Florida Public Service Commission native order document 05420-2026

FILED 8/24/2026
DOCUMENT NO. 05420-2026
FPSC 	- COMMISSION CLERK
BEFORE THE FLORIDA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION
In re: Petition for a limited proceeding to
approve large load tariff, by Duke Energy
Florida, LLC._
DOCKET NO. 20260064- EI
ORDER NO. PSC-2026-0288-PCO-EI
ISSUED: August 24, 2026
ORDER ON STANDING
Background
On April 	22, 	2026, Duke Energy 	Florida, LLC (DEF 	or 	Utility) 	filed 	a 	petition 	for a
limited proceeding 	seeking 	approval of a new Large Load Customer 	Policy (LLCP), 	a Large
Load Customer Agreement (LLCA), and revised Contribution 	in Aid of Construction (CIAC)
tariffs. DEF 	states 	that 	this 	filing complies with newly passed 	state 	legislation, Senate 	Bill 484
(SB 484). The Governor signed SB 484 	into law on May 7, 2026, which took effect on July 	1,
2026 	(Chapter No. 	2026-65, Laws of Florida). 	In compliance with 	Section 	366.06(3), 	Florida
Statutes (F.S.), an administrative hearing on DEF’s petition 	is scheduled for August 25-26, 2026.
The Office of Public Counsel (OPC) 	is authorized to intervene by Section 350.061 	1, F.S.
PCS 	Phosphate - 	White 	Springs (PCS 	Phosphate), 	Florida 	Industrial 	Power 	Users 	Group
(FIPUG), 	Florida 	Rising, 	Inc. 	(FR), 	and Nucor 	Steel 	Florida, 	Inc. 	(Nucor) 	were 	granted
intervention 	in 	this docket 	subject 	to proof of standing 	or 	stipulations 	that 	there 	are 	sufficient
facts to support 	all elements for standing.
The 	standing of each of the 	parties 	granted 	conditional 	intervention 	in 	this docket has
remained a contested issue in this docket and was designated as Issue D in the Prehearing Order 1.
Accordingly, on August 	17, 2026, an 	evidentiary hearing took place 	to receive 	testimony and
exhibits 	to 	facilitate my 	determination 	of whether 	any 	or 	all 	of 	the 	following 	parties have
standing to intervene in this docket: PCS Phosphate, FIPUG, FR, and Nucor.
Evidentiary Hearing
At 	the 	hearing, 	testimony 	regarding 	standing was provided by FIPUG 	witness 	Jeffry
Pollock and Florida Rising witnesses Katina Rentas Negron and Karl Rábago, and each of these
witness’s 	prefiled testimony and 	exhibits were 	entered 	into 	the hearing 	record. PCS Phosphate
witness Tony Georgis’ 	prefiled testimony and exhibits were also entered into the record. 	Finally,
a notice of Type 2 	stipulation 2regarding Nucor’s 	standing 	in 	this docket was 	entered 	into 	the
record. The 	parties 	filed briefs on August 20, 2026, regarding whether 	standing of the above-
mentioned parties 	is appropriate in this docket.
1Issue D 	states: “Whether the following persons have standing to intervene in this proceeding: 	a. PCS Phosphate —
White Springs; b. Florida Industrial Power Users Group; 	c. Florida Rising, Inc.; d. Nucor Steel Florida, Inc.”
2A Type 2 stipulation occurs when the utility and our staff, or the utility and at 	least one party adversarial to the
utility, agree on the resolution of the issue and the remaining parties (including our staff if they do not join in the
agreement) do not object to us relying on the agreed language to resolve that issue in a final order.

