Florida Public Service Commission native order document 07091-2026

FILED 9/30/2026
DOCUMENT NO. 07091-2026
FPSC 	- COMMISSION CLERK
BEFORE THE FLORIDA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION
The following Commissioners participated in the disposition of this matter:
In re: Petition for limited proceeding for
recovery of incremental storm restoration costs
related to Hurricanes Debby, Helene and
Milton, by Duke Energy Florida, LLC._
DOCKET NO. 20240173-EI
ORDER NO. PSC-2026-0347-PAA-EI
ISSUED: September 30, 2026
GABRIELLA PASSIDOMO SMITH, Chairman
GARY F. CLARK
MIKE LA ROSA
BOBBY PAYNE
ANA ORTEGA
NOTICE OF PROPOSED AGENCY ACTION ORDER APPROVING
DUKE ENERGY FLORIDA, LLC’S STORM RESTORATION COSTS
FOR HURRICANES DEBBY, HELENE AND MILTON
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 December 	27, 2024, Duke Energy Florida, LLC (DEF 	or Company) 	filed a 	petition
for 	a 	limited preceding 	seeking 	authority 	to implement an 	interim 	storm 	restoration recovery
charge to recover $1.09 billion for the incremental restoration costs related to Hurricanes Debby,
Helene, 	and 	Milton 	(the 	Storms), 	as 	well 	as 	the 	replenishment 	of 	its 	retail 	storm 	reserve.
Included in the $1.09 billion 	is 	interest charged on unrecovered costs for the Storms. 	Pursuant to
the 2024 	Settlement Agreement (2024 Settlement) we approved by Order No. PSC-2024-0472-
AS-EI, the recovery of storm costs from customers will begin, on an interim basis, 60 days after
the 	filing of a 	cost recovery 	petition and 	tariff with 	us. DEF requested 	a 	12-month recovery
period, applied to 	all 	bills from March 2025 through February 2026. On February 24, 2025, we
approved Order No. PSC-2025-0061-PCO-EI, which authorized the Company 	to implement the
interim storm restoration recovery charge, 	subject to refund. On January 	5, 2026, DEF 	filed a
letter with us advising that the storm cost recovery surcharge could be removed from customer
bills 	at 	the end of January 2026 because 	the storm restoration 	costs would be 	fully recovered a
month earlier than anticipated.

ORDER NO. PSC-2026-0347-PAA-EI
DOCKET NO. 20240173-EI
PAGE 2
The intervention of the Office of Public Counsel (OPC) was acknowledged by Order No.
PSC-2025-0016-PCO-EI, issued January 14, 2025. Nucor Steel Florida, Inc. (Nucor) and White
Springs Agricultural Chemicals, Inc. d/b/a PCS Phosphate-White Springs (PCS Phosphate) filed
petitions to intervene on January 15, 2025, and January 24, 2025, respectively. Nucor and PCS
Phosphate each timely filed Motions for Reconsideration of Order No. PSC-2025-0061-PCO-EI.
On May 27, 2025, by Order No. PSC-2025-0167-FOF-EI we denied PCS Phosphate’s and
Nucor’s motions for reconsideration to the cost allocation and rate design treatment approved in
Order No. PSC-2025-0061-PCO-EI, because the issues had not been fully determined and could
still be raised later in the proceeding.
On 	August 	13, 	2025, 	DEF 	and 	the 	OPC 	agreed 	that 	DEF 	would 	have
PriceWaterhouseCoopers (PwC) conduct an audit of the Company’s storm costs related to
Hurricane Milton.1 The parties stated that the purpose of the third-party audit was to reduce the
need for discovery in the pending and future storm dockets. Additionally, the parties agreed that
the third-party audit in this docket would avoid the need for future similar audits if there were
not any substantive material changes in procedures or our rules and requirements. On November
19, 2025, an amended agreement was filed to substitute Deloitte & Touch LLP (Deloitte) as the
third-party audit firm to conduct the independent examination of the Company’s storm costs
associated with Hurricane Milton.2
We have jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to Sections 366.04, 366.05, 366.06, and
366.076, Florida Statutes (F.S.).
DECISION
ICCA
Rule 25-6.0143, F.A.C., requires the incremental cost and capitalization approach (ICCA)
be used in determining the costs to be charged to cover storm-related damages. 	Therefore, the
ICCA approach shall be used to determine the reasonable and prudent amounts included in the
storm restoration costs.
Regular payment expense
DEF witness New testified that regular payroll represents regular labor costs incurred by
DEF employees or employees of DEF affiliates for time spent on storm restoration activities.
Pursuant to Rule 25-6.0143(1)(e)8., F.A.C., payroll and payroll related costs may be charged to
the storm reserve under the ICCA methodology. Witness New explained that DEF calculated the
non-incremental payroll amount by comparing actual base payroll for the months in which
restoration 	work 	occurred 	with 	a 	three-year 	historical 	average 	of 	base 	payroll 	for 	the
corresponding months.
1 Document No. 07892-2025, Docket No. 20240173-EI
2 Document No. 15174-2025, Docket No. 20240173-EI

