Florida Public Service Commission native order document 05104-2026

FILED 8/11/2026
DOCUMENT NO. 05104-2026
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-2026-0276-PHO-EI
ISSUED: August 11, 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 	5, 2026, in Tallahassee, 	Florida, before
Commissioner Gary F. Clark, as Prehearing Officer.
APPEARANCES:
DIANNE M. TRIPLETT, ESQUIRE, Duke Energy Florida, LLC, 299 1st Avenue
North, 	St. Petersburg, Florida 33701
MATTHEW R. BERNIER and STEPHANIE CUELLO, ESQUIRES, Duke Energy
Florida, LLC, 106 East College Avenue, Suite 800, Tallahassee, Florida 32301
On behalf of Duke Energy Florida, LLC (DEF) .
WALT TRIERWEILER, OCTAVIO SIMOES-PONCE, 	and AUSTIN 	A.
WATROUS, ESQUIRES, Office of 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) .
BRADLEY MARSHALL 	and JORDAN LUEBKEMANN, 	ESQUIRES,
Earthjustice, 111 South Martin Luther King 	Jr. Blvd., Tallahassee, Florida 32301
On behalf of Florida Rising, Inc. (FL Rising) .
PETER 	J. MATTHEIS, MICHAEL K. LAVANGA and JOSEPH R. BRISCAR,
ESQUIRES, 	Stone Mattheis Xenopoulos & Brew, PC, 1025 Thomas 	Jefferson
Street, NW, Suite E-3400, Washington, DC 20007-5201
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 E-3400, Washington, DC 20007-5201
On behalf of White Springs Agricultural Chemicals, 	Inc, d/b/a PCS Phosphate -
White Springs (PCS Phosphate) .

ORDER NO. PSC-2026-0276-PHO-EI
DOCKET NO. 20260064-EI
PAGE 2
MAJOR THOMPSON and SAAD FAROOQI, ESQUIRES, 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
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 (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’s (OPC) intervention in this docket was acknowledged on
May 8, 2026.1 Florida Rising, Inc. (FR),2 PCS Phosphate – White Springs (PCS Phosphate),3 the
Florida Industrial Power Users Group (FIPUG), 4 and Nucor Steel Florida, Inc. (Nucor)5 were
granted intervention in this docket subject to proof of standing or stipulations that there are
sufficient facts to support all elements for standing.
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.
1 Order No. PSC-2026-0144-PCO-EI, issued May 8, 2026.
2 Order No. PSC-2026-0233-PCO-EI, issued June 23, 2026.
3 Order No. PSC-2026-0234-PCO-EI, issued June 23, 2026.
4 Order No. PSC-2026-0238-PCO-EI, issued June 26, 2026.
5 Order No. PSC-2026-0268-PCO-EI, issued July 31, 2026.

ORDER NO. PSC-2026-0276-PHO-EI
DOCKET NO. 20260064-EI
PAGE 3
III. 	JURISDICTION
This Commission is vested with jurisdiction over the subject matter by the provisions of
Chapters 120 and 366, Florida Statutes (F.S.). 	This hearing will be governed by said Chapters
and Rules 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.
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

ORDER NO. PSC-2026-0276-PHO-EI
DOCKET NO. 20260064-EI
PAGE 4
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 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
five (5) minutes. If a witness has filed both direct and rebuttal testimonies, he or she will receive
five (5) minutes for direct and three (3) minutes for rebuttal. If both direct and rebuttal
testimonies are taken together, those witnesses will be given up to eight (8) minutes total.
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.
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.

ORDER NO. PSC-2026-0276-PHO-EI
DOCKET NO. 20260064-EI
PAGE 5
VI. 	ORDER OF WITNESSES
Each witness whose name is preceded by a plus sign (+) will present direct and rebuttal
testimony together.
Witness 	Proffered By 	Issues #
Direct
+ Matthew J. Chatelain 	DEF 	A-C, E, 1-4
+ Steven W. Wishart 	DEF 	A-C, 1-3
Ron Nelson 	OPC 	B, 1-4
Jeffry Pollock 	FIPUG 	D(b)
Karl Rábago 	Florida Rising 	A, B, D, 1-3
Katina Rentas Negrón 	Florida Rising 	D(c)
Tony M. Georgis 	PCS Phosphate 	D
Rebuttal
Benjamin Borsch 	DEF 	1-2
VII. 	BASIC POSITIONS
DEF: 	As shown in DEF’s Petition, Testimony, and Exhibits, DEF’s proposed Large
Load 	Customer 	Policy 	(“LLCP”) 	and 	Large 	Load 	Customer 	Agreement
(“LLCA”) comply with Section 366.043, Fla. Stat., and represent a reasonable,
measured approach to accommodate new large loads by appropriately balancing
the interests of these customers and the other existing and future DEF customers.
All large load customers will take service under the existing GSD-1 or GSDT-1
rate, until DEF presents a large load customer rate in a future proceeding, no later
than first quarter 2027. That new proposed rate schedule for large load customers
will meet the objectives of the new legislation. Existing customers are fully
protected from the potential cost of serving any new large load customers between
now 	and 	January 	1, 	2028, 	because, 	pursuant 	to 	DEF’s 	current 	settlement
agreement, DEF cannot change its rates.
All large load customers with a Peak Contract Demand forecast reasonably
expected to be greater than or equal to a Monthly Maximum Demand of 50,000

