Florida Public Service Commission native order document 09744-2024

FILED 10/31/2024
DOCUMENT NO. 09744-2024
FPSC - COMMISSION CLERK
BEFORE THE FLORIDA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION
In re: Environmental cost recovery claus e.
---------------~
DOCKET NO. 20240007-EI
ORDER NO. PSC-2024-0468-PHO-EI
ISSUED: October 31 , 2024
PREHEARING ORDER
Pursuant to Notice a nd in accordance with Rule 28-106.209, Florida Administrative Code
(F.A.C.), a Prehearing Conference was held on October 24, 2024, in Talla ha ss ee , Florida, before
Commissioner Gabriella Passidomo, as Prehearing Officer.
APPEARANCES:
MARIA JOSE MONCADA a nd JOEL T. BAKER, ESQUIRES, 700 Universe
Boulevard, Juno Beach, Florida 33408-2863
On behalf of FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT COMP ANY (FPL).
DIANNE M. TRIPLETT, ESQUIRE, 299 First Avenue North, St. Petersburg,
Florida 33 7 01
MATTHEW R. BERNIER, and STEPHANIE CUELLO, ESQUIRES, 106 East
College Avenue, Suite 8 00 , Talla ha ss ee , Florida 32301
On behalf of DUKE ENERGY FLORIDA, LLC (DEF).
MALCOLM N. MEANS, J. 	JEFFRY WAHLEN , and VIRGINIA PONDER
ESQUIRES, Ausley McMullen, Post Office Box 391 , Tallahassee, Florida 32302
On behalf of TAMPA ELECTRIC COMPANY (TECO).
WALT 	TRIERWEILER, 	CHARLES 	REHWINKEL, 	PATRICIA 	A.
CHRISTENSEN, MARY A. WESSLING, and OCTAVIO SIMOES-PONCE, and
AUSTIN 	WATROUS 	ESQUIRES, 	c/o 	The 	Florida 	Legislature, 	111 	West
Madison Street, Suite 812, Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1400
On behalf of OFFICE OF PUBLIC C OUNSEL (OPC).
JON C. MOYLE, JR. and KAREN A. PUTNAL, ESQUIRES, Moyle Law Firm,
P.A., 118 North Gadsden Street, Tallahassee, Florida 32301
On behalf of FLORIDA INDUSTRIAL POWER USERS GROUP (FIPUG).
JAMES W. BREW , LAURA WYNN BAKER a nd SARAH B. NEWMAN ,
ESQUIRES, Stone, Mattheis, Xenopoulis & Brew , PC, 1025 Thomas Jefferson
Street, NW , Eighth Floor, West Tower, Washington, D.C. 20007
On behalf of White Springs Agricultural Chemicals, Inc. d/b/a PCS Phosphate -
White Springs (PCS Phosphate).

ORDER NO. PSC-2024-0468-PHO-EI
DOCKET NO. 20240007-EI
PAGE 2
PETER J. MATTHEIS, MICHAEL K. LAVANGA, and JOSEPH R. BRISCAR,
ESQUIRES, Stone, Mattheis, Xenopoulis & Brew, PC, 1025 Thomas Jefferson
Street, NW, Eighth Floor, West Tower, Washington D.C. 20007
On behalf of Nucor Steel Florida, Inc. (NUCOR).
JACOB 	IMIG, SAAD FAROOQI, and ADRIA H. HARPER, ESQUIRES,
Florida Public Service Commission, 2540 Shumard Oak Boulevard, Tallahassee,
Florida 32399-0850
On behalf 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.
KEITH C. HETRICK, ESQUIRE, General Counsel, Florida Public Service
Commission, 2540 Shumard Oak Boulevard, Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0850
Florida Public Service Commission General Counsel.
I. 	CASE BACKGROUND
As 	part 	of 	the 	Florida 	Public 	Service 	Commission’s 	(Commission) 	continuing
Environmental Cost Recovery Clause (ECRC) proceeding, undertaken pursuant to Section
366.8255, Florida Statutes (F.S.), a hearing has been set in this Docket for November 5-7, 2024.
The ECRC proceeding allows investor-owned electric utilities to seek recovery of their costs for
approved environmental programs on an annual basis.
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
This Commission is vested with jurisdiction over the subject matter by the provisions of
Chapters 120 and 366, Florida Statutes (F.S.). This hearing will be governed by said Chapters
and Chapters 25-6, 25-22, and 28-106, F.A.C., as well as any other applicable provisions of law.

