Florida Public Service Commission native order document 01702-2026

FILED 3/23/2026
DOCUMENT NO. 01702-2026
FPSC 	- COMMISSION CLERK
BEFORE THE FLORIDA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION
In re: Petition for approval of Big Bend Clean
Water Act Section 316(b) study, for cost
recovery through the environmental cost
recovery clause, by Tampa Electric Company.
DOCKET NO. 20250149-EI
ORDER NO. PSC-2026-0072-PAA-EI
ISSUED: March 23, 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 APPROVING TAMPA ELECTRIC COMPANY’S
BIG BEND CLEAN WATER ACT SECTION 316(b) STUDY FOR COST RECOVERY
THROUGH THE ENVIRONMENTAL COST RECOVERY CLAUSE
BY THE COMMISSION:
NOTICE 	is hereby given by 	the Florida Public Service Commission (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 	29, 2025, Tampa 	Electric Company (TECO or Company) petitioned 	this
Commission for approval of its Big Bend Clean Water Act Section 316(b) Study (Study) for cost
recovery through the Environmental Cost Recovery Clause (ECRC). TECO 	states 	that the Study
is required to comply with Section 316(b) of the Clean Water Act. TECO expects the Study to be
completed by March 2029.
The U.S. 	Environmental 	Protection Agency (EPA) adopted a 	rule 	pursuant 	to 	Section
316(b) 	of 	the 	Clean Water Act on 	September 	7, 	2004, 	establishing 	requirements 	to 	reduce
mortality 	of aquatic 	organisms 	caused by 	cooling water 	intake 	structures (CWIS) 	at 	existing
power plants. 	In 2004, TECO requested our approval 	for cost recovery through the ECRC 	for a
Comprehensive 	Demonstration 	Study, 	which 	was 	needed 	to 	comply 	with 	the new EPA

ORDER NO. PSC-2026-0072-PAA-EI
DOCKET NO. 20250149-EI
PAGE 2
regulation. TECO’s ability to seek cost recovery for that study was authorized by us in Docket
No. 20041300-EI.1
The 2004 Section 316(b) rule changes were challenged and the EPA published a final
rule regarding Section 316(b) (EPA Rule or Rule) on August 15, 2014, which outlined the
requirements for CWIS at existing facilities.2 The EPA Rule requires that the best technology
available be applied to the design and operation of CWIS to minimize adverse impacts to aquatic
life. In 2018, TECO petitioned this Commission for cost recovery through the ECRC for its Big
Bend Unit 1 Section 316(b) Impingement Mortality Project in order to comply with the EPA
Rule, which we approved. 3 TECO explains that even though its National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) permit was administratively continued in 2018, the Company
decided to go ahead with the Impingement Mortality Project as part of its ongoing Big Bend
Modernization Project.
On August 27, 2025, the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) issued a
final NPDES permit for TECO’s Big Bend Power Station (Big Bend), which contained
conditions for compliance with the EPA Rule. TECO states the primary focuses of the Study are
to confirm that its Big Bend Mortality Project meets the requirements of Section 316(b) and to
provide the DEP with information it will use to determine compliance requirements in TECO’s
next NPDES permit. TECO is requesting approval of its Study in order to comply with the
conditions outlined in its NPDES permit.
Pursuant to Section 366.8255, Florida Statutes (F.S.), the Florida Legislature authorized
the recovery of environmental compliance costs prudently incurred by investor-owned electric
utilities through the ECRC. The method for cost recovery for such costs was first established by
Order No. PSC-94-0044-FOF-EI, issued on January 12, 1994. We have jurisdiction over this
matter pursuant to Section 366.8255, F.S.
Decision
The EPA Rule establishes requirements for CWIS at existing facilities. The Rule requires
that the best technology available be applied to the design and operation of CWIS to minimize
impingement mortality4 and entrainment 5 of aquatic life. The Rule allows for seven different
approaches for impingement mortality compliance. For entrainment compliance, the Rule
requires the evaluation of closed-cycle cooling, alternative water supplies, and fine mesh screens
for a site-specific determination by the DEP Director.
1 Order No. PSC-05-0164-PAA-EI, issued February 10, 2005, in Docket No. 20041300-EI, In re: Petition for
approval of new environmental program for cost recovery through Environmental Cost Recovery Clause, by Tampa
Electric Company.
2 Federal Register, Volume 79, No. 158, pp. 48300–48439, codified at Title 40, Part 125, Subpart J, Code of Federal
Regulations.
3 Order No. PSC- 2018-0594-FOF-EI, issued December 20, 2018, in Docket No. 20180007-EI, In re: Environmental
cost recovery clause.
4 Impingement mortality occurs when aquatic life is pinned against the CWIS screens.
5 Entrainment occurs when small aquatic life passes through the CWIS screens and enter the cooling system.

