Florida Public Service Commission native order document 02175-2026

FILED 4/15/2026
DOCUMENT NO. 02175-2026
FPSC 	- COMMISSION CLERK
BEFORE THE FLORIDA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION
In re: Petition for determination of need for
Andytown-Oasis transmission lines project in
Broward and Miami-Dade Counties, by Florida
Power & Light Company._
DOCKET NO. 20260020- EI
ORDER NO. PSC-2026-0091-PHO-EI
ISSUED: April 	15, 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 	April 	7, 	2026, 	in 	Tallahassee, 	Florida, 	before
Commissioner Bobby Payne, as Prehearing Officer.
APPEARANCES:
WILLIAM P. COX and CHRISTOPHER WRIGHT, ESQUIRES, 700 Universe
Boulevard, Juno Beach, Florida 33408.
On behalf of Florida Power & Light Company (FPL)
WALT TRIERWEILER, CHARLES 	J. REHWINKEL, 	and PATRICIA 	A.
CHRISTENSEN, ESQUIRES, 	c/o The 	Florida 	Legislature, 	111 	West Madison
Street, Suite 812, Tallahassee, Florida 32399
On behalf of the Office of Public Counsel (OPC)
ROBERT SCHEFFEL WRIGHT, JOHN 	T. LAVIA 	III, 	and TIMOTHY 	J.
PERRY, ESQUIRES, 	Gardner 	Bist King & Wood, 	1300 Thomaswood 	Drive,
Tallahassee, Florida 32308
On behalf of Environmental Defense Fund, Inc. (EPF)
CARLOS MARQUEZ and SHAW STILLER, ESQUIRES, Florida Public Service
Commission, 2540 Shumard Oak Boulevard, Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0850
On behalf of the Staff 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

ORDER NO. PSC-2026-0091-PHO-EI
DOCKET NO. 20260020-EI
PAGE 2
I. 	CASE BACKGROUND
On February 9, 2026, pursuant to Section 403.537, Florida Statutes (F.S.), and Rule 25-
22.075, F.A.C., Florida Power & Light Company (FPL) filed a Notice of Intent to File Petition
for Transmission Lines Need Determination. FPL subsequently filed its Petition to Determine
Need for Electrical Transmission Lines on March 11, 2026, in accordance with Section 403.537,
F.S., Chapter 120, F.S., and Rules 25-22.076 and 28-106.201, F.A.C. In this proceeding, FPL
requests an affirmative determination of need for the construction of four new transmission lines:
(a) one 500-kilovolt (kV) line starting at FPL’s existing Andytown substation in Broward County
and ending at FPL’s planned Oasis substation in Miami-Dade County; (b) one 500-kV line
starting at FPL’s existing Quarry substation in Miami-Dade County and ending at FPL’s planned
Oasis substation in Miami-Dade County; (c) one 230-kV line starting at FPL’s planned Oasis
substation in Miami-Dade County and ending at FPL’s existing Quarry substation in Miami-
Dade County; and (d) one 230-kV line starting at FPL’s planned Oasis substation in Miami-Dade
County and ending at FPL’s existing Levee substation in Miami-Dade County (collectively, the
Andytown-Oasis Transmission Lines Project or AOP).
In compliance with Section 403.537(1)(a), F.S., a formal administrative hearing was
scheduled for April 23, 2026.
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.
III. 	JURISDICTION
The Florida Public Service Commission (Commission) is the sole forum for transmission
line need determinations, and is vested with jurisdiction over the subject matter by Section
403.537, F.S. This hearing will be governed by said statute, Chapters 120 and 366, F.S., and
Chapters 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

ORDER NO. PSC-2026-0091-PHO-EI
DOCKET NO. 20260020-EI
PAGE 3
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 the 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(3), 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
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
minutes for direct, two minutes for rebuttal, and seven minutes total for both direct and rebuttal
combined.

ORDER NO. PSC-2026-0091-PHO-EI
DOCKET NO. 20260020-EI
PAGE 4
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.
VI. 	ORDER OF WITNESSES
Each witness whose name is preceded by a plus sign (+) will present direct and rebuttal
testimony together.
Witness 	Proffered By 	Issue Nos.
Direct
Miguel A. Yanes 	FPL 	1–4
David Cranston 	EDF 	A, B, and 1–4
Ted Thomas 	EDF 	A, B, and 1–4
Rebuttal
Andrew McLain 	FPL 	A, B, and 1–4
Miguel A. Yanes 	FPL 	A, B, and 1–4

ORDER NO. PSC-2026-0091-PHO-EI
DOCKET NO. 20260020-EI
PAGE 5
VII. 	BASIC POSITIONS
FPL: 	FPL has petitioned the Commission for an affirmative determination of need for
the construction and operation of four new transmission lines: (1) one 500-kV line
starting at FPL’s existing Andytown substation in Broward County and ending at
FPL’s planned Oasis substation in Miami-Dade County; (2) one 500-kV line
starting at FPL’s existing Quarry substation in Miami-Dade County and ending at
FPL’s planned Oasis substation in Miami-Dade County; (3) one 230-kV line
starting at FPL’s planned Oasis substation in Miami-Dade County and ending at
FPL’s existing Quarry substation in Miami-Dade County; and (4) one 230-kV line
starting at FPL’s planned Oasis substation in Miami-Dade County and ending at
FPL’s existing Levee substation in Miami-Dade County.
The need for the AOP is based on the following considerations:
 	Address future thermal overloads and low voltage conditions in Miami-Dade
County under contingency events in compliance with mandatory North
American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC) Reliability Standards TPL-
001-5.1 and NUC-001-4;
 	Maintain transmission reliability for FPL customers in Miami-Dade County;
and
 	Increase power transfer capability of the transmission system to support
growing demand in Miami-Dade County.
Over the past three years (2023–2025), FPL’s service area in Miami-Dade County
has reported summer peak loads between 6,014 MW and 6,239 MW. FPL’s 2025
forecast projects that, by 2033, the summer peak load in Miami-Dade County will
be approximately 7,200 MW. Transmission assessment studies conducted by FPL
in 2025 identified potential system limitations that will require additional facilities
to meet transmission reliability requirements and increase transfer capability for
Miami-Dade County. These studies have identified that, by 2033, FPL’s existing
transmission network will not be able to support the growing load demand in
Miami-Dade County, and a new transmission solution will be required to maintain
transmission reliability in the area.
FPL evaluated multiple transmission alternatives for meeting the identified needs,
which resulted in the selection of the AOP. The AOP represents the overall best
solution to address the continued customer load growth in Miami-Dade County,
current and planned generation expansion in Miami-Dade County, compliance
with 	mandatory 	NERC 	Reliability 	Standards, 	and 	the 	need 	to 	maintain
transmission reliability in Miami-Dade County for both existing and future
customers. 	The 	AOP 	will 	continue 	to 	support 	low-cost 	electricity 	for 	the
economic well-being of the residents of Florida.
In summary, the AOP presents the best alternative for meeting the need to
maintain a reliable transmission system for Miami-Dade County and the cost-

ORDER NO. PSC-2026-0091-PHO-EI
DOCKET NO. 20260020-EI
PAGE 6
effective supply of power to FPL’s existing and future customers within Miami-
Dade County. FPL’s petition, prefiled testimony, and exhibits demonstrate the
need for the AOP in the proposed time frame as the most cost-effective alternative
available, taking into account the demand for electricity, the need for electric
system reliability and integrity, the need for abundant, low-cost electrical energy
to assure the economic well-being of the residents of this state, the location of the
project (starting and ending points of the lines), and other relevant matters
pursuant to Section 403.537(1)(c), F.S. (2025).
For these reasons, and those set forth more fully in FPL’s petition and prefiled
testimony and exhibits, FPL satisfies the statutory elements for granting an
affirmative determination of need for AOP pursuant to Section 403.537, F.S.
OPC: 	On February 9, 2026, FPL filed its notice of intent to file a petition for
transmission lines need determination for the AOP. The resulting petition was
filed on March 11, 2026. While the Florida Administrative Register notice of the
April 7, 2026 Prehearing and April 23, 2026 Hearing was published March 6,
2026, the Order Establishing Procedure with the other key activities dates
including Prehearing Statement date was not issued in the above docket until
March 11, 2026. OPC intervened on March 20, 2026, and issued discovery on
March 23, 2026, and the responses are due March 30, 2026. Rebuttal testimony
was due March 30, 2026. In addition, deposition(s) for FPL witness(es) were
scheduled for April 3, 2026. Less than 20 days after the filing of the petition and
FPL direct testimony, and without the benefit of time to fully review FPL’s
responses to the Office of Public Counsel’s (OPC) discovery and FPL’s rebuttal
testimony, as well as pending scheduled depositions, regretfully, OPC must take a
“no” position on the issues at this time. In the determination of need, the
Commission shall take into account the need for electric system reliability and
integrity, the need for abundant, low-cost electrical energy to assure the economic
well-being of the residents of this state, the appropriate starting and ending point
of the line, and other matters within its jurisdiction deemed relevant to the
determination of need. The appropriate starting and ending points of the electric
transmission line must be verified by the Commission in its determination of
need. Given the accelerated 45-day pace from the date of filing of the application
or request for hearing pursuant to Section 403.537(1)(a), F.S., OPC maintains
there has been insufficient time to fully evaluate FPL’s request. Thus, OPC
maintains at this time, FPL has not carried its burden to prove the need, including
the cost-effectiveness for each of the proposed transmission projects. OPC
reserves its rights to take positions based on discovery and the evidence adduced
at hearing.
EDF: 	The AOP and the four transmission lines that FPL has proposed in its petition, do
not comply with the statutory requirement that the project “take into account the
need for electric system reliability and integrity, the need for abundant, low-cost
electrical energy to assure the economic well-being of the residents of this state