ORDER NO. PSC-2026-0276-PHO-EI
DOCKET NO. 20260064-EI
PAGE 6
kW (50 MW) of firm load will (1) be subject to the new proposed LLCP, and (2)
execute a new proposed customer agreement, the LLCA. DEF has also proposed
changes to the CIAC tariff, such that large load applicants will be required to
advance the total estimated costs to extend service. The proposed LLCP and
LLCA include important protections for existing customers to recognize the
unique nature of new large load customers. The Direct Testimony and Exhibits of
DEF Witnesses Matt Chatelain and Steve Wishart, as well as the rebuttal
testimony of these witnesses and witness Benjamin Borsch, demonstrate that
DEF’s proposed approach fully complies with Section 366.043 and provides
reasonable protections for existing customers.
Specifically, DEF proposes certain minimum “take-or-pay” provisions based on
75-85% of contracted capacity. These protections help ensure that large load
customers pay for the incremental costs incurred by DEF to serve them. In
addition, the Company requests a 20-year LLCA contract term for large load
customers. If a customer terminates service before the minimum term expires,
DEF will require that the customer provide a two-year termination notice. The
customer must also pay termination damages that vary depending on when the
customer terminates the contract. For example, if the customer terminates before
taking service, the customer must pay all actual costs incurred by DEF to date. If
termination occurs after taking service, the termination payment is equal to the
three years of minimum bill payments plus the net book value of the CIAC
facilities less any refundable portion of the upfront CIAC payment, which has not
yet been refunded.
Finally, to secure all payment obligations from the customer associated with DEF
providing service, the customer must provide adequate security, in the form of a
letter of credit, cash, or parent guarantee. The amounts vary depending on the
amount being secured and the creditworthiness of the counterparty.
DEF’s proposed tariff should be approved because it establishes a reasonable and
enforceable framework for large load service and provides meaningful protections
against cost shifting to existing customers. The intervenor proposals would
require the Commission to resolve complex, customer-specific cost allocation and
rate design issues prematurely, without an actual qualifying customer or a
complete evidentiary record. DEF’s proposal strikes the appropriate balance by
protecting 	customers 	today, 	preserving 	commercially 	reasonable 	terms 	for
prospective 	large 	load 	customers, 	and 	maintaining 	the 	Commission’s 	full
authority 	to 	evaluate 	detailed 	cost-of-service 	issues 	in 	DEF’s 	next 	rate
proceeding.
OPC: 	On May 7, 2026, Governor DeSantis signed SB 484, a historic consumer
protection bill. For the first time in Florida, public utility tariffs would have to
meet 	minimum 	requirements 	for 	large 	load 	customers 	pursuant 	to 	section
366.043, Florida Statutes. These minimum requirements were designed to ensure

ORDER NO. PSC-2026-0276-PHO-EI
DOCKET NO. 20260064-EI
PAGE 7
that the risk of nonpayment of each large load customer’s cost of service may not
be borne by the general body of ratepayers. In signing the legislation, Governor
DeSantis declared that “SB 484… prevents data center costs from being passed on
to consumers, including electricity costs, and protects Florida’s water resources
from data center consumption.”
Despite the Legislature’s passage of SB 484 and Governor DeSantis’ ratifying
signature and remarks, Duke Energy Florida (“DEF”) wants to proceed as though
it’s business as usual. Instead of designing a rate specific to large load customers,
DEF warms over its existing GSD-1 and GSDT-1 rates in an attempt to sidestep
the requirements of section 366.043, Florida Statutes. These rates were designed
as part of a settlement agreement entered into on July 15, 2024, and approved by
the Commission on November 12, 2024, which was over a year before SB 484
was filed in the Florida Senate. DEF’s attempts to hide behind the 2024
Settlement offers no assurance that the risk of nonpayment of large load customer
costs will not be borne by DEF’s general body of ratepayers.
The Commission should deny DEF’s petition even absent DEF’s deficient attempt
to serve large load customers under existing rates. For example, although DEF’s
CIAC change sounds like it requires large load customers to pay “100% of the
total estimated costs to extend service in advance,” DEF has conceded that these
costs do not include the costs of incremental generation. This concession flies in
the face of section 366.043, Florida Statutes, which identifies the cost of
incremental generation as an example of risks that may not be borne by the
general body of rate payers. DEF’s tariff also generously bestows upon the
company unbridled discretion to relax customer protections to make special
changes in its terms when negotiating with large load customers, oversight of
which is limited to DEF unless DEF decides otherwise. DEF’s early termination
policy also lacks protections for its general body of rate payers. These are only a
few of the many issues discussed in OPC’s witness testimony for why DEF’s
petition should be denied.
This is a case of first impression for the Commission. Not only are the
communities served by DEF watching, but so too are the other utilities who have
not yet made their filings. This case represents the Commission’s first and best
chance both to get it right and give guidance to those waiting utilities. The
Commission 	must 	deny 	DEF’s 	petition 	for 	failing 	to 	comply 	with 	the
requirements of section 366.043, Florida Statutes. If the Commission gives DEF
leave to refile, it should do so with instructions to create a large load customer-
specific rate and address all other areas in which the proposed tariffs are deficient.
FIPUG: 	FIPUG seeks to ensure that DEF’s proposals in this case do not adversely affect
FIPUG’s membership. 	FIPUG’s membership includes a substantial number of
customers of DEF who have been in business and customers of DEF for many
years. The Commission’s decisions in the docket should achieve the following:

ORDER NO. PSC-2026-0276-PHO-EI
DOCKET NO. 20260064-EI
PAGE 8
 	Approve fair, just, and reasonable terms and conditions of service for existing,
grandfathered large load customers, including FIPUG members;
 	Ensure that existing large load customers, including FIPUG members, are not
subsidizing future data center operations or other customers of DEF;
 	Take no action which would affect the existing and in effect 2024 Rate Case
Settlement Agreement between DEF and DEF customers, including FIPUG
members.
FL RISING: The Commission should deny Duke Energy Florida’s (“Duke”) petition, including
its request for approval of its Large Load Customer Policy (“LLCP”) and Large
Load Customer Agreement (“LLCA”). Duke’s filing does not comply with newly
enacted legislation, section 366.043, Florida Statutes, which was designed to
protect the general body of ratepayers from increased energy bills and from
subsidizing the costs to serve new data centers.
The new legislation, for one, requires Duke to file a compliant tariff by October 1,
2026, that ensures that large load customers, i.e., customers with over 50 MWs of
load (generally new data centers), pay all of the costs to serve them. Duke has
repeatedly purported that its filing is compliant, though it fails to even include a
rate schedule and instead merely adds large load customers to its existing rate
classes, GSD-1 or GSDT-1, which, according to Duke’s last cost of service
analysis, is already below parity and thus does not even recover the costs to serve
the existing customers on those rates. 	Duke thus fails to comply with even the
law’s most basic requirement.
Furthermore, the statute explicitly requires Duke and its filing 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.” § 366.043(3)(a), Fla.
Stat. 	The legislation further details the costs that large load customers are
expected 	to 	bear, 	including, 	but 	not 	limited 	to, 	connection, 	incremental
transmission, incremental generation, and operations and maintenance expenses.
Duke’s filing fails this metric, too; by adding large load customers to existing rate
classes which are already below parity, Duke guarantees cross-class subsidization,
primarily by the residential and small business classes that are already above
parity. Given the estimated billions of dollars it would take to serve even one data
center, the problem is only expected to worsen, with those billions upon billions
leading to an increased negative impact on the parity indices of the GSD-1 and
GSDT-1 classes and with the minimum bill set by Duke’s LLCP falling far short
of that needed for full cost recovery.
In the event of early termination, Duke’s policy woefully falls short again. In its
Termination Payment Obligation, the LLCA limits the costs the customer is on
the hook for to only those associated with preparing the site for electric service,
leaving ample costs on the table associated with constructing new power facilities,

