Florida Public Service Commission native order document 04739-2024

FILED 6/7/2024
DOCUMENT NO. 04739-2024
FPSC - COMMISSION CLERK
BEFORE THE FLORIDA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION
In re: Petition for limited proceeding for
recovery of incremental storm restoration costs
related to Hurricanes Ian and Nicole, by
Florida Power & Li ht Com an .
DOCKET NO. 20230017-EI
ORDER NO. PSC-2024-0186-PCO-EI
ISSUED: June 7, 2024
ORDER DENYING PETITION TO INTERVENE OF JET BLAST, INC.
Background
On January 23, 2023, Florida Power & Light Company (FPL or Company) filed a
Petition for limited proceeding for recovery of incremental storm restoration costs related to
Hurricanes Ian and Nicole. In that petition, FPL sought authority to implement an interim
surcharge to recover storm restoration costs related to Hurricanes Ian and Nicole and to replenish
the storm reserve to its pre-storm level. FPL also prepared an alternate storm surcharge
calculation that combined the incremental restoration costs related to Hurricanes Ian and Nicole
with the remaining amounts to be collected for Hurricanes Michael, Sally, and Zeta, which the
Commission previously approved for recovery by Gulf Power Company, 1 and to replenish the
storm reserve.
On March 23, 2023, the Commission approved an interim storm restoration surcharge
ba sed on the Company's alternative calculation.2 On November 27, 2023, the Commission
approved a supplemental petition filed by FPL, and decreased the surcharge to reflect an overall
reduction in storm restoration costs. 3 Also in November 2023, the Company filed its petition for
approval of actual incremental storm restoration costs, and requested that the Commission find
the final storm restoration costs to be reasonable and prudent, true-up the amount recovered with
actual final costs, and address any over- or under-recovery. That petition has been scheduled for
hearing to commence June 18, 2024.
On May 8, 2024, Jet Blast, Inc. (Jet Blast) filed a pet1t10n requesting intervention
(Petition). On May 15 , 2024, FPL filed a Response in Opposition to the Petition to Intervene of
Jet Blast, Inc. (Response).
Decision
Petition to Intervene
In its May 8, 2024 Petition, Jet Blast claims that it performed two million dollars ' worth
of labor and services for storm recovery and restoration for FPL and its contractors in 2022. Jet
Blast alleges that FPL denied its claims for compensation. Jet Blast asserts that it has a vital
'Ord er Nos. PSC-2019-0221-PCO-EI; and PSC-2022-0406-FOF-EI.
2 Order No.PSC-2023-0 11 0-PCO-EI.
3Order No. PSC-2023-0354-PCO-EI.

ORDER NO. PSC-2024-0186-PCO-EI
DOCKET NO. 20230017-EI
PAGE 2
interest in this proceeding in order to ensure that rates reflect what FPL allegedly owes to Jet
Blast.
Response
In 	its 	May 	15, 	2024 	Response, 	FPL 	denied 	the 	truth 	of 	Jet 	Blast’s 	claims 	for
compensation and further asserted that, even if the claims were true, Jet Blast failed to
demonstrate standing to intervene in this proceeding. FPL asserts that Jet Blast lacks standing
because Jet Blast failed to allege facts sufficient to demonstrate either an injury in fact or that the
injury is of a type or nature that the proceeding is designed to protect. FPL also asserts that
jurisdiction for Jet Blast’s claims is appropriately with the circuit court rather than any
Commission proceeding.
Standards 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
may 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 two-prong standing test set forth in
Agrico Chemical Company v. Department of Environmental Regulation, 406 So. 2d 478, 482
(Fla. 2d DCA 1981). The intervenor must show that (1) he will suffer injury in fact that 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 that 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. 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).
Analysis & Ruling
Regarding the first prong of Agrico analysis, “a petitioner can satisfy the injury-in-fact
standard set forth in Agrico by demonstrating in his petition either: (1) that he had sustained
actual injury in fact at the time of filing his petition; or (2) that he is immediately in danger of
sustaining some direct injury as a result of the challenged agency's action.” Village Park Mobile
Home Ass'n, 506 So. 2d at 433. Based on the above representations, Jet Blast fails to satisfy the
injury in fact prong of Agrico. Jet Blast is not an FPL energy customer and is not impacted by the
surcharge. Jet Blast has therefore failed to demonstrate either an actual injury or that it is in

ORDER NO. PSC-2024-0186-PCO-EI
DOCKET NO. 20230017-EI
PAGE 3
immediate danger of sustaining some direct injury as a result of the Commission’s action in this
proceeding.
Jet Blast also fails to meet the second prong of Agrico analysis. The purpose of this
proceeding is to determine FPL’s claimed actual and prudently incurred storm costs and to
ensure that customers pay for or receive back any under- or over-collection of these costs. Jet
Blast’s claims relate to purported contract damages. Because the injury it claims is not of a type
or nature that this proceeding is designed to protect, Jet Blast fails to satisfy the second prong of
Agrico. Further, even had Jet Blast pleaded that it was a customer of FPL, the Commission does
not have equity jurisdiction to award damages. Having failed to meet either prong of the Agrico
test for standing, Jet Blast, Inc.’s Petition to Intervene is denied.
It is, therefore,
ORDERED by Commissioner Art Graham, as Prehearing Officer, that Jet Blast, Inc.’s
Petition to Intervene is hereby denied.
By ORDER of Commissioner Art Graham, as Prehearing Officer, this 7th day of June,
2024.
ART GRAHAM
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.
DD
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

ORDER NO. PSC-2024-0186-PCO-EI
DOCKET NO. 20230017-EI
PAGE 4
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.