ORDER NO. PSC-2026-0091-PHO-EI
DOCKET NO. 20260020-EI
PAGE 7
. . . and other matters within its jurisdiction deemed relevant to the determination
of need.” Section 403.537, F.S.
FPL has overstated load growth in Miami-Dade County, which indicates that the
lines are not needed by 2033. In addition, FPL has only considered reliability
needs on its transmission system, while failing to consider un-economic dispatch
on the system that a well-planned transmission solution could also address.
Furthermore, while FPL has described certain alternatives that it rejected in favor
of the AOP, these alternatives only considered alternate routing to the AOP but
were not fundamentally different projects. The alternatives still involved building
four new transmission lines of the same voltages and in the same general
geographic footprint (Miami-Dade County and Broward County) as the AOP.
FPL did not consider different types of transmission solutions that either do not
require constructing new lines or that span a different geography. Because the
AOP only includes new transmission infrastructure in the South Florida load
pocket, FPL has also chosen a solution that insufficiently considers the well-
known power import need of Miami-Dade County and Broward County (a need
that FPL management has previously acknowledged), given the lack of existing
and planned local generation to meet local demand.
Significantly, FPL has failed to evaluate alternatives to the AOP that would
satisfy all applicable reliability criteria and better meet the needs of Florida
residents and businesses for abundant, low-cost electrical energy to assure the
economic well-being of Florida residents and the Florida economy as a whole.
For example, FPL did not consider Advanced Transmission Technologies (ATT),
Grid-Enhancing Technologies (GET), or non-wires alternatives such as Dynamic
Line Rating, Advanced Power Flow Controllers, reconductoring using Advanced
Conductors, Topology Optimization, or Battery Energy Storage Systems that can
be deployed at less cost than the construction of new transmission lines while
meeting the same reliability needs.
Finally, FPL has failed to consider regional alternatives to the proposed project.
Such alternatives include not only building new regional transmission lines, but
expanding the capacity of existing regional lines or applying ATTs, GETs, and
non-wires solutions to existing regional transmission infrastructure. FPL has
repeatedly failed to conduct true regional transmission planning as required by
applicable orders of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) and
principles of prudent utility practice. Thorough regional planning would have
identified cost-effective transmission solutions for the betterment of all Floridians
– not only FPL’s ratepayers. It would have resulted in significant cost-savings for
ratepayers across the state, and a more reliable grid. Through its participation in
the regional planning process, FPL has access to the information that would
support consideration of regional needs, yet it did not consider any such needs or
options. By artificially narrowing its transmission planning scope to evaluate only
localized 	“new 	steel” 	solutions, 	FPL 	has 	willfully 	blinded 	itself—and 	the

ORDER NO. PSC-2026-0091-PHO-EI
DOCKET NO. 20260020-EI
PAGE 8
Commission—to regional alternatives that could provide ratepayers with access to
abundant, low-cost electrical energy at substantially lower cost than its reliance on
localized new-construction projects like the AOP. The Commission has an
independent statutory duty to protect captive ratepayers from imprudent capital
investments. Because FPL failed to evaluate the full spectrum of cost-effective
regional alternatives, its petition is legally insufficient and must be rejected.
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: 	Is 	FERC 	Order 	No. 	1000 	relevant 	to 	this 	proceeding 	and 	within 	the
Commission’s jurisdiction to consider?1
FPL: 	FPL objects to the inclusion of Issue A as irrelevant, immaterial, and beyond the
Commission’s jurisdiction consistent with FPL’s pending Motion in Limine and
to Strike. This issue need not be addressed and becomes moot if subpart III(b)
(Attachments 3 and 4) of FPL’s Motion in Limine and to Strike is granted. In the
event that subpart III(b) of FPL’s Motion in Limine and to Strike is denied or
deferred to the full Commission panel, FPL submits that this issue should be
included as a preliminary legal issue that the Commission panel would need to
decide prior to the start of the hearing. As directed by the Prehearing Officer at
the April 7, 2026, prehearing conference, FPL provides its position on this
disputed issue in the event it is included as an issue in this proceeding.
No. The Commission’s jurisdiction for this transmission line need determination
proceeding is limited to its authority under Section 403.537, F.S., and issues and
complaints 	related 	to 	the 	regional 	transmission 	planning 	process 	and
implementation and compliance with FERC Order 1000 are subject to the
jurisdiction of the FERC. The AOP is a local transmission project for FPL to meet
the need for transmission lines to serve Miami-Dade County reliably and cost
effectively and is not a regional transmission subject to the requirements of FERC
Order 1000. (Yanes)
OPC: 	Yes, FERC Order No. 1000 is relevant to this proceeding and within the
Commission’s jurisdiction to consider to the extent under federal law and state
1 During the prehearing, EDF noted that its proposed issues EDF-1, EDF-3, and EDF-5 could be replaced with the
following alternative language suggested by Commission staff: “Is FERC Order No. 1000 relevant to this
proceeding and within the Commission’s jurisdiction to consider?” This condensed issue will still afford the parties
an opportunity to address arguments.

ORDER NO. PSC-2026-0091-PHO-EI
DOCKET NO. 20260020-EI
PAGE 9
law consideration and enforcement of FERC Order No. 1000 has been delegated
to the state.
EDF: 	Yes. The requirements of the FERC’s transmission planning rules are clearly
within the overall jurisdiction of the Commission.
FPL’s processes and analyses were not part of a regional transmission planning
process that produced a regional transmission plan, nor was the project identified
through a regional planning process. Rather, FPL’s transmission development
processes were based on localized considerations and not a fulsome evaluation of
regional needs.
The Commission should require FPL to conduct additional analyses of Florida
system-wide needs to determine if there are regional alternatives that can meet
reliability needs identified by FPL, and serve additional regional needs, to best
ensure that the project optimally provides abundant, low-cost electrical energy to
assure the economic well-being of the residents of Florida.
STAFF: 	No position at this time. Staff notes that this proposed issue is related to FPL’s
pending motion to strike.
ISSUE B: 	Are FERC Order Nos. 1920, 1920-A, and 1920-B relevant to this proceeding
and within the Commission’s jurisdiction to consider?2
FPL: 	FPL objects to the inclusion of Issue B as irrelevant, immaterial, beyond the
Commission’s jurisdiction, and not ripe consistent with FPL’s pending Motion in
Limine and to Strike. This issue need not be addressed and becomes moot if
subpart III(a) (Attachments 1 and 2) of FPL’s Motion in Limine and to Strike is
granted. In the event that subpart III(a) of FPL’s Motion in Limine and to Strike is
denied or deferred to the full Commission panel, FPL submits that this issue
should be included as preliminary legal issue that the Commission panel would
need to decide prior to the start of the hearing. As directed by the Prehearing
Officer at the April 7, 2026, prehearing conference, FPL provides its position on
this disputed issue in the event it is included as an issue in this proceeding.
No. The Commission’s jurisdiction for this transmission line need determination
proceeding is limited to its authority under Section 403.537, F.S., and issues and
complaints related to the future implementation of the regional transmission
planning process and compliance with FERC Orders 1920, 1920-A, and 1920-B
are subject to the jurisdiction of the FERC. The AOP is a local transmission
2 During the prehearing, EDF noted that its proposed issues EDF-2, EDF-4, and EDF-6 could be replaced with the
following alternative language suggested by Commission staff: “Are FERC Order Nos. 1920, 1920-A, and 1920-B
relevant to this proceeding and within the Commission’s jurisdiction to consider?” This condensed issue will still
afford the parties an opportunity to address arguments.