ORDER NO. PSC-2026-0276-PHO-EI
DOCKET NO. 20260064-EI
PAGE 9
operating and maintaining those facilities, and more for the general body of
ratepayers to recover. Even those costs that are recoverable from the large load
customer upon termination are not guaranteed; only the security amount paid
upfront by the customer provides any real assurance. This security provision ends
up, however, only generating more concerns rather than resolving them, with only
10% of an already insufficient Termination Payment Obligation or Termination
Fee positively assured. This, too, violates the new legislation: Duke’s filing does
not comply with the Legislature’s command to ensure that the risk of nonpayment
is not borne by the general body of ratepayers.
Instead of protecting the general body of ratepayers from the costs to serve data
centers and other large load customers—the sole mandate and primary goal of the
Legislature’s 	new 	law—Duke 	attempts 	to 	entice 	such 	customers 	instead,
proposing a “tariff” that ensures low costs for data centers at the expense of
everyone else. To therefore comply with and carry out the goals of the new
legislation, the Commission should deny Duke’s petition for approval of its LLCP
and LLCA and direct it to file tariffs and rates designed to recover the costs to
serve large load customers from large load customers.
NUCOR: 	Duke Energy Florida, LLC’s (“DEF”) Petition in this case proposes a new Large
Load 	Customer 	Policy 	(“LLCP”) 	and 	Large 	Load 	Customer 	Agreement
(“LLCA”). The purpose of the LLCP and LLCA is to “protect DEF’s other retail
customers from bearing the cost burden associated with potential future stranded
or underutilized assets.”6 The Petition makes clear that the need for the proposed
large load policies is driven largely by the potential influx of new data center
load. 	DEF’s Petition complies with Senate Bill 484, Ch. 2026-65, Laws of
Florida and is a reasonable approach for addressing new large loads while
protecting existing customers and ratepayers. 	Accordingly, the Commission
should approve DEF’s Petition.
PCS
PHOSPHATE: Regulators and legislatures throughout the country are scrambling to address the
electric system planning, rate, and related issues posed by the rapid emergence of
data centers and other hyper-scale computational loads.7 On September 5, 2025,
in Docket No. 20250113-EI, Duke Energy Florida, LLC (“DEF”) sought to
establish a regulatory framework for such looming development by filing a
petition for Public Service Commission (“Commission”) approval of a Large
Load Customer Policy (“LLCP”), proposed revisions to its Contribution in Aid of
Construction 	(“CIAC”) 	provisions, 	a 	Large 	Load 	Customer 	Agreement
(“LLCA”), and a Large Load Customer Rate Schedule. Before the Commission
could act on that petition, on March 13, 2026, the Florida Legislature passed
Senate Bill 484, Ch. 2026-65, Laws of Florida, entitled “An act relating to data
6 Petition at 5.
7 See, e.g., Docket EL26-67-000 et al., Order Instituting Proceeding Under Section 206 of the Federal Power Act,
195 FERC ¶ 61,211 (June 18, 2026).

ORDER NO. PSC-2026-0276-PHO-EI
DOCKET NO. 20260064-EI
PAGE 10
centers” (“2026 Data Center Law”). 8 The basic intent of the legislation, as noted
in the Governor’s signing statement, was to “protect . . . citizens and communities
from hyperscale data centers” by, in part, preventing these expected massive
computational loads from passing costs on to consumers, including through
electricity costs.9 In light of the bill’s passage, DEF withdrew its petition in
Docket No. 20250113-EI. On April 22, 2026, DEF filed a revised petition
(“Petition”) that DEF maintains is fully compliant with the 2026 Data Center
Law. 10 The Petition retains with modifications the LLCP, LLCA, and CIAC
provisions proposed in the September 5, 2025 petition, but deletes the Large Load
Customer Rate Schedule.11 DEF stated its intent to propose a new large load rate
schedule applicable to hyperscale loads in its next rate case.12
The Petition as filed in this proceeding is compliant with the 2026 Data Center
Law. The Petition is reasonably designed to establish a regulatory framework that
will 	safeguard 	DEF’s 	general 	body 	of 	ratepayers, 	establish 	manageable
requirements for emerging data center loads, and avoid imposing unnecessary and
unintended requirements on DEF’s existing industrial customers. PCS Phosphate
urges the Commission to approve the Petition at this time with no material
modifications and to take such action in DEF’s next rate case as the Commission
deems necessary and appropriate to further address data center development in
DEF’s service territory.
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
ISSUE A: 	Does DEF’s petition and associated tariffs comply with the requirements of
Section 366.03, Florida Statutes?
DEF: 	Yes. DEF’s filing fully complies with Section 366.03, Fla. Stat. This statute
obligates DEF to provide service to all customers, including large load customers.
See sec. 366.03, Fla. Stat. (“Each public utility shall furnish to each person
applying therefor reasonably sufficient, adequate, and efficient service upon terms
8 On May 7, 2026 Governor DeSantis signed SB484 into law, which has been entered into the Laws of Florida as
Chapter 2026-65 (hereinafter “2026 Data Center Law”).
9 Fla. Exec. Off. of the Gov’r, Governor Ron DeSantis Signs Law to Protect Floridians From Subsidizing Data
Centers 	(May 	7, 	2026), 	https://www.flgov.com/eog/news/press/2026/governor-ron-desantis-signs-law-protect-
floridians-subsidizing-data-centers.
10 Petition for Limited Proceeding to Approve Large Load Tariff by Duke Energy Florida, LLC (Apr. 22, 2026).
11 Id. at 6-7.
12 Id. at 6.