ORDER NO. PSC-2024-0468-PHO-EI
DOCKET NO. 20240007-EI
PAGE 3
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
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 this 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, 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.

ORDER NO. PSC-2024-0468-PHO-EI
DOCKET NO. 20240007-EI
PAGE 4
V. 	PREFILED TESTIMONY AND EXHIBITS; WITNESSES
Testimony of all witnesses to be sponsored by the parties (and Staff) 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 three minutes.
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's
direct testimony is adverse to its interests.
VI. 	ORDER OF WITNESSES
Witness 	Proffered By 	Issues #
Direct
+ Richard L. Hume 	FPL 	1-10
+ Katharine MacGregor 	FPL 	1-4
+ Gary P. Dean 	DEF 	1-10
+ Eric Szkolnyj 	DEF 	1-3
+ Reginald Anderson 	DEF 	1-3
+ Patricia Q. West 	DEF 	1-3

ORDER NO. PSC-2024-0468-PHO-EI
DOCKET NO. 20240007-EI
PAGE 5
Witness 	Proffered By 	Issues #
+ Zel D. Jones 	TECO 	1-9 and 13-14
+ Byron T. Burrows 	TECO 	3 and 13-14
+ These witnesses have been excused from attending the final hearing.
VII. 	BASIC POSITIONS
FPL: 	FPL’s 2025 Environmental Cost Recovery Clause factors are reasonable and
should be approved.
DEF: 	DEF’s positions to specific issues are listed below.
TECO: 	The Commission should approve the compliance programs described in the
testimony and exhibits of Tampa Electric witnesses Jones and Burrows for
environmental cost recovery. The Commission should also approve Tampa
Electric’s calculation of its environmental cost recovery final true-up for the
period January 2023 through December 2023, the actual/estimated environmental
cost recovery true-up for the current period January 2024 through December
2024, 	and 	the 	company’s 	projected 	ECRC 	revenue 	requirement 	and 	the
company’s 	proposed 	ECRC 	factors 	for 	the 	period 	January 	2025 	through
December 2025.
OPC: 	The utilities bear the burden of proof to justify the recovery of costs they request
in this docket and must carry this burden regardless of whether or not the
Interveners provide evidence to the contrary. Further, the utilities bear the burden
of proof to support their proposal(s) seeking the Commission's adoption of policy
statements (whether new or changed) or other affirmative relief sought. Even if
the Commission has previously approved a program, recovery of a cost, factor, or
adjustment as meeting the Commission’s own requirements, the utilities still bear
the burden of demonstrating that the costs submitted for final recovery meet any
statutory test(s) and are reasonable in amount and prudently incurred. Further,
recovery of all costs is constrained by the Commission’s obligation to set fair,
just, and reasonable rates, based on projects and/or costs that are prudent in
magnitude and/or costs prudently incurred pursuant to Section 366.01, Florida
Statutes. Additionally, the provisions of Chapter 366 must be liberally construed
to protect the public welfare.
The Commission must independently determine that each cost submitted for
recovery, deferred or new, meets each element of the statutory requirements for
recovery through this clause, as set out in Section 366.8255, Florida Statutes.

ORDER NO. PSC-2024-0468-PHO-EI
DOCKET NO. 20240007-EI
PAGE 6
Specifically, each activity proposed for recovery must be legally required to
comply 	with 	a 	governmentally 	imposed 	environmental 	regulation 	that 	was
enacted, became effective, or whose effect was triggered after the company's last
test year upon which rates are based, and such costs may not be costs that are
recovered through base rates or any other cost recovery mechanism. Any decision
by the Commission on a new project submitted for approval and cost recovery
must be limited to the scope and documented cost information provided to the
Commission in the company filing in this docket.
FIPUG: 	The utilities bear the burden of proof to justify the recovery of costs they request
in this docket as reasonable and prudent. The utilities must carry this burden
regardless of whether FIPUG or other parties introduce evidence to the contrary.
The utilities must also carry their burden of proof to support their proposal(s)
asking the Commission's adoption of policy statements (whether new or changed)
or other affirmative relief sought.
PCS
Phosphate: 	PCS Phosphate generally adopts the positions taken by the Florida Office of
Public Counsel (“OPC”) unless a differing position is specifically stated.
NUCOR: 	Nucor’s basic position is that Duke Energy Florida, LLC (“DEF”) bears the
burden of proof to justify the costs it seeks to recover through the ECRC and any
other relief DEF requests in this proceeding.
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 stated herein.
VIII. 	ISSUES AND POSITIONS
GENERIC ENVIRONMENTAL COST RECOVERY ISSUES
ISSUE 1: 	What are the final environmental cost recovery true-up amounts for the
period January 2023 through December 2023?
Proposed stipulation – See Section X.
ISSUE 2: 	What are the actual/estimated environmental cost recovery true-up amounts
for the period January 2024 through December 2024?
Proposed stipulation – See Section X.

