Florida Public Service Commission native order document 00111-2023

FILED 1/6/2023
DOCUMENT NO. 00111-2023
FPSC - COMMISSION CLERK
BEFORE THE FLORIDA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION
In re: Fuel and purchased power cost recovery 	DOCKET NO. 20230001-EI
clause with generating performance incentive 	ORDER NO. PSC-2023-0026-FOF-EI
factor. 	ISSUED: January 6, 2023
The following Commissioners participated in the disposition of this matter:
ANDREW GILES FAY , Chairman
ARTGRAHAM
GARY F. CLARK
MIKE LAROSA
GABRIELLA P ASSIDOMO
FINAL ORDER APPROVING EXPENDITURES AND TRUE-UP AMOUNTS FOR FUEL
ADJUSTMENT FACTORS; GPIF TARGETS, RANGES, AND REW ARDS; AND
PROJECTED EXPENDITURES AND TRUE-UP AMOUNTS FOR CAPACITY COST
RECOVERY FACTORS
APPEARANCES:
MATTHEW 	BERNIER a nd 	STEPHANIE CUELLO , ESQUIRES, 	106 East
College Avenue, Tallahassee, Florida 32301-7740; and DIANNE M . TRIPLETT,
ESQUIRE, 299 Fir st Avenue North, St. Peters burg, Florida 33701
On behalf of Duke Energy Florida, LLC (DEF).
MARIA JOSE MON C ADA and DAYID M. LEE , ESQUIRES, Florida Power &
Lig ht Company, 700 Universe Boulevard, Juno Beach, Florida 33408-0420
On behalf of Florida Power & Light Company (FPL).
BETH KEATING, ESQUIRE, Gunster, Yoakley & Stewart, P.A., 215 South
Monroe St., Suite 601 , Tallahassee, Florida 32301
On behalf of Florida Public Utilities Company (FPUC).
MALCOLM N. MEANS , a nd J. JEFFRY WAHLEN, and VIRGINIA PONDER,
ESQUIRES, Ausley McMullen, Post Office Box 391 , Tallahassee, Florida 32302
On behalf of Tampa Electric Company (TECO).
RICHARD 	GENTRY, 	PUBLIC 	COUNSEL; 	CHARLES 	REHWINKEL,
DEPUTY PUBLIC C OUNSEL ; PATRICIA A. CHRISTENSEN , and MARY
WESSLING, ESQUIRES, Office of Public Coun sel, c/o The Florida Legislature,
111 West Madison Street, Room 812, Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1400
On behalf of the Citizens of the State of Florida (OPC).

ORDER NO. PSC-2023-0026-FOF-EI
DOCKET NO. 20230001-EI
PAGE 2
JON C. MOYLE, JR. and KAREN A. PUTNAL, ESQUIRES, Moyle Law Firm,
PA, The Perkins House, 118 North Gadsden Street, Tallahassee, Florida 32301
On behalf of the Florida Industrial Power Users Group (FIPUG).
ROBERT SCHEFFEL WRIGHT, JOHN T. LAVIA, III, and TIMOTHY H.
PERRY, ESQUIRES, Gardner, Bist, Bowden, Dee, LaVia, Wright, Perry &
Harper, PA, 1300 Thomaswood Drive, Tallahassee, Florida 32308
On behalf of the Florida Retail Federation (FRF).
JAMES W. BREW and LAURA WYNN BAKER, ESQUIRES, Stone, Mattheis,
Xenopoulos & Brew, PC, 1025 Thomas Jefferson St., NW, Eighth Floor, West
Tower, Washington, DC 20007
On behalf of White Springs Agricultural Chemicals, Inc. d/b/a PCS Phosphate –
White Springs (PCS Phosphate).
PETER J. MATTHEIS, MICHAEL K. LAVANGA and JOSEPH R. BRISCAR,
ESQUIRES, Stone, Mattheis, Xenopoulos & Brew, PC, 1025 Thomas Jefferson
St., NW, Eighth Floor, West Tower, Washington, DC 20007
On behalf of Nucor Steel Florida, Inc. (Nucor).
