
been made, but should be based upon specific factual matters set forth in the record and
susceptible to review." Stewart Bonded Warehouse, Inc. , 294 So. 2d at 317.
OPC 's Motion for Reconsideration
In 	its 	Motion, OPC 	acknowledges 	that 	the 	standard 	of review 	on 	a 	motion 	for
reconsideration is whether the motion identifies a point of fact or law that we either overlooked
or failed to consider. However, OPC argues that a de novo standard of review should apply in
this case because the underlying order is a procedural order that hasn 't been issued by the full
Commission or been the subject of a hearing.
With respect to the merits of its Motion, OPC requests that we reconsider the hearing
schedules for six reasons: (1) intervenors have insufficient time to prepare testimony; (2) the
utilities could have easily avoided this scheduling "disaster" and are not entitled to new rates by
January I, 2025; (3) the current ratemaking framework cannot fully accommodate analysis of
DEF's three proposed test years simultaneously and then contemporaneously with the TECO rate
case docket; (4) Commission staff does not have sufficient time to conduct their standard audit;
(5) the certainty that OPC does not have enough time to prepare their cases outweighs the
possibility that the timeline may need to be delayed; and (6) asymmetrical advance knowledge of
the hearing dates created additional harm to intervenors. OPC also contends that it is burdensome
and a violation of due process to require the parties to provide, in advance of the hearing,
electronic copies of all exhibits they plan to offer into evidence at the hearing.
Joinders by FR/LULAC, PCS Phosphate, Sierra Club, and FRF
On 	April 	22, 	2024, 	FR/LULAC 	filed 	a 	Notice 	of Joinder 	in 	Citizens· 	Motion.
FR/LULAC noted that, in addition to the arguments put forth by OPC, FR/LULAC had to wait
for intervention to be granted before it could file enforceable discovery.
On April 23, 2024, PCS Phosphate filed a Response in Support of Citizens' Motion,
echoing OPC's contention that the procedural timeline established does not provide sufficient
time to evaluate DEF 's petition, develop testimony, and prepare for a hearing. PCS Phosphate
further contends that the twelve day advance submission of cross-examination exhjbits will resuJt
in a prolonged hearing and, therefore, supports OPC 's request for reconsideration.

ORDER NO. PSC-2024-0187-FOF-EI
DOCKET NO. 20240025-EI
PAGE4
On April 24, 2024, Sierra Club filed a Notice of Joinder in Citizens' Motion. Sierra Club
argues that the current hearing schedules in the Duke and TECO rate cases prejudice its ability
for a fair hearing and joins OPC's Motion requesting reconsideration of the hearing schedule.
On April 29, 2024, FRF filed a Notice of Joinder in Citizens' Motion and argues it has a
substantial interest in having the Commission grant the relief requested by the Motion.
No other pru1ies provided comment in support of OPC's Motion.
DEF's Response in Opposition
On April 29, 2024, DEF filed a Response in Opposition to OPC 's Motion. DEF argues
OPC has not identified a mistake of Jaw or fact that would justify reconsideration of the hearing
schedule. DEF contends that OPC was well aware of both DEF and TECO filing their respective
rate cases in 2024 and notes that the current hearing schedule is consistent with the statutory time
frames 	established 	in 	Section 	366.06(3), 	F.S. 	As 	to 	Lhe 	issue of '·asymmetric 	advance
knowledge," DEF notes that there is no evidence DEF had advance knowledge of the hearing
schedule but, even if it did, it would not be improper or lead to harm that would justify a
scheduling change. Finally, DEF notes that OPC 's alternative request to continue the hearing is,
functionally, simply a request for reconsideration and requests that OPC 's Motion be denied.
Analysis
Motion/or Reconsideration
OPC contends that we should review its Motion on a de novo basis rather than "the
ordinary standard for reconsideration." OPC contends a mi stake of fact or law standai·d does not
fit this scenario because the matters for which OPC seeks review have either not been previously
considered by the majority of this Commission, or have not been the subject of a hearing.