ORDER NO. PSC-2026-0091-PHO-EI
DOCKET NO. 20260020-EI
PAGE 10
project for FPL to meet the need for transmission lines to serve Miami-Dade
County reliably and cost effectively and is not a regional transmission subject to
the requirements of FERC Orders 1920, 1920-A, and 1920-B. In addition, issues
regarding implementation and compliance with FERC Orders 1920, 1920-A, and
1920-B are not ripe for consideration as FPL’s FERC Order 1920 compliance
plan has not been filed, and this compliance filing is not due until June 12, 2026,
and will remain subject to FERC review and approval. (Yanes, McLain)
OPC: 	Yes, FERC Order Nos. 1920, 1920-A, and 1920-B are relevant to this proceeding
and within the Commission’s jurisdiction to consider to the extent FERC Order
Nos. 1920, 1920-A, and 1920-B are in effect with regards to this project and
consideration and enforcement under federal law and state law has been delegated
to the state.
EDF: 	Yes. Federal rules, such as Orders Nos. 1920, 1920-A, and 1920-B can be
considered by the Commission within its jurisdiction to determine the prudency of
a proposed utility asset. These requirements of the Order are already binding on
FPL, and FPL has already worked with the regional grid planner, Florida
Reliability Coordinating Council (FRCC), in developing its compliance filing for
FERC approval. While FRCC is not expected to begin the long-term regional
planning process until 2028, the requirements of Order No. 1920 remain in force
on FPL.
FERC 	Orders 	Nos. 	1920, 	1920-A, 	and 	1920-B 	established 	an 	additional
transmission planning process that FPL must engage in, building on Order No.
1000, and which takes into account local transmission project development. While
FRCC is still finalizing its compliance filing, and while the first Order No. 1920
planning process would not start until 2028, utilities must nevertheless engage in
planning processes that would not make Order No. 1920 impractical, or irrelevant.
Prudent 	utility 	planning 	requires 	factoring 	in 	known, 	federally 	mandated
regulatory shifts. Order 1920 is not a hypothetical concept; it remains a final,
binding federal rule that will drastically alter how transmission costs and benefits
are allocated. As a result, FPL must consider the purpose and legal requirements
of Order No. 1920 into all local transmission planning processes.
The Commission should consider the planning requirements of these FERC
Orders. Order No. 1920 was issued because not enough regional planning was
being conducted by utilities and their regional grid planners. Instead, many
expensive, and potentially unnecessary local projects were being built. The Order
requires that regional transmission plans consider any local plans, or planned
transmission projects to ensure that transmission projects are appropriately sized;
the concern being that local transmission could get built on the side of the process
all but making the regional plan meaningless. As a result, where local projects are
proposed, the Commission must look to these regional planning requirements to
determine if the proposed project is a prudent investment. As a result, the

ORDER NO. PSC-2026-0091-PHO-EI
DOCKET NO. 20260020-EI
PAGE 11
Commission should require FPL to conduct additional analyses of regional
alternatives to ensure that whatever facilities are constructed to address the
reliability needs identified by FPL are planned, designed, and implemented to
optimally provide abundant, low-cost electrical energy to assure the economic
well-being of the residents of Florida.
STAFF: 	No position at this time. Staff notes that this proposed issue is related to FPL’s
pending motion to strike.
ISSUE 1: 	When taking into account the need for electric system reliability and
integrity, as prescribed in Section 403.537, Florida Statutes, is there a need
for Florida Power & Light Company’s proposed:
(A) 	500-kV 	transmission 	line 	starting 	at 	FPL’s 	existing 	Andytown
substation and ending at FPL’s planned Oasis substation?
(B) 	500-kV transmission line starting at FPL’s existing Quarry substation
and ending at FPL’s planned Oasis substation?
(C) 	230-kV transmission line starting at FPL’s planned Oasis substation
and ending at FPL’s existing Quarry substation?
(D) 	230-kV transmission line starting at FPL’s planned Oasis substation
and ending at FPL’s existing Levee substation?
FPL: 	Yes. There is a need for FPL’s proposed AOP transmission lines, taking into
account electric system reliability and integrity. These four transmission lines are
needed to: (a) address future thermal overloads and low voltage conditions in
Miami-Dade County under contingency events in compliance with mandatory
NERC 	Reliability 	Standards 	TPL-001-5.1 	and 	NUC-001-4; 	(b) 	maintain
transmission reliability for FPL customers in Miami-Dade County; and (c)
increase power transfer capability of the transmission system to support growing
demand in Miami-Dade County.
FPL’s 2025 transmission assessment identified potential system limitations that
will require additional facilities to meet transmission reliability and increase
transfer capability for Miami-Dade County. This assessment identified that, by
2033, FPL’s existing transmission network will not be able to support the growing
load demand in Miami-Dade County, and a new transmission solution will be
required to maintain transmission reliability in the area. The AOP will effectively
address potential overloads and low voltage conditions in Miami-Dade County
under contingency events, maintain transmission reliability for customers in the
County, and increase the power transfer capability for the transmission system to
support the growing customer demand in the County.

ORDER NO. PSC-2026-0091-PHO-EI
DOCKET NO. 20260020-EI
PAGE 12
The record in this case demonstrates that, if the AOP is not built by December
2033, the transmission system would experience potential overloads and low
voltage 	conditions 	under 	contingency 	events, 	resulting 	in 	multiple 	NERC
Reliability Standard violations. In addition, sufficient transmission capacity would
not be available to serve existing and future customers in Miami-Dade County.
Further, because of growing loads in the area, the transmission system and FPL
customers in the area would experience negative impacts to their transmission
reliability, such as NERC Reliability Standard violations, transmission system
overloads, low voltage conditions, and customer load shedding due to insufficient
transmission capacity. (Yanes, McLain)
OPC: 	No. OPC maintains that FPL has not carried its burden to prove the need for each
of the proposed transmission projects.
EDF: 	FPL has not demonstrated that all four transmission lines that comprise the AOP
are needed for electric system reliability because FPL has not considered other
available measures that would satisfy FPL’s reliability need consistent with
prudent utility practice and with applicable FERC rules, specifically including
FERC Order No. 1000. Further, FPL’s claimed need appears to be based on
overstated load growth in the Miami-Dade County area of its service area.
STAFF: 	No position at this time.
ISSUE 2: 	When taking into account the need for abundant, low-cost electrical energy
to assure the economic well-being of the citizens of the State, as prescribed in
Section 403.537, Florida Statutes, is there a need for Florida Power & Light
Company’s proposed:
(A) 	500-kV 	transmission 	line 	starting 	at 	FPL’s 	existing 	Andytown
substation and ending at FPL’s planned Oasis substation?
(B) 	500-kV transmission line starting at FPL’s existing Quarry substation
and ending at FPL’s planned Oasis substation?
(C) 	230-kV transmission line starting at FPL’s planned Oasis substation
and ending at FPL’s existing Quarry substation?
(D) 	230-kV transmission line starting at FPL’s planned Oasis substation
and ending at FPL’s existing Levee substation?
FPL: 	Yes. There is a need for the AOP, taking into account the need for abundant, low-
cost electrical energy to assure the economic well-being of the citizens of the
State. FPL evaluated multiple transmission alternatives for meeting the identified
needs, which resulted in the selection of the AOP as the most cost-effective
alternative. The AOP will effectively address potential overloads and low voltage
conditions 	in 	Miami-Dade 	County 	under 	contingency 	events, 	maintain
transmission reliability for customers in the County, and increase the power

ORDER NO. PSC-2026-0091-PHO-EI
DOCKET NO. 20260020-EI
PAGE 13
transfer capability for the transmission system to support the growing customer
demand in the County.
The estimated cost of the AOP is $781.89 million. While the final cost is subject
to the final route and other conditions that could be imposed through the
Transmission Line Siting Act (TLSA) process, the estimated cost in the petition is
reasonable.
FPL evaluated and rejected two transmission alternatives to the AOP.
Alternative I, the Conservation-Oasis Project, consists of building four new
transmission lines: one 500-kV line starting at FPL’s existing Conservation
substation in Broward County and ending at FPL’s planned Oasis substation in
Miami-Dade 	County; 	one 	500-kV 	line 	starting 	at 	FPL’s 	existing 	Quarry
substation in Miami-Dade County ending at FPL’s planned Oasis substation in
Miami-Dade County; one 230-kV line starting at FPL’s planned Oasis substation
in Miami-Dade County ending at FPL’s 	existing Quarry substation in Miami-
Dade County; and one 230-kV line starting at FPL’s planned Oasis substation in
Miami-Dade County ending at FPL’s existing Flagami substation in Miami-Dade
County. The estimated construction cost of this alternative is $1,004.29 million
($925.2 million CPVRR). Alternative I was rejected because: (1) the cost of this
alternative is approximately $222.4 million higher than the AOP; and (2) this
alternative presents significant routing and permitting challenges through densely
populated areas in Miami-Dade County where FPL has limited right-of-way for
new transmission lines.
Alternative II, the Andytown-Oasis Two Circuits Project, consists of building four
new transmission lines: two 500-kV lines starting at FPL’s existing Andytown
substation in Broward County and ending at FPL’s planned Oasis substation in
Miami-Dade County; one 230-kV line starting at FPL’s planned Oasis substation
in Miami-Dade County and ending at FPL’s existing Levee substation in Miami-
Dade County; and one 230-kV line starting at FPL’s planned Oasis substation in
Miami-Dade County and ending at FPL’s existing Flagami substation in Miami-
Dade County. The estimated construction cost of this alternative is $974.19
million ($876.6 million CPVRR). Alternative II was rejected because (1) the cost
of this alternative is approximately $192.3 million higher than the AOP; and (2)
this alternative presents significant routing challenges through densely populated
areas in Miami-Dade County where FPL has limited right-of-way for new
transmission lines. (Yanes, McLain)
OPC: 	No. When taking into account the need for abundant, low cost electrical energy to
assure the economic well-being of the citizens of the State, as prescribed in
Section 403.537, F.S., on the need for each of these proposed transmission
projects, OPC maintains FPL has not carried its burden to prove the need for each
of the proposed transmission projects.