SUZANNE BROWNLESS and RYAN SANDY, 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 	HETRICK, 	ESQUIRE, 	General 	Counsel, 	Florida 	Public 	Service
Commission, 2540 Shumard Oak Boulevard, Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0850
Florida Public Service Commission General Counsel.
BY THE COMMISSION
As p art of the continuing fuel and purchased power adjustment and generating performance
incentive clause proceedings, an administrative hearing was held on November 17-18, 2022, and
December 6, 2022, in this docket. 	We have jurisdiction over this subject matter pursuant to the
provisions of Chapter 366, Florida Statutes (F.S.), including Sections 366.04, 366.05, and
366.06, F.S.
At the hearing we approved Type 2 stipulations, contained on Attachment A, for all
identified issues with the exception of Issue 3A (affecting only FPUC) and Issues 8-10, 16, 18
and 20 (affecting only DEF, FPL and TECO). 	Exhibits 1-77 and 79-82 were admitted into
evidence. 	The testimony of Gary P. Dean on behalf of Duke Energy Florida, LLC (DEF);

ORDER NO. PSC-2023-0026-FOF-EI
DOCKET NO. 20230001-EI
PAGE 3
Gerard J. Yupp and Scott Bores on behalf of Florida Power & Light Company (FPL), and
Penelope A. Rusk on behalf of Tampa Electric Company (TECO) was heard and the witnesses
were cross-examined. 	The parties waived the filing of post-hearing briefs and DEF, FPL,
Florida Public Utilities Company (FPUC), TECO, Office of Public Counsel (OPC), Florida
Industrial Power Users (FIPUG), and Florida Retail Federation (FRF) presented post-hearing
oral argument after which a bench vote was taken.
I. 	Motion for Reconsideration
OPC raised two issues for the first time at the Prehearing Conference: “What is the
appropriate carrying cost, if any, for the 2022 under-recovery amount voluntarily deferred for
recovery, for the duration of the voluntary deferral period?” (Issue A); and: “Over what period
should 2022 under-recoveries be collected and at what carrying cost?” (Issue B). 	At the
Prehearing Conference, OPC asked for inclusion of these issues on the grounds that DEF, FPL
and TECO (referred to herein as “Utilities”) should not be allowed to defer the recovery of their
substantial fuel cost under-recoveries for 2022.
OPC argued that since it was the Utilities’ unilateral decision to defer recovering the
2022 fuel costs, the Utilities, not their customers, should pay the carrying costs associated with
deferral of cost recovery until some later date. Additionally, OPC, FIPUG, and FRF, argued that
customers were entitled to know the impact of the large 2022 under-recovery now so that they
could make informed business decisions for the coming year. 	Knowing the time period over
which the 2022 under-recovery would be recovered substantially affects the amounts recovered
each month.
Unlike the Utilities, FPUC requested recovery of its 2022 fuel under-recovery in the
amount of $15,143,447 which we approved as a Type 2 stipulation of Issue No. 8. FPUC did not
take a position on whether Issues A and B should be included.
The Utilities argued that the 2022 natural gas market was so volatile that 2022 natural gas
prices could still not be accurately predicted and that it was better to wait and use actual costs to
determine the amount to be recovered, the carrying costs to be applied, and the time period over
which to recover those costs. The Prehearing Officer agreed with the Utilities and deferred these
issues until at least the first quarter of 2023 when DEF, FPL, and TECO intend to file for the
recovery of their under-recovered 2022 fuel costs. 1
In its ore tenus motion for reconsideration made at the commencement of the final
hearing, OPC reiterated the arguments it made at the Prehearing Conference but added additional
argument. For the first time, OPC contended that excluding these issues would violate Sections
120.569(1) and 120.57(1)(b), F.S., by denying the parties an “opportunity to raise and contest all
disputed issues of material fact.” 	OPC argued that the excluded disputed issues of fact for DEF,
FPL, and TECO involved the time period over which the substantial fuel cost under-recoveries
would be recovered and the carrying cost applied to that period. OPC also raised the point that
the Utilities acted inconsistently with established Commission policy and practice on how fuel
costs are litigated and collected by not identifying and seeking recovery for 2022 fuel cost under-
recoveries in this docket.