However, the setting of a procedural schedule for a hearing-track docket is a function of the
Prehearing Officer 's duties, not that of this Commission as an agency, nor are such procedural
matters appropriate for an evidentiary hearing. Further, we have held that a mistake of fact or law
standard applies to our reconsideration of a Prehearing Officer 's order. 1
The Prehearing Officer is the procedural administrator of a hearing-track case. They rule
on motions and procedural matters and conduct prehearing conferences, prior to referral of such
1 See Order No. PSC-2016-0231-FOF-El, issued June 10 , 2016, in Docket No. 20 160021-EI, In re: Petition for rate
increase by Florida Power & Light Company; Order No. PSC-2002- 1442-FOF-El, issued October 21, 2002, in
Docket Nos. 20020262-EI, In r e: Petition to Determine Need for an Electrical Power Plant in Martin County by
Florida Power & light Company and 20020263-El, In re: Petition to Determine Need for an Electrical Power Plant
in Manatee County by Florida Power & Light Co mpany; Order No. PSC-2001-2021-FOF-TL, issued October 9,
200 1, in Docket No. l 9960786A-TL, In re: Consideration of Bel/South Telecommunications, Inc. 's enoy into
interLATA services pursuant to Section 271 of the Federal Telecommunications Act of 1996; Order No. PSC-1997-
0098-FOF-EU, issued January 27, 1997, in Docket No. 19930885-EU. In re: Petition to Resolve territorial dispute
with Gulf Coast Electric Cooperative, In c. by Gulf Power Company; Order No. PSC-1996-0133-FOF-EI, issued
January 29, 1996, in Docket No. 199501 10-El, In re: Standard offer contract for the purchase offirm capacity and
energy from a qualifying facility between Panda-Kathleen, LP., and Florida Power Corporation.

ORDER NO. PSC-2024-0187-FOF-EI
DOCKET NO. 20240025-EI
PAGES
cases to us for final decision. Pursuant to Rule 28-l 06.211, F.A.C., the Prehearing Officer may
issue any orders necessary to effectuate discovery, to prevent delay, and to promote the just,
speedy, and inexpensive determination of all aspects of the case, including bifurcating the
proceeding. "The Prehearing Officer has wide discretion in balancing the interests of parties in
the furtherance of the orderly administration of justice. " 2 The schedule approved by a Prehearing
Officer is controlled in part by the selection of hearing dates by the Chairman, which is in turn
based upon the availability of the Commission's calendar and the existence of any applicable
statutory deadlines.
The statutory deadlines in Lhis docket are established under Section 366.06(3), F.S.,
which requires us to take action on DEF's proposed final rates within eight months. If we do not
act by the end of this eight-month period, pursuant to Section 366.06(3), F.S., DEF is entitled to
place its proposed rates into effect, subject to refund. The statute further provides that we must
take final action in the docket and enter our final order within 12 months of the commencement
date for final agency action. The official filing date for this proceeding is April 2, 2024, pursuant
to Section 366.06(3), F.S. Therefore, the eight-month period expires on December 2, 2024.
Before we can take a final vote on DEF's proposed rates, there are a number of post-hearing
activities that must take place: post-hearing briefs are filed by the parties, and two post-hearing
recommendations and two post-hearing votes take place - one on the revenues, and one on the
final rates. The OEP in this docket balances the needs of both pre-hearing and post-hearing
process, for the parties, s taff, and Commissioners, consistent with the deadlines under Section
366.06(3), F.S. Adherence to the eight-month clock is a consistent and appropriate Commission
practice. The schedule in this docket isn ' t driven by DEF wanting new rates to be placed in effect
by January 1, 2025; it 's driven by when the companies elect to file their case, which is not a
matter susceptible to our control, and the requirements of our authorizing statutes.
As to requiring the provision of exhibits in advance of the hearing, Rule 28-106.209,
F.A.C., provides that any time after a matter has been filed with an agency, the presiding officer
can direct the parties to confer for the purpose of examining documents and other exhibits. The
purpose of discovery is to eliminate the element of surprise, encourage settlement, and to assist
in arriving at the truth. 3 The exchange of exhibits in advance of hearing is a common feature in
proceedings before the Division of Administrative Hearings, and was used in a number of vi1tual
hearings before us during the pandemic. The requirement that parties and staff list and exchange
all exhibits in advance of the hearing promotes due process, transparency, and judicial economy.