ORDER NO. PSC-2026-0091-PHO-EI
DOCKET NO. 20260020-EI
PAGE 14
EDF: 	FPL has not demonstrated that the four transmission lines that comprise the AOP
are needed to assure the provision of abundant, low-cost electrical energy to
assure the economic well-being of the residents of Florida, because FPL has not
considered other available measures that would satisfy FPL’s claimed reliability
need consistent with prudent utility practice and with applicable FERC rules,
specifically including FERC Order No. 1000. Further, FPL’s claimed need
appears to be based on overstated load growth in the Miami-Dade County area of
its service area. Finally, Environmental Defense Fund, Inc. (EDF) believes that
more cost-effective alternatives are available than the four lines comprising the
AOP, which would provide power at a lower cost, consistent with the statutory
criterion.
STAFF: 	No position at this time.
ISSUE 3: 	Are Florida Power & Light Company’s proposed starting and ending points
appropriate for the:
(A) 	500-kV transmission line to start at existing Andytown substation in
Broward County and end at planned Oasis substation in Miami-Dade
County?
(B) 	500-kV transmission line to start at existing Quarry substation in
Miami-Dade County and end at planned Oasis substation in Miami-
Dade County?
(C) 	230-kV transmission line to start at planned Oasis substation in
Miami-Dade County and end at existing Quarry substation in Miami-
Dade County?
(D) 	230-kV transmission line to start at planned Oasis substation in
Miami-Dade County and end at existing Levee substation in Miami-
Dade County?
FPL: 	Yes. The AOP is the most cost-effective transmission alternative to serve the
projected growing demand in Miami-Dade County. The record demonstrates that
the proposed starting and ending points are appropriate for each of the four new
transmission lines included in the AOP. The Transmission Line Siting Board will
make the final determination concerning the length and route of the proposed
transmission lines. (Yanes, McLain)
OPC: 	No. 	OPC 	maintains 	that 	FPL 	has 	not 	carried 	its 	burden 	to 	prove 	the
appropriateness of the proposed starting and ending points for each of the
proposed transmission projects.
EDF: 	As explained in EDF’s positions on Issue 1 and Issue 2 above, FPL has not
demonstrated that the four transmission lines that comprise the AOP are needed to
ensure FPL’s system reliability or to assure the provision of abundant, low-cost

ORDER NO. PSC-2026-0091-PHO-EI
DOCKET NO. 20260020-EI
PAGE 15
electrical energy to assure the economic well-being of the residents of Florida,
because FPL has not considered other available measures that would satisfy
FPL’s claimed reliability need. Accordingly, EDF believes that the starting and
ending points of the proposed lines comprising the AOP are not appropriate.
STAFF: 	No position at this time.
ISSUE 4: 	Should the Commission grant Florida Power & Light Company’s petition for
determination of need for the proposed:
(A) 	500-kV Andytown-Oasis transmission line project?
(B) 	500-kV Quarry-Oasis transmission line project?
(C) 	230-kV Oasis-Quarry transmission line project?
(D) 	230-kV Oasis-Levee transmission line project?
FPL: 	Yes. There is a need for each of these four new transmission lines, with in-service
dates not later than December 2033, when taking into account the demand for
electricity, the need for electric system reliability and integrity, and the need for
abundant, low-cost electrical energy to assure the economic well-being of the
residents of Florida. The starting and ending points identified in FPL’s petition
and testimony are the appropriate starting and ending points for each of the four
lines included in the AOP. The Transmission Line Siting Board will make the
final determination concerning the length and route of the proposed transmission
lines. (Yanes, McLain)
OPC: 	No. OPC maintains FPL has not carried its burden to prove the need for each of
the proposed transmission projects.
EDF: 	No.
STAFF: 	No position at this time.
ISSUE 5: 	Should the docket be closed:
FPL: 	Yes. This docket should be closed upon the issuance of an appropriate order
approving the need for the AOP as proposed.
OPC: 	OPC takes no position.
EDF: 	After any final order entered by the Commission has become final and no longer
subject to appeal, this docket should be closed.
STAFF: 	Yes, upon the issuance of a final order.

ORDER NO. PSC-2026-0091-PHO-EI
DOCKET NO. 20260020-EI
PAGE 16
IX. 	EXHIBIT LIST
Witness 	Proffered By 	Exhibit No. 	Description
Direct
None 	FPL 	None Notices of Final Hearing and Affidavits of
Publication
Miguel A. Yanes 	FPL 	None
Exhibit “A” to the Petition to Determine
Need for the Andytown-Oasis Electrical
Transmission Lines in Broward and Miami-
Dade Counties
*[Confidential DN 01501-2026]
Miguel A. Yanes 	FPL 	MAY-1 	FPL Electrical Transmission Grid Map
Miguel A. Yanes
FPL 	MAY-2
Map of Study Area with Existing Facilities
and Proposed Project
*[Confidential DN 01501-2026]
Miguel A. Yanes FPL 	MAY-3 Andytown-Oasis Expected Construction
Schedule
Miguel A. Yanes FPL 	MAY-4 List of Contingencies
*[Confidential DN 01501-2026]
David Cranston 	EDF 	DC-1 	Resume of David Cranston
David Cranston 	EDF 	DC-2 	Assessment 	of 	Florida’s 	Electric
Transmission 	System 	Performance 	and
Opportunities for Enhancement (2026)
David Cranston 	EDF 	DC-3 	FERC Order No. 1000
David Cranston 	EDF 	DC-4 	FERC Order No. 1920
David Cranston 	EDF 	DC-5 	FERC Order No. 1920-A
David Cranston 	EDF 	DC-6 	FERC Order No. 1920-B
David Cranston 	EDF 	DC-7 	EDF Comments to FRCC Order 1920 Tariff
Language (Project Selection)
David Cranston 	EDF 	DC-8 	EDF Comments to FRCC Order 1920 Tariff
Language (Needs Analysis)

ORDER NO. PSC-2026-0091-PHO-EI
DOCKET NO. 20260020-EI
PAGE 17
Witness 	Proffered By 	Exhibit No. 	Description
David Cranston 	EDF 	DC-9 	EQ Research EDF Florida Fuel Cost Report
David Cranston 	EDF 	DC-10 	Rao Konidena Testimony in Indiana Ameren
CPCN Case
David Cranston 	EDF 	DC-11 	EDF Comments to FRCC Order 1920 Tariff
Language (Needs Analysis)
David Cranston 	EDF 	DC-12 	EQ Research EDF Florida Fuel Cost Report
Ted Thomas 	EDF 	TT-1 	Resume of Ted Thomas
Ted Thomas 	EDF 	TT-2 	FERC Order No. 1000
Ted Thomas 	EDF 	TT-3 	FERC Order No. 1920
Ted Thomas 	EDF 	TT-4 	FERC Order No. 1920-A
Ted Thomas 	EDF 	TT-5 	FERC Order No. 1920-B
Ted Thomas 	EDF 	TT-6 	2025 	Transmission 	Planning 	and
Development Report Card (Feb. 2026)
Ted Thomas 	EDF 	TT-7 	DOE National Transmission Needs Study
(Oct. 2023)
Ted Thomas 	EDF 	TT-8 	National 	Transmission 	Planning 	Study 	–
Chapter 1
Ted Thomas 	EDF 	TT-9 	National 	Transmission 	Planning 	Study 	–
Chapter 2
Ted Thomas 	EDF 	TT-10 	National 	Transmission 	Planning 	Study 	–
Chapter 3
Ted Thomas 	EDF 	TT-11 	National 	Transmission 	Planning 	Study 	–
Chapter 4
Ted Thomas 	EDF 	TT-12 	National 	Transmission 	Planning 	Study 	–
Chapter 5
Ted Thomas 	EDF 	TT-13 	National 	Transmission 	Planning 	Study 	–
Chapter 6
Ted Thomas 	EDF 	TT-14 	National 	Transmission 	Planning 	Study 	–
Executive Summary

ORDER NO. PSC-2026-0091-PHO-EI
DOCKET NO. 20260020-EI
PAGE 18
Witness 	Proffered By 	Exhibit No. 	Description
Ted Thomas 	EDF 	TT-15 	Delaying Transmission Increases Cost and
Reduces Benefits for Consumers (2025)
Rebuttal
Miguel A. Yanes 	FPL 	MAY-5 	FPL’s 	Response 	to 	Staff’s 	First 	Set 	of
Interrogatories, No. 15
Miguel A. Yanes 	FPL 	MAY-6 	FPL’s 	Responses 	to 	Staff’s 	First 	Set 	of
Interrogatories, Nos. 9 and 11
X. 	PROPOSED STIPULATIONS
There are no proposed stipulations at this time.
XI. 	PENDING MOTIONS
The following three motions are disposed of in Section XV:
(1) EDF’s Motion to Alter Schedule for Failure to Comply with Filing Requirements of
Rule 25-22.076(3), F.A.C.;
(2) EDF’s Request for Oral Argument; and
(3) FPL’s Motion in Limine and to Strike Certain Portions of the Testimonies and
Exhibits of the EDF Witnesses Cranston and Thomas.
XII. 	PENDING CONFIDENTIALITY MATTERS
FPL’s Request for Confidential Classification of Information Contained in Exhibits,
Attachments, and Appendices Provided in Support of its Petition for Determination of Need for
Andytown-Oasis Transmission Lines in Broward and Miami-Dade Counties and Testimony of
Miguel Yanes, filed March 11, 2026. [DN 01501-2026]
FPL’s Request for Confidential Classification of Information Contained in its Responses
to Staff’s First Set of Interrogatories, Nos. 2, 8, and 15, and First Request for Production of
Documents, No. 1, filed March 20, 2026. [DN 01692-2026]
FPL’s Request for Confidential Classification of Information Contained in its Responses
to OPC’s First Request for Production of Documents, No. 1, filed March 30, 2026. [DN 01849-
2026].

ORDER NO. PSC-2026-0091-PHO-EI
DOCKET NO. 20260020-EI
PAGE 19
FPL’s Request for Confidential Classification of Information Contained in its Responses
to Staff’s Second Request for Production of Documents, Nos. 4 and 6, filed March 31, 2026.
[DN 01912-2026].
FPL’s Request for Confidential Classification of Information Contained in its Responses
to Staff’s First Set of Interrogatories, Nos. 33 and 38, filed April 1, 2026. [DN 01959-2026].
FPL’s Request for Confidential Classification of Information Contained in its Responses
to EDF’s First Set of Interrogatories, No. 11, and First Request for Production of Documents,
Nos. 1 and 12, filed on April 3, 2026. [DN 02031-2026].
FPL’s Request for Confidential Classification of Information Contained in its Responses
to Staff’s First Set of Interrogatories, No. 38 Supplemental, filed April 10, 2026. [DN 02125-
2026].
XIII. 	OBJECTIONS TO WITNESS QUALIFICATIONS AS AN EXPERT
FPL: 	FPL objects to EDF witness David Cranston’s qualifications as an expert and,
pending receipt of EDF’s responses to outstanding discovery requests served on
March 	27, 	2026, 	reserves 	the 	right 	to 	voir 	dire 	EDF 	witness 	Cranston.
Specifically, FPL objects to the following portions of EDF witness Cranston’s
direct testimony on the basis that he is not qualified to present expert opinions on
the matter contained within the page and line numbers identified below:
Page No. 	Line Nos.
Page 7 	Lines 14–19
Page 8 	Lines 1–4, 10–19
Page 9 	Lines 1–18
Page 10 	Lines 1–19
Page 11 	Lines 1–18
Page 12 	Lines 1–19
Page 12 	Lines 1–2
Page 17 	Line 18
Page 18 	Lines 1–9
Page 20 	Lines 5–19
Page 21 	Lines 1–15
Page 26 	Lines 13–19
Page 27 	Lines 1–19
Page 28 	Lines 1–19
Page 29 	Lines 1–19
Page 30 	Lines 1–2, 14–19
Page 31 	Lines 1–6

ORDER NO. PSC-2026-0091-PHO-EI
DOCKET NO. 20260020-EI
PAGE 20
XIV. 	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 75
pages and shall be filed at the same time, unless modified by the Presiding Officer.
XV. 	RULINGS
A. 	EDF’s Motion to Alter Schedule for Failure to Comply with Filing Requirements
of Rule 25-22.076(3), F.A.C.
1. 	Summary of Motion
On April 6, 2026, the Environmental Defense Fund, Inc. (EDF) filed a Motion to Alter
Schedule for Failure to Comply with Filing Requirements of Rule 25-22.076(3), F.A.C.
(Motion). EDF argues in the Motion that FPL failed to comply with what it characterizes as a
critical, substantive, mandatory filing requirement set forth in Rule 25-22.076, F.A.C., Contents
of Petition.
Specifically, EDF points to language in Rule 25-22.076(3), F.A.C., that “[d]ocumentation
shall include load flow studies on a peninsular Florida basis, a Gulf Power basis, and a Southern
Electric System basis or some combination of these” and that “[o]ne copy of the complete load
flow analysis, including supporting documentation shall be filed with the Commission.” EDF
argues that neither FPL’s Petition nor the testimony and exhibits of FPL witness Yanes provided
the complete load flow analysis required by the rule and thus FPL’s Petition was legally
insufficient when filed. EDF asserts that the Commission should have identified this deficiency
in its initial review of FPL’s Petition and either dismissed the Petition or suspended the
proceeding until FPL complied with Rule 25-22.076(3), F.A.C.
According to EDF, the current schedule established in the OEP should be altered to
require FPL to file the required studies (as distinct from serving them as discovery responses)
and allow the parties additional time to evaluate, conduct discovery, and provide additional
testimony regarding those studies. EDF concludes that simply extending the hearing date, based
on when the mandatory load flow analysis is filed, does not resolve the due process issues caused
by the limited time to prepare its case.

ORDER NO. PSC-2026-0091-PHO-EI
DOCKET NO. 20260020-EI
PAGE 21
2. 	Response to Motion
In its Response to EDF’s Second Motion to Alter Procedural Schedule (Response), FPL
raises two arguments. First, FPL argues that it provided the required load flow studies and
analysis information with its Petition as required by Rule 25-22.076(3), F.A.C. Specifically, FPL
points to confidential Appendices A, B, and C of the Petition as comprising the detailed load
flow studies and analyses it produced based on its 2025 load forecast, which includes four
assessments: (1) without AOP, (2) with AOP, (3) Alternative I, and (4) Alternative II. FPL
explains that: Appendix A shows the load flow diagrams that illustrate the AOP’s capability to
address potential future thermal overloads and low voltage conditions; Appendix B shows the
load flow diagrams that illustrate the AOP’s capability to maintain transmission reliability; and
Appendix C shows the load flow diagrams that illustrate the AOP’s increased power transfer
capability. FPL adds that confidential Attachment 7 to Exhibit A to the Petition provides the
2025 transmission planning assessment in table format and a separate table with transfer analysis
load flow results (megawatts by transmission line). Finally, FPL asserts that confidential Exhibit
MAY-4 reflects the facilities that would violate North American Electric Reliability Corporation
(NERC) Reliability Standards as a result of the load flow analysis. The combined information
provided in these documents, FPL concludes, reflect the load flow studies on a combination of
peninsular Florida/Gulf Power (FPL Northwest) basis and the complete load flow analysis with
supporting documentation that is required by Rule 25-22.076, F.A.C. Thus FPL asserts that there
is no good cause under Section 403.537(3), F.S., to alter the procedural schedule.
Second, FPL argues that the Motion is, at its core, a request to dismiss FPL’s Petition
based on the sufficiency of the pleadings and compliance with the Commission’s rules.
However, Rule 28-106.204(2), F.A.C., provides that “[u]nless otherwise provided by law,
motions to dismiss the petition . . . shall be filed no later than 20 days after assignment of the
presiding officer, unless the motion is based upon a lack of jurisdiction or incurable errors in the
petition.” FPL asserts that the Prehearing Officer, Commissioner Payne, was assigned to this
docket on February 11, 2026 and thus EDF’s Motion based on an alleged failure to comply with
Rule 25-22.076, F.A.C., which was curable error and does not involve lack of jurisdiction,
should have been filed by March 3, 2026 (i.e., 20 days from the date the presiding officer was
assigned.). Accordingly, FPL concludes that the Motion is untimely.
3. 	Analysis and Decision
Section 403.537(1)(a), F.S., establishes the following timeframes for the Commission in a
transmission line need determination proceeding:
Within 21 days after receipt of a request for determination by an applicant, the
commission shall set a date for the hearing. The hearing shall be held pursuant to
s. 350.01 within 45 days after the filing of the request, and a decision shall be
rendered within 60 days after such filing.
Under Section 403.537(3), F.S., this timeframe may be altered and deadlines extended if
the applicant stipulates or a party demonstrates good cause. FPL has not stipulated to alter the