ORDER NO. PSC-2026-0276-PHO-EI
DOCKET NO. 20260064-EI
PAGE 11
as required by the commission.”). It further requires that DEF’s rates be “fair and
reasonable.” 	As discussed in the position to issue B, DEF’s petition and
associated tariffs, in recognition of this requirement to provide electricity to all
customers requesting it, provide fair and reasonable terms and conditions to serve
large load customers while protecting existing customers.
DEF’s proposed tariffs are fair and reasonable because they establish rates large
load customers can take service under now, while the existing settlement ensures
no rate increase to existing customers. DEF expressly commits to filing a new rate
schedule designed to comply with all statutory requirements to take effect on
January 1, 2028, and requests that the Commission memorialize that obligation in
its order. That commitment provides a clear path for Commission review of the
detailed cost allocation and rate design issues that are more appropriately
addressed in DEF’s next rate proceeding. (Chatelain, Wishart)
OPC: 	No. DEF has failed to demonstrate that it is “fair and reasonable” to serve the
“unprecedented” loads of large load customers using rates that were not designed
to do so. Serving large load customers under GSD-1 and GSDT-1 rates would
give those customers undue or unreasonable preference or advantage. DEF has
also failed to demonstrate that its proposed CIAC modifications, LLCP, and
LLCA are fair and reasonable and do not give large load customers undue or
unreasonable preference or advantage. (Nelson)
FIPUG: 	Yes.
FL RISING: No. By forcing the general body of ratepayers to subsidize large load customer
costs, Duke’s LLCP is neither fair nor reasonable under sections 366.03, Florida
Statutes. (Rábago).
NUCOR: 	Yes. DEF’s petition and proposed tariffs are fair and reasonable and do not give
any undue or unreasonable preference or advantage to any person or locality.
PCS
PHOSPHATE: Yes.
STAFF: 	Section 366.03 requires that utilities provide “service upon terms as required by
the commission.” The Large Load Customer Policy contains section 13.06
(“Special Terms”) that allows DEF to negotiate “non-material” terms different
than those included in the policy without Commission approval. The utility
defined material terms for which any deviation would require Commission
approval as statutory compliance, in-service date, minimum term, termination
notice, minimum bill design, early termination payments, full CIAC funding,
security requirements, and minimum billing demand. However, the decision as to
which additional terms not listed above are “non-material” is left exclusively to
the utility.

ORDER NO. PSC-2026-0276-PHO-EI
DOCKET NO. 20260064-EI
PAGE 12
Staff's position is preliminary and is based on the record as it exists at the time of
filing its prehearing statement. Staff reserves the right to modify or change its
position upon completion of the evidentiary hearing and after consideration of the
parties' post-hearing briefs.
ISSUE B: 	Does DEF’s petition and associated tariffs comply with the requirements of
Section 366.043, Florida Statutes?
DEF: 	Yes. DEF’s filing fully complies with Section 366.043, Fla. Stat, which requires
each public utility to file a large load tariff, for commission approval, meeting
minimum tariff and service requirements that (1) 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 and (2) include provisions reasonably
designed to prevent a public utility from providing electric service to a customer
that would otherwise qualify as a large load customer if that customer is a foreign
entity. Subsection 5 lists utility industry-accepted ratemaking and other financial
tool elements that the Commission may approve as part of meeting the large load
tariff requirements. The House Message Summary, provided on March 11, 2026,
describing the approved House Amendment – 383957, specifically notes that the
final revisions to SB 484 make “the rate making and other financial tools to
effectuate large load tariffs to be optional and does not provide or direct the PSC
to use these in creating minimum standards.”
The 	proposal 	includes 	coordinated 	cost 	responsibility 	and 	risk 	mitigation
mechanisms, such as CIAC requirements, minimum bill obligations, termination
provisions, and financial assurance requirements, that collectively satisfy the
statute’s objectives while preserving the Commission’s authority to appropriately
determine cost allocation and rate design in a general rate proceeding.
DEF’s proposed tariff is consistent with the legislative requirement that the utility
must 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. DEF’s
proposed tariffs do that by establishing rates large load customers can take service
under now, while the existing settlement ensures no rate increase to existing
customers. DEF expressly commits to filing a new rate schedule designed to
comply with the statutory requirements to take effect on January 1, 2028, and
requests that the Commission memorialize that obligation in its order. That
commitment provides a clear path for Commission review of the detailed cost
allocation and rate design issues that are more appropriately addressed in DEF’s
next rate proceeding. (Chatelain, Wishart)
OPC: 	No. At a minimum, the failure to design a large load customer-specific rate and
the attempted resort to an existing rate fails to comply with the requirements of

ORDER NO. PSC-2026-0276-PHO-EI
DOCKET NO. 20260064-EI
PAGE 13
section 366.043, Florida Statutes. DEF’s proposed CIAC modifications, LLCA,
LLCP, and grandfather clause also fail to contain sufficient protections to ensure
that the risk that the nonpayment of large load customer costs will not be borne by
the general body of ratepayers. (Nelson)
FIPUG: 	Yes.
FL RISING: No. 	Section 366.043, Florida Statutes, contains several mandates to ensure such
costs are not passed to the general body of ratepayers, and DEF’s petition and
associated tariffs falls well-short of those requirements, with no assurance at all
that the general body of customers will not be paying the costs for large load
customers, among other violations of the statutory requirements. (Rábago)
NUCOR: 	Yes. DEF’s petition and proposed tariffs incorporate changes to comply with the
requirements of Section 366.043, Florida Statutes. The changes proposed by DEF
help ensure that data center and other new large load customer costs are not
passed onto existing customers.
PCS
PHOSPHATE: Yes.
STAFF: 	Section 366.043 defines a large load customer as “a customer with an anticipated
monthly peak load of 50 megawatts or more.” DEF’s proposed tariff applies to
customers with “aggregated peak contract demand forecast reasonably expected
to be” 50 megawatts or more “of firm (i.e., not interruptible or curtailable) load.”
The statute does not distinguish between firm and non-firm load profiles.
Additionally, the statute requires that a compliant tariff “must 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.” DEF proposes to add large load
customers to the GSD-1 or GSDT-1 rate class and commits to filing a new cost of
service study and new rate schedule in its next rate case.
Staff's position is preliminary and is based on the record as it exists at the time of
filing its prehearing statement. Staff reserves the right to modify or change its
position upon completion of the evidentiary hearing and after consideration of the
parties' post-hearing briefs.”
ISSUE C: 	Does DEF’s petition and associated tariffs comply with the requirements of
Section 366.05, Florida Statutes?
DEF: 	Yes. DEF’s filing fully complies with Section 366.05, Fla. Stat. This statute gives
the Commission the power to “prescribe fair and reasonable rates and charges.”
Sect. 366.05(1)(a), Fla. Stat. As discussed in the position to issue B, DEF’s
petition and associated tariffs provide fair and reasonable terms and conditions to

