Florida Public Service Commission native order document 06239-2026

FILED 9/9/2026
DOCUMENT NO. 06239-2026
FPSC 	- COMMISSION CLERK
BEFORE THE FLORIDA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION
In re: Petition for determination of need for a
new combined cycle generating unit and onsite
associated facilities located at 	St. Johns River
Power Park Unit 3 	in Duval County, by JEA.
DOCKET NO. 20260087-EM
ORDER NO. PSC-2026-0323-FOF-EM
ISSUED: September 9, 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
FINAL ORDER APPROVING DETERMINATION OF NEED FOR JEA’S
ST. JOHNS RIVER POWER PARK UNIT 3 COMBINED CYCLE GENERATING UNIT AND
ONSITE ASSOCIATED FACILITIES
APPEARANCES:
BROOKE 	E. HUMPHREY 	and MATTHEW 	E.W. BRYANT, ESQUIRES,
Steams Weaver Miller, 106 E. College Ave, Tallahassee, FL 32301
On behalf of JEA .
ALISHA HIXON 	and SHAW STILLER, ESQUIRES, 	Florida 	Public 	Service
Commission, 2540 Shumard Oak Boulevard, Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0850
On behalf 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 .
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 June 	4, 2026, JEA 	filed 	its 	Petition 	for a Determination of Need for 	St. Johns River
Power Park Unit 3 combined cycle generating unit and onsite associated facilities 	in accordance

ORDER NO. PSC-2026-0323-FOF-EM
DOCKET NO. 20260087-EM
PAGE 2
with Section 403.519, Florida Statutes (F.S.), Chapter 120, F.S., and Rules 25-22.081 and 28-
106.201, Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.). In its petition, JEA seeks an affirmative
determination of need for a new combined cycle generating unit and onsite associated facilities
to be located at the JEA’s existing St. Johns River Power Park site in Jacksonville, Florida.
In this docket, the Florida Public Service Commission (Commission) makes that need
determination. Separate public hearings will be held before an Administrative Law Judge of the
Division of Administrative Hearings to consider environmental and other impacts of the
proposed plant and associated facilities, as required by the Florida Electrical Power Plant Siting
Act, Sections 403.501-403.518, F.S.
An Order Establishing Procedure, Order No. PSC-2026-0213-PCO-EM, was issued on
June 11, 2026. A prehearing conference was held on August 4, 2026. The administrative hearing
was held on August 18, 2026, and no issue was contested. By our bench decision, we approve an
affirmative stipulation of all issues, as set forth below.
Pursuant to Section 403.519(3), F.S., this Commission is the sole forum for the
determination of need for an electrical power plant. In making our determination, we must take
into consideration the need for electric system reliability and integrity, the need for adequate
electricity at a reasonable cost, the need for fuel diversity and supply reliability, whether the
proposed plant is the most cost-effective alternative available, and whether renewable energy
sources and technologies, as well as conservation measures, are utilized to the extent reasonably
available.
This Order reflects our decision on the Petition for Determination of Need, and serves as
our report under the Power Plant Siting Act, as required by Section 403.507, F.S. We have
jurisdiction over the subject matter of this proceeding pursuant to Sections 403.519, 403.507,
366.01, 366.04, and 366.05, F.S. Our decision is explained in detail below.
DECISION
I. 	NEED FOR ELECTRIC SYSTEM RELIABILITY AND INTEGRITY
We are required to consider the need for electric system reliability and integrity, pursuant
to Section 403.519(3), F.S., in determining the need for JEA’s proposed St. Johns River Power
Park Unit 3 (SJRPP Unit 3).
As demonstrated by the evidence in the record, JEA’s projected annual capacity
requirements indicate that it will fall below the 15 percent planning reserve margin beginning in
winter 2028. JEA projected a need for an additional 72 megawatts (MW) in winter 2031 based
on forecasted customer demand and reserve margin requirements. The expected planning reserve
margin deficits continue to increase over the planning horizon, growing to 222 MW in 2033 and
802 MW in 2035, driven primarily by increased seasonal peak demand, continued load growth,
expiration of existing power purchase agreements (PPAs), and the planned retirement of
generating resources.