ORDER NO. PSC-2026-0091-PHO-EI
DOCKET NO. 20260020-EI
PAGE 22
statutory schedule in this docket. Thus, the only question before me as Prehearing Officer is
whether EDF has demonstrated good cause to alter the schedule based upon an alleged failure to
submit information required by Rule 25-22.076, F.A.C. This rule states, in relevant part:
Petitions submitted to commence a determination of need proceeding or responses
to the Commission’s order commencing a proceeding shall comply with the other
requirements of Chapter 25-22, F.A.C., as to form and style and shall contain the
following information:
* * *
(3) A statement of the specific situations, conditions, contingencies, or other
factors which indicate that need exists for the proposed transmission line or lines,
including the general time within which the proposed transmission line or lines
will be needed. Documentation shall include load flow studies on a peninsular
Florida basis, a Gulf Power basis, a Southern Electric System basis or some
combination of these and, when applicable, inclusion of adjoining states showing
power flows and voltage profiles on the transmission lines in the more critical
operating conditions. Load flows should cover the general time period within
which the proposed transmission line or lines will be needed, but at the option of
the utility, may cover a period of several years. One copy of the complete load
flow 	analysis, 	including 	supporting 	documentation 	shall 	be 	filed 	with 	the
Commission. The load flow analysis shall identify the load forecasts upon which
the load levels are based. Supplemental studies, such as transient stability or short
circuit analysis, may be submitted at the option of the utility or upon request of
the Commission, if needed to support the need for the proposed transmission line
or lines.
I find that EDF has not demonstrated good cause to alter the schedule in this docket. EDF
requests that the Commission require FPL to complete load flow studies that it has already
completed, and provided, in connection with its Petition. The information available in Exhibit A
to the Petition, specifically confidential Attachment 7 and Appendices A, B, and C, and Exhibit
MAY-4 	reflect 	FPL’s 	comprehensive 	load 	flow 	analysis 	with 	supporting 	documentation
contemplated by Rule 25-22.076(3), F.A.C. I find that FPL has substantially complied with the
filing requirements of the rule.3
In the alternative, I am persuaded by FPL’s characterization of the Motion as an untimely
motion to dismiss. FPL argues the last day to file such a motion would have been March 3, 2026
(20 days after I was assigned as Prehearing Officer on February 11, 2026). However logic
dictates that in order to seek dismissal of a pleading, that pleading must necessarily first be in
existence. FPL filed its Petition on March 11, 2026, by which time I had been assigned as
Prehearing Officer. Therefore I believe principles of fairness require starting the time period
3 By analogy, Section 120.569(2)(c), F.S., directs an agency to review a petition or request for hearing for
compliance with the requirements in the uniform rules of procedure, and to dismiss that petition or request “if it is
not in substantial compliance with these requirements.”

ORDER NO. PSC-2026-0091-PHO-EI
DOCKET NO. 20260020-EI
PAGE 23
from March 11th. Meaning the 20th day would have fallen on March 31, 2026. Nonetheless,
using either method of counting, EDF’s Motion should have been filed earlier than the day it
was—on April 6, 2026.
Based on the foregoing, EDF has not demonstrated good cause for the schedule to be
altered pursuant to Section 403.537(3), F.S.
B. 	EDF’s Request for Oral Argument on EDF’s Response to FPL’s Motion in
Limine and to Strike Certain Portions of the Testimonies and Exhibits of EDF
Witnesses Cranston and Thomas
1. 	Analysis and Decision
On March 31, 2026, FPL filed a Motion in Limine and to Strike Certain Portions of the
Testimonies and Exhibits of EDF Witnesses Cranston and Thomas (Motion to Strike). EDF
timely filed a response in opposition (Strike Response) on April 7, 2026, contemporaneously
with a Request for Oral Argument. I first turn to EDF’s Request for Oral Argument.
Rule 	25-22.0022(1), 	F.A.C., 	allows 	a 	party 	to 	request 	oral 	argument 	before 	the
Commission for any dispositive motion before the Commission by filing a separate written
pleading filed concurrently with the motion on which argument is requested and stating with
particularity why oral argument would aid the Commission. Granting or denying oral argument
is within the sole discretion of the Commission under Rule 25-22.0022(3), F.A.C.
EDF requests the opportunity for each party to provide 10 minutes of oral argument on
the Motion to Strike and the Strike Response in order to further elaborate on the arguments made
within as well as to aid the Commissioners in understanding and evaluating the issues raised.
FPL opposes the Request for Oral Argument while OPC takes no position.
Granting or denying oral argument is within the sole discretion of the Commission. I find
that the information contained in the Motion to Strike and the Strike Response are sufficient to
allow me to make an informed decision. EDF has not shown with particularity why oral
argument would assist me in understanding and evaluating the issues to be decided. Therefore, I
deny EDF’s Request for Oral Argument.
C. 	FPL’s Motion in Limine and to Strike Certain Portions of the Testimonies and
Exhibits of the EDF Witnesses Cranston and Thomas
1. 	Summary of Arguments
i. 	Argument One – FERC No. 1920
FPL first argues that EDF’s testimony and exhibits regarding FERC Order 1920 are
irrelevant, immaterial, premature, and beyond the Commission’s jurisdiction. FPL asserts that in
a transmission line need proceeding, the Commission must determine whether the proposed line

ORDER NO. PSC-2026-0091-PHO-EI
DOCKET NO. 20260020-EI
PAGE 24
is needed for reliability and integrity, for abundant, low-cost electrical energy, and for
appropriate starting and ending points, together with only such other matters as are within the
Commission’s jurisdiction. According to FPL, FERC Order 1920 is not within the proper scope
of this proceeding because the Commission lacks jurisdiction over the implementation of FERC
Order 1920.
FPL further asserts that even assuming arguendo that the Commission has jurisdiction to
adjudicate EDF’s concerns regarding FERC Order 1920, EDF’s arguments are premature and not
ripe because compliance filings from FPL are not due yet. Thus, FPL concludes, the information
should be stricken and excluded and EDF should be barred from referring in any manner to the
transmission planning process to be implemented under FERC Order 1920.
EDF responds that its testimony and exhibits regarding FERC Order 1920 are relevant
and material to the issues in this case. EDF alleges that FPL has repeatedly failed to conduct true
regional planning required under FERC Order 1920. EDF argues that evidence that FPL’s
planning process was conducted under an approach that FERC has found to be “unjust and
unreasonable”—and that the new federal planning framework will require consideration of cost-
effective alternatives, right-sizing, and advanced transmission technologies—is directly relevant
to whether FPL has demonstrated the AOP represents a cost-effective transmission solution
under the TLSA and avoids uneconomic duplication. EDF claims that reforms in FERC Order
1920 were “intended to ensure continued electric service in the face of growing reliability
challenges and greater access to lower-cost generation supplied by a wide range of resources.”
EDF argues that it does not seek for the Commission to adjudicate compliance with FERC Order
1920, but rather EDF utilizes the standards and analytical framework contained therein as a
benchmark against which to evaluate the adequacy of FPL’s planning process.
EDF further responds that FPL’s ripeness argument should fail because it confuses
prematurity of compliance with relevance of information. According to EDF, because FPL must
demonstrate the AOP is needed and cost-effective, a reasonably prudent person would consider
that the regulatory landscape is about to fundamentally change. To ignore that information, EDF
concludes, would be imprudent.
Finally, EDF argues that FERC Order 1920 explicitly grants relevant state entities, like
the Commission, with certain authorities, including for the determination of cost allocation
methods through the long-term regional planning process. EDF notes that Florida utilities
decided to forgo joining a Regional Transmission Organization, or establish an Independent
System Operator, meaning FPL’s planning operations are comprehensively regulated by the
Commission. EDF concludes that the information is relevant, material, timely, and within the
Commission’s jurisdiction to address and thus completely barring all references would be
unprecedented, overbroad, and inconsistent with the Commission’s mandate.