ORDER NO. PSC-2024-0468-PHO-EI
DOCKET NO. 20240007-EI
PAGE 7
ISSUE 3: 	What are the projected environmental cost recovery amounts for the period
January 2025 through December 2025?
Proposed stipulation – See Section X.
ISSUE 4: 	What 	are 	the 	environmental 	cost 	recovery 	amounts, 	including 	true-up
amounts, for the period January 2025 through December 2025?
Proposed stipulation – See Section X.
ISSUE 5: 	What depreciation rates should be used to develop the depreciation expense
included in the total environmental cost recovery amounts for the period
January 2025 through December 2025?
Proposed stipulation – See Section X.
ISSUE 6: 	What are the appropriate jurisdictional separation factors for the projected
period January 2025 through December 2025?
Proposed stipulation – See Section X.
ISSUE 7: 	What are the appropriate environmental cost recovery factors for the period
January 2025 through December 2025 for each rate group?
Proposed stipulation – See Section X.
ISSUE 8: 	What should be the effective date of the new environmental cost recovery
factors for billing purposes?
Proposed stipulation – See Section X.
ISSUE 9: 	Should the Commission approve revised tariffs reflecting the environmental
cost recovery amounts and environmental cost recovery factors determined
to be appropriate in this proceeding?
Proposed stipulation – See Section X.

ORDER NO. PSC-2024-0468-PHO-EI
DOCKET NO. 20240007-EI
PAGE 8
ISSUE 10: 	Should this docket be closed?
Proposed stipulation – See Section X.
COMPANY-SPECIFIC ENVIRONMENTAL COST RECOVERY ISSUES
Duke Energy Florida, LLC (DEF)
ISSUE 11: 	Should the Commission approve DEF’s Citrus Combined Cycle (CCC)
Water Treatment System Project for cost recovery through the ECRC?
Proposed stipulation – See Section X.
ISSUE 12: 	How should the approved costs related to DEF’s CCC Water Treatment
System Project be allocated to the rate classes?
Proposed stipulation – See Section X.
Tampa Electric Company (TECO)
ISSUE 13: 	Should the Commission approve TECO’s Bayside 316 (a) Thermal Variance
Study Project for cost recovery through the ECRC?
Proposed stipulation – See Section X.
ISSUE 14: 	How should the approved costs related to TECO’s Bayside (a) Thermal
Variance Study Project be allocated to the rate classes?
Proposed stipulation – See Section X.
IX. 	EXHIBIT LIST
Witness 	Proffered By 	Description
Direct
Richard L. Hume 	FPL 	RLH-1 	2023 ECRC Final True-Up
January 2023 – December 2023
Commission Forms 42-1A through 42-9A

ORDER NO. PSC-2024-0468-PHO-EI
DOCKET NO. 20240007-EI
PAGE 9
Witness 	Proffered By 	Description
Richard L. Hume 	FPL 	RLH-2 	2024 ECRC Actual/Estimated True-up
January 2024 - December 2024
Commission Forms 42-1E through 42-9E
Richard L. Hume
Katharine MacGregor
FPL 	RLH-3 	2025 ECRC Projection Filing January
2025 – December 2025
Commission Forms 42-1P through 42-8P
Form 42-P
Richard L. Hume 	FPL 	RLH-4 	2025 ECRC Projection Filing
(Calculation of Stratified Separation
Factors)
Gary P. Dean 	DEF 	GPD-1 	Forms 42-1A - 42- 9A
January 2023 – December 2023
Gary P. Dean 	DEF 	GPD-2 	Forms 42-1E – 42-9E
January 2024 – December 2024
Gary P. Dean
Eric Szkolnyj
Reginald Anderson
Patricia Q. West
DEF 	GPD-3 	Forms 42-1P – 42-8P
January 2025 -December 2025
Form 42-5P, page 23
Form 42-5P, pages 7 and 20-22
Form 42-5P, pages 1-4, 6, 7-19, and 24-26
Patricia Q. West 	DEF 	PQW-1 	Review of Integrated Clean Air
Compliance Plan
Zel D. Jones 	TECO 	ZDJ-1 	Final 	Environmental 	Cost 	Recovery
Commission Forms 42-1A through 42-
9A for the period January 2023 through
December 2023
Zel D. Jones 	TECO 	ZDJ-2 	Environmental 	Cost 	Recovery
Commission Forms 42-1E through 42-9E
for 	the 	period 	January 	2024 	through
December 2024
Zel D. Jones 	TECO 	ZDJ-3 	Environmental Cost Recovery Forms 42-
1P through 42-8P for the period January
2025 through December 2025