ORDER NO. PSC-2026-0323-FOF-EM
DOCKET NO. 20260087-EM
PAGE 3
JEA proposed constructing SJRPP Unit 3 to remedy the capacity need, with short term
PPAs addressing system reliability until it enters service in 2031. SJRPP Unit 3 is a 1x1 dual-
fuel generating unit consisting of one combustion turbine (CT) generator, one heat recovery
steam generator (HRSG), and one steam turbine (ST) generator, with a 582 MW (summer) / 678
MW (winter) generating capability.
The record demonstrated that JEA will require additional firm generating capacity
beginning in 2028 and that SJRPP Unit 3 will provide sufficient firm generating capacity for
improving 	JEA’s 	ability 	to 	meet 	its 	reserve 	margin 	requirements 	beginning 	in 	2031.
Furthermore, SJRPP Unit 3 should reduce JEA’s reliance on PPAs, facilitate the retirement of
the less efficient generating units, and enable JEA to maintain reliable electric service.
Accordingly, we find there is a need for SJRPP Unit 3 when considering the need for electric
system reliability and integrity.
II. 	RENEWABLE ENERGY AND CONSERVATION MEASURES
We are required to consider conservation or demand side management alternatives
reasonably available which would mitigate JEA’s need to construct SJRPP Unit 3, pursuant to
Section 403.519(3), F.S.
Regarding renewables, JEA currently has contracts in place for approximately 329 MW
from renewable energy sources, including 314 MW from solar and 15 MW from landfill gas-to-
energy via PPAs. JEA also has 50 MW of battery energy storage available. Additionally, JEA
fires more than 10 percent biomass in NGS Units 1 and 2. JEA also installed solar photovoltaic
systems at various locations in Duval County totaling approximately 100 kW. JEA reported
several challenges impacting further construction of solar generation facilities: (i) finding
environmentally suitable land in Duval County is prohibitively expensive; (ii) extensive
transmission upgrades would be required to import solar power into JEA’s systems; and (iii)
elimination of subsidies for utility-scale solar projects. Several renewable and energy storage
projects were still considered as potential alternative resources to SJRPP Unit 3 in JEA’s
economic modeling. However, JEA concluded that none of the renewable and energy storage
alternatives were more cost effective than the proposed SJRPP Unit 3 beginning in 2031.
Regarding 	conservation, 	JEA 	is 	subject 	to 	the 	Florida 	Energy 	Efficiency 	and
Conservation Act (FEECA), and its goals were last approved by Order No. PSC-2024-0432-
FOF-EG and programs by Order No. PSC-2025-0094-PAA-EG. According to JEA’s 2026
Annual Conservation Report, JEA exceeded its Commission approved FEECA goals in 2025.
JEA included its current and projected conservation activities in its load forecast, which
demonstrated a need for capacity beginning in winter 2028. JEA would need more than 30 times
the amount of DSM reflected in its current conservation goals for 2031 to mitigate the need for
SJRPP Unit 3.
In addition to its Commission approved programs, JEA investigated if additional
conservation measures would mitigate the need for SJRPP Unit 3 and tasked the company
Resource Innovations to perform a DSM Market Potential Study (MPS). While the MPS
identified additional potential conservation, especially demand response programs, even if JEA
could reach the maximum achievable potential, it would fall short of the projected seasonal peak

