Florida Public Service Commission native order document 02121-2026

FILED 4/10/2026
DOCUMENT NO. 02121-2026
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-2026-0084-PCO-EI
ISSUED: April 	10, 2026
ORDER DENYING ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE FUND’S
MOTION TO ALTER SCHEDULE
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 	(Petition) on March 	11,
2026. The 	lines 	for which FPL 	seeks 	a 	need 	determination 	in 	the 	Petition 	are 	referred 	to
collectively as 	the “Andytown-Oasis Transmission Lines Project” (AOP). Pursuant to Order No.
PSC-2026-0056-PCO-EI (OEP), an 	evidentiary hearing on 	the 	Petition has been scheduled 	for
April 23, 2026.
Motion to Alter Schedule
On March 	24, 	2026, 	the 	Environmental 	Defense Fund, 	Inc. (EDF) 1 filed 	a Motion 	to
Alter Schedule 	(Motion). EDF 	argues 	in 	the Motion 	that 	the time 	schedule 	established 	in 	the
OEP 	is 	insufficient to allow parties other than FPL to prepare and present adequate evidence. 	In
support of 	this 	argument, EDF 	notes 	that 	it had only 	13 	days from 	receipt of FPL’s 	prefiled
testimony and exhibits to submit 	its prefiled testimony.
Specifically, EDF 	alleges 	that 	the information FPL relies upon 	is 	insufficient 	to support
the 	Petition 	and 	establish 	a 	need 	for 	the AOP 	because FPL 	did 	not 	consider 	available
alternatives. EDF 	argues 	that 	the 	current schedule 	established 	in 	the OEP should be 	altered 	to
allow 	sufficient time 	for such 	alternatives 	to be prepared and presented by 	either FPL or other
engineering 	experts. EDF 	estimates 	that 	it 	could 	prepare 	and 	present 	alternatives 	in
approximately 	six months, and 	that FPL could 	likely do 	so 	in 60 	to 90 	days. To not 	alter 	the
schedule and allow 	this 	opportunity, concludes EDF, 	violates 	Section 	120.57(1), 	F.S., and due
process.
FPL’s Response to the Motion
In 	its Response 	to Motion 	to 	Alter 	Schedule 	(Response), FPL 	first 	notes 	that 	Section
403.537, 	F.S., contains 	specific timeframes within which a need determination hearing must be
conducted and 	the 	final 	decision rendered, and 	that 	the 	dates 	in 	the OEP 	are 	in 	line with 	this
statutory mandate. FPL continues 	that 	Section 403.537(3), 	F.S., provides 	that 	the Commission
1EDF was provisionally granted standing to participate in this docket by Order No. PSC-2026-0083-PCO-EI, issued
April 3, 2026.

ORDER NO. PSC-2026-0084-PCO-EI
DOCKET NO. 20260020-EI
PAGE 2
may alter this statutory schedule only upon stipulation with the applicant or for good cause
shown. Because there is no stipulation by the applicant (i.e., FPL) to alter the schedule in this
instance, FPL argues that EDF must demonstrate good cause, and that is has failed to do so for
numerous reasons.
FPL first argues that Rule 25-22.076, F.A.C., places the burden of proof on the applicant
to justify a need for the proposed AOP based on the alternatives it identifies and examines. There
is no provision in the Rule that requires or provides for additional alternatives to be identified or
examined. Accordingly, concludes FPL, time to prepare additional alternatives is not a legal
basis for good cause.
FPL continues that the current schedule tracks the statutory requirements and deadlines
and provides EDF with due process. FPL emphasized that the first notice of the AOP was filed
on February 9, 2026, and its first notice was published March 4, 2026, both of which provided
EDF with early notice and opportunity to begin preparation long before the Petition and prefiled
testimony were submitted.
Analysis
Section 403.537(1)(a), F.S., establishes the following timeframes for the Commission in a
transmission line need determination proceeding:
Within 21 days after receipt of a request for determination by an applicant, the
commission shall set a date for the hearing. The hearing shall be held pursuant to
s. 350.01 within 45 days after the filing of the request, and a decision shall be
rendered within 60 days after such filing.
Under Section 403.537(3), F.S., this timeframe may be altered and deadlines extended if the
applicant stipulates or a party demonstrates good cause. FPL has not stipulated to alter the
statutory schedule in this docket. Thus, the only question before me as Prehearing Office is
whether EDF has demonstrated good cause to alter the schedule.
I find that EDF has not demonstrated good cause to alter the schedule in this docket. EDF
requests more time to allow for FPL or an independent expert to prepare additional alternatives
to the AOP. These alternatives would presumably be presented for consideration by the
Commission. However, the substantive criteria set forth in the statute for the Commission to
consider in determining need do not require that a set number of alternatives be identified or
submitted, or that third parties be allowed the opportunity to submit their chosen alternatives. See
Section 403.537(1)(c), F.S. In fact, the statute does not even use the word “alternatives.”
The statute gives the Commission the power to adopt rules setting forth “the form,
content, and necessary supporting documentation and the required studies for the determination
of need.” Section 403.537(2)(b), F.S. The adopted rule that implements this statute addresses the
alternatives that are to be submitted as support in a need proceeding as follows:

