Florida Public Service Commission native order document 05957-2026

FILED 8/28/2026
DOCUMENT NO. 05957-2026
FPSC 	- COMMISSION CLERK
BEFORE THE FLORIDA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION
In re: Storm protection plan cost recovery
clause.
DOCKET NO. 2026001 0-EI
ORDER NO. PSC-2026-0305-PHO-EI
ISSUED: August 28, 2026
PREHEARING ORDER
Pursuant to Notice and in accordance with Rule 28-106.209, Florida Administrative Code
(F.A.C.), a Prehearing Conference was held on August 27, 2026, in Tallahassee, Florida, before
Commissioner Gary F. Clark, as Prehearing Officer.
APPEARANCES:
CHRISTOPHER T. WRIGHT and JOEL T. BAKER, ESQUIRES, Florida Power
& Light Company, 700 Universe Boulevard, Juno Beach, Florida 33408-0420
On behalf of Florida Power & Light Company (FPL) 	.
J. JEFFRY WAHLEN, MALCOLM 	N. MEANS and MATTHEW 	J. JONES,
ESQUIRES, Ausley McMullen, Post Office Box 391, Tallahassee, Florida 32302
On behalf of Tampa Electric Company (TECO) .
BETH KEATING, ESQUIRE, 	Gunster, 	Yoakley & 	Stewart, 	P.A., 	215 	South
Monroe Street, Suite 601, Tallahassee, Florida 32301
On behalf of Florida Public Utilities Company (FPUC) 	.
MATTHEW R. BERNIER and STEPHANIE A. CUELLO, ESQUIRES, 106 East
College Avenue, Suite 800, Tallahassee, Florida 32301
DIANNE M. TRIPLETT, ESQUIRE, Deputy General Counsel, 299 1	st Avenue
North, 	St. Petersburg, Florida 33701
On behalf of Duke Energy Florida, LLC (DEF) .
WALT 	TRIERWEILER, 	CHARLES 	REHWINKEL, 	and 	AUSTIN 	A.
WATROUS, 	ESQUIRES, 	Office 	of 	the 	Public 	Counsel, 	c/o 	The 	Florida
Legislature, 	111 	West Madison 	Street, 	Suite 	812, 	Tallahassee, 	Florida 32399-
1400
On behalf of Office of Public Counsel (OPC) .
JON C. MOYLE, JR. and KAREN A. PUTNAL, ESQUIRES, Moyle Law Firm,
P.A., 118 North Gadsden Street, Tallahassee, Florida 32301
On behalf of Florida Industrial Power Users Group (FIPUG) .

ORDER NO. PSC-2026-0305-PHO-EI
DOCKET NO. 20260010-EI
PAGE 2
PETER J. MATTHEIS, MICHAEL K. LAVANGA, and JOSEPH R. BRISCAR,
ESQUIRES, Stone, Mattheis, Xenopoulos & Brew, PC, 1025 Thomas Jefferson
Street, NW, Eighth Floor, West Tower, Washington, DC 20007
On behalf of Nucor Steel Florida, Inc. (Nucor).
JAMES W. BREW, LAURA WYNN BAKER and SARAH B. NEWMAN,
ESQUIRES, Stone, Mattheis, Xenopoulos & Brew, PC, 1025 Thomas Jefferson
Street, NW, Suite 800 West, Washington, DC 20007
On behalf of White Springs Agricultural Chemicals, Inc. d/b/a PCS Phosphate –
White Springs (PCS Phosphate).
J. R. KELLY, ESQUIRE, Kelly Law Firm, 359 Milestone Drive, Tallahassee,
Florida 32312 and NEVIN J. ZIMMERMAN and BURKE BLUE, ESQUIRES,
221 McKenzie Avenue, Panama City, Florida 32401
On behalf of the City of Panama City, Florida (Panama City)
SUZANNE BROWNLESS, ESQUIRE, 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.
I. 	CASE BACKGROUND
The 2019 Florida Legislature enacted Section 366.96, Florida Statutes (F.S.), entitled
“Storm protection plan cost recovery.” Section 366.96(3), F.S., established a new requirement
that each public utility file a transmission and distribution storm protection plan (SPP) covering
the immediate 10-year planning period, and explaining the systematic approach the utility will
follow to achieve the objectives of reducing restoration costs and outage times associated with
extreme weather events and enhancing reliability. Pursuant to Sections 366.96(5) and 366.96(6),
F.S., the Florida Public Service Commission (Commission) is required every three years to
determine whether it is in the public interest to approve, approve with modification, or deny each
utility’s SPP.
In addition to reviewing SPPs at least every three years, the Commission must conduct an
annual proceeding pursuant to Section 366.96(7), F.S., to determine a utility’s prudently incurred
transmission and distribution storm protection plan costs and allow the utility to recover such

ORDER NO. PSC-2026-0305-PHO-EI
DOCKET NO. 20260010-EI
PAGE 3
costs through a charge separate and apart from its base rates, to be referred to as the storm
protection plan cost recovery clause (SPPCRC). The annual SPPCRC proceeding is a rolling
three-year review that includes a true-up of costs for the prior year, the calculation of
actual/estimated costs for the year of the filing, and projected factors for the following year. If
the Commission determines that costs were prudently incurred, those costs will not be subject to
disallowance or further prudence review except for fraud, perjury, or intentional withholding of
key information by the public utility.
This docket was opened by Order No. PSC-2026-0010-PCO-EI issued January 5, 2026,
under the authority of Sections 366.96(5), 366.96(6), and 366.96(7), F.S. The purpose of this
2026 annual proceeding is for the Commission to establish the amount of prudently incurred
costs each utility shall be allowed to recover through the SPPCRC and the specific terms of that
recovery. TECO, DEF, FIPUG, FPL, PCS Phosphate, Nucor, OPC, and FPUC each filed a
Notice of Intent to Retain Party Status. Panama City was granted intervention by Order No. PSC-
2026-0085-PCO-EI, issued April 10, 2026.
This matter has been scheduled for an evidentiary hearing September 15-17, 2026.
II. 	CONDUCT OF PROCEEDINGS
Pursuant to Rule 28-106.211, F.A.C., this Prehearing Order is issued to prevent delay and
to promote the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of all aspects of this case.
III. 	JURISDICTION
This Commission is vested with jurisdiction over the subject matter by the provisions of
Chapter 366, F.S. 	This hearing will be governed by Chapters 120 and 366, F.S., and Chapters
25-6, 25-22, and 28-106, F.A.C., as well as any other applicable provisions of law.
IV. 	PROCEDURE FOR HANDLING CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION
Information for which proprietary confidential business information status is requested
pursuant to Section 366.093, F.S., and Rule 25-22.006, F.A.C., shall be treated by the
Commission as confidential. 	The information shall be exempt from Section 119.07(1), F.S.,
pending a formal ruling on such request by the Commission or pending return of the information
to the person providing the information. 	If no determination of confidentiality has been made
and the information has not been made a part of the evidentiary record in this proceeding, it shall
be returned to the person providing the information. 	If a determination of confidentiality has
been made and the information was not entered into the record of this proceeding, it shall be
returned to the person providing the information within the time period set forth in Section
366.093, F.S. 	The Commission may determine that continued possession of the information is
necessary for the Commission to conduct its business.

ORDER NO. PSC-2026-0305-PHO-EI
DOCKET NO. 20260010-EI
PAGE 4
It is the policy of this Commission that all Commission hearings be open to the public at
all times. 	The Commission also recognizes its obligation pursuant to Section 366.093, F.S., to
protect proprietary confidential business information from disclosure outside the proceeding.
Therefore, any party wishing to use any proprietary confidential business information, as that
term is defined in Section 366.093, F.S., at the hearing shall adhere to the following:
(1) 	When confidential information is used in the hearing that has not been filed as
prefiled 	testimony 	or 	prefiled 	exhibits, 	parties 	must 	have 	copies 	for 	the
Commissioners, necessary staff, and the court reporter, in red envelopes clearly
marked with the nature of the contents and with the confidential information
highlighted. 	Any party wishing to examine the confidential material that is not
subject to an order granting confidentiality shall be provided a copy in the same
fashion as provided to the Commissioners, subject to execution of any appropriate
protective agreement with the owner of the material.
(2) 	Counsel and witnesses are cautioned to avoid verbalizing confidential information
in such a way that would compromise confidentiality. 	Therefore, confidential
information should be presented by written exhibit when reasonably possible.
At the conclusion of that portion of the hearing that involves confidential information, all
copies of confidential exhibits shall be returned to the proffering party. If a confidential exhibit
has been admitted into evidence, the copy provided to the court reporter shall be retained in the
Office of Commission Clerk’s confidential files. If such material is admitted into the evidentiary
record at hearing and is not otherwise subject to a request for confidential classification filed
with the Commission, the source of the information must file a request for confidential
classification of the information within 21 days of the conclusion of the hearing, as set forth in
Rule 25-22.006(8)(b), F.A.C., if continued confidentiality of the information is to be maintained.
V. 	PREFILED TESTIMONY AND EXHIBITS; WITNESSES
Testimony of all witnesses to be sponsored by the parties (and Staff) has been prefiled
and will be inserted into the record as though read after the witness has taken the stand and
affirmed the correctness of the testimony and associated exhibits. All testimony remains subject
to timely and appropriate objections. Upon insertion of a witness’ testimony, exhibits appended
thereto may be marked for identification. 	Each witness will have the opportunity to orally
summarize his or her testimony at the time he or she takes the stand. 	Summaries of testimony
shall be limited to three minutes.
Witnesses are reminded that, on cross-examination, responses to questions calling for a
simple yes or no answer shall be so answered first, after which the witness may explain his or her
answer. 	After all parties and Staff have had the opportunity to cross-examine the witness, the
exhibit may be moved into the record. All other exhibits may be similarly identified and entered
into the record at the appropriate time during the hearing.

ORDER NO. PSC-2026-0305-PHO-EI
DOCKET NO. 20260010-EI
PAGE 5
The Commission frequently administers the testimonial oath to more than one witness at
a time. 	Therefore, when a witness takes the stand to testify, the attorney calling the witness is
directed to ask the witness to affirm whether he or she has been sworn.
The parties shall avoid duplicative or repetitious cross-examination. Further, friendly
cross-examination will not be allowed. 	Cross-examination shall be limited to witnesses whose
testimony is adverse to the party desiring to cross-examine. Any party conducting what appears
to be a friendly cross-examination of a witness should be prepared to indicate why that witness’
direct testimony is adverse to its interests.
All parties must refer to the Exhibit Number established by the Comprehensive Exhibit
List when referencing an exhibit during cross-examination.
VI. 	ORDER OF WITNESSES
All parties have agreed to stipulate to the prefiled testimony of all witnesses and excuse
them from the final hearing.
Witness 	Proffered By 	Issues #
Direct
Name 	Utility/Staff
Andrew Pankratz 	FPL 	1A-4A
April L. Epperson 	FPL 	1A-9A, 11
A. Sloan Lewis 	TECO 	1B, 2B, 3B, 4B, 5B, 6B, 7B, 8B,
9B, 11
Kevin E. Palladino 	TECO 	1B, 2B, 3B, 4B, 5B, 6B, 7B, 8B,
9B, 11
Allysha Fischbacher
(1C -Revised August 3, 2026)
FPUC 	1C, 2C-9C
Mark Cutshaw
(1C - Revised August 3, 2026)
FPUC 	1C, 2C-3C
Christopher A. Menendez 	DEF 	1D-9D
Robert E. McCabe 	DEF 	1D-3D

ORDER NO. PSC-2026-0305-PHO-EI
DOCKET NO. 20260010-EI
PAGE 6
Witness 	Proffered By 	Issues #
Robert E. Brong 	DEF 	1D-3D
Jonathan Hayes 	Panama City 	10
VII. 	BASIC POSITIONS
FPL: 	FPL’s final true-up of its 2025 SPP costs is consistent with the actual/estimated
2025 SPP costs approved by the Commission in Docket No. 20250010-EI,
consistent with FPL’s 2023 SPP approved by the Commission in Docket No.
20220051-EI, applies the methodology and prescribed schedules contained in
Commission Forms 1A through 8A, and meets the requirements of Section
366.96, Florida Statutes, and Rule 25-6.031(7)(a), Florida Administrative Code.
No party challenged or recommended any adjustments to the SPP projects, costs,
or 	revenue 	requirements 	included 	in 	FPL’s 	2025 	SPPCRC 	final 	true-up.
Therefore, the Commission should approve FPL’s total net 2025 final true-up
over-recovery amount of $16,579,976, including interest, to be refunded through
the 2027 SPPCRC Factors.
FPL’s actual/estimated true-up of its 2026 SPP costs is consistent with the
projected 2026 SPP costs approved by the Commission in Docket No. 20250010-
EI, consistent with FPL’s 2026 SPP approved by the Commission in Docket No.
20250014-EI, applies the methodology and prescribed schedules contained in
Commission Forms 1E through 8E, and meets the requirements of Section 366.96,
Florida Statutes, and Rule 25-6.031(7)(b), Florida Administrative Code. No party
challenged or recommended any adjustments to the SPP projects, costs, or
revenue requirements included in FPL’s 2026 SPPCRC actual/estimated true-up.
Therefore, the Commission should approve FPL’s 2026 actual/estimated true-up
over-recovery of $17,107,391, including interest, to be refunded through the 2027
SPPCRC Factors.
FPL’s projected 2027 SPP costs are consistent with the 2026 SPP approved by the
Commission in Docket No. 20250014-EI, apply the methodology and prescribed
schedules 	contained 	in 	Commission 	Forms 	1P 	through 	7P, 	and 	meet 	the
requirements of Section 366.96, Florida Statutes, and Rule 25-6.031(2) and (7)(c),
Florida 	Administrative 	Code. 	No 	party 	challenged 	or 	recommended 	any
adjustments to the individual 2027 SPP projects or associated costs. 	Therefore,
the 	Commission 	should 	approve 	$1,104,884,879 	in 	jurisdictional 	revenue
requirements, inclusive of true-ups, for the SPP programs projected to be incurred
between January 1, 2027 and December 31, 2027.

ORDER NO. PSC-2026-0305-PHO-EI
DOCKET NO. 20260010-EI
PAGE 7
TECO: 	The Commission issued Order No. 2025-0219-FOF-EI on June 19, 2025 in
Docket No. 20250016-EI. The Commission found in that Order that Tampa
Electric’s 2026-2035 Storm Protection Plan (“2025 SPP”) is in the public interest
and approved that plan with one modification to its proposed Distribution Lateral
Undergrounding Program. The modification set an annual mileage target of 75
miles of underground conversion per year.
The Commission is currently scheduled to conduct a hearing regarding the Storm
Protection Cost Recovery Clause (“SPPCRC”) on September 15, 2026, to review
and approve the proposed cost recovery factors to be used for the January 2027
through December 2027 period.
The Commission should determine that Tampa Electric has properly calculated its
SPPCRC true-up, projections, and the SPPCRC factors set forth in the testimony
and exhibits of Tampa Electric witness A. Sloan Lewis. The company performed
these calculations in accordance with the requirements of Section 366.96, Florida
Statutes, 	and 	Rule 	25-6.031, 	Florida 	Administrative 	Code. 	No 	party 	has
challenged or made any other recommended adjustments to the company’s
calculations. The Commission should approve the company’s true-up, projections,
and factors. The Commission should also find that Tampa Electric’s actual 2025
SPPCRC costs were properly incurred. No party has challenged the prudence of
Tampa Electric’s actual costs incurred or made any recommended adjustments to
any of the projects or costs included in the 2025 final true-up.
FPUC: 	The factors proposed by the Company have been developed through projections
and calculations made in accordance with Rule 25-6.031, F.A.C., and the
associated depreciation expense has been calculated in accordance with the rates
approved in the Company’s last approved depreciation study. 	The factors are
based upon actual, prudently incurred costs associated with the implementation of
those aspects of FPUC’s Storm Protection Plan (“SPP”) approved by Order No.
PSC-2025-0216-FOF-EI, issued June 19, 2025, as well as reasonable estimates of
costs to be incurred in the remainder of 2026 and in 2027. As such, the Company
asks that it be allowed to implement its proposed SPPCRC Factors for the January
– December 2027 period.
DEF: 	Not applicable. DEF’s positions on specific issues are listed below.
OPC: 	The Storm Protection Plan Cost Recovery Clause (SPPCRC) is the step in the
ratemaking process where the Commission sets the factors necessary for recovery
for the annual costs for implementing the Companies’ approved Storm Protection
Plan 	(SPP). 	The 	process 	of 	reviewing 	and 	implementing 	a 	SPP 	is 	an
indispensable and necessary step in the ratemaking process within the meaning
and intent of Sections 366.06(1) 366.96, Florida Statutes. Section 366.06(1),
Florida Statutes, establishes the Commission’s rate-making procedure for public
utilities in the State of Florida. Upon application for a change in rates by a utility,

ORDER NO. PSC-2026-0305-PHO-EI
DOCKET NO. 20260010-EI
PAGE 8
The commission shall investigate and determine the actual
legitimate costs of the property of each utility company,
actually used and useful in the public service, and shall
keep a current record of the net investment of each public
utility 	company 	in 	such 	property 	which 	value, 	as
determined 	by 	the 	commission, 	shall 	be 	used 	for
ratemaking purposes and shall be the money honestly and
prudently invested by the public utility company in such
property used and useful in serving the public, less accrued
depreciation, and shall not include any goodwill or going-
concern value or franchise value in excess of payment
made therefor.
Id. (emphasis added).
Additionally, the utilities bear the burden of proof to justify the recovery of costs
they request in this docket and must carry this burden regardless of whether or not
the intervenors provide evidence to the contrary. 	Further, the utilities bear the
burden of proof to support their proposal(s) seeking the Commission's adoption of
policy statements (whether new or changed) or other affirmative relief sought.
Even if the Commission has previously approved a program, recovery of a cost,
factor, or adjustment as meeting the Commission’s own requirements, the utilities
still bear the burden of demonstrating that the costs submitted for final recovery
meet any statutory test(s) and are reasonable in amount and prudently incurred.
Further, the utilities bear the burden of proof to support that all costs sought to be
recovered through this clause are correctly clause recovery costs and not base rate
costs. Further, recovery of all costs is constrained by the Commission’s obligation
to set fair, just, and reasonable rates, based on projects and/or costs that are
prudent in magnitude and/or costs prudently incurred pursuant to Section 366.01,
Florida Statutes. Additionally, the provisions of Chapter 366, Florida Statutes,
must be liberally construed to protect the public welfare.
The OPC notes that agreements in the form of a Joint Stipulation were reached
with all four Companies in resolution of the Storm Protection Plan petition of
each 	company 	and 	were 	approved 	by 	Commission 	Order 	in 	Docket 	Nos.
20250014-EI 	(FPL),1 	20250015-EI 	(DEF),2 	20250016-EI 	(Tampa 	Electric
Company),3 and 20250017-EI (FPUC). 4 The OPC’s positions taken in this
proceeding do not represent a reversal or abrogation of any such agreement.
While those agreements did not address the specific costs that might be included
in 	any 	specific 	SPPCRC 	proceeding, 	they 	imposed 	commitments 	on 	each
1 Order No. PSC-2025-0218-FOF-EI.
2 Order No. PSC-2025-0217-FOF-EI.
3 Order No. PSC-2025-0219-FOF-EI.
4 Order No. PSC-2025-0216-FOF-EI.

ORDER NO. PSC-2026-0305-PHO-EI
DOCKET NO. 20260010-EI
PAGE 9
Company to take certain measures to revise their SPPs. Regardless, the OPC
stands by the agreements made in those dockets and further expects that the
Companies will demonstrate that they have only included costs for SPPCRC
recovery that are consistent with the agreements made in each company’s SPP.
FIPUG: 	The Petitioners must provide sufficient evidence of its expenditures for recovery
of approved storm protection costs to carry its burden of proof and establish that
its actions and expenditures were consistent with approved Storm Protection
Plans, used and useful, and prudent.
NUCOR: 	Rule 25-6.031, F.A.C, details the specific recoverable costs that Duke Energy
Florida, LLC (“DEF”) may collect through the SPPCRC and provides that such
costs must be consistent with the Company’s approved Storm Protection Plan.
Nucor’s basic position is that DEF bears the burden of proof to justify the amount
of costs it seeks to recover through the SPPCRC and show that such costs are
eligible recovery costs under 25-6.031(6) and are consistent with DEF’s approved
Storm Protection Plan.
PCS
Phosphate: 	Only costs prudently incurred and legally authorized may be recovered through
the storm protection plan cost recovery clause (“SPPCRC”). Florida electric
utilities, including in particular Duke Energy Florida, LLC (“DEF”), must satisfy
the burden of proving the reasonableness of any expenditures for which recovery
or other relief is sought in this proceeding. DEF has filed for recovery of costs of
its Storm Protection Plan (“SPP”), which was approved last year. 5 DEF’s
approved SPPCRC revenue requirement for 2026 was approximately $347.8
million before accounting for prior year true-ups,6 and its projected period 2027
SPPCRC revenue requirement is approximately $439.4 million before accounting
for 	prior 	year 	true-ups.7 	This 	is 	an 	approximately 	26% 	overall 	revenue
requirement 	increase 	and 	follows 	several 	years 	of 	similarly 	large 	revenue
requirement increases. DEF’s approved SPPCRC revenue requirement for 2026
was an increase of approximately 21% compared to the SPPCRC revenue
requirement for 2025 of approximately $285.6 million, which was an increase of
approximately 42% compared to the SPPCRC revenue requirement for 2024 of
approximately $201.4 million, which was an increase of approximately 36%
compared to the SPPCRC revenue requirement for 2023 of approximately $148
million.8 According to DEF’s approved SPP, the utility’s SPP investments are
5 Docket No. 20250015-EI, In re: Review of 2026-2035 Storm Protection Plan, pursuant to Rule 25-6.030, F.A.C.,
Duke Energy Florida, LLC., Final Order Approving With Modifications, Duke Energy Florida, LLC’s 2026-2035
Storm Protection Plan, Order No. PSC-2025-0217-FOF-EI (June 19, 2025) (“2025 SPP Approval Order”).
6 See Docket No. 20250010-EI, In re: Storm protection plan cost recovery clause, Order Approving Storm Cost
Recovery Amounts and Related Tariffs and Establishing Storm Cost Recovery Factors for the Period January 2026
through December 2026, Order No. PSC-2025-0439-FOF-EI at 8 (Nov. 24, 2025).
7 See Exh. No. __ (CAM-3), Form 1P at page 1 of 123.
8 See Docket No. 20250010-EI, In re: Storm protection plan cost recovery clause, Order Approving Storm Cost
Recovery Amounts and Related Tariffs and Establishing Storm Cost Recovery Factors for the Period January 2026

ORDER NO. PSC-2026-0305-PHO-EI
DOCKET NO. 20260010-EI
PAGE 10
supposed to begin generating substantial system benefits in the form of reduced
outage 	events 	and 	restoration 	costs 	and 	increased 	service 	reliability.9 	The
Commission should require DEF to include in its annual SPPCRC filings an
assessment of system benefits realized by program.
PANAMA
CITY: 	Only costs prudently incurred and legally authorized may be recovered through
the Storm Protection Plan Cost Recovery Clause. Florida electric utilities,
including Florida Power & Light Company (“FPL”), bear the burden of proving
the prudence and reasonableness of the expenditures for which cost recovery or
other relief is sought in this proceeding. The City takes no position at this time on
specific numerical revenue requirements, factors, or tariff amounts, but does not
waive any position or argument concerning whether FPL has met its burden as to
the prudence, reasonableness, allocation, or project-specific support for costs at
issue.
STAFF: 	Staff’s positions are preliminary and based on materials filed by the parties and on
discovery. The preliminary positions are offered to assist the parties in preparing
for the hearing. Staff’s final positions will be based upon all the evidence in the
record and may differ from the preliminary positions.
VIII. 	ISSUES AND POSITIONS
Issues 1A through 9D, Issues 10 and 11 are Type 2 stipulations10 in this proceeding.11
OPC Issues A through D are Type 1 stipulations12 between OPC and FPL, TECO, DEF and
through December 2026, Order No. PSC-2025-0439-FOF-EI at 8 (Nov. 24, 2025); Docket No. 20240010-EI, In re:
Storm protection plan cost recovery clause, Final Order Approving Storm Cost Recovery Amounts and Related
Tariffs and Establishing Storm Cost Recovery Factors for the Period January 2025 through December 2025, Order
No. PSC-2024-0459-FOF-EI at 7 (Oct. 24, 2024); Docket No. 20230010-EI, In re: Storm protection plan cost
recovery clause, Final Order Approving Storm Cost Recovery Amounts and Related Tariffs and Establishing Storm
Cost Recovery Factors for the Period January 2024 through December 2024, Order No. PSC-2023-0364-FOF-EI at
16-17 (Nov. 29, 2023); Docket No. 20220010-EI, In re: Storm protection plan cost recovery clause, Final Order
Approving Storm Cost Recovery Amounts and Related Tariffs and Establishing Storm Cost Recovery Factors for
the Period January 2023 through December 2023, Order No. PSC-2022-0418-FOF-EI at 7 (Dec. 12, 2022).
9 See 2025 SPP Approval Order at 12-13 (including the anticipated benefits of the SPP of “reductions of storm
restoration costs, increases in service reliability, and reductions of outage events during both extreme and non-
extreme weather conditions”).
10 A Type 2 stipulation occurs on an issue when the utility and 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 staff if they do not join in the
agreement) do not object to the Commission relying on the agreed language to resolve that issue in a final order.
11 The OPC’s, FIPUG’s, Nucor’s, PSC Phosphate’s and Panama City’s position on each Type 2 stipulation stated
herein is as follows: The intervenors take no position on these issues, nor do they have the burden of proof related to
them. 	As such, the Intervenors represent that they will not contest or oppose the Commission taking action
approving a proposed stipulation between the Company and another party or staff as a final resolution of these
issues. No person is authorized to state that the Intervenors are a participant in, or party to, a stipulation on these
issues, either in this docket, in an order of the Commission or in a representation to a Court.
12 A type 1 stipulation occurs on an issue when the utility and intervenors agree on the resolution of the issue.

ORDER NO. PSC-2026-0305-PHO-EI
DOCKET NO. 20260010-EI
PAGE 11
FPUC. For OPC Issues A-D, Panama City, FIPUG, PCS Phosphate and Nucor have entered into
Type 2 stipulations with FPL, TECO, FPUC and DEF. 	These stipulations address all issues
identified in this docket.
ISSUE 1A: 	What jurisdictional amounts should the Commission approve as FPL’s final
2025 	prudently 	incurred 	costs 	and 	final 	true-up 	revenue 	requirement
amounts for the Storm Protection Plan Cost Recovery Clause?
Proposed stipulation – See Section X.
ISSUE 1B: 	What jurisdictional amounts should the Commission approve as TECO’s
final 2025 prudently incurred costs and final true-up revenue requirement
amounts for the Storm Protection Plan Cost Recovery Clause?
Proposed stipulation – See Section X.
ISSUE 1C: 	What jurisdictional amounts should the Commission approve as FPUC’s
final 2025 prudently incurred costs and final true-up revenue requirement
amounts for the Storm Protection Plan Cost Recovery Clause?
Proposed stipulation – See Section X.
ISSUE 1D: 	What jurisdictional amounts should the Commission approve as DEF’s final
2025 	prudently 	incurred 	costs 	and 	final 	true-up 	revenue 	requirement
amounts for the Storm Protection Plan Cost Recovery Clause?
Proposed stipulation – See Section X.
ISSUE 2A: 	What jurisdictional amounts should the Commission approve as FPL’s
reasonably estimated 2026 costs and estimated true-up revenue requirement
amounts for the Storm Protection Plan Cost Recovery Clause?
Proposed stipulation – See Section X.
ISSUE 2B: 	What jurisdictional amounts should the Commission approve as TECO’s
reasonably estimated 2026 costs and estimated true-up revenue requirement
amounts for the Storm Protection Plan Cost Recovery Clause?
Proposed stipulation – See Section X.

ORDER NO. PSC-2026-0305-PHO-EI
DOCKET NO. 20260010-EI
PAGE 12
ISSUE 2C: 	What jurisdictional amounts should the Commission approve as FPUC’s
reasonably estimated 2026 costs and estimated true-up revenue requirement
amounts for the Storm Protection Plan Cost Recovery Clause?
Proposed stipulation – See Section X.
ISSUE 2D: 	What jurisdictional amounts should the Commission approve as DEF’s
reasonably estimated 2026 costs and estimated true-up revenue requirement
amounts for the Storm Protection Plan Cost Recovery Clause?
Proposed stipulation – See Section X.
ISSUE 3A: 	What jurisdictional amounts should the Commission approve as FPL’s
reasonably projected 2027 costs and projected revenue requirement amounts
for the Storm Protection Plan Cost Recovery Clause?
Proposed stipulation – See Section X.
ISSUE 3B: 	What jurisdictional amounts should the Commission approve as TECO’s
reasonably projected 2027 costs and projected revenue requirement amounts
for the Storm Protection Plan Cost Recovery Clause?
Proposed stipulation – See Section X.
ISSUE 3C: 	What jurisdictional amounts should the Commission approve as FPUC’S
reasonably projected 2027 costs and projected revenue requirement amounts
for the Storm Protection Plan Cost Recovery Clause?
Proposed stipulation – See Section X.
ISSUE 3D: 	What jurisdictional amounts should the Commission approve as DEF’s
reasonably projected 2027 costs and projected revenue requirement amounts
for the Storm Protection Plan Cost Recovery Clause?
Proposed stipulation – See Section X.
ISSUE 4A: 	What 	are 	the 	Storm 	Protection 	Plan 	Cost 	Recovery 	Clause 	total
jurisdictional cost recovery amounts, including true-ups, to be included in
establishing 2027 Storm Protection Plan Cost Recovery factor for FPL?

ORDER NO. PSC-2026-0305-PHO-EI
DOCKET NO. 20260010-EI
PAGE 13
Proposed stipulation – See Section X.
ISSUE 4B: 	What 	are 	the 	Storm 	Protection 	Plan 	Cost 	Recovery 	Clause 	total
jurisdictional cost recovery amounts, including true-ups, to be included in
establishing 2027 Storm Protection Plan Cost Recovery factor for TECO?
Proposed stipulation – See Section X.
ISSUE 4C: 	What 	are 	the 	Storm 	Protection 	Plan 	Cost 	Recovery 	Clause 	total
jurisdictional cost recovery amounts, including true-ups, to be included in
establishing 2027 Storm Protection Plan Cost Recovery factor for FPUC?
Proposed stipulation – See Section X.
ISSUE 4D: 	What 	are 	the 	Storm 	Protection 	Plan 	Cost 	Recovery 	Clause 	total
jurisdictional cost recovery amounts, including true-ups, to be included in
establishing 2027 Storm Protection Plan Cost Recovery factor for DEF?
Proposed stipulation – See Section X.
ISSUE 5A: 	What depreciation rates should be used to develop the depreciation expense
included in the total 2027 Storm Protection Plan Cost Recovery Clause
amounts for FPL?
Proposed stipulation – See Section X.
ISSUE 5B: 	What depreciation rates should be used to develop the depreciation expense
included in the total 2027 Storm Protection Plan Cost Recovery Clause
amounts for TECO?
Proposed stipulation – See Section X.
ISSUE 5C: 	What depreciation rates should be used to develop the depreciation expense
included in the total 2027 Storm Protection Plan Cost Recovery Clause
amounts for FPUC?
Proposed stipulation – See Section X.

ORDER NO. PSC-2026-0305-PHO-EI
DOCKET NO. 20260010-EI
PAGE 14
ISSUE 5D: 	What depreciation rates should be used to develop the depreciation expense
included in the total 2027 Storm Protection Plan Cost Recovery Clause
amounts for DEF?
Proposed stipulation – See Section X.
ISSUE 6A: 	What are the appropriate 2027 jurisdictional separation factors for FPL?
Proposed stipulation – See Section X.
ISSUE 6B: 	What are the appropriate 2027 jurisdictional separation factors for TECO?
Proposed stipulation – See Section X.
ISSUE 6C: 	What are the appropriate 2027 jurisdictional separation factors for FPUC?
Proposed stipulation – See Section X.
ISSUE 6D: 	What are the appropriate 2027 jurisdictional separation factors for DEF?
Proposed stipulation – See Section X.
ISSUE 7A: 	What are the appropriate 2027 Storm Protection Plan Cost Recovery Clause
factors for each rate class for FPL?
Proposed stipulation – See Section X.
ISSUE 7B: 	What are the appropriate 2027 Storm Protection Plan Cost Recovery Clause
factors for each rate class for TECO?
Proposed stipulation – See Section X.
ISSUE 7C: 	What are the appropriate 2027 Storm Protection Plan Cost Recovery Clause
factors for each rate class for FPUC?
Proposed stipulation – See Section X.

ORDER NO. PSC-2026-0305-PHO-EI
DOCKET NO. 20260010-EI
PAGE 15
ISSUE 7D: 	What are the appropriate 2027 Storm Protection Plan Cost Recovery Clause
factors for each rate class for DEF?
Proposed stipulation – See Section X.
ISSUE 8A: 	What should be the effective date of the 2027 Storm Protection Plan Cost
Recovery Clause factors for billing purposes for FPL?
Proposed stipulation – See Section X.
ISSUE 8B: 	What should be the effective date of the 2027 Storm Protection Plan Cost
Recovery Clause factors for billing purposes for TECO?
Proposed stipulation – See Section X.
ISSUE 8C: 	What should be the effective date of the 2027 Storm Protection Plan Cost
Recovery Clause factors for billing purposes for FPUC?
Proposed stipulation – See Section X.
ISSUE 8D: 	What should be the effective date of the 2027 Storm Protection Plan Cost
Recovery Clause factors for billing purposes for DEF?
Proposed stipulation – See Section X.
ISSUE 9A: 	Should the Commission approve revised tariffs reflecting the 2027 Storm
Protection Plan Cost Recovery Clause factors determined to be appropriate
in this proceeding for FPL?
Proposed stipulation – See Section X.
ISSUE 9B: 	Should the Commission approve revised tariffs reflecting the 2027 Storm
Protection Plan Cost Recovery Clause factors determined to be appropriate
in this proceeding for TECO?
Proposed stipulation – See Section X.

ORDER NO. PSC-2026-0305-PHO-EI
DOCKET NO. 20260010-EI
PAGE 16
ISSUE 9C: 	Should the Commission approve revised tariffs reflecting the 2027 Storm
Protection Plan Cost Recovery Clause factors determined to be appropriate
in this proceeding for FPUC?
Proposed stipulation – See Section X.
ISSUE 9D: 	Should the Commission approve revised tariffs reflecting the 2027 Storm
Protection Plan Cost Recovery Clause factors determined to be appropriate
in this proceeding for DEF?
Proposed stipulation – See Section X.
ISSUE 10: 	Does the City of Panama City, Florida have standing to intervene in this
proceeding limited to Florida Power & Light issues?
Proposed stipulation – See Section X.
ISSUE 11: 	Should this docket be closed?
Proposed stipulation – See Section X.
OPC ISSUES
OPC
ISSUE A: 	Does FPL’s SPPCRC filing comply with the Joint Stipulation approved by
Commission in Order No. PSC-2025-0218-FOF-EI? If so, what has the
company done to comply with that order?
Proposed stipulation – See Section X.
OPC
ISSUE B: 	Does DEF’s SPPCRC filing comply with the Joint Stipulation approved by
Commission in Order No PSC-2025-0217-FOF-EI? If so, what has the
company done to comply with that order?
Proposed stipulation – See Section X.

ORDER NO. PSC-2026-0305-PHO-EI
DOCKET NO. 20260010-EI
PAGE 17
OPC
ISSUE C: 	Does TECO’s SPPCRC filing comply with the Joint Stipulation approved by
Commission in Order No. PSC-2025-0219-FOF-EI? If so, what has the
company done to comply with that order?
Proposed stipulation – See Section X.
OPC
ISSUE D: 	Does FPUC’s SPPCRC filing comply with the Joint Stipulation approved by
Commission in Order No. PSC-2025-0216-FOF-EI. If so, what has the
company done to comply with that order?
Proposed stipulation – See Section X.
IX. 	EXHIBIT LIST
Witness 	Proffered By 	Description
Direct
Andrew Pankratz 	FPL 	AP-1 	FPL actual Storm Protection
Plan work completed in 2025
(Project Level Detail)
Andrew Pankratz 	FPL 	AP-2 	List of explanations of drivers
for variances in Storm
Protection Plan Programs and
Projects
Andrew Pankratz 	FPL 	AP-3 	Form 6P – Program
Description and Progress
Report
Andrew Pankratz 	FPL 	AP-4 	FPL Actual/Estimated Storm
Protection Plan work to be
completed in 2026 (Project
Level Detail)
Andrew Pankratz 	FPL 	AP-5 	FPL Storm Protection Plan
Work projected to be
completed in 2027 (Project
Level Detail)

ORDER NO. PSC-2026-0305-PHO-EI
DOCKET NO. 20260010-EI
PAGE 18
Witness 	Proffered By 	Description
April L. Epperson 	FPL 	ALE-1 	Forms 1A through 8A for the
FPL 2-25 SPPCRC Final
True-Up
April L. Epperson 	FPL 	ALE-2 	Forms 1E through 8E for the
FPL 2026 SPPCRC
Actual/Estimated True-Up
April L. Epperson 	FPL 	ALE-3 	Forms 1P through 5P and 7P
for FPL’s Proposed 2027
SPPCRC Factors
April L. Epperson 	FPL 	ALE-3
(Amended
6.1.26)
Amended Forms 1P through
5P and 7P for FPL’s Proposed
2027 SPPCRC Factors
April L. Epperson 	FPL 	ALE-4 	Retail separation factors
April L. Epperson 	FPL 	ALE-4
(Amended
6.1.26)
Amended retail separation
factors
A. Sloan Lewis 	TECO 	ASL-1
(A
Schedules
filed 4.1.26)
Schedules supporting Storm
Cost Recovery Factor, Actual
for the period January 2025-
December 2025
A. Sloan Lewis 	TECO 	ASL-2
(E
Schedules
filed 5.1.26)
Schedules supporting cost
recovery amount, projected
for the period January 2026 -
December 2026
A. Sloan Lewis 	TECO 	ASL-2
(P
Schedules
Revised
8.7.26)
Schedules supporting costs
recovery amount, projected
for the period January 2027-
December 2027
Kevin E. Palladino 	TECO 	KEP-1
(Filed
4.1.26)
Schedules supporting storm
protection cost recovery
factor, actual for the period
January 2025-December 2025
Kevin E. Palladino 	TECO 	KEP-2
(Filed
5.1.26)
Project list and summary of
costs

ORDER NO. PSC-2026-0305-PHO-EI
DOCKET NO. 20260010-EI
PAGE 19
Witness 	Proffered By 	Description
Allysha Fischbacher 	FPUC 	AF-1
(Revised
8.3.26)
SPPCRC Schedules 1A-9A
(Schedule 8A also sponsored
by Mark Cutshaw)
Allysha Fischbacher 	FPUC 	AF-1
(Revised
8.3.26)
SPPCRC Schedules E and P
Christopher A. Menendez 	DEF 	GPD-1 13
(Amended
5.26.26)
True-up costs associated with
the SPPCRC activities for the
period January 2025 through
December 2025.
Christopher A. Menendez 	DEF 	CAM-2 	Actual/estimated true-up for
the period January 2026
through December 2026.
Christopher A. Menendez 	DEF 	CAM-3 	Projected 	costs 	for 	the
SPPCRC 	for 	the 	period
January 	2027 	through
December 	2027, 	and 	DEF’s
Storm 	Protection 	Plan 	cost
recovery factors for the period
January 	2027 	through
December 2027.
Robert E. McCabe 	DEF 	GPD-1
(Amended
5.26.26)
Distribution-related 	costs
associated 	with 	DEF’s 	SPP
proposed for recovery through
the SPPCRC for 2025.
Robert E. McCabe 	DEF 	CAM-2 	Distribution-related 	costs
associated 	with 	DEF’s 	SPP
proposed for recovery through
the SPPCRC for 2026.
Robert E. McCabe 	DEF 	CAM-3 	Distribution-related costs
associated with DEF’s SPP
proposed for recovery through
the SPPCRC for 2027.
13 On May 19, 2026, DEF filed Notice that Christopher Menendez would adopt the April 1, 2026, Testimony and
Exhibits of Gary Dean, including Exhibit GPD-1. See doc. No. 02978-2026.

ORDER NO. PSC-2026-0305-PHO-EI
DOCKET NO. 20260010-EI
PAGE 20
Witness 	Proffered By 	Description
Robert E. Brong 	DEF 	GPD-1
(Amended
5.26.26)
Transmission-related costs
associated with DEF’s SPP
proposed for recovery through
the SPPCRC for 2025.
Robert E. Brong 	DEF 	CAM-2 	Transmission-related 	costs
associated 	with 	DEF’s 	SPP
proposed for recovery through
the SPPCRC for 2026.
Robert E. Brong 	DEF 	CAM-3 	Transmission-related costs
associated with DEF’s SPP
proposed for recovery through
the SPPCRC for 2027.
X. 	PROPOSED STIPULATIONS
ISSUE 1A: 	What jurisdictional amounts should the Commission approve as FPL’s final
2025 prudently incurred costs and final true-up revenue requirement
amounts for the Storm Protection Plan Cost Recovery Clause?
Stipulation: 	FPL’s final total SPPCRC cost incurred for 2025 is $1,636,170,425, which
includes a total operations and maintenance (“O&M”) expense of $131,109,181
(Line 5 of Form 5A, Exhibit ALE-1, p. 5) and a total capital expenditure of
$1,505,061,245 (sum of Line 1a of Form 7A, Exhibit ALE-1, pp. 11-18).14 FPL’s
SPPCRC final jurisdictional revenue requirement true-up for the period January
2025 	through 	December 	2025, 	including 	interest, 	is 	an 	over-recovery 	of
$16,579,976 (Line 9 of Form 1A, Exhibit ALE-1, p. 1).
ISSUE 1B: 	What jurisdictional amounts should the Commission approve as TECO’s
final 2025 prudently incurred costs and final true-up revenue requirement
amounts for the Storm Protection Plan Cost Recovery Clause?
Stipulation: 	The Commission should approve final Storm Protection Plan Cost Recovery
Clause prudently incurred jurisdictional revenue requirements of $111,505,149
and a jurisdictional cost recovery true-up under-recovery amount of $47,212 for
the period January 2025 through December 2025 including interest.
14 The jurisdictional separation factors are applied to the revenue requirements and not the costs incurred.
Therefore, the total jurisdictional cost incurred for the applicable calendar year is not available.

ORDER NO. PSC-2026-0305-PHO-EI
DOCKET NO. 20260010-EI
PAGE 21
ISSUE 1C: 	What jurisdictional amounts should the Commission approve as the FPUC’s
final 2025 prudently incurred costs and final true-up revenue requirement
amounts for the Storm Protection Plan Cost Recovery Clause?
Stipulation: 	The final, end of period true up amount to be included in the calculation of the
2027 cost recovery factors is an over-recovery of $161,122, reflecting an actual,
end 	of 	period 	under-recovery 	$1,356,307, 	as 	compared 	to 	the 	Company’s
projected under-recovery of $1,517,429, as reflected in Order No. PSC-2025-
0439-FOF-EI, issued November 24, 2025.
ISSUE 1D: 	What jurisdictional amounts should the Commission approve as the DEF’s
final 2025 prudently incurred costs and final true-up revenue requirement
amounts for the Storm Protection Plan Cost Recovery Clause?
Stipulation: 	Investments of $865,967,524 (System). Under-recovery of $9,612,868.
ISSUE 2A: 	What jurisdictional amounts should the Commission approve as the FPL’s
reasonably estimated 2026 costs and estimated true-up revenue requirement
amounts for the Storm Protection Plan Cost Recovery Clause?
Stipulation: 	FPL’s total SPPCRC cost estimated for 2026 is $1,331,530,178, which includes a
total O&M expense of $220,721,371 (Line 6 of Form 5E, Exhibit ALE-2, p. 6)
and a total capital expenditure of $1,110,808,806 (sum of Line 1a of Form 7E,
Exhibit ALE-2, pp. 12-20).15 	FPL’s SPPCRC actual/estimated jurisdictional
revenue requirement true-up for the period January 2026 through December 2026,
including interest, is an over-recovery of $17,107,391 (Line 4 of Form 1E of
Exhibit ALE-2, p. 1).
ISSUE 2B: 	What jurisdictional amounts should the Commission approve as TECO’s
reasonably estimated 2026 costs and estimated true-up revenue requirement
amounts for the Storm Protection Plan Cost Recovery Clause?
Stipulation: 	The Commission should approve actual/estimated Storm Protection Plan Cost
Recovery Clause jurisdictional revenue requirements of $134,604,618 and a
jurisdictional 	estimated 	cost 	recovery 	true-up 	over-recovery 	amount 	of
$4,092,856 for the period January 2026 through December 2026 including
interest.
15 See Footnote 5.

ORDER NO. PSC-2026-0305-PHO-EI
DOCKET NO. 20260010-EI
PAGE 22
ISSUE 2C: 	What jurisdictional amounts should the Commission approve as FPUC’s
reasonably estimated 2026 costs and estimated true-up revenue requirement
amounts for the Storm Protection Plan Cost Recovery Clause?
Stipulation: 	The Company projects to incur $3.59 million of O&M expense and $18.51
million of capital expenditures for a total of $22.10 million in 2026, which
produces an estimated true-up under-recovery for the period of January 2026
through December 2026 of $971,609.
ISSUE 2D: 	What jurisdictional amounts should the Commission approve as DEF’s
reasonably estimated 2026 costs and estimated true-up revenue requirement
amounts for the Storm Protection Plan Cost Recovery Clause?
Stipulation: 	Investments of $774,466, 133 (System). Under-recovery of $9,269,300.
ISSUE 3A: 	What jurisdictional amounts should the Commission approve as FPL’s
reasonably projected 2027 costs and projected revenue requirement amounts
for the Storm Protection Plan Cost Recovery Clause?
Stipulation: 	FPL’s total SPPCRC cost projected for 2027 is $1,313,289,925, which includes a
total O&M expense of $247,545,259 (Line 6 of Form 2P, Amended Exhibit ALE-
3, p. 2) and a total capital expenditure of $1,065,744,666 (sum of Line 1a of the
applicable Form 3P schedules, Amended Exhibit ALE-3, pp. 6-14).16 	FPL’s
projected SPPCRC jurisdictional revenue requirement for the period January 2027
through December 2027 is $1,138,572,247 (Line 1 of Form 1P, Amended Exhibit
ALE-3, p. 1).
ISSUE 3B: 	What jurisdictional amounts should the Commission approve as TECO’s
reasonably projected 2027 costs and projected revenue requirement amounts
for the Storm Protection Plan Cost Recovery Clause?
Stipulation: 	The Commission should approve reasonably projected Storm Protection Plan Cost
Recovery Clause jurisdictional revenue requirements of $161,610,479 for the
period January 2027 through December 2027.
ISSUE 3C: 	What jurisdictional amounts should the Commission approve as FPUC’s
reasonably projected 2027 costs and projected revenue requirement amounts
for the Storm Protection Plan Cost Recovery Clause?
16 See Footnote 5.

ORDER NO. PSC-2026-0305-PHO-EI
DOCKET NO. 20260010-EI
PAGE 23
Stipulation: 	FPUC projects the total jurisdictional projected revenue requirement for 2027 is
$12,508,958, based upon its projection of $3.93 million of O&M expense and
$19.5 million of capital expenditures for a total of $23.43 million in SPP
expenditures in 2027.
ISSUE 3D: 	What jurisdictional amounts should the Commission approve as DEF’s
reasonably projected 2027 costs and projected revenue requirement amounts
for the Storm Protection Plan Cost Recovery Clause?
Stipulation: 	Investments of $859,022,025 (System). Revenue requirement $439,359,485.
ISSUE 4A: 	What 	are 	the 	Storm 	Protection 	Plan 	Cost 	Recovery 	Clause 	total
jurisdictional cost recovery amounts, including true-ups, to be included in
establishing 2027 Storm Protection Plan Cost Recovery factors for FPL?
Stipulation: 	The projected total SPPCRC jurisdictional revenue requirement for the period
January 	2027 	through 	December 	2027, 	including 	true-up 	amounts, 	is
$1,104,884,879 (Line 4 of Form 1P, Amended Exhibit ALE-3, p. 1).
ISSUE 4B: 	What 	are 	the 	Storm 	Protection 	Plan 	Cost 	Recovery 	Clause 	total
jurisdictional cost recovery amounts, including true-ups, to be included in
establishing 2027 Storm Protection Plan Cost Recovery factors for TECO?
Stipulation: 	The Storm Protection Plan Cost Recovery Clause total jurisdictional cost recovery
amounts, including true-ups, to be included in establishing Storm Protection Plan
Cost Recovery factors for the period January 2027 through December 2027 is
$157,698,450.
ISSUE 4C: 	What 	are 	the 	Storm 	Protection 	Plan 	Cost 	Recovery 	Clause 	total
jurisdictional cost recovery amounts, including true-ups, to be included in
establishing 2027 Storm Protection Plan Cost Recovery factors for FPUC?
Stipulation: 	When the estimated true-up under-recovery for the period of January 2026
through December 2026 of $971,609 and the final true-up over-recovery for the
period of January 2025 through December 2025 of $161,122 are included, and
adjustments are made for taxes, this amounts to recovery of $13,330,740 in 2027.
ISSUE 4D: 	What 	are 	the 	Storm 	Protection 	Plan 	Cost 	Recovery 	Clause 	total
jurisdictional cost recovery amounts, including true-ups, to be included in
establishing 2027 Storm Protection Plan Cost Recovery factors for DEF?