ORDER NO. PSC-2026-0323-FOF-EM
DOCKET NO. 20260087-EM
PAGE 4
capacity need. Accordingly, we find that both renewable energy and conservation measures and
these alternatives would not mitigate the need for the proposed SJRPP Unit 3.
III. 	NEED FOR ADEQUATE ELECTRICITY AT REASONABLE COST
We are required to consider the need for adequate electricity at reasonable cost, pursuant
to Section 403.519(3), F.S., in determining the need for SJRPP Unit 3.
In evaluating the construction of SJRPP Unit 3, JEA evaluated factors including: (i)
resource start-up costs; (ii) resource operating costs; (iii) the range of capacity that could be
provided; and (iv) overall system fuel efficiency. SJRPP Unit 3 will use 37 percent less natural
gas per megawatt hour (MWh) produced than NGS Unit 3, indicating operational cost savings. In
addition, SJRPP Unit 3 is anticipated to achieve more than $200 million (2026 dollars) in fuel
savings over the next lowest-cost alternative, a simple cycle natural gas-fired CT. JEA also
anticipated saving approximately $834 million by avoiding repairs to NGS Unit 3 and placing
the unit in limited-use status until its eventual retirement in 2035, which was assumed in all
scenarios. SJRPP Unit 3 will be built on an approximately 194-acre site owned by JEA that was
part of a larger 1,600-acre parcel, eliminating the need to acquire additional land. SJRPP Unit 3
will only require two new 230 kV generator tie lines to connect to an existing substation that is
connected to four existing 230 kV transmission lines. Accordingly, other than the two generator
tie lines, no additional transmission infrastructure will be required to integrate SJRPP Unit 3 with
JEA’s system. SJRPP Unit 3 is also the most cost-effective alternative for meeting JEA’s
capacity needs, representing a cost savings of approximately $92 million in cumulative present
worth cost (CPWC) over the next lowest cost alternative. In addition, constructing SJRPP Unit 3
in 2031 rather than delaying by one year would save $20 million in CPWC. Therefore, we find
that the record demonstrates SJRPP Unit 3 is expected to provide adequate electricity at a
reasonable cost.
IV. 	NEED FOR FUEL DIVERSITY AND SUPPLY RELIABILITY
We are required to consider the need for fuel diversity and supply reliability, pursuant to
Section 403.519(3), F.S., in determining the need for SJRPP Unit 3.
For fuel diversity and supply reliability, the proposed SJRPP Unit 3 will have dual fuel
capabilities (natural gas and ultra-low sulfur diesel (ULSD)), with natural gas being the primary
fuel source and ULSD fuel oil as back-up. Additionally, SJRPP Unit 3 will be capable of running
on a fuel blend of 50 percent hydrogen, provided the infrastructure is available. Upon
commercial operation of SJRPP Unit 3, beginning in 2031, NGS Unit 3 will be placed in limited-
use status, operating at or below an 8 percent capacity factor, as a back-up for peak demand
periods, emergencies, and unexpected outages. NGS Unit 3 is a predominately natural gas-fired
generation unit but will be fired only on residual fuel oil when placed in limited-use status.
SJRPP Unit 3 is anticipated to use 37 percent less natural gas per MWh than NGS Unit 3,
representing a better utilization of natural gas supply.
The natural gas currently utilized for NGS Unit 3 will be diverted to SJRPP Unit 3 via a
new, approximately 25-mile lateral from the JEA Brandy Branch Generation Station. The
pipeline lateral and the metering and regulating yard will be owned, operated, and maintained by

ORDER NO. PSC-2026-0323-FOF-EM
DOCKET NO. 20260087-EM
PAGE 5
Peoples Gas Systems. Natural gas will be supplied to the area by existing interstate pipelines
owned and operated by Florida Gas Transmission (FGT) and Southern Natural Gas (SNG). JEA
owns firm interstate transmission on both the FGT and SNG pipelines indicating fuel can be
reliably delivered to the lateral serving SJRPP Unit 3. Enough ULSD to supply SJRPP Unit 3 for
five (5) days at full load will be stored on-site and delivered by tanker truck.
SJRPP Unit 3 possesses several advantages in regard to fuel efficiency. As mentioned in
Issue 1, SJRPP Unit 3 will be comprised of 1 CT, 1 HRSG, and 1 ST, configured as a combined
cycle (CC) power plant. CC power plants are able to achieve greater efficiencies compared to
CTs in simple-cycle mode, or steam plants, meaning the CC power plant can generate more
electricity without burning additional fuel. During peak load times, SJRPP Unit 3 will have the
ability to fire supplemental natural gas in the HRSG burners providing an increase of
approximately 12 to 15 percent ST electrical output. Hence, we find that JEA has demonstrated a
need for SJRPP Unit 3 considering the need for fuel diversity and supply reliability.
V. 	MOST COST-EFFECTIVE ALTERNATIVE AVAILABLE
We are required to consider whether SJRPP Unit 3 is the most cost effective alternative
available for JEA, pursuant to Section 403.519(3), F.S.
JEA evaluated numerous resource alternatives before selecting SJRPP Unit 3. The next-
lowest cost alternative would have delayed construction of SJRPP Unit 3 by approximately four
years by adding a simple-cycle natural gas-fired CT in 2031, followed by both a CC unit and a
CT in 2035. Although both resource plans would result in the same generating portfolio, they
differ primarily in the timing of adding SJRPP Unit 3. The record demonstrated that the proposed
resource plan, which includes SJRPP Unit 3 being constructed in 2031, is projected to produce
approximately $92 million in CPWC savings compared to the next-lowest cost alternative
resource plan. Additionally, JEA evaluated a one-year delay in the construction of SJRPP Unit 3
and determined that such a delay would increase CPWC by approximately $20 million.
In addition to DSM strategies and various generating resources, JEA also conducted a
Market Test Request for Proposals (RFP). Through JEA’s Market Test RFP, which was overseen
by the independent evaluator, Merrimack Energy, three Power Purchase Agreements (PPAs)
were evaluated against the 1x1 CC self-build resource (SJRPP Unit 3) using both quantitative
and qualitative criteria. The quantitative evaluation was an economic comparison of the
proposals and self-build resource through base cases and sensitivity tests that included high load
forecast, low load forecast, and high gas price scenarios. The qualitative evaluation was a risk
assessment that considered commercial experience and credit worthiness, transmission status,
costs 	and 	impacts, 	fuel 	supply, 	operational 	flexibility, 	project 	status 	and 	design, 	and
environmental considerations. JEA evaluators scored the 1x1 CC self-build resource as the
highest-ranking option based on the quantitative and qualitative criteria. Merrimack Energy
reviewed the evaluation results and agreed the 1x1 CC self-build resource was the highest-
ranked option. Accordingly, we find that the SJRPP Unit 3 is the most cost-effective and
reasonable alternative to meet JEA’s capacity needs.