ORDER NO. PSC-2026-0276-PHO-EI
DOCKET NO. 20260064-EI
PAGE 14
serve large load customers while protecting existing customers. DEF’s proposed
tariffs are fair and reasonable because they establish rates large load customers
can take service under now, while the existing settlement ensures no rate increase
to existing customers. DEF expressly commits to filing a new rate schedule
designed to comply with the statutory requirements to take effect on January 1,
2028, and requests that the Commission memorialize that obligation in its order.
That commitment provides a clear path for Commission review of the detailed
cost allocation and rate design issues that are more appropriately addressed in
DEF’s next rate proceeding. (Chatelain, Wishart)
OPC: 	No. DEF has not met its burden to demonstrate that its petition should be
approved by the Commission. 	DEF’s proposed tariff reserves to DEF so much
discretion about the application of the tariff provisions that the Commission
cannot reasonably approve the associated tariffs with sufficient knowledge of
what it has actually approved and whether, as applied, the tariff complies with
section 366.03, Florida Statutes. Furthermore, the Commission would be unable
to 	enforce 	Rule 	25-9.034, 	Florida 	Administrative 	Code 	(based 	on 	section
366.05(1), Florida Statutes), because the Commission cannot determine whether a
special contract with a customer is specifically covered by the tariff or to what
degree arrangements deviate from the tariff.
FIPUG: 	Yes.
FL RISING: No. 	This statute gives the Commission the power to “prescribe fair and
reasonable rates and charges.” 	As discussed in the positions to Issue A and B,
Duke’s proposal falls far short of ensuring fair and reasonable terms.
NUCOR: 	Yes. DEF’s petition and proposed tariffs result in “fair and reasonable rates and
charges” and classifications.
PCS
PHOSPHATE: Yes.
STAFF: 	Section 366.05(1)(e) provides that changes to tariffs must be approved by a
majority vote of the Commission. As discussed in Issue A, section 13.06 of the
Large Load Customer Policy allows for DEF to negotiate different terms of the
LLCP and lets the utility decide whether those changes are material.
Staff's position is preliminary and is based on the record as it exists at the time of
filing its prehearing statement. Staff reserves the right to modify or change its
position upon completion of the evidentiary hearing and after consideration of the
parties' post-hearing briefs.”

ORDER NO. PSC-2026-0276-PHO-EI
DOCKET NO. 20260064-EI
PAGE 15
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. 	Florida Rising does not have standing to intervene in this proceeding. As
an association, Florida Rising bears the burden of proving it has a substantial
number of members who will be substantially impacted by this docket. Out of
1,255 total FL Rising members, they list three purported DEF customers by name.
Even assuming all three are DEF customers, that would equate to only 0.2% of
the FL Rising members are DEF customers. If we assume that all the purported
Pinellas County members are DEF customers (65), that still only amounts to 5.2%
of FL Rising’s members. None of these numbers, which do not even approach a
simple majority, result in a “substantial number” of members so as to satisfy the
legal standing requirement. Florida Rising also cannot meet the “substantial
interest” test required by Florida law for standing. Specifically, this proceeding
neither changes the rates approved by the Commission in the 2024 Settlement
Agreement, nor authorizes any new charges to existing customers. Any alleged
impact on residential customers would arise, if at all, only in a future rate case
conducted with a separate evidentiary record, separate parties, and separate
procedural protections available to all stakeholders. Moreover, FL Rising does not
even allege that its 65 members residing in Pinellas County are customers of DEF,
rather Ms. Negron’s Amended Testimony asserts that they are “served by DEF.”
See Negron Amended Testimony, p. 2, l. 16. Thus, even if this was a rate making
proceeding, which it is not, FL Rising has not alleged that a “Substantial number”
of its membership are even DEF ratepayers. See id. at ll. 18-20 (vaguely offering
the assertion that “many of our other members outside of Pinellas County are also
served by DEF.”). Further, DEF has indicated that any large load customer would
take service on the existing GSD-1 or GSDT-1 rate until that future rate
proceeding. But Florida Rising admitted in its discovery responses that none of its
members even take service on DEF’s GSD-1 or GSDT-1 rate, thus further
highlighting 	the 	speculative 	nature 	of 	their 	“injury.” 	Finally, 	beyond 	the
speculative financial impacts discussed above, FL Rising alleges that it faces
potential injury from the environmental impacts of potential data centers locating
in DEF’s service territory. See id. at pp. 3-4. This is simply not the time nor forum
to litigate these concerns. Section 366.043 does not empower this Commission to
address the potential environmental impacts of large load customers when
reviewing the required tariffs, nor do sections 366.03 or 366.05.
d. 	No position.