ORDER NO. PSC-2026-0288-PCO-EI
DOCKET NO. 20260064-EI
PAGE 2
Parties’ Positions
ISSUE D: 	Whether the following persons have standing to intervene in this proceeding:
a. 	PCS Phosphate – White Springs
b. 	Florida Industrial Power Users Group
c. 	Florida Rising, Inc.
d. 	Nucor Steel Florida, Inc.
DEF: 	a. 	No position.
b. 	No position.
c. 	FL Rising does not have standing to intervene in this proceeding. FL
Rising has not met its burden to prove it has a substantial number of
members who will be substantially impacted by this docket. It has not
shown that any of its members are actual DEF ratepayers. Because this
proceeding does not change current rates, FL Rising cannot show
immediate harm from this docket.
d. 	No position.
OPC: 	a. 	No position.
b. 	FIPUG has not demonstrated standing to intervene in this docket.
c. 	No position.
d. 	No position.
FIPUG: 	a. 	PCS Phosphate – White Springs 	Yes.
b. 	Florida Industrial Power Users Group 	Yes.
c. 	Florida Rising, Inc. 	No.
d. 	Nucor Steel Florida, Inc. 	Yes.
FL RISING: (a) Yes, PCS Phosphate, as an individual customer whose rates could ultimately
be impacted by this proceeding, has standing.
(b) FIPUG claims to have about eight members served by Duke. This would
appear to support associational standing, as eight members are a substantial
number and this proceeding may greatly impact electric rates. Florida Rising is
not waiving its legal arguments regarding incorporation status being necessary to
participate in Chapter 120 proceedings, nor its ability to raise such arguments at
the appellate level.
(c) Yes. (Negrón, Rábago)
(d) Yes, Nucor Steel, as an individual customer whose rates could ultimately be
impacted by this proceeding, has standing.
NUCOR: 	a. 	No position.
b. 	No position.
c. 	No position.
d. 	Yes, Nucor Steel Florida, Inc., as an individual customer whose rates
could ultimately be impacted by this proceeding, has standing.

ORDER NO. PSC-2026-0288-PCO-EI
DOCKET NO. 20260064-EI
PAGE 3
PCS
PHOSPHATE: A party’s standing to intervene is a threshold matter that concerns whether the
party is entitled to initiate or participate in a cause of action, or, in this case, a public regulatory
docket.3 A party is entitled to perform discovery, submit testimony, conduct depositions and
cross-examination, take positions, agree to compromise or settle issues, file briefs and argue
contested matters, with all of the time and expense that those matters require.4 Other parties are
obligated to incur the time and expense of responding to those interrogatory and production of
document requests, requests for depositions, and competing positions on issues that a party may
take or initiate. Consequently, to the extent practicable, questions regarding party standing
should be decided before the evidentiary proceedings begin. PCS Phosphate’s credentials
concerning its status as a current DEF customer with a substantial interest in the issues presented
here are unassailable and its standing to intervene should be confirmed without qualification. In
addition, it bears noting that PCS Phosphate and the other listed intervenors have an extensive
history of participation in matters before the Commission and are well known by the other
parties to this docket. The public interest is not served by further deferring the standing question,
and PCS Phosphate is willing to stipulate to the standing of all parties if they are willing to
extend the same curtesy to PCS Phosphate.
a. 	PCS Phosphate: Yes. (Tony Georgis)
b. 	See statement above.
c. 	See statement above.
d. 	See statement above.
Analysis and Decision
Legal Standard
Rule 28-106.206, Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C), governs intervention in this
proceeding. Paragraph (2)(c) states that a motion to intervene must contain “[a]llegations
sufficient to demonstrate that the intervenor is entitled to participate in the proceeding as a matter
of constitutional or statutory right or pursuant to agency rule, or that the substantial interests of
the intervenor are subject to determination or will be affected by the proceeding.” Under
subsection (1), “[t]he presiding officer may impose terms and conditions on the intervenor to
limit prejudice to other parties.”
Standing is a threshold issue in nearly every legal proceeding. For individual standing,
intervenors must meet the two-prong standing test set forth in Agrico Chemical Company v.
Department of Environmental Regulation, 406 So. 2d 4758 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981). That test
requires that an intervenor demonstrate (1) that he will suffer injury in fact that is of sufficient
immediacy to entitle him to a hearing and (2) the injury is of a type or nature that the proceeding
3 See, e.g., Agrico Chemical Co. v. Department of Environmental Regulation, 406 So.2d 478, 482 (Fla. 2d DCA
1981).
4 See, e.g., Rule 28-106.206, Florida Administrative Code (“F.A.C.”) (Discovery); Rule 28-106.213, F.A.C.
(Evidence); Rule 28-106.215, F.A.C. (Post-Hearing Submittals).