ORDER NO. PSC-2026-0072-PAA-EI
DOCKET NO. 20250149-EI
PAGE 3
In its petition, TECO states that it must complete several studies and reports, including
the Big Bend Clean Water Act Section 316(b) Study, by February 27, 2030, which is 180 days
before its NPDES permit expires on August 26, 2030. The focuses of the Study are to confirm
that the Big Bend Impingement Mortality Project meets the EPA’s Rule requirements for Section
316(b) of the Clean Water Act, to obtain information that the DEP will use to select the best
technology available for entrainment, and develop requirements that will be included in TECO’s
next Big Bend NPDES permit. To accomplish these goals, the Study will:
 	Review background, source water, and biological data;
 	Evaluate current plant configuration characteristics;
 	Evaluate 	the 	method 	of 	compliance 	with 	impingement 	mortality 	best 	technology
available;
 	Study existing entrainment performance; and
 	Review feasibility and cost estimates for available technologies.
Due to the nature of this Study, TECO used an internal preferred source process to select
Environmental Consulting & Technology as the contractor to perform the work. The Company
stated that the contractor was selected due to its experience, knowledge of Big Bend, and
experience completing similar studies at TECO’s Bayside Power Station. TECO estimates it will
incur approximately $1,178,300 in operation and maintenance (O&M) expenses associated with
the Study. TECO expects the Study to be completed by March 2029.
Our criteria for ECRC recovery relevant to this docket, established by Order No. PSC-94-
0044-FOF-EI, are:
(1) The 	activities 	are 	legally 	required 	to 	comply 	with 	a 	governmentally 	imposed
environmental regulation that was enacted, became effective, or whose effect was
triggered after the company’s last test year upon which rates are based; and
(2) None of the expenditures are being recovered through some other cost recovery
mechanism or through base rates.
We find that the Study proposed in TECO’s petition meets these criteria. The described
Study is necessary for the Company to comply with governmentally imposed environmental
regulations. The compliance activities were required as a result of the August 27, 2025, DEP
issuance of the updated standards of the NPDES permit for Big Bend, which contained
conditions for compliance with the EPA Rule. TECO states that the primary focuses of the Study
are to confirm that its Big Bend Mortality Project meets the requirements of Section 316(b) and
to provide the DEP with information it will use to determine compliance requirements in
TECO’s next NPDES permit. In addition, the costs of the proposed compliance Study are not
currently being recovered through some other cost recovery mechanism or through base rates.
We note that the reasonableness and prudence of individual expenditures related to the
Study will be subject to our continuing review in future ECRC proceedings. Accordingly, our

ORDER NO. PSC-2026-0072-PAA-EI
DOCKET NO. 20250 149-EI
PAGE 4
finding here that the costs of this Study are eligible for the ECRC does not mean that any future
costs associated with any implementation of the Study are pre-approved for recovery. Nor does 	it
mean that any future costs or 	activities associated with any implementation of the Study will be
deemed to be prudent as a result of our decision in this docket.
Thus we hereby conclude that TECO’s Big Bend Clean Water Act Section 316(b) Study
is necessary 	to comply with the EPA’s 	Rule. 	Consistent with prior ECRC 	orders, O&M 	costs
associated with the Study shall be allocated to appropriate rate classes on an energy basis.
Based on the foregoing, 	it 	is
ORDERED by the 	Florida Public 	Service Commission 	that Tampa 	Electric Company’s
Petition 	for Approval of Big Bend Clean Water Act 	Section 	316(b) 	Study, 	for 	cost recovery
through the Environmental Cost Recovery Clause, 	is GRANTED. 	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 or Judicial Review”
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 23rd day of March, 2026 	.
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.
CMM

ORDER NO. PSC-2026-0072-PAA-EI
DOCKET NO. 20250149-EI
PAGE 5
NOTICE OF FURTHER PROCEEDINGS OR JUDICIAL REVIEW
The Florida Public Service Commission is required by Section 120.569(1), Florida
Statutes, to notify parties of any administrative hearing 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 April 13, 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 docket before the issuance date of this Order is
considered abandoned unless it satisfies the foregoing conditions and is renewed within the
specified protest period.