ORDER NO. PSC-2026-0347-PAA-EI
DOCKET NO. 20240173-EI
PAGE 3
Witness New also testified that to ensure the reasonableness and prudence of the costs,
DEF utilized separate project codes for transmission, distribution, generation, and customer
service to properly account for all costs directly incurred by storm restoration activities. Witness
New stated that all storm restoration costs are initially recorded in FERC Account 186 and then
reviewed to determine whether they should be recorded to the storm reserve, operations and
maintenance expense, or capital accounts. 	The amount of payroll expense for each storm are
listed below.
Table 1
Regular Payroll Expense
Storm 	Amount (Million)
Debby 	$1.580
Helene 	2.914
Milton 	4.942
Total 	$9.436
Source: Exhibits JN-2, JN-3, and JN-4
Our auditing staff reviewed Deloitte’s work papers and found that the scope, procedures,
and conclusion were reasonable. The Company confirmed that costs and invoices for Hurricanes
Debby and Helene were handled in the same manner as Hurricane Milton, which was the subject
of the Deloitte audit. Therefore, we find that the regular payroll expense for all three hurricanes
in the amount of $9.436 million is reasonable and prudent.
Overtime payroll expense
Payroll and payroll related costs may be charged to the storm reserve pursuant to Rule
25-6.0143(1)(e)8, F.A.C. and are subject to the same calculation of non-incremental cost under
the ICCA methodology. 	Furthermore, the Company utilized separate project codes that were
subsequently reviewed for reasonableness and prudence of each cost associated with the Storms.
The overtime payroll expenses for each storm are listed below.
Table 2
Overtime Payroll Expense
Storm 	Amount (Million)
Debby 	$4.493
Helene 	9.641
Milton 	15.351
Total 	$29.485
Source: Exhibits JN-2, JN-3, and JN-4
Our auditing staff reviewed Deloitte’s work papers and found that the scope, procedures,
and conclusion were reasonable. The Company confirmed that costs and invoices for Hurricanes
Debby and Helene were handled in the same manner as Hurricane Milton, which was the subject
of the Deloitte audit. 	Therefore, we find that the overtime payroll expense in the amount of
$29.485 million for all three hurricanes is reasonable and prudent.