ORDER NO. PSC-2026-0288-PCO-EI
DOCKET NO. 20260064-EI
PAGE 4
is designed to protect. PCS Phosphate and Nucor both appear in their individual capacity as
single customers of the utility and are analyzed solely under the Agrico test.
For associational standing, intervenors must meet the three-prong standing test set forth
in Florida Home Builders Association v. Department of Labor and Employment Security, 412
So. 2d 351 (Fla. 1982). The test is based on the Agrico test but requires that (1) the association
demonstrates that a substantial number of an association’s members may be substantially
affected by the Commission’s decision in a docket, (2) the subject matter of the proceeding is
within the association’s general scope of interest and activity, and (3) the relief requested is of a
type appropriate for the association to receive on behalf of its members. Fla. Home Builders, 412
So. 2d at 353-54. FIPUG and Florida Rising both appear in their associational capacity as
representatives of member groups and shall be analyzed under the Florida Home Builders test.
Analysis
Prior to applying either test described above to the appropriate parties for the purposes of
determining their respective standing, it is pertinent to understand what DEF’s petition seeks in
this docket and identify the effects that may occur when this Commission decides whether to
approve, deny, or deny with modifications DEF’s petition. Although base rates will remain
unchanged 	at 	the 	conclusion 	of 	this 	docket 	under 	the 	2024 	Settlement 	Agreement, 	the
Commission’s decision will establish terms and conditions governing future electric service that
could reasonably affect the rates and costs borne by DEF customers. Standing to participate in
Commission proceedings is generally a low bar.5
a. 	PCS Phosphate’s Standing
PCS Phosphate filed for intervention as an individual person whose substantial interests
are or may be affected by the determination in this docket. As mentioned, PCS Phosphate
submitted prefiled testimony and evidence into the record in support of its allegations of
individual standing through its witness, Tony Georgis. All the parties to this docket have either
supported or effectively conceded that PCS Phosphate has standing to intervene in this docket.
The record supports that PCS Phosphate is a mining and manufacturing operation that is
located within DEF’s electric service area and receives electric service from DEF under various
DEF non-residential rate schedules approved by this Commission. Therefore, the record supports
that PCS Phosphate is a customer of DEF. As mentioned above, our decision in this docket will
affect circumstances in the future for all DEF customers. PCS Phosphate must be allowed to
protect its future interests as a customer of DEF and, for these reasons, I find that PCS Phosphate
has provided sufficient facts to demonstrate standing to intervene as a party in this proceeding.
5 See Order No. PSC-2026-0022-S-EI (finding that the only intervenor to the 2025 FPL Rate Case who did not have
standing was the Southern Alliance for Clean Energy, for failure to offer any prefiled testimony or factual
stipulations in support of its allegations).

