Florida Public Service Commission native order document 03627-2026

FILED 6/19/2026
DOCUMENT NO. 03627-2026
FPSC 	- COMMISSION CLERK
BEFORE THE FLORIDA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION
DOCKET NO. 202600 14- EI
ORDER NO. PSC-2026-0220-PAA-EI
ISSUED: June 	19, 2026
The following Commissioners participated in the disposition of this matter:
GABRIELLA PASSIDOMO SMITH, Chairman
GARY F. CLARK
MIKE LA ROSA
BOBBY PAYNE
ANA ORTEGA
NOTICE OF PROPOSED AGENCY ACTION
ORDER DENYING PETITIONERS’ FORMAL COMPLAINT
BY THE COMMISSION:
NOTICE 	is 	hereby 	given by 	the 	Florida 	Public 	Service Commission 	that 	the 	action
discussed herein 	is preliminary 	in nature and will become 	final unless a person whose 	interests
are 	substantially 	affected 	files a petition 	for a formal proceeding, pursuant 	to Rule 	25-22.029,
Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.).
BACKGROUND
On May 	13, 2024, Mr. Juan Merchan (Mr. Merchan) filed Informal Complaint No. 14445
15E, challenging Tampa Electric Company’s (TECO) relocation of a pole and guy wires in front
of his 	property. The pole and guy wires complained of were formerly 	in 	front of an 	adjacent
property. TECO reconfigured and moved the pole, and relocated the guy wires 	to accommodate
access 	to a new driveway 	at the adjacent property. Mr. Merchan alleged that TECO’s relocation
of the pole and guv wires was an unreasonable and discriminatory exercise of utility discretion.
Mr. Merchan 	further alleged 	that 	the relocation 	inhibited 	his 	ingress and 	egress from 	his own
property, and gave undue preference 	to 	the 	adjacent property from which 	the guy wires were
relocated.
After 	a thorough 	review, 	including 	a 	site 	visit by Commission 	engineering 	staff, 	the
Office of Consumer Assistance (OCA) 	staff informed Mr. Merchan 	that 	the relocated pole and
guy 	wires were 	properly 	in TECO’s 	public 	right 	of way (ROW). 	Mr. 	Merchan 	expressed
disagreement with 	this 	conclusion and 	the 	matter was 	referred 	to 	the 	Commission's 	Process
Review Team (PRT) 	for review, 	in accordance with Rule 25-22.032, F.A.C. On November 	5,
In re: Complaint by Juan Merchan and
Gonzalo Lever against Tampa Electric
Company._

ORDER NO. PSC-2026-0220-PAA-EI
DOCKET NO. 20260014-EI
PAGE 2
2025, Commission staff advised Mr. Merchan that his informal complaint had been reviewed by
the PRT, and it appeared that TECO did not violate Commission statutes, rules, or orders in its
handling of this matter. Staff advised Mr. Merchan that if he disagreed with the complaint
conclusion, he could file a petition for initiation of formal proceedings for relief against TECO.
On January 28, 2026, Mr. Merchan and Mr. Gonzalo Lever1 (Petitioners) filed a formal
complaint against TECO alleging the same material facts as contained in Mr. Merchan’s
informal complaint. The Petitioners’ formal complaint again alleges that TECO’s relocation of
guy wires from an adjacent property to the front of Petitioners’ property was an unreasonable
and discriminatory exercise of utility discretion. Petitioners maintained that the relocation of the
pole and guy wires presents undue preference to the neighboring property. On March 11, 2026,
Petitioners filed an amended formal complaint (Amended Complaint) restating and clarifying the
issues of material fact and legal basis for their claims.
On April 2, 2026, TECO filed a response to the Petitioners’ formal complaint (Response).
TECO states that the Amended Complaint does not allege any facts that would support finding
that TECO violated its tariff or any applicable statutes, rules, or orders of the Commission.
TECO further denied any such violations of applicable statutes, rules, or orders of the
Commission.
This Order addresses the appropriate disposition of the Petitioners’ complaint against
TECO. We have jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to Section 366.04, Florida Statutes (F.S.).
DECISION
Based on the information provided, we find that TECO did not violate a statute, rule,
order, 	or 	applicable 	provision 	of 	TECO’s 	Commission-approved 	tariff. 	TECO 	properly
reconfigured and relocated its transmission pole and guy wires within its ROW. A Commission
staff site inspection confirmed that the reconfigured and relocated pole and guy wires do not
inhibit ingress or egress from the Petitioners’ property and appear to meet all applicable safety
standards.
Section 366.03, F.S., states that “[n]o public utility shall make or give any undue or
unreasonable preference or advantage to any person or locality, or subject the same to any undue
or unreasonable prejudice or disadvantage in any respect.” Upon review, we find that TECO did
not act with undue or unreasonable preference in this case, and that TECO did not act with undue
or unreasonable prejudice towards the Petitioners. TECO relocated its pole and guy wires in
order to accommodate construction of a driveway on the adjacent property, which is not
unreasonable. The Petitioners claim that TECO’s proposal of relocating the pole and guy wires at
the Petitioners’ expense, or requiring the Petitioners to grant an easement for a new pole, was
unreasonable. However, we find that it is reasonable for TECO to have a policy of requiring
1 Mr. Gonzalo Lever is the TECO customer of record at the Petitioners’ property. While the informal complaint was
pursued by Mr Merchan, Mr. Lever was included in correspondence throughout the informal complaint process and
has co-signed onto the formal complaint that initiated this docket.