ORDER NO. PSC-2026-0323-FOF-EM
DOCKET NO. 20260087-EM
PAGE 6
VI. 	CONCLUSION
We find that JEA has demonstrated through its analyses and witness testimony that a
determination of need for SJRPP Unit 3 is justified based on the factors we must consider set
forth in section 403.519, Florida Statutes. The record demonstrated that JEA would fall below its
15 percent planning reserve margin beginning in 2028. Based on forecasted customer demand
and reserve margin requirements, JEA projected a capacity deficit of approximately 72 MW in
2031, increasing to 222 MW in 2033 and 802 MW in 2035.
The record further demonstrated that JEA evaluated SJRPP Unit 3 using both economic
and operational criteria, including overall system fuel efficiency. SJRPP Unit 3 would use
approximately 37 percent less natural gas per MWh than NGS Unit 3 and is projected to save
approximately $200 million (2026 dollars) in fuel costs compared to the next-lowest cost
alternative. Additionally, SJRPP Unit 3 will have dual fuel capabilities, capable of operating on
natural gas and ULSD fuel oil. The unit will also possess the ability to run on a fuel blend
containing 50 percent hydrogen, provided the infrastructure is available.
JEA considered renewable energy resources and conservation measures to mitigate the
need for SJRPP Unit 3. However, JEA demonstrated that no reasonably available renewable
energy resources and conservation measures would alleviate the need for SJRPP Unit 3. JEA
also evaluated self-build generation and third-party generation available through PPAs as
alternatives. Economic modeling projected that SJRPP Unit 3 would achieve $92 million in
CPWC savings compared to the next-lowest cost self-build generation alternative. Additionally,
JEA’s Market Test RFP evaluation process, which was overseen by Merrimack Energy, ranked
the SJRPP Unit 3 self-build option the highest over the three third-party generation PPA
proposals based on quantitative and qualitative evaluation criteria. Hence, SJRPP Unit 3 is the
most cost-effective and system beneficial option to meet JEA’s capacity needs. SJRPP Unit 3 is
expected to improve system reliability and integrity as well as fuel diversity and efficiency at a
reasonable cost. Based on the foregoing analyses, findings, and evidence presented, we approve
JEA’s petition for determination of need for SJRPP Unit 3.
Based on the foregoing, it is
ORDERED 	by 	the 	Florida 	Public 	Service 	Commission 	that 	JEA’s 	Petition 	for
Determination of Need for its proposed St. Johns River Power Park Unit 3 project is granted. 	It
is further
ORDERED that this docket shall be closed after the time for filing an appeal has run.

ORDER NO. PSC-2026-0323-FOF-EM
DOCKET NO. 20260087-EM
PAGE 7
By ORDER of the Florida Public Service Commission this 9th day of September, 2026 	.
wCommission CZerk
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.

ORDER NO. PSC-2026-0323-FOF-EM
DOCKET NO. 20260087-EM
PAGE 8
NOTICE OF FURTHER PROCEEDINGS OR JUDICIAL REVIEW
The Florida Public Service Commission is required by Section 120.569(1), Florida
Statutes, to notify parties of any administrative hearing or judicial review of Commission orders
that is available under Sections 120.57 or 120.68, Florida Statutes, as well as the procedures and
time limits that apply. 	This notice should not be construed to mean all requests for an
administrative hearing or judicial review will be granted or result in the relief sought.
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
fifteen (15) days of the issuance of this order 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 or the First District Court of Appeal in the case of a water and/or
wastewater 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 9.110, 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.