Finally, much of OPC 's argument on reconsideration repeats matters raised in its Motion
for Expedited Joint Docket Scheduling Conference, which the Prehearing Officer considered in
setting the hearing schedule. It is not appropriate to reargue matters on reconsideration that have
already been considered. OPC has not clearly identified any specific mistakes of fact or law the
2 Order No. 25245, issued October 23, 1991, in Docket No. 19880069-TL, In re: Petitions of Sowhern Bell
Telephone and Telegraph Company for Rate Stabilization and Implementation Orders and Other Relief (Prehearing
Officer balanced competing interests of new counsel desiring more time to prepare and party seeking to proceed
with discovery by delaying deposition).
3 Order No. PSC-2022-0194-PCO-EI, issued May 25, 2023, in Docket No. 2022005 l -EI, in re: Review of Storm
Protection Plan, pursuant to Rule 25-6.030, F.A.C., Florida Power & Ligh1 Company.

ORDER NO. PSC-2024-0187-FOF-El
DOCKET NO. 20240025-EI
PAGE6
Prehearing Officer made in issuing the OEP. Without a specific mistake of fact or law, a motion
for reconsideration must be denied, even if the reviewing body would have reached a different
decision. 4 Based on the above, OPC's Motion for Reconsideration is hereby denied.
Alternative Request for Continuance
In the alternative, OPC moved that we continue the final hearings scheduled in the DEF
and TECO dockets and adjust the major activity dates correspondingly. OPC argued it has met
the burden established by Rule 28-106.210, F.A.C., which governs motions for continuance and
grants the presiding officer the authority to continue a hearing for good cause shown. Generally,
hearing officers enjoy broad discretion when ruling on motions to continue. 5 Section 366.06(3),
F.S., establishes an 8-month time period during which we can withhold our consent to the
operation of rates proposed by a Utility and after which the rates take effect subject to refund.
The dates established by the OEP are designed to allow the parties and Commission staff the
maximum time to prepare for and conduct the final hearings in these matters within that statutory
framework. Any delay in the established schedule increases the likelihood that the proposed rates
wi ll go into effect subject to refund and therefore the Motion for Continuance is denied and the
hearing and major ac tivity dates established by the OEP shall remain in place.
Conclusion
For the reasons discussed above, we find that OPC's Motion for Reconsideration and
Alternative Request for Continuance shall be denied.
Based on the foregoing, it is
ORDERED by the Florida Public Service Commission that for the reasons set forth
herein, the Office of Public Counsel's Motion for Reconsideration and Alternative Request for
Continuance are hereby denied. It is further
ORDERED that this docket shall remain open pending our final resolution of DEF's
requested permanent base rate increase.
4 Stewart Bonded Warehouse, In c. v. Bevis, 294 So.2d 315, 317 (Fla. 1974); Order No. PSC 2016-0231-FOF-El,
issued June I0, 20 I6, in Docket No. 2016002 I-El, In re: Petition for rate increase by Florida Power & light
Company (page 5).
5 Milanick v. Osborne. 6 So. 3d 729, 730 (Fla. 5th DCA 2009)("A motion for continuance is addressed to the sound
judicial discretion of the trial cou1t and absent abuse of that discretion its decision will not be reversed on appeal").

ORDER NO. PSC-2024-0187-FOF-EI
DOCKET NO. 20240025-EI
PAGE 7
By ORDER of the Florida Public Service Commission this 10th day of June, 2024.
JSC
ADAM J.
Commission 	!erk
Florida Public Service Commission
2540 Shumard Oak Boulevard
Tallahassee, Florida 32399
(850) 413-6770
www.tloridapsc.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.
NOTICE OF JUDICIAL REVIEW
The Florida Public Service Commission is required by Section 120.569(1 ), Florida
Statutes, to notify parties of any administrative hearing or judicial review of Commission orders
that is avai lable 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
judicial review by the Florida Supreme Court in the case of an electric, gas or telephone utility or
the First District Court of Appeal in the case of a water or wastewater utility by filing a notice of
appeal 	with the Office of Commission Clerk, 2540 Shumard Oak Boulevard, Ta ll ahassee,
Florida 32399-0850, 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. 110, Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure. The notice of appeal must
be in the form specified in Rul e 9.900(a), Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure.