Florida Public Service Commission native order document 03993-2026

FILED 7/8/2026
DOCUMENT NO. 03993-2026
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-2026-0244-PCO-EI
ISSUED: July 	8, 2026
ORDER GRANTING FLORIDA RISING. INC.’S MOTION TO COMPEL
DUKE ENERGY FLORIDA, LLC’S RESPONSE TO DISCOVERY
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 takes 	effect on July 	1,
2026, as Section 366.043, Florida Statutes (F.S.).
The LLCP and associated LLCA establish a minimum contract term, minimum monthly
bill provisions, 	security requirements, and early termination provisions. Customers subject to the
LLCP must 	also pay a non-refundable system impact 	fee. 	Finally, 	the LLCP 	contains a CIAC
provision 	requiring 	large 	load customers 	to pay 	100 	percent of the 	estimated 	costs 	to extend
service in advance.
On May 	15, 2026, 	Florida Rising, 	Inc. (FR) requested intervention 	in 	this 	docket. FR’s
request 	for 	intervention was granted by Order No. PSC-2026-0233-PCO-EI on June 	23, 2026,
subject 	to proof of standing or 	stipulations 	that there are 	sufficient 	facts 	to support 	all elements
for 	standing. FR served 	its 	First Request 	for Production of Documents (Nos. 	1-7) 1and Second
Request 	for 	Production 	of Documents 	(Nos. 	8-14) 2 upon 	DEF, 	to 	which DEF 	served 	its
responses and objections. 3 On June 	3, 2026, FR 	filed a Motion 	to Compel DEF’s Response 	to
Discovery (Motion 	to Compel), requesting 	that DEF be compelled to answer FR’s Requests 	for
Productions Nos. 3-6 and 	9. DEF filed a response in opposition to the Motion to Compel on June
10, 2026. Since 	filing the Motion to Compel, FR has confirmed that 	its requests 	to compel DEF
to answer Request Nos. 	5-6 and 	9 	are now moot 	after 	discussions 	with DEF and 	receipt of
documents. 	Therefore, 	only 	Request 	Nos. 	3 	and 4 remain 	at 	issue 	regarding 	the Motion 	to
Compel.
This 	Order 	is 	issued 	pursuant 	to 	the 	authority 	granted by 	Rule 	28-106.211, 	Florida
Administrative Code 	(F.A.C.), which provides 	that 	the presiding 	officer before whom a case 	is
pending may issue any orders necessary to effectuate discovery, prevent delay, and promote the
just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of all aspects of the case.
1Document No. 02700-2026.
2Document No. 02872-2026.
3Document No. 03073-2026 and Document No. 03179-2026.

ORDER NO. PSC-2026-0244-PCO-EI
DOCKET NO. 20260064-EI
PAGE 2
Motion to Compel Discovery
Generally, Request No. 3 seeks production of cost estimates to serve customers,
prospective or otherwise, that would be subject to DEF’s proposed Large Load Customer Policy
(LLCP) and Request No. 4 seeks production of all documents including possible generation
additions to serve such customers. FR argues that the discovery it seeks is directly relevant and
relates to the heart of the matter in this docket.
Request for Production No. 3
FR argues that the costs of service for large load customers is relevant because Section
366.043(3)(a), F.S., requires tariffs for large load customers to “reasonably ensure that each large
load customer bears its own full cost of service and that such cost is not shifted to the general
body of ratepayers.” FR asserts that, because the subject of DEF’s petition is a tariff concerning
service of electricity to large load customers, DEF’s tariff must consider the estimated costs to
serve such customers in order to properly divvy up cost responsibilities as required by Section
366.043(3)(a), F.S. FR states that Request No. 3 attempts to determine if DEF’s petition
complies with the new statute. FR argues that, for the reasons above, Request No. 3 is relevant,
reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence, and within the scope of
this proceeding.
Request for Production No. 4
FR 	argues 	that 	documents 	including 	possible 	generation 	additions 	for 	large 	load
customers is relevant because Section 366.043(3)(a), F.S., requires DEF’s tariff to reasonably
ensure that costs of service for large load customers is fully covered by those customers. FR
further argues that DEF’s ability to serve large load customers depends on its plans to increase its
generation capacity. FR asserts that without a properly structured tariff, rate increases could
occur for customers who are not receiving large loads, which would contravene the requirements
of Section 366.043, F.S. For the reasons above, FR asserts that Request No. 4 is relevant and
reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
DEF’s Response to the Motion
DEF argues that it is only requesting tariff language and service requirements be
approved in its petition, pursuant to the requirements of SB 484, and it is not seeking approval of
any costs, cost allocation methodologies, generation projects, or rate schedules aside from
identifying that large load customers will be initially receiving service under the previously-
approved GSD-1 and GSDT-1 rates. 4 DEF notes that within its proposal, the rate schedule for
large loads states that large load customers will stay under GSD-1 and GSDT-1 rates until after
the Commission approves a new large load rate schedule in its next rate proceeding “which shall
reasonably ensure that [large load customers] bears its own full cost of service.”5 DEF argues
4 Order No. PSC-2024-0472-AS-EI, issued November 12, 2024, in Docket No. 20240025-EI, In re: Petition for rate
increase by Duke Energy Florida, LLC.
5 Document No. 02327-2026.

ORDER NO. PSC-2026-0244-PCO-EI
DOCKET NO. 20260064-EI
PAGE 3
that this approach can reasonably ensure the Commission that large load customers will bear
their own costs of service and costs will not be shifted to the general body of ratepayers, and that
the Commission can make this finding without cost estimates and cost of service studies.
Analysis and Decision
Rule 28-106.206, F.A.C., provides:
After commencement of a proceeding, parties may obtain discovery through the
means and in the manner provided in Rules 1.280 through 1.400, Florida Rules of
Civil Procedure. The presiding officer may issue appropriate orders to effectuate
the purposes of discovery and to prevent delay, including the imposition of
sanctions in accordance with the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, except
contempt.
The scope of discovery is generally broad, and courts possess “significant discretion” in
regulating the discovery process. Adkins v. Sotolongo, 337 So. 3d 110 (Fla. 3d DCA 2021). “The
trial court is given wide discretion in dealing with discovery matters, and unless there has been a
clear abuse of discretion, the trial court’s order will not be disturbed by the appellate court.”
American Funding, Ltd. v. Hill, 402 So. 2d 1369, 1371 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981).
FR’s Requests Nos. 3 and 4 seek information that is directly related to DEF’s petition and
could be reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence regarding whether DEF’s proposed
tariff is in compliance with the newly enacted legislation. Requests for estimated costs DEF
could incur by serving large load customers, as well as possible generation additions DEF may
require, are both directly related to the crafting of a large load tariff that seeks to comply with the
new law.
DEF’s argument is that the proposed tariff utilizes its existing, previously-approved rate
classes until a new large load rate schedule is approved by this Commission in a future rate case
and, thus, the cost estimates and cost of service information are not yet necessary. However, the
estimated costs of service for large load customers or possible generation additions to serve large
load customers is information reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of relevant evidence
concerning whether DEF’s proposed tariff reasonably ensures that large load customers bear
their own cost of service, and that costs are not shifted to the general body of ratepayers, as
required by Section 366.043(3)(a), F.S.
Having considered the arguments of the parties, I find that FR’s Motion to Compel shall
be granted as to its Requests for Production Nos. 3 and 4. Regarding Request for Production
No. 3, responses shall be limited to customers prospectively affected by the proposed tariff.
Consequently, cost estimates for customers who meet the demand thresholds but existed on the
Utility’s system as of December 31, 2025 – pursuant to the proposed LLCP 6 – are irrelevant and
not included within the scope of this discovery.
6 Document No. 02327-2026.

ORDER NO. PSC-2026-0244-PCO-EI
DOCKET NO. 20260064-EI
PAGE 4
Therefore, it is
ORDERED by Commissioner Gary F. Clark, as Prehearing Officer, that Florida Rising,
Inc.’s Motion to Compel is granted as to its Requests for Production Nos. 3 and 4 to Duke
Energy Florida, LLC, as set forth within the body of this Order. It is further
ORDERED that Duke Energy Florida, LLC shall provide responses to Florida Rising,
Inc.’s discovery requests, as detailed herein, within 10 days of the issuance of this Order.
By ORDER of Commissioner Gary F. Clark, as Prehearing Officer, this 8th day of July,
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.
SF

ORDER NO. PSC-2026-0244-PCO-EI
DOCKET NO. 20260064-EI
PAGE 5
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.