ORDER NO. PSC-2026-0347-PAA-EI
DOCKET NO. 20240173-EI
PAGE 4
Contractor costs
According to DEF witness New, contractor costs consist of third-party time and
equipment costs incurred for storm restoration activities. 	Pursuant to Rule 25-6.0143(1)(e)1,
F.A.C., contractor costs may be charged to the storm reserve under the ICCA methodology.
DEF witness New explained that DEF determined the amount of non-incremental contractor
costs by calculating the prior three-year average for the months in which storm restoration
activities were incurred and compared it to the actual contractor costs incurred in the month in
which storm restoration work was performed.
When asked why the contractor costs were updated from the petition to witness New’s
testimony, DEF stated that the variance is attributable to the use of preliminary storm cost
estimates developed in November 2024. 	Subsequent adjustments were based on completed
storm restoration activities, vendor invoices, and prudency reviews that allowed costs to be
further validated and finalized. DEF is requesting storm recovery of incremental costs incurred
in responding to Hurricanes Debby, Helene, and Milton as defined under the ICCA methodology
required under Rule 25-6.0143, F.A.C. 	The total contractor costs for each storm are listed
below.
Table 3
Contractor Costs
Storm 	Amount ($ Million)
Debby 	$31.633
Helene 	200.678
Milton 	600.055
Total 	$832.366
Source: Exhibits JN-2, JN-3, and JN-4
In response to our staff’s data request, DEF stated that it identified an overpayment to a
vendor. 	DEF contacted the vendor, which acknowledged the error and committed to fully
repaying the overpayment to DEF. 	The overpayment resulted in contractor costs reported in
DEF’s original testimony filing being overstated by $510,514. In its response, DEF proposes to
apply this amount to a future storm regulatory filing. We disagree with this treatment, as it would
create an unnecessary delay in the recognition of the adjustment. 	Instead, we find that the
adjustment to reduce contractor expense by $510,514 be made in this proceeding.
Our auditing staff reviewed Deloitte’s work papers and found that the scope, procedures,
and conclusion were reasonable. The Company confirmed that costs and invoices for Hurricanes
Debby and Helene were handled in the same manner as Hurricane Milton. 	Therefore, we find
that the contractor costs in the amount of $832.366 million for all three hurricanes is reasonable
and prudent.

ORDER NO. PSC-2026-0347-PAA-EI
DOCKET NO. 20240173-EI
PAGE 5
Internal fleet costs
According to DEF witness New, internal fleet costs for storm restoration consist of fuel
and maintenance costs for DEF fleet vehicles. 	Pursuant to Rule 25-6.0143(1)(e)9., F.A.C.,
internal fleet costs may be charged to the storm reserve under the ICCA methodology. 	DEF
witness New explained that DEF determined the amount of non-incremental internal fleet costs
by calculating the prior three-year average for the months in which storm restoration activities
were incurred, and compared it to the actual internal fleet costs incurred in the month in which
storm restoration work was performed.
When asked why the internal fleet costs were updated from the petition to witness New’s
testimony, DEF stated that the variance is attributable to the use of preliminary storm cost
estimates developed in November 2024. 	Subsequent adjustments were based on completed
storm restoration activities, vendor invoices, and prudency reviews that allowed costs to be
further validated and finalized. DEF is requesting storm recovery of incremental costs incurred
in responding to Hurricanes Debby, Helene, and Milton as defined under the ICCA methodology
required under Rule 25-6.0143, F.A.C. 	The total internal fleet costs for each storm are listed
below.
Table 4
Internal Fleet Costs
Storm 	Amount (Million)
Debby 	$0.283
Helene 	0.213
Milton 	0.386
Total 	$0.882
Source: Exhibits JN-2, JN-3, and JN-4
Our auditing staff reviewed Deloitte’s work papers and found that the scope, procedures,
and conclusion were reasonable. The Company confirmed that costs and invoices for Hurricanes
Debby and Helene were handled in the same manner as Hurricane Milton. 	Therefore, we find
that the internal fleet costs in the amount of $0.882 million for all three hurricanes are reasonable
and prudent.
Employee expenses
Witness New testified that employee expenses included lodging costs for employees and
contractor crews, as well as meals and mileage reimbursements for employees using their
personal vehicles during storm restoration. Pursuant to Rule 25-6.0143(1)(e)2., F.A.C., logistics
costs of providing meals, lodging, and linens for tents and other staging areas may be charged to
the storm reserve under the ICCA methodology. 	Additionally, witness New testified that DEF
excluded any amounts from this request that were non-incremental or capitalizable pursuant to
Rule 25-6.0143(1)(d), and(1)(e), F.A.C.