ORDER NO. PSC-2026-0276-PHO-EI
DOCKET NO. 20260064-EI
PAGE 16
OPC: 	a. 	No position.
b. 	The Florida Industrial Power Users Group have 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: 	Pursuant to Sections 120.569 and 120.57, Florida Statutes and Rule 28-106.205,
Florida Administrative Code, Nucor has standing to intervene in this proceeding.
Nucor takes no position on whether PCS Phosphate, FIPUG, or Florida Rising
have standing. 	However, Nucor notes that PCS Phosphate, FIPUG, and Florida
Rising 	all 	have 	extensive 	experience 	participating 	in 	cases 	before 	the
Commission. Nucor is willing to stipulate to the standing of PCS Phosphate,
FIPUG, and Florida Rising if those parties are also willing to stipulate to Nucor’s
standing.
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.13 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.14 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
13 See, e.g., Agrico Chemical Co. v. Department of Environmental Regulation, 406 So.2d 478, 482 (Fla. 2d DCA
1981).
14 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-2026-0276-PHO-EI
DOCKET NO. 20260064-EI
PAGE 17
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. 	Yes. (Georgis)
b. 	See the statement above.
c. 	See the statement above.
d. 	See the statement above.
STAFF: 	No position at this time.
ISSUE E: 	Is Commission approval, as-filed or with modifications, of the proposed,
Large Load Customer Agreement (Tariff Sheet Nos. 7.510-7.530), the Large
Load Customer Policy (Tariff Sheet Nos. 4.130-4.132), and their associated
terms and conditions consistent with provisions of the 2024 Settlement
Agreement approved in Order No. PSC-2024-0472-AS-EI?
DEF: 	Yes. The proposed LLCA and LLCP do not change the rates of any existing
customers; accordingly, it is consistent with the provisions of the 2024 Settlement
Agreement. The Company will not be able to defer costs incurred during the
settlement freeze and moreover does not expect to serve a large load customer
prior to the end of the settlement freeze. If DEF does incur costs and the GSD-1
and GSDT-1 rates are not adequate to cover them during the settlement period,
those costs will fall to the bottom line and be borne by DEF shareholders. To be
clear, to the extent such costs are incurred and resulting in DEF falling below its
authorized ROE band, it commits that it will not seek to adjust rates during the
settlement period. To the extent DEF incurs costs to serve a future data center,
DEF plans to account for them consistent with current practices and would
include any large load customer costs in future rate proceedings where proper cost
allocation is shown. (Chatelain)
OPC: 	The 2024 Settlement Agreement does not prohibit a rate or rates, and the
associated terms and conditions, resulting from this docket and ordered by the
Commission in compliance with SB 484. 	Section 34 of the 2024 Settlement
Agreement provides that a rate or rates, and their associated terms and conditions,
resulting from this docket and ordered by the Commission in compliance with
legislative requirements like those contained in SB 484, will not violate the terms

ORDER NO. PSC-2026-0276-PHO-EI
DOCKET NO. 20260064-EI
PAGE 18
of the agreement. Furthermore, the base rate freeze provision in Paragraph 5 of
the Agreement does not protect existing customers from the risk that the
nonpayment of large load customer costs will not be borne by the general body of
ratepayers 	or 	that 	costs 	will 	otherwise 	be 	improperly 	redistributed 	among
customer classes in a cost-of-service study applicable to future rate setting.
FIPUG: 	Yes.
FL RISING: Duke’s petition fails to create a new rate case for large load customers as required
by section 366.043, Florida Statutes. 	However, even if Duke’s petition was
modified to add such a new rate class, it would not violate Order No. PSC-2025-
0472-AS-EI, given the independent legal obligation to comply with the new
intervening law.
NUCOR: 	So long as the LLCA and LLCP do not result in changes to the rates paid by
existing customers, approval is consistent with the 2024 Settlement Agreement.
PCS
PHOSPHATE: Yes, Commission approval of the as-filed LLCP and LLCA is consistent with the
provisions of the 2024 Settlement Agreement based on our understanding that
neither will effect a change in rates, terms or conditions of service to existing
customers consistent with the 2024 Settlement Agreement approved by the
Commission in Order No. PSC-2024-0472-AS-EI. PCS Phosphate reserves the
right to take a position regarding any as-yet unspecified modifications to the as-
filed LLCP and LLCA that the Commission may order that may alter the rates or
terms of service established in the 2024 Settlement Agreement.
STAFF: 	No position at this time.
ISSUE 1: 	Should the Commission approve, deny, or deny with leave to refile with
modifications the proposed Large Load Customer Policy (Tariff Sheet Nos.
4.130-4.132) and the associated terms and conditions (e.g., minimum term,
minimum monthly bill, security requirements, early termination, and special
terms provision)? If denied with leave to refile, what should the modifications
be?
DEF: 	The Commission should approve, without modifications, DEF’s proposed LLCP.
The Company’s proposal ensures that large load customers bear appropriate costs
in 	the 	near 	term 	through 	CIAC 	requirements, 	minimum 	bill 	obligations,
termination provisions, and related contractual protections. These mechanisms
provide meaningful cost responsibility without requiring the Commission to adopt
a rigid, customer-specific allocation model that does not reflect system realities.
(Chatelain, Wishart, Borsch)

ORDER NO. PSC-2026-0276-PHO-EI
DOCKET NO. 20260064-EI
PAGE 19
OPC: 	The Commission should deny the proposed LLCP and its associated terms and
conditions. The LLCP does not have sufficient protections to ensure that the risk
of nonpayment of large load customer costs are not borne by the general body of
ratepayers. If the Commission denies the LLCP with leave to refile with
modifications, then, at a minimum, the Commission should strip DEF of the
discretion to negotiate any changes to provisions without total oversight by the
Commission, strengthen the early termination policy and security collateral
requirements, and make any other changes recommended by OPC’s expert
witness or deemed necessary by the Commission to protect the general body of
ratepayers. (Nelson)
FIPUG: 	The Commission should approve DEF’s proposed Large Load Customer Policy
(Tariff Sheet Nos. 4.130-4.132) and associated terms and conditions (e.g.,
minimum term, minimum monthly bill, security requirements, early termination,
and special terms provision).
FL RISING: The Commission should deny the proposed LLCP or, in the alternative, deny with
leave to refile, provided that the new filing contains a separate rate class for large
load customers, the minimum monthly bill is adjusted to ensure that it recovers
the full costs of serving large load customers, and the security and early
termination provisions are revised to include a higher security payment and
Termination Payment Obligation or Termination Fee. (Rábago)
NUCOR: 	So long as existing customers are exempt from the LLCP, the Commission should
approve the proposed Large Load Customer Policy (Tariff Sheet Nos. 4.130-
4.132) and the associated terms and conditions as proposed.
PCS
PHOSPHATE: Yes, the Commission should approve the as-filed LLCP. However, if the
Commission determines to adopt modifications that would result in the LLCP
applying to existing DEF customers, then the LLCP needs to be revised to
establish an existing customer tier as follows:
 	To the extent that the existing customer is not currently served on the
GSD-1 or GSDT-1 rate schedule, the existing customer should not be
forced to migrate to one of those rate schedules;
 	To the extent that an existing customer receives service pursuant to a
contract, the term of service should remain the customer’s current contract
term, and termination should be governed by the customer’s current rate
schedule or contract agreement;
 	There should be no Minimum Demand or Minimum Billing Energy
Volume for existing customers;
o 	An 	assumed 	hypothetical 	data 	center-oriented 	minimum 	load
factor should not be applied in calculating monthly energy charges;