ORDER NO. PSC-2026-0305-PHO-EI
DOCKET NO. 20260010-EI
PAGE 24
Stipulation: 	Revenue requirement $458,241,653.
ISSUE 5A: 	What depreciation rates should be used to develop the depreciation expense
included in the total 2027 Storm Protection Plan Cost Recovery Clause
amounts for FPL?
Stipulation: 	The depreciation rates used to calculate the depreciation expense should be the
Commission-approved depreciation rates that are in effect during the period the
allowed capital investment is in service. 	For the period January 2027 through
December 2027, FPL’s depreciation rates are those approved by Commission
Order No. PSC-2026-0022-S-EI in Docket No. 20250011-EI.
ISSUE 5B: 	What depreciation rates should be used to develop the depreciation expense
included in the total 2027 Storm Protection Plan Cost Recovery Clause
amounts for TECO?
Stipulation: 	The depreciation rates from Tampa Electric’s Depreciation Study, approved by
Order No. PSC-2025-0038-FOF-EI issued February 3, 2025, in Docket No.
20230139-EI should be used to develop the depreciation expense included in the
2027 Storm Protection Plan Cost Recovery Clause amounts.
ISSUE 5C: 	What depreciation rates should be used to develop the depreciation expense
included in the total 2027 Storm Protection Plan Cost Recovery Clause
amounts for FPUC?
Stipulation: 	The appropriate depreciation rates are those approved in Order No. PSC-2023-
0384-PAA-EI, issued December 21, 2023, in Docket No. 20230079-EI.
ISSUE 5D: 	What depreciation rates should be used to develop the depreciation expense
included in the total 2027 Storm Protection Plan Cost Recovery Clause
amounts for DEF?
Stipulation: 	DEF should use the depreciation rates that were approved in Final Order No.
PSC-2024-0472-AS-EI.
ISSUE 6A: 	What are the appropriate 2027 jurisdictional separation factors for FPL?
Stipulation: 	As shown on page 1 of Amended Exhibit ALE-4, FPL’s retail jurisdictional
separation factors for the period January 2027 through December 2027 are:

ORDER NO. PSC-2026-0305-PHO-EI
DOCKET NO. 20260010-EI
PAGE 25
DEMAND
Transmission 	0.893622
Distribution 	1.000000
ENERGY
Total Sales 	0.938651
Non-Stratified Sales 	0.957084
GENERAL PLANT
Labor 	0.968271
ISSUE 6B: 	What are the appropriate 2027 jurisdictional separation factors for TECO?
Stipulation: 	The appropriate jurisdictional separation factors are as follows:
FPSC Jurisdictional Factor: 	93.5213%
FERC Jurisdictional Factor: 	6.4787%
ISSUE 6C: 	What are the appropriate 2027 jurisdictional separation factors for FPUC?
Stipulation: 	There is no jurisdictional separation applicable to FPUC.
ISSUE 6D: 	What are the appropriate 2027 jurisdictional separation factors for DEF?
Stipulation: 	DEF should apply the appropriate jurisdictional separation factors that were
approved in Final Order No. PSC-2024-0472-AS-EI.
Distribution: 	1.000000
Transmission: 0.703690

ORDER NO. PSC-2026-0305-PHO-EI
DOCKET NO. 20260010-EI
PAGE 26
ISSUE 7A: 	What are the appropriate 2027 Storm Protection Plan Cost Recovery Clause
factors for each rate class for FPL?
Stipulation:
Rate Class
SPP
Factor
($/kW)
SPP
Factor
($/kWh)
RDC
($/kW)
DDC
($/kW)
RS1/RTR1/RS-2EV 	0.01088
GS1/GST1 	0.01022
GSD1/GSDT1/HLFT1/GSD1-EV 	1.98
OS2 	0.02879
GSLD1/GSLDT1/CS1/CST1/HLFT2/GSLD-
1EV 	1.98
GSLD2/GSLDT2/CS2/CST2/HLFT3/GSLD-
2EV 	1.82
GSLD3/GSLDT3/CS3/CST3/LLCS-1/LLCS-
2 	0.20
SST1T 	0.02 	0.01
SST1D1/SST1D2/SST1D3 	0.33 	0.16
CILC D/CILC G 	1.83
CILC T 	0.20
MET 	2.37
OL1/SL1/SL1M/PL1/OSI/II 	0.00619
SL2/SL2M/GSCU1 	0.01043
ISSUE 7B: 	What are the appropriate 2027 Storm Protection Plan Cost Recovery Clause
factors for each rate class for TECO?
Stipulation: 	The appropriate January 2027 through December 2027 cost recovery clause
factors 	utilizing 	the 	appropriate 	recognition 	of 	Federal 	Energy 	Regulatory
Commission transmission jurisdictional separation, revenue tax factors and the
rate design and cost allocation as put forth in Docket No. 20240026-EI are as
follows:
Rate Schedule
Cost Recovery Factors
(cents per kWh)
RS 	0.952
GS and CS 	0.769
GSD Optional – Secondary 	0.605
GSD Optional – Primary 	0.599
GSD Optional – Subtransmission 	0.593

ORDER NO. PSC-2026-0305-PHO-EI
DOCKET NO. 20260010-EI
PAGE 27
LS-1, LS-2 	0.827
Cost Recovery Factors
Rate Schedule 	(dollars per kW)
GSD/GSDT/SBD/SBDT – Secondary 	2.48
GSD/GSDT/SBD/SBDT – Primary 	2.45
GSD/GSDT/SBD/SBDT – Subtransmission 	2.43
GSLD/GSLDT/SBLD/SBLDT - Primary 	2.10
GSLD/GSLDT/SBLD/SBLDT - Subtransmission 	0.16
ISSUE 7C: 	What are the appropriate 2027 Storm Protection Plan Cost Recovery Clause
factors for each rate class for FPUC?
Stipulation:
Rate Schedule 	Dollars PER
KWH
Tax
Factor
SPP Factors
PER KWH
Residential 	$0.02367 	1.000848 	$0.02369
General Service 	$0.03106 	1.000848 	$0.03108
General Service Demand 	$0.01610 	1.000848 	$0.01612
General Service Large Demand 	$0.01033 	1.000848 	$0.01034
Industrial/Standby 	$0.00611 	1.000848 	$0.00611
Lighting Service 	$0.05749 	1.000848 	$0.05754
ISSUE 7D: 	What are the appropriate 2027 Storm Protection Plan Cost Recovery Clause
factors for each rate class for DEF?
Stipulation: 	Customer Class 	SPPCRC Factor
Residential 	1.364 cents/kWh
General Service Non-Demand 	1.183 cents/kWh
@ Primary Voltage 	1.137 cents/kWh
@ Transmission Voltage 	0.194 cents/kWh

ORDER NO. PSC-2026-0305-PHO-EI
DOCKET NO. 20260010-EI
PAGE 28
General Service 100% Load Factor 	0.605 cents/kWh
General Service Demand 	3.20 $/kW
@ Primary Voltage 	3.12 $/kW
@ Transmission Voltage 	0.57 $/kW
Curtailable 	2.87 $/kW
@ Primary Voltage 	2.84 $/kW
@ Transmission Voltage 	2.81 $/kW
Interruptible 	2.86 $/kW
@ Primary Voltage 	2.38 $/kW
@ Transmission Voltage 	0.46 $/kW
Standby Monthly 	0.287 $/kW
@ Primary Voltage 	0.284 $/kW
@ Transmission Voltage 	0.281 $/kW
Standby Daily 	0.137 $/kW
@ Primary Voltage 	0.136 $/kW
@ Transmission Voltage 	0.134 $/kW
Lighting 	0.996 cents/kWh
ISSUE 8A: 	What should be the effective date of the 2027 Storm Protection Plan Cost
Recovery Clause factors for billing purposes for FPL?
Stipulation: 	The 2027 SPPCRC Factors should become effective for application to bills
beginning the first billing cycle in January 2027 through the last billing cycle in
December 2027 and continuing until modified by subsequent order of this
Commission.
ISSUE 8B: 	What should be the effective date of the 2027 Storm Protection Plan Cost
Recovery Clause factors for billing purposes for TECO?
Stipulation: 	The effective date of the new Storm Protection Plan Cost Recovery Clause factors
should be January 1, 2027.
ISSUE 8C: 	What should be the effective date of the 2027 Storm Protection Plan Cost
Recovery Clause factors for billing purposes for FPUC?
Stipulation: 	The effective date for FPUC's cost recovery factors should be the first billing
cycle for January 1, 2027, which could include some consumption from the prior
month. 	Thereafter, customers should be billed the approved factors for a full 12
months, unless the factors are otherwise modified by the Commission.