ORDER NO. PSC-2024-0468-PHO-EI
DOCKET NO. 20240007-EI
PAGE 10
X. 	PROPOSED STIPULATIONS
Following the prehearing conference, Type 2 stipulations1 were reached for all issues as
set forth below. Duke Energy Florida, LLC (DEF), Florida Power & Light Company (FPL),
Tampa Electric Company (TECO), and Commission staff supported the proposed stipulations.
The OPC position on each Type 2 stipulation is as follows:
OPC takes no position on these issues nor does it have the burden of proof related
to them. As such, the OPC represents that it will not contest or oppose the
Commission 	taking 	action 	approving 	a 	proposed 	stipulation 	between 	the
Company and another party or staff as a final resolution of the issue. No person is
authorized to state that the OPC is a participant in, or party to, a stipulation on
these issues, either in this docket, in an order of the Commission, or in a
representation to a Court.
Florida Industrial Power Users Group (FIPUG), White Springs Agricultural Chemicals,
Inc. d/b/a PCS Phosphate – White Springs (PCS Phosphate), and Nucor Steel Florida, Inc.
(Nucor) have adopted the position of OPC on each Type 2 stipulation.
ISSUE 1: 	What are the final environmental cost recovery true-up amounts for the
period January 2023 through December 2023?
STIPULATION:
FPL 	$7,623,275 	Over-recovery
DEF 	$1,548,518 	Over-recovery
TECO 	$4,203,268 	Over-recovery
ISSUE 2: 	What are the actual/estimated environmental cost recovery true-up amounts
for the period January 2024 through December 2024?
STIPULATION:
FPL 	$18,176,707 	Under-recovery
DEF 	$1,936,104 	Over-recovery
TECO 	$3,297,632 	Over-recovery
1 A Type 2 stipulation occurs on an issue when the utility and the staff, or the utility and at least one party
adversarial to the utility, agree on the resolution of the issue and the remaining parties (including staff if they do not
join in the agreement) do not object to the Commission relying on the agreed language to resolve that issue in a final
order.

ORDER NO. PSC-2024-0468-PHO-EI
DOCKET NO. 20240007-EI
PAGE 11
ISSUE 3: 	What are the projected environmental cost recovery amounts for the period
January 2025 through December 2025?
STIPULATION:
FPL 	$401,635,933
DEF 	$15,140,721
TECO 	$19,594,554
ISSUE 4: 	What 	are 	the 	environmental 	cost 	recovery 	amounts, 	including 	true-up
amounts, for the period January 2025 through December 2025?
STIPULATION:
ISSUE 5: 	What depreciation rates should be used to develop the depreciation expense
included in the total environmental cost recovery amounts for the period
January 2025 through December 2025?
STIPULATION:
FPL will use the depreciation rates that were approved by the Commission in
Order No. PSC-2021-0446-S-EI. The depreciation rates used by DEF to calculate
depreciation expense shall be the rates that are in effect during the period the
allowed capital investment is in service. Depreciation rates agreed to in TECO’s
2021 Settlement Agreement were applied to TECO’s 2025 projection.
ISSUE 6: 	What are the appropriate jurisdictional separation factors for the projected
period January 2025 through December 2025?
STIPULATION:
The appropriate jurisdictional separation factors for the period January 2025
through December 2025 are as follows:
FPL: 	Retail Energy Jurisdictional Factor - Base/Solar 95.706242%
Retail Energy Jurisdictional Factor - Intermediate 93.940532%
Retail Energy Jurisdictional Factor - Peaking 95.601963%
FPL 	$412,189,365
DEF 	$11,656,099
TECO 	$12,103,910