ORDER NO. PSC-2026-0276-PHO-EI
DOCKET NO. 20260064-EI
PAGE 20
o 	There should not be a take-or-pay requirement in the calculation of
demand charges;
o 	Billing 	demand 	should 	be 	calculated 	in 	accordance 	with 	the
applicable current tariffs, rather than the LLCP;
 	The 	existing 	customer 	should 	remain 	subject 	only 	to 	the 	security
provisions in the existing General Rules and Regulations Governing
Electric Service (Tariff Sheet No. 4.070) and existing customer rate
schedules; and
 	There should not be an early termination fee of any kind.
STAFF: 	No position at this time.
ISSUE 2: 	Should the Commission approve, deny, or deny with leave to refile with
modifications the proposed Large Load Customer Agreement (Tariff Sheet
Nos. 7.510-7.530) and the associated terms and conditions (e.g., minimum
demand, 	minimum 	term, 	minimum 	demand 	charge 	payments, 	security
requirements, and early termination provision)? If denied with leave to
refile, what should the modifications be?
DEF: 	The Commission should approve, without modifications, DEF’s proposed LLCA.
The Company’s proposal ensures that large load customers bear appropriate costs
in 	the 	near 	term 	through 	CIAC 	requirements, 	minimum 	bill 	obligations,
termination provisions, and related contractual protections. These mechanisms
provide meaningful cost responsibility without requiring the Commission to adopt
a rigid, customer-specific allocation model that does not reflect system realities.
(Chatelain, Wishart, Borsch).
OPC: 	The Commission should deny the proposed LLCA and associated terms and
conditions. If the Commission denies the LLCA with leave to refile with
modification, 	then, 	at 	a 	minimum, 	the 	Commission 	should 	recommend
modifications consistent with the above. (Nelson)
FIPUG: 	Existing customers should be grandfathered so that the new proposed Large Load
Customer Agreement (Tariff Sheet Nos. 7.510-7.530) and the associated terms
and conditions (e.g., minimum demand, minimum term, minimum demand charge
payments, 	security 	requirements, 	and 	early 	termination 	provision) 	are 	not
applicable to current DEF customers.
FL RISING: The Commission should deny the proposed LLCA or, in the alternative, deny with
leave to refile, provided that the security to be rendered is increased and the early
termination provisions are revised to include all costs associated with servicing a
large load customer. (Rábago)

ORDER NO. PSC-2026-0276-PHO-EI
DOCKET NO. 20260064-EI
PAGE 21
NUCOR: 	So long as existing customers are exempt from the LLCA, the Commission
should approve the proposed Large Load Customer Agreement (Tariff Sheet Nos.
7.510-7.530) and the associated terms and conditions as proposed.
PCS
PHOSPHATE: Yes, the Commission should approve the as-filed LLCA. However, if the
Commission determines to adopt modifications that would result in an LLCA
applying to existing DEF customers, then the LLCA needs to be revised as to
those existing customers:
 	To the extent that an existing customer receives service pursuant to a
contract, the term of service should remain the customer’s current contract
term, and termination should be governed by the customer’s current rate
schedule or contract agreement;
 	There should be no Minimum Demand or Minimum Billing Energy
Volume for existing customers;
o 	An 	assumed 	hypothetical 	data 	center-oriented 	minimum 	load
factor should not be applied in calculating monthly energy charges;
o 	There should not be a take-or-pay requirement in the calculation of
demand charges;
o 	Billing 	demand 	should 	be 	calculated 	in 	accordance 	with 	the
applicable current tariffs, rather than the LLCP; and
 	The 	existing 	customer 	should 	remain 	subject 	only 	to 	the 	security
provisions in the existing General Rules and Regulations Governing
Electric Service (Tariff Sheet No. 4.070) and existing customer rate
schedules; and
 	There should not be an early termination fee of any kind.
STAFF: 	No position at this time.
ISSUE 3: 	Should the Commission approve, deny, or deny with leave to refile with
modifications the proposed CIAC tariff modifications (Tariff Sheet No. 4.030
and 4.132, paragraph 13.07)? If denied with leave to refile, what should the
modifications be?
DEF: 	The 	Commission 	should 	approve, 	without 	modifications, 	DEF’s 	proposed
modifications to the CIAC tariff. Customer-funded, refundable Contributions in
Aid of Construction ("CIACs") appropriately assign the cost of customer-specific
interconnection facilities while recognizing that those facilities may subsequently
provide value to other customers. (Chatelain, Wishart).
OPC: 	The Commission should deny the proposed CIAC modifications for failing to
include recovery of incremental generation costs, failing to clearly specify what
exact costs of incremental transmission are included in the CIAC charges, and for

ORDER NO. PSC-2026-0276-PHO-EI
DOCKET NO. 20260064-EI
PAGE 22
not applying a “but for” test to establish the costs to be recovered in the CIAC
charges. If the CIAC tariff provisions are denied with leave to refile, the
Commission should require DEF to include modifications to make large load
customers pay 100% of the “but for” connection costs related to large load
customers that include the incremental generation and transmission upgrades
costs, including the costs of network transmission upgrades. (Nelson)
FIPUG: 	Existing customers should be grandfathered so that the proposed CIAC tariff
modifications 	(Tariff 	Sheet 	No. 	4.030 	and 	4.132, 	paragraph 	13.07)are 	not
applicable to current DEF customers.
FL RISING: The CIAC provisions should be made more robust, so as to comply with section
366.043, Florida Statutes, and protect ratepayers. (Rábago)
NUCOR: 	So long as existing customers are exempt from the CIAC requirements, the
Commission should approve the proposed CIAC tariff modifications (Tariff Sheet
No. 4.030 and 4.132, paragraph 13.07) as proposed.
PCS
PHOSPHATE: The 	Commission 	should 	approve 	the 	DEF 	as-filed 	proposed 	CIAC 	tariff
modifications. If the Commission adopts modifications to the DEF proposal, it
should specify that existing customers will remain subject to the currently
approved 	CIAC 	provisions 	of 	the 	existing 	General 	Rules 	and 	Regulations
Governing Electric Service (Tariff Sheet No. 4.030, part 3.01).
STAFF: 	No position at this time.
ISSUE 4: 	What are the effective dates for the proposed Large Load Customer Policy,
Large Load Customer Agreement, and CIAC tariff ?
DEF: 	The LLCP, LLCA, and CIAC tariffs should be effective immediately upon
Commission approval in this docket . (Chatelain).
OPC: 	There should be no effective dates as DEF’s Petition should be denied. If DEF’s
proposals are approved, the effective date(s) should be in compliance with the
provisions of SB 484.
FIPUG: 	Adopt position of PCS Phosphate [no position].
FL RISING: Effective date should not be decided until there are proposals that comply with the
statutory mandates.
NUCOR: 	No position.