ORDER NO. PSC-2026-0347-PAA-EI
DOCKET NO. 20240173-EI
PAGE 6
The Company utilized separate project codes that were subsequently reviewed for
reasonableness and prudence of each cost associated with the Storms. The amount of employee
expenses for each storm are listed below.
Table 5
Employee Expenses
Storm 	Amount (Million)
Debby 	$1.946
Helene 	9.582
Milton 	40.009
Total 	$51.537
Source: Exhibits JN-2, JN-3, and JN-4
Our auditing staff reviewed Deloitte’s work papers and found that the scope, procedures,
and conclusion were reasonable. The Company confirmed that costs and invoices for Hurricanes
Debby and Helene were handled in the same manner as Hurricane Milton, which was the subject
of the Deloitte audit. 	Therefore, we find that the employee expenses for all three hurricanes in
the amount of $51.537 million is reasonable and prudent.
Materials and supplies
According to DEF witness New, material and supplies costs consist of items used to
repair and restore service and facilities to pre-storm condition and exclude any materials and
supplies used in restoration activities that are included in capitalized cost. Pursuant to Rule 25-
6.0143(1)(e)7., F.A.C., materials and supplies costs may be charged to the storm reserve under
the ICCA methodology. DEF witness New explained that DEF determined the amount of non-
incremental materials and supplies costs by calculating the prior three-year average for the
months in which storm restoration activities were incurred and compared it to the actual
materials and supplies costs incurred in the month in which storm restoration work was
performed.
When asked why the costs of materials and supplies were updated from the petition to
witness New’s testimony, DEF stated that the variance is attributable to the use of preliminary
storm cost estimates developed in November 2024. 	Subsequent adjustments were based on
completed storm restoration activities, vendor invoices, and prudency reviews that allowed costs
to be further validated and finalized. 	DEF is requesting storm recovery of incremental costs
incurred in responding to Hurricanes Debby, Helene, and Milton as defined under the ICCA
methodology required under Rule 25-6.0143, F.A.C. The total materials and supplies costs for
each storm are listed below.

ORDER NO. PSC-2026-0347-PAA-EI
DOCKET NO. 20240173-EI
PAGE 7
Table 6
Materials and Supplies Expense
Storm 	Amount (Million)
Debby 	$3.510
Helene 	22.515
Milton 	17.591
Total 	$43.616
Source: Exhibits JN-1, JN-2, and JN-3
Our auditing staff reviewed Deloitte’s work papers and found that the scope, procedures,
and conclusion were reasonable. The Company confirmed that costs and invoices for Hurricanes
Debby and Helene were handled in the same manner as Hurricane Milton. Therefore, we find
that the materials and supplies expense for all three hurricanes in the amount of $43.616 million
is reasonable and prudent.
Other costs
Witness New testified that other expenses include minor amounts of storm-related costs
that are not included in another storm-cost category. 	Specifically, Exhibit JN-2 identified
$495,000 in other expenses as the Deloitte audit fee. 	Exhibit JN-3 identified $39,000 of other
costs which were further explained in DEF’s response to our staff’s Fourth Data Request. This
amount was contractor costs that were initially charged to another project and was categorized as
other instead of outside services due to the coding in the corrected journal entry. Also, included
in the other expense category is labor burdens/incentives, overhead allocations, and insurance
deductibles. 	Pursuant 	to 	Rule 	25-6.0143(1)(e)12., 	F.A.C., 	other 	costs 	or 	expenses 	not
specifically identified in Rule 25-6.0143(1)(e)1. through (1)(e)12., F.A.C., that are directly
attributable to a storm restoration event may be charged to the storm reserve under the ICCA
methodology.
As stated by witness New, “labor burdens and incentives” included cost for employee
bonuses and cost such as medical payroll tax, and other non-incentive benefits. 	However,
pursuant to Rule 25-6.0143(1)(f)1., F.A.C., DEF excluded the bonuses paid to DEF employees
for their efforts during the storm restoration activities. 	Witness New explained that DEF failed
to remove the bonuses paid prior to Deloitte’s audit and resulted in a slight discrepancy of
approximately $670,000 between the recoverable actual costs and the amounts reviewed by
Deloitte. Furthermore, Witness New explained that DEF calculated the non-incremental amount
by comparing actual amount for the months in which restoration work occurred with a three-year
historical average for the corresponding months.
Additionally, witness New explained that “overhead allocation” included costs for
employee labor from support organizations and DEF employees of affiliates that are allocated to
the storm project based on payroll and overtime charges. Furthermore, overhead allocation costs
are non-incremental except when capitalized and those amounts are excluded from the recovery
amount.