ORDER NO. PSC-2024-0468-PHO-EI
DOCKET NO. 20240007-EI
PAGE 12
Retail Demand Jurisdictional Factor - Transmission 88.780684%
Retail Demand Jurisdictional Factor - Base/Solar 96.010976%
Retail Demand Jurisdictional Factor - Intermediate 95.415719%
Retail Demand Jurisdictional Factor - Peaking 94.942846%
Retail Demand Jurisdictional Factor - Distribution 100.0000%
Retail General Plant Jurisdictional Factor - Labor 96.942531%
DEF: 	Transmission Average 12 CP Demand – 70.369%
Distribution Primary Demand – 100.000%
Production Demand:
Production Base – 100.000%
Production Intermediate – 95.212%
Production Peaking – 97.632%
Production A&G – 97.366%
TECO: 	Energy: 100.00%
Demand: 100.00%

ORDER NO. PSC-2024-0468-PHO-EI
DOCKET NO. 20240007-EI
PAGE 13
ISSUE 7: 	What are the appropriate environmental cost recovery factors for the period
January 2025 through December 2025 for each rate group?
STIPULATION:
The appropriate environmental cost recovery factors for the period January 2025
through December 2025 for each rate group are as follows:
FPL:
RATE
Environmental Cost
Recovery Factor
(cents/kWh)
RS1/RTR1 	0.361
GS1/GST1 	0.324
GSD1/GSDT1/HLFT1/GSD1-EV 	0.295
OS2 	0.194
GSLD1/GSLDT1/CS1/CST1/HLFT2/GSLD1-EV 	0.269
GSLD2/GSLDT2/CS2/CST2/HLFT3 	0.256
GSLD3/GSLDT3/CS3/CST3 	0.230
SST1T 	0.237
SST1D1/SST1D2/SST1D3 	0.753
CILC D/CILC G 	0.245
CILC T 	0.228
MET 	0.275
OL1/SL1/SL1M/PL1 	0.049
SL2/SL2M/GSCU1 	0.233
Total 	0.326

ORDER NO. PSC-2024-0468-PHO-EI
DOCKET NO. 20240007-EI
PAGE 14
DEF:
RATE CLASS 	ECRC FACTORS
Residential 	0.030 cents/kWh
General Service Non-Demand
@ Secondary Voltage
@ Primary Voltage
@ Transmission Voltage
0.028 cents/kWh
0.028 cents/kWh
0.027 cents/kWh
General Service 100% Load Factor 	0.026 cents/kWh
General Service Demand
@ Secondary Voltage
@ Primary Voltage
@ Transmission Voltage
0.027 cents/kWh
0.027 cents/kWh
0.026 cents/kWh
Curtailable
@ Secondary Voltage
@ Primary Voltage
@ Transmission Voltage
0.025 cents/kWh
0.025 cents/kWh
0.025 cents/kWh
Interruptible
@ Secondary Voltage
@ Primary Voltage
@ Transmission Voltage
0.025 cents/kWh
0.025 cents/kWh
0.025 cents/kWh
Lighting 	0.021 cents/kWh
TECO:
Rate Class Factors by Voltage Level
(cents/kWh)
RS 	0.063
GS, CS 	0.060
GSD/GSDT, SBD/SBDT, GSD Optional
Secondary 	0.056
Primary 	0.056
Transmission 	0.055
GSLDPR/GSLDTPR/SBLDPR/SBLDTPR 	0.048
GSLDSU/GSLDTSU/SBLDPR/SBLDTPR 	0.051
LS1, LS2 	0.038
Total 	0.059
TECO has certain proposals pending in its current base rate case in Docket No.
20240026-EI that may affect the company’s environmental cost recovery charges

ORDER NO. PSC-2024-0468-PHO-EI
DOCKET NO. 20240007-EI
PAGE 15
and associated tariffs. The above cost recovery clause factors may be amended to
reflect revisions ordered by the Commission in that docket.
ISSUE 8: 	What should be the effective date of the new environmental cost recovery
factors for billing purposes?
STIPULATION:
The factors shall be effective beginning with the specified environmental cost
recovery cycle and thereafter for the period January 2025 through December
2025. Billing cycles may start before January 1, 2025 and the last cycle may read
after December 31, 2025, so that each customer is billed for twelve months
regardless of when the adjustment factor became effective. These charges will
continue in effect until modified by the Commission.
ISSUE 9: 	Should the Commission approve revised tariffs reflecting the environmental
cost recovery amounts and environmental cost recovery factors determined
to be appropriate in this proceeding?
STIPULATION:
Yes. The Commission shall approve revised tariffs reflecting the environmental
cost recovery factors determined to be appropriate in this proceeding. The
Commission should direct staff to verify that the revised tariffs are consistent with
the 	Commission’s 	decision. 	The 	Commission 	should 	also 	grant 	staff
administrative 	authority 	to 	approve 	revised 	tariffs 	reflecting 	amended 	cost
recovery clause factors that incorporate any revisions that are necessary as a result
of the Commission’s decision in TECO’s current base rate case in Docket No.
20240026-EI.
ISSUE 10: 	Should this docket be closed?
STIPULATION:
No. While a separate docket number is assigned each year for administrative
convenience, this is a continuing docket and shall remain open.