1 Order No. PSC-2022-0390-PHO-EI, issued November 14, 2022, in Docket No. 20220001-EI, In re: Fuel and
purchased power cost recovery clause with generating performance incentive factor, at page 60.

ORDER NO. PSC-2023-0026-FOF-EI
DOCKET NO. 20230001-EI
PAGE 4
The standard of review for a motion for reconsideration is whether the motion identifies a
point of fact or law which we overlooked or failed to consider in rendering our order. 	Stewart
Bonded Warehouse, Inc. v. Bevis, 294 So. 2d 315 (Fla. 1974); Diamond Cab Co. v. King, 146 So.
2d 889 (Fla. 1962); Pingree v. Quaintance, 394 So. 2d 161 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981). The purpose of
reconsideration is to bring to our attention a specific point that, had we considered it when it was
presented in the first instance, would have required a different decision. 	State ex. rel. Jaytex
Realty Co. v. Green, 105 So. 2d 817, 819 (Fla. 1st DCA 1958) (Wigginton, J., concurring);
Sherwood v. State, 111 So. 2d 96 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1959). 	Our decision to grant a motion for
reconsideration must be based on specific factual matters rather than an arbitrary feeling that we
may have made a mistake. 	Stewart Bonded Warehouse, Inc., 294 So. 2d at 317 (overturning a
Commission 	order 	on 	reconsideration 	because 	the 	Commission’s 	basis 	for 	granting
reconsideration was to reweigh the evidence, which was “not sufficient”).
The arguments presented to us at the final hearing for the most part echoed what was
presented to the Prehearing Officer on behalf of OPC, FIPUG, FRF, and the Utilities. 	These
arguments were fully considered by the Prehearing Officer in reaching his decision that Issues A
and B were relevant to the ultimate cost recovery of 2022 under-recovered fuel charges but
should be deferred until a request for recovery of those costs was made by the Utilities. Neither
OPC, FIPUG, nor FRF presented the violation of due process or violation of established
Commission policy arguments to the Prehearing Officer. 	Both of these arguments could have
been raised initially but were not. 	It is not an abuse of discretion to deny a motion for
reconsideration or rehearing which raises an issue that could have been, but was not, raised in the
initial motion or at the initial hearing.2 	For these reasons, we affirm the Prehearing Officer’s
decision and deny OPC’s motion for reconsideration.
II. 	Fuel cost factors
A. 	DEF
DEF has requested that it be allowed to collect a $175,789,361 under-recovery as its total
fuel adjustment true-up amount to be collected from January 2023 through December 2023. This
amount is comprised of $123,418,788 from the Rate Mitigation Plan approved in Order No.
PSC-2021-4025-FOF-EI 3 and $52,370,573 of the midcourse correction amount of $314,223,437
approved in Order No. PSC-2022-0061-PCO-EI. 4 	As of July 31, 2022, the fuel adjustment
actual/estimated true-up amount for the period January 2022 through December 2022 is an
under-recovery 	of 	$1,308,956,670. 	DEF 	is 	not 	requesting 	recovery 	of 	the 	net 	2022
actual/estimated amount at this time. Based on the deferral of setting final under-recovered 2022
fuel costs to next year, DEF’s has requested recovery of a projected total fuel and purchased
power 	cost 	recovery 	amount 	for 	the 	period 	January 	2023 	through 	December 	2023 	of
$2,266,708,676. 	Using these amounts, DEF is requesting a projected net fuel and purchased
power cost recovery and Generating Performance Incentive amount of $2,473,648,033 for the
period January 2023 through December 2023.
2 Chris Thompson, P.A. v. GEICO Indemnity Company, 349 So. 3d 447, 448-9 (Fla. 4 th DCA 2022).
3 Order No. PSC-2021-0425-FOF-EI, issued on November 16, 2021, in Docket No. 20210158-EI, In re: Limited
proceeding to consider Duke Energy Florida, LLC’s unopposed motion to approve rate mitigation agreement.