ORDER NO. PSC-2026-0305-PHO-EI
DOCKET NO. 20260010-EI
PAGE 29
ISSUE 8D: 	What should be the effective date of the 2027 Storm Protection Plan Cost
Recovery Clause factors for billing purposes for DEF?
Stipulation: 	The factors shall be effective beginning with the specified Storm Protection Plan
Cost Recovery Clause cycle and thereafter for the period January 2027 through
December 2027. Billing cycles may start before January 1, 2027, and the last
cycle may be read after December 31, 2027, so that each customer is billed for
twelve months, regardless of when the adjustment factor became effective. These
charges shall continue in effect until modified by subsequent order of this
Commission.
ISSUE 9A: 	Should the Commission approve revised tariffs reflecting the 2027 Storm
Protection Plan Cost Recovery Clause factors determined to be appropriate
in this proceeding for FPL?
Stipulation: 	Yes. The Commission should authorize Staff to approve administratively revised
tariffs reflecting the 2027 SPPCRC factors determined to be appropriate in this
proceeding.
ISSUE 9B: 	Should the Commission approve revised tariffs reflecting the 2027 Storm
Protection Plan Cost Recovery Clause factors determined to be appropriate
in this proceeding for TECO?
Stipulation: 	Yes, the Commission should approve revised tariffs reflecting the new Storm
Protection Plan Cost Recovery Clause factors determined to be appropriate in this
proceeding.
ISSUE 9C: 	Should the Commission approve revised tariffs reflecting the 2027 Storm
Protection Plan Cost Recovery Clause factors determined to be appropriate
in this proceeding for FPUC?
Stipulation: 	Yes. The Commission should approve revised tariffs reflecting the SPPCRC factors
determined to be appropriate in this proceeding. The Commission should direct staff
to verify that the revised tariffs are consistent with the Commission’s decision.
ISSUE 9D: 	Should the Commission approve revised tariffs reflecting the 2027 Storm
Protection Plan Cost Recovery Clause factors determined to be appropriate
in this proceeding for DEF?
Stipulation: 	Yes. The Commission should approve DEF’s revised tariffs reflecting the Storm
Protection Plan Cost Recovery Clause factors determined to be appropriate in this

ORDER NO. PSC-2026-0305-PHO-EI
DOCKET NO. 20260010-EI
PAGE 30
proceeding. The Commission should direct Staff to verify that the revised tariffs
are consistent with the Commission’s decision. The Commission should grant
Staff Administrative authority to approve revised tariffs reflecting the new Storm
Protection Plan Cost Recovery Clause factors determined to be appropriate in this
proceeding.
COMPANY-SPECIFIC STORM PROTECTION PLAN COST RECOVERY ISSUES
ISSUE 10: 	Does the City of Panama City, Florida have standing to intervene in this
proceeding limited to Florida Power & Light Company issues?
Stipulation: 	Yes.
ISSUE 11: 	Should this docket be closed?
Stipulation: 	No. This is a continuing docket and should remain open.
The following issues are proposed as Type 1 and Type 2 stipulations in this proceeding:
OPC ISSUES
OPC
ISSUE A: 	Does FPL’s SPPCRC filing comply with the Joint Stipulation approved by
the Commission in Order No. PSC-2025-0218-FOF-EI? 	If so, what has the
company done to comply with the order?
Stipulation: 	(i) with respect to Issue 2A, FPL has executed on the programs contained in its
2026 Storm Protection Plan (“SPP” approved by Order No. PSC-2025-0218-FOF-
EI, and is progressing toward the targeted number of annual projects for the
Distribution Feeder Hardening Program, Distribution Lateral Hardening Program,
and the Transmission Hardening Program as set for in the Joint Stipulations
approved by that order; (ii) with respect to Issue 3A, FPL is executing on the
programs contained in its 2026 SPP approved by Order No. PSC-2025-0218-
FOF-EI, and is progressing toward the targeted number of annual projects for the
Distribution Feeder Hardening Program, Distribution Lateral Hardening Program,
and the Transmission Hardening Program. 	This activity is consistent and in
compliance with the joint stipulations and proposed resolutions as approved by
that order.

ORDER NO. PSC-2026-0305-PHO-EI
DOCKET NO. 20260010-EI
PAGE 31
OPC
ISSUE B: 	Does DEF’s SPPCRC filing comply with the Joint Stipulation approved by
the Commission in Order No. PSC-2025-0217-FOF-EI? 	If so, what has the
company done to comply with the order?
Stipulation: 	Yes. DEF has advanced on the programs contained in its 2026 Storm Protection
Plan approved by Order No. PSC-2025-0217-FOF-EI and is progressing towards
the 	Feeder 	and 	Lateral 	Hardening 	scope 	targets 	as 	set 	forth 	in 	the 	Joint
Stipulations approved by that order. This activity is consistent and in compliance
with the joint stipulations.
OPC
ISSUE C: 	Does TECO’s SPPCRC filing comply with the Joint Stipulation approved by
the Commission in Order No. PSC-2025-0219-FOF-EI? 	If so, what has the
company done to comply with the order?
Stipulation: 	Yes. 	The company’s filing complies with Order No. PSC-2025-0219-FOF-EI.
The 	Commission-approved 	Joint 	Stipulation 	required 	Tampa 	Electric 	to
implement a “target of 75 miles of underground conversions per year under the
2026-2035 SPP.” The parties agreed that this would be “an annual mileage target
and not a hard cap.” 	See: Order No. PSC-2025-0219-FOF-EI, issued June 19,
2025, in Docket No. 20250016-EI, (Review of 2026-2035 Storm Protection Plan,
pursuant to Rule 25-6.030, F.A.C., Tampa Electric Company), at page 17.
The company filed the direct testimony of Kevin E. Palladino and Exhibit KEP-2
in this docket on May 1, 2026. Witness Palladino testified on page 7 of his Direct
Testimony that “Tampa Electric plans to work on converting 60 miles of overhead
lines in 2026 and 65 miles in 2027.” 	Document No. 8 of Exhibit KEP-2 also
states that the company plans to convert 60 miles of overhead lines in 2026 and
65 miles of overhead lines in 2027. 	The Commission should find that Tampa
Electric’s SPPCRC filing complies with Order No. PSC-2025-0219-FOF-EI
based on this testimony and exhibit.

ORDER NO. PSC-2026-0305-PHO-EI
DOCKET NO. 20260010-EI
PAGE 32
OPC
ISSUE D: 	Does FPUC’s SPPCRC filing comply with the Joint Stipulation approved by the
Commission in Order No. PSC-2025-0216-FOF-EI? If so, what has the company
done to comply with the order?
Stipulation: 	A. With respect to Issue 2C, FPUC has executed on the programs contained in its
2026 revised Storm Protection Plan (“SPP”) approved by Order No. PSC-2025-
0216-FOF-EI, and is progressing toward the targeted number of annual projects
for the following programs: Overhead Feeder Hardening; Overhead Lateral
Hardening; Overhead Lateral Undergrounding; Distribution Pole Inspections and
Replacements; Transmission System Inspection and Hardening; and Transmission
and Distribution Vegetation Management Program as set forth in the Joint
Stipulations approved by that order. This activity is consistent and in compliance
with the joint stipulations and proposed resolutions approved by that order.
B. With respect to Issue 3C, FPUC is executing on the programs contained in its
2026 	revised 	SPP 	approved 	by 	Order 	No. 	PSC-2025-0216-FOF-EI 	and 	is
progressing toward the targeted number of annual projects for the Overhead
Feeder 	Hardening; 	Overhead 	Lateral 	Hardening; 	Overhead 	Lateral
Undergrounding; Distribution Pole Inspections and Replacements; Transmission
System Inspection and Hardening; and Transmission and Distribution Vegetation
Management Program. 	This activity is consistent and in compliance with the
joint stipulations and proposed resolutions approved by that order.
XI. 	PENDING MOTIONS
There are no pending motions at this time.
XII. 	PENDING CONFIDENTIALITY MATTERS
There are no pending confidentiality matters at this time.
XIII. 	POST-HEARING PROCEDURES
If no bench decision is made, each party shall file a post-hearing statement of issues and
positions. A summary of each position, set off with asterisks, shall be included in that statement.
If a party’s position has not changed since the issuance of this Prehearing Order, the post-hearing
statement may simply restate the prehearing position; however, if the prehearing position is
longer than 50 words, it must be reduced to no more than 50 words. If a party fails to file a post-
hearing statement, that party shall have waived all issues and may be dismissed from the
proceeding.

ORDER NO. PSC-2026-0305-PHO-EI
DOCKET NO. 20260010-EI
PAGE 33
Pursuant to Rule 28-106.215, F.A.C., a party’s proposed findings of fact and conclusions
of law, if any, statement of issues and positions, and brief, shall together total no more than 40
pages and shall be filed at the same time.
XIV. 	RULINGS
Opening statements, if any, shall not exceed three minutes per party.
It is therefore,
ORDERED by Commissioner Gary F. Clark, as Prehearing Officer, that this Prehearing
Order shall govern the conduct of these proceedings as set forth above unless modified by the
Commission.
By ORDER of Commissioner Gary F. Clark, as Prehearing Officer, this 28th 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.

ORDER NO. PSC-2026-0305-PHO-EI
DOCKET NO. 20260010-EI
PAGE 34
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.