ORDER NO. PSC-2026-0347-PAA-EI
DOCKET NO. 20240173-EI
PAGE 8
The Company utilized separate project codes to review the reasonableness and prudence
of each cost associated with the Storms. The other costs for each storm are listed below.
Table 7
Other Costs
Storm 	Amount (Million)
Debby 	$3.622
Helene 	7.481
Milton 	14.193
Total 	$25.296
Source: Exhibits JN-2, JN-3, and JN-4
Our auditing staff reviewed Deloitte’s work papers and found that the scope, procedures,
and conclusion were reasonable. The Company confirmed that costs and invoices for Hurricanes
Debby and Helene were handled in the same manner as Hurricane Milton, which was the subject
of the Deloitte audit. Therefore, we find that the other costs for all three hurricanes in the amount
of $25.296 is reasonable and prudent.
Total costs
Based on our decisions above, we find that the reasonable and prudent amounts of
incurred storm restoration costs for each storm are listed below.
Table 8
Total Storm Related Restoration Costs
Storm 	Amount (Million)
Debby 	$47.067
Helene 	253.023
Milton 	692.528
Total 	$992.618
Source: Exhibits JN-2, JN-3, and JN-4
We further find that the reasonable and prudent amount of costs to be included in the total storm
related restoration costs is $992.618 million.
Capitalized costs
Pursuant 	to 	Rule 	25-6.0143(1)(d), 	F.A.C., 	under 	the 	ICCA 	methodology, 	capital
expenditures for storm-related facility damage must exclude the normal cost of removal,
retirement, and replacement of those facilities in the absence of a storm. 	DEF witness New
testified that DEF has a process to ensure all units of property installed during storm restoration
are capitalized at reasonable amounts to ensure a storm cost recovery request that is incremental
under the ICCA methodology.

ORDER NO. PSC-2026-0347-PAA-EI
DOCKET NO. 20240173-EI
PAGE 9
When asked about the variance in total capitalizable costs from the petition to witness
New’s testimony, DEF stated that the variance is attributable to finalization of materials utilized
within the ICCA calculations. DEF is requesting storm recovery of incremental costs incurred in
responding to Hurricanes Debby, Helene, and Milton as defined under the ICCA methodology
required under Rule 25-6.0143, F.A.C. 	The total costs proposed by DEF to be capitalized for
each storm are listed below.
Table 9
Total Capitalizable Costs
Storm 	Amount (Million)
Debby 	$5.202
Helene 	27.305
Milton 	28.672
Total 	$61.180
Source: Exhibits JN-1, JN-2, and JN-3
Our auditing staff reviewed Deloitte’s work papers and found that the scope, procedures,
and conclusion were reasonable. The Company confirmed that costs and invoices for Hurricanes
Debby and Helene were handled in the same manner as Hurricane Milton. 	Therefore, we find
that the costs that were capitalized for all the hurricanes are reasonable and prudent and the
appropriate amount to capitalize is $61.180 million.
ICCA non-incremental O&M adjustments
Rule 25-6.0143(1)(d), F.A.C., requires the ICCA be used when determining the costs
charged to cover storm-related damages. 	Under the ICCA methodology, storm costs must
exclude costs that normally would have been charged to non-cost recovery clause operating
expenses in the absence of a storm.
The method for determining non-incremental adjustments is pursuant to Rule 25-
6.0143(1)(d), F.A.C. The storm related costs listed as ICCA non-incremental O&M adjustments
are listed below.
Table 10
ICCA Non-Incremental O&M Adjustments
ICCA Adjustments 	Debby 	Helene 	Milton
Regular Payroll 	$712,000 	$1,719,000 	$612,000
Overtime Payroll 	253,000 	168,000 	171,000
Labor Burdens/Incentives 	1,362,000 	3,021,000 	2,900,000
Overhead Allocations 	207,000 	240,000 	497,000
Employee Expenses 	20,000 	208,000 	56,000
Contractor Costs 	1,221,000 	1,404,000 	466,000
Material & Supplies 	49,000 	127,000 	211,000
Internal Fleet Costs 	74,000 	6,000 	27,000
Other 	0 	0 	0
Total 	$3,898,000 	$6,892,000 	$4,939,000
Source: Exhibits JN-2, JN-3, and JN-4

