Florida Public Service Commission native order document 05421-2026

FILED 8/24/2026
DOCUMENT NO. 05421-2026
FPSC 	- COMMISSION CLERK
BEFORE THE FLORIDA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION
In re: Complaint by Karen Kostantis against 	DOCKET NO. 2026007 8- EI
Duke Energy Florida, LLC. 	ORDER NO. PSC-2026-0289-PAA-EI
_ _ 	_ ISSUED: August 24, 2026
The following Commissioners participated in the disposition of this matter:
GABRIELLA PASSIDOMO SMITH, Chairman
GARY F. CLARK
MIKE LA ROSA
BOBBY PAYNE
ANA ORTEGA
NOTICE OF PROPOSED AGENCY ACTION
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO DISMISS AND
DENYING COMPLAINT
BY THE COMMISSION:
NOTICE 	is 	hereby 	given by 	the 	Florida 	Public 	Service Commission 	that 	the 	action
discussed herein 	is preliminary 	in nature and will become 	final unless a person whose 	interests
are 	substantially 	affected 	files a petition 	for a formal proceeding, pursuant 	to Rule 	25-22.029,
Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.).
BACKGROUND
On December 	15, 2025, Ms. Karen 	Kostantis (Ms. 	Kostantis) 	filed Informal Complaint
No. 	1491428E 	with 	the 	Commission 	under 	Rule 	25-22.032, 	F.A.C., 	against Duke 	Energy
Florida, LLC 	(DEF). 	Ms. 	Kostantis 	alleged 	that DEF 	installed 	an AMI 	meter 	without
authorization, improperly billed for an opt-out, non-AMI meter, and misclassified her service as
RS-1 	(residential).
In 	or 	about March 	2022, Ms. 	Rita DeCola 	(Ms. 	DeCola), mother of Ms. 	Kostantis,
obtained 	a non-AMI 	meter 	for 4425 	Rutledge 	Drive, Palm 	Harbor, 	Florida. An Advanced
Metering 	Infrastructure (AMI) meter, 	also known 	as a “smart” meter, 	transmits meter 	specific
information 	electronically 	to 	DEF. A 	non-AMI 	meter 	does 	not 	transmit 	information
electronically and requires a technician to visit the 	site monthly to read the meter and to connect
or disconnect 	electrical 	service. DEF’s 	standard meter 	is an AMI meter. However, DEF 	Tariff
Sheet 	6.400 	gives 	customers 	the 	ability 	to 	opt-out from 	using 	the 	standard AMI 	meter and
instead use 	a non-AMI 	meter. To 	opt-out under 	Tariff Sheet 	6.400, 	a customer must pay 	an

ORDER NO. PSC-2026-0289-PAA-EI
DOCKET NO. 20260078-EI
PAGE 2
initial set-up fee and an additional monthly fee to cover the monthly site visits.1 The customer
must also allow physical access to the meter so that it can be read monthly by DEF personnel.
On October 29, 2025, Ms. Kostantis filed Informal Complaint No. 1488824E alleging
improper billing and payment handling against DEF. The dispute began after the death of Ms.
DeCola on July 25, 2025. Ms. DeCola was the prior account holder at 4425 Rutledge Drive and
the dispute was about whether DEF properly credited payments to that account. That informal
complaint was closed on December 29th, 2025, finding no violations by DEF.
Over the course of that dispute, DEF sought to close the original account held by Ms.
DeCola, because company policy does not permit accounts to remain open in a deceased
person’s name. After receiving Ms. Kostantis’s request for electric service on October 30, 2025,
DEF set up account number XXXXXXXX5339 (Account 5339). However, DEF was unable to
verify the identification number Ms. Kostantis provided, so the account was placed on hold. DEF
nevertheless initiated electrical service due to a technical issue in its system.
Throughout November 2025, DEF attempted to obtain a valid form of identification. On
or about December 2, 2025, Ms. Kostantis provided a valid passport to DEF. DEF closed
Account 5339 and opened account number XXXXXXXX2470 (Account 2470) with the rate
classification for residential service (RS-1). On November 19, 2025, DEF technicians removed
the non-AMI meter at 4425 Rutledge Drive and installed the standard AMI meter. DEF removed
the non-AMI meter because no customer was paying the required monthly fee. Ms. Kostantis did
not request an opt-out under Tariff Sheet 6.400 in any communication with DEF before this
point.
On December 15, 2025, Ms. Kostantis discovered that the AMI meter was installed and
filed Informal Complaint No. 1491428E. Ms. Kostantis alleged that DEF installed the AMI
meter without authorization; improperly billed for an opt-out, non-AMI meter; and misclassified
her service as RS-1. Commission staff reviewed the complaint and found no violations by DEF.
Ms. Kostantis was unsatisfied and the matter was referred to the Commission’s Process Review
Team (PRT) for review.
On February 6, 2026, while the complaint was under review, Ms. Kostantis attempted to
pay the initial set-up fee to obtain a non-AMI meter, characterizing her payment as “under
protest.”2 However, the initial set-up fee was sent to the inactive Account 5339, and not the
active Account 2470. After DEF discovered the payment, it mailed a refund check to Ms.
Kostantis on February 27, 2026, and informed her that any payment for the opt-out must be sent
to the active Account 2470 and that DEF could not transfer the funds directly between the
accounts because the two accounts were not associated. Ms. Kostantis has stated that she has not
1 Tariff Sheet 6.400 provides that “[c]ustomers wishing to take service under this Rider and relocating to a premise
where an existing approved non-communicating meter is already in place, will not be required to pay the Initial Set-
Up Fee. Customers who cancel service under this Rider and then later re-enroll for this service at any location would
be required to submit another Initial Set-Up Fee.”
2 Throughout these disputes, DEF has disconnected Ms. Kostantis’s electrical service multiple times for
nonpayment, and Ms. Kostantis has sent many payments “under protest.”