ORDER NO. PSC-2026-0084-PCO-EI
DOCKET NO. 20260020-EI
PAGE 3
Petitions submitted to commence a determination of need proceeding or responses
to the Commission’s order commencing a proceeding shall comply with the other
requirements of Chapter 25-22, F.A.C., as to form and style and shall contain the
following information:
* * *
(4) A summary discussion of the major alternative transmission lines or
transmission improvements which were examined and evaluated by the utility in
arriving at the decision to pursue the proposed project. The discussion shall
consist of: (a) a general description of the other transmission line alternatives,
including, if appropriate, load flow analyses and electrical system diagrams
showing power flows and voltage profiles on the transmission lines in the more
critical operating conditions and (b) a discussion of the performance of each
alternative in terms of economics, reliability, long-term flexibility and usefulness,
or other relevant factors. [emphasis added]
The 	italicized 	portion 	of 	the 	rule 	makes 	clear 	that 	the 	choice 	of 	alternative 	lines 	or
improvements, including the number of alternatives to be explored, is left to the utility.
Accordingly, even accepting arguendo EDF’s assertion that there are options to the AOP other
than those identified by FPL, there is no legal basis for me to grant the Motion on those facts.
FPL is obligated under the rule to provide a summary discussion of the alternatives it examined
and evaluated. The rule contains no provision for forced consideration of additional options as a
precursor to seeking a need determination from the Commission. EDF’s factual arguments raise
potential substantive matters to be considered by the Commission in its ultimate determination of
whether to grant the Petition.
Conclusion
EDF has not demonstrated good cause for the schedule to be altered pursuant to Section
403.537(3), F.S.
Therefore, it is
ORDERED by Commissioner Bobby Payne, as Prehearing Officer, that the Motion to
Alter Schedule filed by the Environmental Defense Fund is DENIED.

ORDER NO. PSC-2026-0084-PCO-EI
DOCKET NO. 20260020-EI
PAGE 4
By ORDER of Commissioner Bobby Payne, as Prehearing Officer, this 10th day of April,
2026.
BOBBY PAYNE
Commissioner and Prehearing Officer
Florida Public Service Commission
2540 Shumard Oak Boulevard
Tallahassee, Florida 32399
(850) 413-6770
www.floridapsc.com
Copies furnished: A copy of this document is
provided to the parties of record at the time of
issuance and, if applicable, interested persons.
SPS

ORDER NO. PSC-2026-0084-PCO-EI
DOCKET NO. 20260020-EI
PAGE 5
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.
Mediation may be available on a case-by-case basis. If mediation is conducted, it does
not affect a substantially interested person’s right to a hearing.
Any party adversely affected by this order, which is preliminary, procedural, or
intermediate in nature, may request: (1) reconsideration within 10 days pursuant to Rule 25-
22.0376, Florida Administrative Code; or (2) judicial review by the Florida Supreme Court, in
the case of an electric, gas, or telephone utility. A motion for reconsideration shall be filed with
the 	Office 	of 	Commission 	Clerk, 	in 	the 	form 	prescribed 	by 	Rule 	25-22.0376, 	Florida
Administrative Code. Judicial review of a preliminary, procedural, or intermediate ruling or
order is available if review of the final action will not provide an adequate remedy. Such review
may be requested from the appropriate court, as described above, pursuant to Rule 9.100, Florida
Rules of Appellate Procedure.