ORDER NO. PSC-2026-0091-PHO-EI
DOCKET NO. 20260020-EI
PAGE 25
ii. 	Argument Two – FERC Order No. 1000
Second, FPL argues that EDF’s testimony and exhibits regarding FERC Order 1000 are
irrelevant, immaterial, and beyond the Commission’s jurisdiction. FPL asserts that FERC Order
1000 is directed at the fairness of the regional planning process, not mandating substantive
outcomes in any particular region. FPL adds that EDF is improperly attempting to have the
Commission review FERC-jurisdictional transmission planning requirements, which would be
beyond the Commission’s jurisdiction. According to FPL, questions on whether the FRCC’s
regional-planning process should have identified a different project, whether FPL should have
proposed a different portfolio of projects, or whether EDF’s preferred reforms should displace
the current FERC Order 1000 framework are not issues the TLSA assigns to the Commission.
Thus, FPL concludes, the information should be stricken and excluded and that EDF should be
barred from referring in any manner to the transmission planning processes under FERC Order
1000.
EDF responds that its testimony and exhibits regarding FERC Order 1000 are relevant,
material, and within the Commission’s jurisdiction. EDF argues this evidence is of the type
commonly relied upon by reasonably prudent persons conducting transmission planning and is
admissible pursuant to Section 120.569(2)(g), F.S. EDF asserts that it is not asking the
Commission to sit in review of a FERC-jurisdictional process. Rather, EDF claims, it seeks to
present evidence that FPL’s planning process—the very process upon which FPL relies to justify
the AOP—is structurally deficient. EDF argues the Commission cannot meaningfully consider
whether a proposed transmission line is needed to provide abundant, low-cost electrical energy
under 	Section 	403.537(1)(b), 	F.S., 	without 	evaluating 	whether 	FPL’s 	planning 	process
adequately considered regional alternatives and cost-effective solutions. EDF concludes that
evidence related to FERC Order 1000 goes to the heart of the TLSA’s statutory inquiry, is well
within the jurisdictional purview of the Commission, and thus completely barring all references
would be unprecedented, overbroad, and inconsistent with the Commission’s mandate.
iii. 	Argument Three – Procedural Schedule Testimony
Third, 	FPL 	argues 	that 	EDF 	witness 	Thomas’ 	testimony 	regarding 	this 	docket’s
procedural schedule is improper, immaterial, and contrary to the TLSA because his complaints
are not evidence of any statutory need issue contained in Section 403.537(1)(c), F.S. FPL
believes that the witness’ dissatisfaction with the timeline cannot be used to rewrite the
legislative timetable or as substantive evidence against the AOP. Thus, FPL concludes, this
portion of EDF witness Thomas’ testimony should be stricken as it asks for a wholesale
procedural revision untethered to the merits of the Petition.
EDF responds that EDF witness Thomas’ testimony regarding the procedural schedule is
relevant to the Commission’s evaluation of the evidentiary record. EDF argues it provides
critical 	context 	for 	why 	EDF’s 	testimony 	may 	not 	include 	the 	kind 	of 	comprehensive,
independent 	engineering 	analysis 	that 	FPL 	faults 	EDF 	for 	not 	producing, 	because 	the
compressed 	schedule 	made 	such 	analysis 	infeasible. 	EDF 	concludes 	that 	the 	contextual
information would be useful to the Commission, even if limited weight is ultimately assigned.

ORDER NO. PSC-2026-0091-PHO-EI
DOCKET NO. 20260020-EI
PAGE 26
iv. 	Argument Four – Hearsay Testimony
Fourth, FPL argues that portions of EDF witness Cranston’s testimony and exhibits
constitute impermissible hearsay evidence and should be excluded. In particular, FPL takes issue
with a large body of out-of-court reports, studies, comments, and testimony put forward for the
truth of the matters asserted, including EDF witness Cranston’s Exhibit DC-2 (University of
Florida Study), DC-7 and DC-8 (EDF’s comments to FRCC), DC-9 (EQ Research fuel-cost
report), DC-10 (testimony from another state proceeding), and DC-11 and DC-12 (third-party
reports regarding alternative transmission technologies). According to FPL, because no hearsay
exception applies and because the evidence is not used to otherwise supplement or explain
admissible evidence (consistent with the administrative hearsay rule), the materials should be
stricken and excluded from the record. Or, if admitted, the Commission should expressly find
that those items are not admitted for truth and cannot support any finding in this proceeding.
EDF responds that the challenged exhibits offered by EDF witness Cranston are
admissible under the relaxed administrative hearsay standard because they serve to supplement
or explain other evidence in the proceeding. EDF argues that hearsay is admissible in
administrative proceedings, subject only to the limitation that it may not independently serve as
the sole basis for a finding absent independent admissibility in civil actions. EDF asserts that
each disputed exhibit serves the supplementary and explanatory function permitted by Section
120.57(1)(c), F.S. Specifically, EDF claims that:
- 	Exhibit DC-2 provides analytical support for testimony on system-wide reliability
constraints and cost savings through alternative transmission solutions;
- 	Exhibits DC-7 and DC-8 provide factual evidence of EDF’s participation in the FRCC
stakeholder process;
- 	Exhibits DC-9, DC-11-, and DC-12 are published studies that reasonably prudent persons
rely upon when evaluating transmission planning alternatives; and
- 	Exhibit DC-10 is provided to demonstrate how alternative technologies have been
evaluated in other jurisdiction.
v. 	Argument Five – Expert Witness Qualification
Finally, FPL argues that EDF witness Cranston’s unqualified expert opinions are
irrelevant and immaterial. FPL asserts that EDF witness Cranston does not have the specialized
knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education required by Section 90.702, F.S., to offer the
technical opinions, conclusions, and recommendations he does regarding transmission planning,
transmission 	alternatives, 	or 	transmission 	technologies. 	FPL 	concludes 	that 	because 	his
testimony is not expert opinion and cannot be admitted as lay opinion, the testimony is irrelevant
and immaterial and should be stricken (or at minimum excluded from the evidentiary record).
EDF responds that EDF witness Cranston does have knowledge and experience of the
Florida transmission system and with utility planning. EDF asserts that evidentiary rules for
administrative hearings are liberal and the Florida Evidence Code does not apply to proceedings
before the Commission. EDF alleges Mr. Cranston had a significant role in the preparation of the

ORDER NO. PSC-2026-0091-PHO-EI
DOCKET NO. 20260020-EI
PAGE 27
first comprehensive, statewide transmission study that performs system optimization at the
regional level rather than within each utility service area in Florida. EDF adds that Mr. Cranston
has worked for a municipal electric utility, Austin Energy, on grid infrastructure and has worked
on transmission planning policy. EDF argues that witness Cranston’s testimony does not purport
to perform engineering calculations or design transmission infrastructure, but instead addresses
regulatory 	policy, 	the 	adequacy 	of 	FPL’s 	planning 	process, 	the 	existence 	and 	general
characteristics of alternative technologies, and the implications for ratepayers, all of which are
matters squarely within the competence of a policy professional with experience in utility
regulatory proceedings. EDF concludes that the appropriate course is to permit witness Cranston
to testify, allow FPL to cross-examine his qualifications and bases for his opinions, and have the
Commission assign the appropriate weight based on the full record.
2. 	Legal Standard
“The purpose of a motion in limine is to exclude irrelevant and immaterial matters, or to
exclude evidence when its probative value is outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice.”
Order No. PSC-03-0850-PCO-EI, filed July 22, 2003, in Docket No. 000824-EI, In re: Review of
Florida Power Corporation’s Earnings, Including Effects of Proposed Acquisition of Florida
Power Corporation by Carolina Power & Light (citing Devoe v. Western Auto Supply Co., 537
So. 2d 188 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989)). “A motion in limine is designed to prevent the introduction of
evidence, the mere mention of which at trial would be prejudicial.” Id. (citing Dailey v. Multicon
Development, Inc., 417 So. 2d 1106 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982)).
Rule 1.140(f), Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, states that a party may move to strike or
the court may strike redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter from any pleading
at any time. Although Rule 1.140(f), Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, does not control in
administrative proceedings, we have used the rule as guidance when ruling on motions to strike
testimony filed during the course of an administrative hearing proceeding. E.g., Order No. PSC-
99-1809-PCO-WS, issued September 20, 1999, in Docket 971220-WS, In re: Application for
transfer of Certificates Nos. 592-W and 509-S from Cypress Lakes Associates, Ltd. to Cypress
Lakes Utilities, Inc. in Polk County. A motion to strike should only be granted if the matters that
are subject to the motion are completely irrelevant and have no bearing on the decision. See Bay
Colony Office Bldg. Joint Venture v. Wachovia Mortgage Co., 342 So. 2d 1005 (Fla. 5th DCA
1977). An order granting a motion to strike is reviewed for abuse of discretion. Upland Dev. of
Cent. Florida, Inc. v. Bridge, 910 So. 2d 942, 944 (Fla. 5th DCA 2005).
In Parrish & Yarnell, P.A. v. Spruce River Ventures, LLC, 180 So. 3d 1198, 1200 (Fla. 2d
DCA 2015), the Second District Court of Appeal explained that:
[B]ecause a motion to strike only tests the legal sufficiency of a claim, it is
reversible error for a court to grant a motion to strike where the pleading presents
a bona fide issue of fact that may be supported by evidence. A claim should not
be stricken simply because the judge believes that its proponent will ultimately be
unable to produce sufficient evidence to support it. To the contrary, the trial court