ORDER NO. PSC-2026-0289-PAA-EI
DOCKET NO. 20260078-EI
PAGE 3
received the check, and DEF has stated that the check has been neither returned nor cashed. On
March 24, 2026, Commission staff advised Ms. Kostantis that her informal complaint had been
reviewed by the PRT, and it did not appear that DEF had violated any Commission statutes,
rules, orders, or its tariff in its handling of the matter.
On May 8, 2026, Ms. Kostantis filed a formal complaint against DEF under Rule 25-
22.036(3)(b), F.A.C., alleging the same material facts contained in her informal complaint. The
formal complaint asserts that DEF installed the Smart/AMI meter improperly and without
authorization, improperly billed for the AMI Opt-Out meter, and misclassified her service as RS-
1. On May 21, 2026, DEF filed a Motion to Dismiss the complaint. DEF asserts that the
complaint does not comply with Rule 25-22.036, F.A.C., because the complaint fails to contain
any rules violated or actions taken by DEF that constitute a violation of any applicable statute,
rule, Commission order, or the company tariff.
This order addresses whether DEF’s Motion to Dismiss the complaint should be granted
and the appropriate disposition of Ms. Kostantis’s complaint against DEF. We have jurisdiction
over this matter pursuant to Section 366.04, Florida Statutes (F.S.).
DECISION
1. 	Motion to Dismiss
Legal Standard
To sustain a motion to dismiss, the moving party must show that, accepting all allegations
as true, the petition fails to state a cause of action for which relief may be granted. Varnes v.
Dawkins, 624 So. 2d 349, 350 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993). The moving party must specify the grounds
for the motion to dismiss, and all material allegations must be construed against the moving party
in determining if the petitioner has stated the necessary allegations. A determination of the
petition’s sufficiency is confined to the petition and the documents incorporated therein and the
grounds asserted in the motion to dismiss. Id. All allegations in the petition must be viewed as
true and in the light most favorable to the petitioner to determine whether there is a cause of
action upon which relief may be granted. Id.
Rule 25-22.036, F.A.C., prescribes the elements that must be contained in a formal
complaint:
1. 	The rule, order, or statute that has been violated;
2. 	The actions that constitute the violation;
3. 	The name and address of the person against whom the complaint is lodged; and
4. 	The specific relief requested, including any penalty sought.

ORDER NO. PSC-2026-0289-PAA-EI
DOCKET NO. 20260078-EI
PAGE 4
Formal Complaint
Ms. Kostantis’s formal complaint states that DEF violated Tariff Sheet 6.400 in its
handling of the non-AMI meter removal and the billing to obtain an opt-out. The formal
complaint further alleges that DEF misclassified her service as RS-1.
DEF’s Motion to Dismiss
DEF’s Motion to Dismiss states that the complaint “fails to identify the rule, order, or
statute that DEF allegedly violated, nor does she describe any actions taken on behalf of DEF
that constitute a violation of any rules, statutes, company tariff, or Commission Orders.”
Analysis and Conclusion
We have previously held pro se litigants such as Ms. Kostantis to a relaxed pleading
standard, in order to prevent delay and promote resolution of litigants’ claims. We find that the
complaint sufficiently states a cause of action related to DEF’s operation and billing practices
under Tariff Sheet 6.400 and the classification of service, which are under our jurisdiction as
provided under Section 366.04, F.S. We find that a complaint in strict compliance with the rule is
not necessary for us to make a decision at this time. The factual allegations contained in Ms.
Kostantis’s complaint and the extensive documentation in this docket are sufficiently clear to
show which of DEF’s actions Ms. Kostantis believes violated our rules. The complaint shows
that DEF’s actions related to the AMI meter and its classification and billing practices are the
actions to which Ms. Kostantis objects.
We find that these allegations sufficiently identify the rule and actions at issue and that
the facts and documentation in the docket sufficiently state a cause of action for us to make a
determination on the formal complaint, as discussed below. Further, we do not believe it would
be an efficient use of the parties’ resources to require Ms. Kostantis to amend her complaint
merely to comply with the technical pleading rules. Therefore, DEF’s Motion to Dismiss is
denied.
2. 	Petitioner’s Complaint
Pursuant to Rule 25-22.036(2), F.A.C., a complaint is appropriate when a person
complains of an act or omission by a person subject to our jurisdiction that affects the
complainant’s substantial interests and that is in violation of any of our statutes, rules, or orders.
As discussed below, Ms. Kostantis’s petition fails to show that DEF violated any rules, statutes,
orders, or its tariff in its dealings with the AMI meter, its billing practices, or its classification of
service.
Formal Complaint
Ms. Kostantis’s formal complaint states that DEF violated Tariff Sheet 6.400 by
removing 	the 	previous 	non-AMI 	meter 	and 	installing 	a 	standard 	AMI 	meter 	without