ORDER NO. PSC-2026-0276-PHO-EI
DOCKET NO. 20260064-EI
PAGE 23
PCS
PHOSPHATE: No position.
STAFF: 	No position at this time.
ISSUE 5: 	Should this docket be closed?
DEF: 	Yes.
OPC: 	No.
FIPUG: 	Yes.
FL RISING: No. 	The Commission should deny Duke’s proposal and then direct Duke to re-
file with a proposal that complies with section 366.043, Florida Statutes.
NUCOR: 	No position.
PCS
PHOSPHATE: No position.
STAFF: 	No position at this time.
IX. 	EXHIBIT LIST
Witness 	Proffered By 	Description
Direct
Matthew Chatelain 	DEF 	MJC-1 	Comparison of tariffs filed in
Docket 20250113-EI to tariffs
filed in this docket
Ron Nelson 	OPC 	RN-1 	CV
Ron Nelson 	OPC 	RN-2 	Response to Interrogatory 24C
Ron Nelson 	OPC 	RN-3 	JLARC Report
Jeffry Pollock 	FIPUG 	JP-1 	Qualifications of Jeffry
Pollock
Jeffry Pollock 	FIPUG 	JP-2 	Testimony filed in Regulatory
Proceedings

ORDER NO. PSC-2026-0276-PHO-EI
DOCKET NO. 20260064-EI
PAGE 24
Witness 	Proffered By 	Description
Karl Rábago 	FL Rising 	KRR-1 	Karl R. Rábago Resume
Karl Rábago 	FL Rising 	KRR-2 	Rábago List of Prior
Testimony
Karl Rábago 	FL Rising 	KRR-3 	DEF 2024 Settlement
Agreement Rate Schedule
Karl Rábago 	FL Rising 	KRR-4 	DEF Response to Florida
Rising’s First Request for
Admission
Katina Rentas Negrón 	FL Rising 	KRN-1 	Florida Rising Articles of
Incorporation
Tony M. Georgis 	PCS Phosphate 	TMG-1 	Resume & Record of
Testimony of Tony Georgis
Tony M. Georgis 	PCS Phosphate 	TMG-2 	DEF’s Response to PCS
Phosphate’s First RFA (No. 1)
Tony M. Georgis 	PCS Phosphate 	TMG-3 	Excerpt from DEF’s 2026 Ten
Year Site Plan
X. 	PROPOSED STIPULATIONS
There are no proposed stipulations at this time.
XI. 	PENDING MOTIONS
There are no pending motions at this time.
XII. 	PENDING CONFIDENTIALITY MATTERS
1. 	DEF’s Request for Confidential Classification of certain information contained in its
Response to the Office of Public Counsel’s First Set of Interrogatories No. 21, filed
May 14, 2026.
2. 	DEF’s Request for Confidential Classification of certain information contained in its
Response 	to 	the 	Office 	of 	Public 	Counsel’s 	First 	Request 	for 	Production 	of
Documents No. 3, filed May 29, 2026.

ORDER NO. PSC-2026-0276-PHO-EI
DOCKET NO. 20260064-EI
PAGE 25
3. 	DEF’s Request for Confidential Classification of certain information contained it its
Response to Florida Rising, Inc.’s First Request for Production of Documents No. 3,
filed July 20, 2026.
4. 	DEF’s Request for Confidential Classification of certain information contained in its
Second Supplemental Response to Florida Rising, Inc.’s First Request for Production
of Documents No. 3, filed July 24, 2026.
5. 	DEF’s Request for Confidential Classification of certain information contained in its
Third Supplemental Response to Florida Rising, Inc.’s First Request for Production
of Documents No. 3, filed August 4, 2026.
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 75 words, it must be reduced to no more than 75 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.
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 50
pages and shall be filed at the same time.
XIV. 	RULINGS
Opening statements, if any, shall not exceed five (5) minutes per party.
Based 	upon 	discussions 	with 	the 	parties 	at 	the 	Prehearing 	Conference, 	a 	public
evidentiary hearing shall be scheduled for August 17, 2026, for the purpose of taking evidence
and enabling a decision as to whether the following persons have standing to intervene and
participate in the August 25-26, 2026 hearing scheduled in this docket: PCS Phosphate – White
Springs; Florida Industrial Power Users Group; Florida Rising, Inc.; and Nucor Steel Florida,
Inc. The August 17, 2026 hearing shall allow the parties to present evidence and testimony in
support of their positions, and all witnesses shall be subject to cross-examination at the
conclusion of their testimony. Unless excused by the Prehearing Officer for good cause shown,
each party shall personally appear at the hearing, and either present their witness in support of
standing, or present evidence that all parties have stipulated to the facts to support that party’s
standing. 	Failure of a party, or that party’s representative, to appear shall constitute waiver of
that party’s issues, and that party may be dismissed from the proceeding.

ORDER NO. PSC-2026-0276-PHO-EI
DOCKET NO. 20260064-EI
PAGE 26
FIPUG’s request to have an option for its witness Jeffrey Pollock to appear audio-
visually is granted. I have granted this request due to the limited nature of Mr. Pollock’s
testimony, as it speaks solely to the issue of FIPUG’s standing in this docket. Consistent with the
ruling above, if FIPUG or any other party to this docket intends to present witness testimony
related to the issue of standing via audio-visual means on August 17, 2026, it must contact
Commission staff to that effect by no later than August 13, 2026.
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 11th 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

ORDER NO. PSC-2026-0276-PHO-EI
DOCKET NO. 20260064-EI
PAGE 27
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.