ORDER NO. PSC-2024-0468-PHO-EI
DOCKET NO. 20240007-EI
PAGE 16
COMPANY-SPECIFIC ENVIRONMENTAL COST RECOVERY ISSUES
Duke Energy Florida, LLC (DEF)
ISSUE 11: 	Should the Commission approve DEF’s Citrus Combined Cycle (CCC)
Water Treatment System Project for cost recovery through the ECRC?
STIPULATION:
Yes. DEF’s proposed CCC Water Treatment System project meets the recovery
criteria established in Order No. 94-044-FOF-EI, in that:
a) All expenditures will be prudently incurred after April 13, 1993;
b) The activities are legally required to comply with a governmentally imposed
environmental 	regulation 	enacted, 	became 	effective, 	or 	whose 	effect 	was
triggered after the Company’s last test year which rates are based; and
c) None of the expenditures are being recovered through some other cost recovery
mechanism or through base rates.
On January 10, 2023, the Florida Department of Environmental Protection
(“FDEP”) issued Administrative Order AO-052SWD22 (“AO”) to provide an
interim limit and compliance schedule to address exceedances of the Manganese
ground water standard following the February 7, 2023 permit amendment which
designated Citrus Combined Cycle compliance wells and implemented a site-
specific manganese ground water standard based on background conditions. The
AO was issued to provide DEF guidance on bringing the newly-designated
compliance well up to standard.2
ISSUE 12: 	How should the approved costs related to DEF’s CCC Water Treatment
System Project be allocated to the rate classes?
STIPULATION:
O&M and Capital costs associated with the CCC Water Treatment System
Program should be allocated to rate classes on a Demand basis.
2 DEF is not subject to an enforcement action or found in violation of any permit or regulation associated with this
project.

ORDER NO. PSC-2024-0468-PHO-EI
DOCKET NO. 20240007-EI
PAGE 17
Tampa Electric Company (TECO)
ISSUE 13: 	Should the Commission approve TECO’s Bayside 316 (a) Thermal Variance
Study Project for cost recovery through the ECRC?
STIPULATION:
Yes, the Commission should approve TECO’s Bayside 316(a) Thermal Variance
Study Project for cost recovery through the ECRC. The costs for this study are
necessary to comply with a governmentally imposed environmental regulation
which was enacted in 1972, and requested to be updated in the issuance of
Bayside’s latest National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit dated
December 9, 2022. This occurred after the company’s last test year of 2022 and
the costs for the study are not recovered through any other cost recovery
mechanism or base rates.
ISSUE 14: 	How should the approved costs related to TECO’s Bayside (a) Thermal
Variance Study Project be allocated to the rate classes?
STIPULATION:
The approved costs related to TECO’s Bayside 316(a) Thermal Variance Study
Project should be allocated as an Energy-related cost as shown in the Company’s
2025 Projection, Form 42-6P, Column “(3)”
XI. 	PENDING MOTIONS
There are no pending motions.
XII. 	PENDING CONFIDENTIALITY MATTERS
There are no pending confidentiality matters.
XIII. 	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

PSC-2024-0468-PHO-EI
31st
October 2024
ORDER NO.
DOCKET NO. 20240007-EI
PAGE 18
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 40
pages and shall be filed at the same time, no later the November 14, 2024.
XIV . 	RUL INGS
Opening statements, if any, shall not exceed three minutes per party.
It is therefore,
ORDERED by Commjssioner Gabriella Passidomo, as Prehearing Officer, that this
Prehearing Order shall govern the conduct of these proceedings as set forth above unless
modified by the Commission.
By ORDER of Commissioner Gabriella Passidomo, as Prehearing Officer, this __ day
of --- 	---
JDI
---	Gabriella Passidomo
Commissioner and Prehearing Officer
Florida Public Service Commission
2540 Shumard Oak Boulevard
Tallahassee, Florida 32399
(850) 413-6770
www.floridapsc.com
Copies furrushed: 	A copy of this document is
provided to the parties of record at the time of
issuance and, if applicable, interested persons.

ORDER NO. PSC-2024-0468-PHO-EI
DOCKET NO. 20240007-EI
PAGE 19
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.