ORDER NO. PSC-2026-0289-PAA-EI
DOCKET NO. 20260078-EI
PAGE 5
authorization. The complaint further states that DEF improperly classified her electric account at
RS-1. The complaint alleges that DEF installed the AMI meter without consent, that the AMI
meter is causing medical harm to a resident at the service location, and that DEF has refused to
accept the opt-out fee for a non-AMI meter under Tariff Sheet 6.400. Further, the complaint
alleges that the RS-1 rate schedule is inapplicable because the service location is not an eligible
residence, and that therefore the General Service (GS-1) rate schedule should apply. Ms.
Kostantis seeks the reclassification of her account to GS-1 and for DEF to install a non-AMI
meter at DEF expense.
Analysis
Based on the information provided, it does not appear that DEF violated a statute, rule,
order, or applicable provision of DEF’s Commission-approved tariff. Tariff Sheet 6.400 provides
that:
Customers wishing to take service under this Rider and relocating to a premise
where an existing approved non-communicating meter is already in place, will not
be required to pay the Initial Set-Up Fee. Customers who cancel service under this
Rider and then later re-enroll for this service at any location would be required to
submit another Initial Set-Up Fee.
DEF removed the previous non-AMI meter after the account associated with it and
paying monthly fees for it was closed. Ms. Kostantis did not request a non-AMI meter when she
opened either Account 5339 or Account 2470; thus, she was never billed the required monthly
fees for a non-AMI meter. To obtain a non-AMI meter, Ms. Kostantis must pay the set-up fee
and the monthly fees to her active Account 2470. Further, she must allow DEF personnel
physical access to the meter so it can be read monthly. There is no medical exemption to the
initial or monthly fees in Tariff Sheet 6.400. Therefore, we find that DEF has not violated the
provisions of Tariff Sheet 6.400.
Tariff Sheet 6.120 sets the applicability of the RS-1 rate classification as “residential
customers taking service exclusively for domestic purposes in a single dwelling house, a mobile
home, or individually metered single apartment unit or other unit having housekeeping facilities,
occupied by one family or household as a residence.” Tariff Sheet 6.150 sets the applicability of
the GS-1 rate classification as “any customer, other than residential, for light and power purposes
for which no other rate schedule is specifically applicable.” Tariff Sheet 6.150 also states that the
rate is “Closed to New Customers as of 01/01/2022.” We find that DEF correctly applied the RS-
1 rate classification to Ms. Kostantis’s account associated with 4425 Rutledge Drive. Thus, we
find 	that 	DEF 	did 	not 	violate 	a 	statute, 	rule, 	order, 	or 	applicable 	provision 	of 	DEF’s
Commission-approved tariff in its application of Tariff Sheet 6.400 or in classifying Ms.
Kostantis’s account as RS-1.

ORDER NO. PSC-2026-0289-PAA-EI
DOCKET NO. 20260078-EI
PAGE 6
Conclusion
It 	does 	not 	appear 	that DEF 	violated 	its Commission-approved 	tariff or any 	statutes,
rules, or, orders of this Commission. Accordingly, Ms. Kostantis’s formal complaint is denied.
Based on the foregoing, 	it 	is 	,
ORDERED by the Florida Public Service Commission that Duke Energy Florida, LLC’s
Motion to Dismiss 	is denied, as 	set forth herein. 	It 	is further
ORDERED 	that Ms. 	Kostantis’s 	formal 	complaint 	is 	denied, 	as 	set 	forth 	herein. 	It 	is
further
ORDERED 	that 	the 	provisions 	of this 	Order, 	issued 	as proposed agency 	action, 	shall
become 	final and 	effective upon 	the 	issuance of a Consummating Order unless an appropriate
petition, 	in the form provided by Rule 28-106.201, Florida Administrative Code, 	is received by
the Commission Clerk, 2540 Shumard Oak Boulevard, Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0850, by the
close of business on the date 	set forth in the “Notice of Further Proceedings” attached hereto. 	It
is further
ORDERED that in the event this Order becomes 	final, this docket shall be closed.
By ORDER of the Florida Public Service Commission this 24th day of August, 2026 	.
Commission Clerk
Florida Public Service Commission
2540 Shumard Oak Boulevard
Tallahassee, Florida 32399
(850)413-6770
www.floridapsc.com
Copies 	furnished: A 	copy 	of 	this document 	is
provided 	to 	the 	parties 	of record 	at 	the 	time 	of
issuance and, if applicable, interested persons.
JSC

ORDER NO. PSC-2026-0289-PAA-EI
DOCKET NO. 20260078-EI
PAGE 7
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 September 14, 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.