ORDER NO. PSC-2026-0091-PHO-EI
DOCKET NO. 20260020-EI
PAGE 28
must resolve all doubts in favor of the pleading and keep in mind that striking a
pleading is an extreme measure that is disfavored.
(internal citations omitted).
In ruling on a party’s motion to strike, there are several important statutory requirements
to consider. In administrative proceedings held under Sections 120.569 and 120.57(1), F.S., all
parties must be given an opportunity to respond, to present evidence and argument on all issues
involved, and to conduct cross-examination and submit rebuttal evidence. Pursuant to Section
120.569(2)(g), F.S., irrelevant, immaterial, or unduly repetitious evidence must be excluded, but
all other evidence of a type commonly relied upon by reasonably prudent persons in the conduct
of their affairs shall be admissible, whether or not such evidence would be admissible in a trial in
Florida courts.
3. 	Analysis and Decision
Importantly for these purposes, the TLSA gives the Commission the authority to consider
“other matters within its jurisdiction deemed relevant to the determination of need.” Section
403.537(1)(c), F.S. Thus, to grant the Motion to Strike, I would have to find that the arguments
raised in the Motion to Strike and the Strike Response demonstrate no genuine legal and factual
dispute surrounding the application and impacts of certain FERC Orders, and that these
undisputed matters demonstrate EDF’s arguments are entirely immaterial and irrelevant. If I
were to grant the Motion to Strike, the Commission would not have the opportunity to hear these
arguments.
Both EDF (on direct) and FPL (on rebuttal) submitted prefiled testimony regarding the
FERC 	Orders. 	A 	party 	seeking 	to 	have 	prefiled 	testimony 	stricken 	must 	demonstrate
conclusively that the subject testimony is wholly and completely irrelevant and immaterial. I
cannot reach such a conclusion with respect to the FERC Orders on the face of the Motion to
Strike and the Strike Response. The arguments raised therein demonstrate the presence of
genuine legal and factual disputes.
For these reasons, I find that the evidence regarding the alleged relevance and materiality
of the FERC Orders to this need determination should be considered by the Commission, not
only one Commissioner sitting as the Prehearing Officer. This testimony or evidence will be
subject to cross examination at hearing and can be given the proper weight it is due, if any, by
the Commission. Thus, FPL is not faced with the prospect of unfair prejudice because the
Commission, unlike a jury, is presumed capable of disregarding any improperly admitted
evidence. When improper evidence is admitted over objection in this context, the Commission
may later remedy the error by expressly indicating such evidence did not contribute to its final
determination. See Petion v. State, 48 So. 3d 726, 738 (Fla. 2010).
With regard to those portions of EDF witness Thomas’ testimony regarding this docket’s
procedural schedule, I do not find the discussion to be wholly and completely irrelevant. Those

ORDER NO. PSC-2026-0091-PHO-EI
DOCKET NO. 20260020-EI
PAGE 29
details could impact the weight the Commission ultimately assigns to witness Thomas’ testimony
in relation to the disputed issues for hearing.
FPL goes on to challenge EDF witness Cranston’s testimony on the basis that it is an
impermissible conduit for hearsay. The only guidelines on hearsay in administrative proceedings
are that the agency may use it to supplement or explain other competent, substantial evidence,
and may not use hearsay alone to support a finding. Section 120.571(1)(c), F.S. The strict rules
of evidence do not firmly apply to administrative hearings, and hearsay is admissible. FPL and
EDF 	both 	acknowledge 	hearsay 	may 	be 	considered 	in 	certain 	circumstances. 	Whether
circumstances exist which would allow the use of hearsay to supplement or explain is a
determination that occurs by the agency after all the evidence has been received. Miller v. State,
796 So. 2d 644, 646 (Fla 1st DCA 2001). Thus, to exclude the hearsay at this point in time is
without statutory support and premature. The Commission will give any testimony or evidence
admitted at hearing the weight it is due, including no weight at all if appropriate.
Finally, I decline to strike portions of EDF witness Cranston’s testimony upon FPL’s
argument that he is not an expert. The Florida Supreme Court has recognized that the rules of
evidence do not strictly apply in administrative proceedings. Fla. Indus. Power Users Grp. V.
Graham, 209 So. 3d 1142, 1146. Thus the Commission has discretion on whether to apply the
Florida Evidence Code, including application of Section 90.702, F.S. See id.; Order No. PSC-14-
0666-PCO-EI, issued November 19, 2014, in Docket No. 140001-EI, In re: Fuel and purchased
power cost recovery clause with generating performance incentive factor, pp. 2–3. Using Section
90.702, F.S., as a guide only, a witness may be “qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill,
experience, training, or education.” EDF asserts that its witness has prior work experience at an
electric utility utilizing grid planning approaches, participated in a recent study, and has
associated regulatory policy experience. The professional knowledge and experience EDF
witness 	Cranston 	has 	accumulated 	through 	his 	career 	could 	assist 	the 	Commission 	in
understanding the issues before it in this proceeding.
Therefore, based on the Motion to Strike and the Strike Response, witness Cranston’s
testimony and exhibits should not be stricken on FPL’s theory that they are irrelevant and
immaterial 	because 	he 	is 	a 	lay 	person 	providing 	expert 	opinion. 	I 	agree 	with 	EDF’s
characterization that this is a question of weight, not one of admissibility. This ruling should not
be construed, however, as a decision on the credibility of this witness’ testimony or on its
ultimate probative value. EDF witness Cranston’s testimony is merely one piece of evidence that
will be considered in toto with all other record evidence. The Commission will give witness
Cranston’s testimony and exhibits the weight that are due, which may be impacted by FPL’s voir
dire and potential cross-examination.
D. 	Issues and Hearing Procedures
Opening statements, if any, shall not exceed five minutes per party.
Summaries of witness testimonies shall not exceed five minutes for direct, two minutes
for rebuttal, and seven minutes total for both direct and rebuttal combined.

ORDER NO. PSC-2026-0091-PHO-EI
DOCKET NO. 20260020-EI
PAGE 30
The direct testimony and exhibits of EDF witness Cranston were not filed by the deadline
established in Order No. PSC-2026-0056-PCO-EI. However, hearing no objection from the
parties, his testimony and exhibits shall not be excluded on the basis that they were late-filed.
Because I have denied FPL’s Motion to Strike, it is appropriate to include revised issues
EDF-1 and EDF-2 in this proceeding. For the remainder of this proceeding, revised EDF-1 shall
be re-labeled as Issue A and revised EDF-2 shall be re-labeled as Issue B.
I am unpersuaded to separately include proposed issue EDF-7 for hearing.4 The
Commission’s ultimate decision in a need determination proceeding is founded in the statute.
Any arguments related to the sufficiency of the evidence that FPL seeks to present are subsumed
within the other issues in this docket, such as Issues 1 and 2.
I am unpersuaded to include proposed issue EDF-8 for hearing.5 Although Section
403.521, F.S., sets forth the legislature’s intent behind the TLSA overall, the substantive factors
the legislature authorized the Commission to consider within that framework are expressly
mentioned within Section 403.537, F.S. Furthermore, the position expressed by EDF on that
proposed issue appears to be subsumed by the other issues in this docket.
I am unpersuaded to include proposed issue EDF-9 because I find that its subject matter
is subsumed within the other issues to be addressed at hearing. 6
Finally, proposed issue EDF-10 was withdrawn and therefore shall not be included as an
issue for hearing.7
It is therefore,
ORDERED by Commissioner Bobby Payne, as Prehearing Officer, that this Prehearing
Order shall govern the conduct of these proceedings as set forth above unless modified by the
Commission.
4 Proposed issue EDF-7 reads: “Did the planning processes that FPL utilized and employed in planning the facilities
that comprise the Andytown-Oasis Transmission Lines Project comply with Rule 25-22.076, F.A.C., Contents of
Petition, that applies to transmission line need determination proceedings?”
5 Proposed issue EDF-8 reads: “Did the planning processes that FPL utilized and employed in planning the facilities
that comprise the Andytown-Oasis Transmission Lines Project comply with Section 403.521, Florida Statutes,
which declares that it is the intent of the Transmission Line Siting Act to fully balance the need for transmission
lines with the broad interests of the public in order to effect a reasonable balance between the need for the facility as
a means of providing reliable, economical, and efficient electric energy and the impact on the public and the
environment?”
6 Proposed issue EDF-9 reads: “Did the planning processes that FPL utilized and employed in planning the facilities
that comprise the Andytown-Oasis Transmission Lines Project comply with principles of prudent utility practice?”
7 Proposed issue EDF-10 reads: “Did the procedures and schedule prescribed by the Commission for this docket
provide adequate opportunity for substantially affected persons and parties to present evidence in support of their
positions, consistent with Section 120.57(1)(b), Florida Statutes, and norms of due process applicable to agency
decisions determining the substantial interests of affected persons and parties? If not, what should the Commission
do?”

ORDER NO. PSC-2026-0091-PHO-EI
DOCKET NO. 20260020-EI
PAGE 31
ORDERED that the Environmental Defense Fund Inc.’s Motion to Alter Schedule for
Failure to Comply with Filing Requirements of Rule 25-22.076(3), Florida Administrative Code
is DENIED as set forth herein. It is further
ORDERED that the Environmental Defense Fund Inc.’s Request for Oral Argument is
DENIED as set forth herein. It is further
ORDERED that Florida Power & Light Company’s Motion in Limine to Strike Certain
Portions of the Testimonies and Exhibits of the Environmental Defense Fund, Inc. Witnesses
Cranston and Thomas is DENIED as set forth herein.
By ORDER of Commissioner Bobby Payne, as Prehearing Officer, this 15th day of April,
2026.
BOBBY PAYNE
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.
CMM

ORDER NO. PSC-2026-0091-PHO-EI
DOCKET NO. 20260020-EI
PAGE 32
NOTICE OF FURTHER PROCEEDINGS OR JUDICIAL REVIEW
The Florida Public Service Commission (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. 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.