ORDER NO. PSC-2026-0288-PCO-EI
DOCKET NO. 20260064-EI
PAGE 5
b. 	FIPUG’s Standing
FIPUG asserts that it is an association of industrial and commercial power users in
Florida, and therefore its standing must be analyzed under the Florida Home Builders test.
FIPUG alleges that a substantial number of FIPUG members purchase electricity from DEF, and
further allege that the substantial interests of those members will be affected by the outcome of
this proceeding. FIPUG claims that, as an association, it has a direct and substantial interest in
the issues raised and notes its participation for decades as an intervenor in formal administrative
proceedings before this Commission, including DEF rate cases.
FIPUG submitted prefiled testimony in support of its allegations of standing through the
personal knowledge of its witness, Jeffry Pollock. Witness Pollock testified that a substantial
number of FIPUG members purchase electricity from DEF. He testified that such members are
among the largest DEF customers, requiring reliable and affordably-priced electricity. these
members have a direct and substantial interest in the outcome of this docket as a result of the
LLCP, LLCA, and revised CIAC tariff.
OPC has opposed FIPUG’s standing in this docket by asserting that FIPUG has failed to
meet the first and second prongs of the Florida Home Builders test. The crux of OPC’s argument
is that FIPUG has failed to disclose any of its members as record evidence and, therefore, has
failed to meet its burden to establish associational standing.
I find that FIPUG has presented sufficient record evidence to establish associational
standing. FIPUG’s prefiled testimony establishes that it represents members who are DEF
customers and whose interests could reasonably be affected by the Commission’s decision in this
proceeding. Although FIPUG did not identify individual members by name, the Florida Home
Builders test does not impose a specific numerical threshold or require that affected members be
individually identified in every case. On the basis of that record evidence and the reasonable
inferences from that evidence, I find that FIPUG has provided sufficient facts to demonstrate
standing in this proceeding.
c. 	FR’s Standing
FR represents that it is a membership-based organization powered by people and driven
to advance economic and racial justice across Florida. FR filed for associational standing to
represent them and, therefore, its standing must be analyzed under the Florida Home Builders
test. FR asserts that it has identified at least 117 members that take service from DEF by cross-
referencing its members addresses through DEF’s website to confirm each member is served by
DEF, as well as members in additional counties served by DEF. FR argues that this amount of
DEF customers is clearly a “substantial number” as it relates to the first prong of the Florida
Home Builders test.
FR submitted prefiled testimony and evidence in support of its allegations of standing
through its witnesses, Katina Rentas Negrón and Karl Rábago. Witness Rentas Negrón provided
testimony to describe FR as an association and support FR’s allegation that its members do

ORDER NO. PSC-2026-0288-PCO-EI
DOCKET NO. 20260064-EI
PAGE 6
include a substantial number of DEF customers. Witness Rábago’s testimony asserted an
expectation that DEF’s proposal will create cost-shifting on all customers—including residential
customers—to serve data centers and, therefore, FR’s members will be substantially impacted by
a decision in this docket.
DEF has challenged FR’s standing in this docket, arguing that FR has not produced any
competent evidence that a substantial number of its members are DEF customers and asserting
that FR’s alleged injury is speculative. I do not find DEF’s arguments compelling. FR has
presented sufficient record evidence through prefiled testimony that a substantial number of its
members are customers of DEF, and such members must be allowed to protect their future
interests through participation in this docket. On the basis of the record evidence and the
reasonable inferences from that evidence, I find that FR has provided sufficient facts to
demonstrate standing in this proceeding.
d. 	Nucor’s Standing
Regarding Nucor’s standing in this docket, I approve the Type 2 stipulation introduced
into the record as follows: Yes, Nucor Steel Florida, Inc., as an individual customer whose rates
could ultimately be impacted by this proceeding, has standing.
Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, I find that PCS Phosphate, FIPUG, FR, and Nucor have
standing to intervene as parties in this docket.
Therefore, it is
ORDERED by Commissioner Gary F. Clark, as Prehearing Officer, that PCS Phosphate
– White Springs; the Florida Industrial Power Users Group; Florida Rising, Inc.; and Nucor Steel
Florida, Inc. have standing as laid out in this order.

ORDER NO. PSC-2026-0288-PCO-EI
DOCKET NO. 20260064-EI
PAGE 7
By ORDER of Commissioner Gary F. Clark, as Prehearing Officer, this 24th day of
August, 2026.
GARY F. CLARK
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.
MRT/SF
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.
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, or the First District Court of Appeal, in the case
of a water or wastewater 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.