ORDER NO. PSC-2026-0220-PAA-EI
DOCKET NO. 20260014-EI
PAGE 3
customers to pay for equipment relocation for aesthetic purposes. Furthermore, we find that the
relocation of the pole and guy wires in front of the Petitioners’ property did not constitute undue
preference for the adjacent property or undue prejudice against the Petitioners.
Tariff Sheet No. 5.090, Section 2.3, addresses the placement of utility equipment on
private property outside of a public ROW. This is inapplicable to the complaint because the
relocation of the pole and guy wires complained of are within TECO’s public ROW. Therefore,
we find that TECO did not violate its Commission-approved tariff in its handling of this matter.
Upon review, we find that TECO’s relocation of the pole and guy wires did not violate a statute,
rule, order, or applicable provision of TECO’s Commission-approved tariff; therefore, the
Petitioners’ complaint shall be denied.
Based on the foregoing, it is
ORDERED by the Florida Public Service Commission that the Complaint by Juan
Merchan and Gonzalo Lever against TECO is denied. It is further
ORDERED that the provisions of this Order issued as proposed agency action, shall
become final and effective upon the issuance of a Consummating Order unless an appropriate
petition, in the form provided by Rule 28-106.201, Florida Administrative Code, is received by
the Commission Clerk, 2540 Shumard Oak Boulevard, Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0850, by the
close of business on the date set forth in the “Notice of Further Proceedings” attached hereto. It
is further
ORDERED that in the event this Order becomes final, this docket shall be closed.

ORDER NO. PSC-2026-0220-PAA-EI
DOCKET NO. 202600 14-EI
PAGE 4
By ORDER of the Florida Public Service Commission this 19th day of June , 2026 	.
ADAM1^IT¿^^
Commission Clerk
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.
HN
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 	that 	is 	available under Section 	120.57,
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 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.
The 	action 	proposed 	herein 	is 	preliminary 	in 	nature. Any 	person whose 	substantial
interests 	are 	affected by 	the 	action proposed by 	this 	order may 	file 	a 	petition 	for 	a 	formal
proceeding, 	in 	the 	form 	provided by 	Rule 	28-106.201, 	Florida 	Administrative 	Code. 	This
petition must be received by the Office of Commission 	Clerk, 2540 Shumard Oak Boulevard,
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0850, by the close of business on July 	10, 2026 	.
In 	the absence of such a 	petition, 	this 	order 	shall become 	final and 	effective upon 	the
issuance of a Consummating Order.
Any objection or protest filed in this/these docket(s) before the issuance date of this order
is considered abandoned unless 	it 	satisfies 	the foregoing 	conditions and 	is renewed within the
specified protest period.