ORDER NO. PSC-2026-0347-PAA-EI
DOCKET NO. 20240173-EI
PAGE 10
Our auditing staff reviewed Deloitte’s work papers and found that the scope, procedures,
and conclusion were reasonable. The Company confirmed that costs and invoices for Hurricanes
Debby and Helene were handled in the same manner as Hurricane Milton, which was the subject
of the Deloitte audit. 	Therefore, we find that the adjustments for non-incremental costs in the
amount of $15.729 million are reasonable and prudent.
Retail recoverable storm costs
Based on the storm restoration costs categories and adjustments previously discussed, we
find that the reasonable and prudent amount of retail recoverable storm costs is $914.795 million
as stated in Table 11.
Table 11
Retail Recoverable Storm Costs
Storm 	Amount (Million)
Debby 	$37.110
Helene 	215.944
Milton 	649.904
Storm Reserve Replenishment and Interest 	11.837
Total 	$914.795
Source: Exhibit JN-1, JN-2, JN-3, and JN-4
Storm cost recovery surcharge
Based on DEF’s witness New’s testimony, DEF collected $1.006 billion through the
storm restoration recovery surcharge, during the recovery period of March 2025 through January
2026.
Refund of over-recovery
Witness New stated that the requested total retail recoverable storm cost is $915.308
million. However, due to our adjustments, the amount of total retail recoverable storm costs is
$914.795 million. 	Based upon witness New’s Exhibit JN-5, the amount recovered through the
storm costs recovery surcharge was $1.006 billion. 	Therefore, we find that the recovery of the
storm costs resulted in an over-recovery of approximately $91 million, plus interest.
DEF has requested that any under- or over-recovery should be collected or refunded
through the fuel clause as previously ordered in Order No. PSC-2024-0377-FOF-EI, issued
August 27, 2024. 	Additionally, interest should be applied to any excess or shortfalls at the 30-
day commercial paper rate, consistent with Rule 25-6.109, F.A.C.
Based on witness Menendez's testimony, we find that any final over- or under-recovery
be refunded or collected from customers through the fuel clause and any interest should be
applied to the final true-up amount at the 30-day commercial paper rate.

ORDER NO. PSC-2026-0347-PAA-EI
DOCKET NO. 20240173-EI
PAGE 11
Based on the foregoing, it is
ORDERED by the Florida Public Service Commission that Duke Energy Florida, LLC’s
petition for recovery of incremental storm restoration costs related to Hurricanes Debby, Helene
and Milton is granted as stated in the body of this order. It is further
ORDERED that the total amount of reasonable and prudent costs to be included in the
total storm related restoration costs is $992.618 million. It if further
ORDERED that the total amount of reasonable and prudent retail recoverable storm costs
is $914.795 million. It is further
ORDERED that the amount recovered through the storm cost recovery surcharge is
$1.006 billion. It is further
ORDERED that any final over-recovery be refunded to customers through the fuel clause
and any interest shall be applied to the final true-up amount at the 30-day commercial paper rate.
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 if no timely protest is received to the proposed agency action, a
Consummating Order shall be issued upon the expiration of the protest period, and this docket
shall be closed.

ORDER NO. PSC-2026-0347-PAA-EI
DOCKET NO. 20240173-EI
PAGE 12
By ORDER of the Florida Public Service Commission this 30th day of September, 2026 	.
ADAM 	N
Commission 	erk
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.
SBr
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 October 21, 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.