4 Order No. PSC-0061-PCO-EI, issued on February 17, 2022, in Docket No. 20220001-EI, In re: Fuel and
purchased power cost recovery clause with generating performance incentive factor.

ORDER NO. PSC-2023-0026-FOF-EI
DOCKET NO. 20230001-EI
PAGE 5
B. 	FPL
FPL has requested that it be allowed a $10,256,384 over-recovery for its total 2021 fuel
adjustment true-up to be refunded from January 2023 through December 2023. 	As of July 31,
2022, the fuel adjustment actual/estimated true-up amount for the period January 2022 through
December 2022 is an under-recovery of $1,658,287,443. 	FPL is not requesting recovery of this
amount at this time. 	Based on the deferral of setting final under-recovered 2022 fuel costs to
next year, FPL has requested recovery of a projected total fuel and purchased power cost
recovery amount for the period January 2023 through December 2023 of $4,853,323,306. Using
these amounts, FPL is requesting a projected net fuel and purchased power cost recovery and
Generating Performance Incentive amount of $5,006,260,583 for the period January 2023
through December 2023.
C. 	FPUC
FPUC has requested that it be allowed to collect under-recovered true-up fuel costs of
$6,047,784 for 2021 and $15,143,447 for a total of $21,191,231 to be recovered over a 3-year
period at $7,063,744 per year beginning in January 2023. Recovery over an extended period of
time has been requested due to the large rate impact of FPUC’s customers if recovery is spread
out over a shorter period. 	We have approved these amounts as Type 2 stipulations found in
Attachment A.
FPUC has also requested that it be allowed to charge its parent’s projected short-term
debt rate, rather than the 30-day non-financial commercial paper rate normally charged on the
deferred 2022 fuel cost balance. 	If during the three-year recovery period, the 30-day non-
financial commercial paper rate exceeds the parent’s short-term debt rate, FPUC would revert to
calculating 	interest 	on 	the 	deferred 	2022 	fuel 	cost 	balance 	at 	the 	30-day 	non-financial
commercial paper rate. 	FPUC argues that it does not have access to the 30-day non-financial
commercial paper rate and all of its debt is financed by its parent. Thus, FPUC argues that not
applying its parent’s short term debt rate would result in non-recovery of FPUC’s actual cost of
debt on the outstanding deferred balance. 	The appropriate carrying cost for 2022 deferred cost
balances (Issue 3A) has not been resolved by stipulation.
D. 	TECO
TECO has requested that it be allowed zero dollars for its total fuel 2021 adjustment true-
up applicable to the period January 2023 through December 2023. As of July 31, 2022, the fuel
adjustment actual/estimated true-up amount for the period January 2022 through December 2022
is an under-recovery of $411,964,625. 	TECO is not requesting recovery of this amount at this
time. Based on the deferral of setting final under-recovered 2022 fuel costs to next year, TECO
has requested recovery of a projected total fuel and purchased power cost recovery amount for
the period January 2023 through December 2023 of $956,732,804. Using these amounts, TECO
is 	requesting 	a 	projected 	net 	fuel 	and 	purchased 	power 	cost 	recovery 	and 	Generating
Performance Incentive amount of $962,791,158 for the period January 2023 through December
2023.

ORDER NO. PSC-2023-0026-FOF-EI
DOCKET NO. 20230001-EI
PAGE 6
III. 	2022 under-recoveries
A. 	Company positions
In this proceeding, FPUC has included its projected 2022 under-recovery in its 2023 fuel
factor. 	We have approved FPUC’s calculations 	of its fuel adjustment actual/estimated true-up
amounts for January 2022 through December 2022 of $15,143,447 under-recovery and total fuel
adjustment true-up amount applicable to the period January 2023 through December 2023 of
$7,063,744 under-recovery by our approval of Type 2 stipulations found in Attachment A. The
only non-stipulated issue for FPUC is the treatment of carrying costs to be applied to its deferred
2022 fuel cost balance discussed above.
