Florida Public Service Commission native order document 02132-2024

FILED 4/19/2024
DOCUMENT NO. 02132-2024
FPSC - COMMISSION CLERK
BEFORE THE FLORIDA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION
In re: Petition for rate increase by Duke Energy 	DOCKET NO. 20240025-EI
Florida, LLC. 	ORDER NO. PSC-2024-0107-PCO-EI
ISSUED: April 19 , 2024
-----------------~
ORDER GRANTING INTERVENTION FOR
FLORIDA INDUSTRIAL POWER USERS GROUP
Duke Energy Florida (Duke or Utility) filed its Petition for Rate Increase, minimum filing
requirements (MFRs), and testimony on April 2, 2024. Duke filed its MFRs based on projected
test years from January I to December 31 , 2025; January I to December 31 , 2026; and January I
to December 31 , 2027. By Order No. PSC-2024-0092-PCO-EI, issued April 11 , 2024, an
administrative hearing has been scheduled for these matters for August 12 - 	16 , 2024. August
19 - 23 , 2024, have also been reserved for the continuation and conclusion of this hearing, if
necessary.
Petition for Intervention
On March 15 , 2024, the Florida Industrial Power Users Group (FIPUG) filed a Petition to
Intervene (Petition) in this proceeding. According to its Petition, FIPUG is an ad hoc association
consisting of industrial users of electricity within Duke' s service territory. FIPUG further sta te s
that the cost of electricity constitutes a significant portion of its members' overall costs of
production. FIPUG asserts that its members require adequate, reasonably priced electricity in
order to compete with their respective markets. As such, FIPUG contends that the substantial
interests of its members will be directly affected by the Commission's decisions in this
proceeding regarding Duke's retail electric rates. No party has filed an objection to FIPUG 's
Petition and the time for doing so has expired.
Sta nd ards for Intervention
Pursuant to Rule 28-106.205, F.A.C., persons, other than the original parties to a pending
proceeding, who have a substantial interest in the proceeding and who desire to become parties
m ay move for leave to intervene. 	Motions for leave to intervene must be filed at least twenty
(20) days before the final hearing, must comply with Rule 28-106.204(3), F.A.C., and must
include allegations sufficient to demonstrate that the intervenor is entitled to participate in the
proceeding as a matter of constitutional or statutory right or pursuant to Commission rule, or that
the substantial interests of the intervenor are subject to determination or will be affected through
the proceeding. Intervenors take the case as they find it.
To have standing, the intervenor must meet the three-prong standing te st set forth in
Florida Home Builders Association v. Department of Labor and Employment Security. 412 So.
2d 351 , 353-54 (Fla. 1982), and Farmworker Rights Organization, Inc. v. Department of Health
and Rehabilitative Services, 41 7 So. 2d 7 53 , 754 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982), which is based on the
basic 	standing 	principles 	established 	in 	Agrico 	Chemical 	Company 	v. 	Department 	of

ORDER NO. PSC-2024-0107-PCO-EI
DOCKET NO. 20240025-EI
PAGE 2
Environmental Regulation, 406 So. 2d 478, 481-82 (Fla. 2d DCA 1981). 1 Associational standing
may be found where: (1) the association demonstrates that a substantial number of an
association’s members may be substantially affected by the Commission’s decision in a docket;
(2) the subject matter of the proceeding is within the association’s general scope of interest and
activity; and (3) the relief requested is of a type appropriate for the association to receive on
behalf of its members. Fla. Home Builders, 412 So. 2d at 353-54; Farmworker Rights Org.,417
So. 2d at 754.
Analysis and Ruling
With respect to the first prong of the associational standing test established in Florida
Home Builders, FIPUG asserts that its members are electric customers of Duke and that its
members’ substantial interests will be directly affected by the Commission’s decision on whether
to grant a rate increase. With respect to the second prong, the subject matter of the proceeding
appears to be within FIPUG’s general scope of interest and activity. FIPUG is an established
association whose members are retail consumers of Duke. FIPUG contends that its members will
be directly affected by the proposed rates. As for the third prong, FIPUG is seeking intervention
in this docket in order to represent the interests of its members in this rate proceeding. Based on
the foregoing analysis, FIPUG’s standing in this docket has been established.
FIPUG meets the three-prong associational standing test established in Florida Home
Builders. Consequently, FIPUG’s petition for intervention shall be granted. Pursuant to Rule 28-
106.205, F.A.C., FIPUG takes the case as it finds it.
Based on the foregoing, it is
ORDERED by Commissioner Gabriella Passidomo, as Prehearing Officer, that the
Petition to Intervene filed by Florida Industrial Power Users Group is hereby granted as set forth
in the body of this Order. It is further
ORDERED that Florida Industrial Power Users Group takes the case as it finds it. It is
further
ORDERED that all parties to this proceeding shall furnish copies of all testimony,
exhibits, pleadings, and other documents which may hereinafter be filed in this proceeding to:
1 	Under Agrico, the intervenor must show that (1) he will suffer injury in fact which is of sufficient immediacy to
entitle him to a Section 120.57, F.S., hearing, and (2) the substantial injury is of a type or nature which the
proceeding is designed to protect. The first aspect of the test deals with the degree of injury. The second deals with
the nature of the injury. 406 So. 2d 478 at 482. The "injury in fact" must be both real and immediate and not
speculative or conjectural. 	International Jai-Alai Players Assn. v. Florida Pari-Mutuel Commission, 561 So. 2d
1224, 1225-26 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990). See also: Village Park Mobile Home Assn., Inc. v. State Dept. of Business
Regulation, 506 So. 2d 426, 434 (Fla. 1st DCA 1987), rev. den., 513 So. 2d 1063 (Fla. 1987) (speculation on the
possible occurrence of injurious events is too remote).

ORDER NO. PSC-2024-0107-PCO-EI
DOCKET NO.20240025- EI
PAGE3
Jon C. Moyle, Jr.
Karen A. Putnal
Moyle Law Firm, P.A.
118 North Gadsden Street
Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Telephone: (850) 681-3828
jmoyle@moylelaw.com
kputnal@moylelaw.com
By ORDER of Commissioner Gabriella Passidomo, as Prehearing Officer, this __ day
of ------�
SPS
Gabriella Passidomo
Commissioner and Prehearing Officer
Florida Public Service Commission
2540 Shumard Oak Boulevard
Tallahassee, Florida32399
(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.
19 th
April 2024

ORDER NO. PSC-2024-0107-PCO-EI
DOCKET NO. 20240025-EI
PAGE 4
NOTICE OF FURTHER PROCEEDINGS OR JUDICIAL REVIEW
The Florida Public Service Commission is required by Section 120.569(1), Florida
Statutes, to notify parties of any administrative hearing or judicial review of Commission orders
that is available under Sections 120.57 or 120.68, Florida Statutes, as well as the procedures and
time limits that apply. 	This notice should not be construed to mean all requests for an
administrative hearing or judicial review will be granted or result in the relief sought.
Mediation may be available on a case-by-case basis. 	If mediation is conducted, it does
not affect a substantially interested person's right to a hearing.
Any 	party 	adversely 	affected 	by 	this 	order, 	which 	is 	preliminary, 	procedural 	or
intermediate in nature, may request: (1) reconsideration within 10 days pursuant to Rule 25-
22.0376, Florida Administrative Code; or (2) judicial review by the Florida Supreme Court, in
the case of an electric, gas or telephone utility, or the First District Court of Appeal, in the case
of a water or wastewater utility. 	A motion for reconsideration shall be filed with the Office of
Commission Clerk, in the form prescribed by Rule 25-22.0376, Florida Administrative Code.
Judicial review of a preliminary, procedural or intermediate ruling or order is available if review
of the final action will not provide an adequate remedy. Such review may be requested from the
appropriate court, as described above, pursuant to Rule 9.100, Florida Rules of Appellate
Procedure.