In this proceeding, the FPL, DEF, and TECO have identified their 2022 fuel costs as
required by the Order Establishing Procedure (OEP)5 but have chosen not to request recovery of
those costs in their 2023 factors. The rationale for this action is that the extreme volatility of the
natural gas market in 2022 has made a reliable projection of final 2022 costs “not practical” and
deferral of cost recovery for those costs compliant with the provisions of Rule 25-6.0424(2),
F.A.C.
DEF Witness Dean testified that comparing January 2022 natural gas prices to June, July,
and August 2022 prices, there was an increase of 134 percent, 44 percent, and 139 percent,
respectively. FPL Witness Yupp testified natural gas volatility in 2022 was affected by multiple
unpredictable events that happened on a real time basis: the war in Ukraine, an extremely hot
summer period with limited switching capability to coal, an explosion at a liquefied natural gas
(LNG) facility , and increased United States LNG exports. Witness Yupp also testified that these
events should now be taken into account and reflected in the NYMEX forward curve used to
forecast 2023 natural gas prices. Further, Witness Yupp testified that the natural gas commodity
price in the later part of 2022 had been a lot more stable than in the earlier months of 2022.
FPL Witness Bores agreed with Witnesses Yupp and Dean that the market in 2022 had
been highly volatile, noting that during the month of July 2022 NYMEX settlement prices
ranged from below $5.72 to a high of $9.46 per Million British thermal units (MMBtu). FPL’s
customers would have had five midcourse corrections had FPL requested a rate increase every
time costs exceeded the 10 percent variance threshold in 2022. 	Given record inflation, higher
food prices and higher interest rates, Witness Bores testified that FPL concluded it was better for
customers to have just one accurate rate change in 2023 to recover 2022 fuel costs, rather than
several sequential, rate changes in 2022, to do so.
TECO Witness Rusk agreed that the natural gas market had been extremely volatile in
2002. Witness Rusk testified that TECO filed a midcourse correction in early 2022 which took
effect April 1. On April 1, even using the new rates, TECO calculated that it would exceed the
10 percent threshold again based on natural gas prices at the end of March. TECO’s 10 percent
threshold was exceeded again as reflected in its July 27 actual/estimated filing and then yet again
by more than 50 percent in the next few weeks. 	TECO’s strategy was to hold off filing for a
midcourse correction to see if the market would decline throughout the rest of 2022 which would
result in a smaller under-recovery amount being passed on to ratepayers. 	Witness Rusk testified
5 Order No. PSC-2022-0052-PCO-EI, issued February 7, 2022, in Docket No. 20220001-EI, In re: Fuel and
purchased power cost recovery clause with generating performance incentive factor.

ORDER NO. PSC-2023-0026-FOF-EI
DOCKET NO. 20230001-EI
PAGE 7
that natural gas prices have declined slightly in the last few months supporting TECO’s strategy
to wait until the end of the year to request recovery of fuel costs.
TECO estimates that it will under-recover somewhere around $550 million by the end of
the year. As of October 31 TECO is under-recovered $470 million, less than the approximately
$600 million projected on September 2. 	The monthly residential bill impact for a recovery of
$550 million is estimated to be a $20 bill increase for 1,000 kilowatt hours (kWh) usage if
recovered over a 12 month period and $13 increase if recovered over an 18-month period. 	For
commercial and industrial customers, whose bills vary widely depending on class of customer,
usage, and load patterns, recovery over a 12-month period would result in an increase in the bill
of 13 to 25 percent, recovery over 18 months would reduce the bill increase from 8 to 15 percent,
and recovery over a 21-month period would reduce the bill increase from 6 to 12 percent. 	The
total bill for residential customers for 1,000 kWh usage would be approximately $167/month for
a 12-month recovery period and $160/month for an 18-month recovery period. 	FPL Witness
Bores testified that its 2022 under-recovery at the end of September was approximately $2
billion. 	DEF calculated its 2022 under-recovery at the end of September to be approximately
$1.159 billion.
B. 	OPC, FIPUG, and FRF positions
OPC, FRF, and FIPUG have questioned the Utilities’ decisions to wait to recover 2022
fuel cost under-recoveries when each filed Rule 25-6.0424 (2), Florida Administrative Code
(F.A.C.) midcourse correction letters in the first quarter of 2022 stating that their fuel cost
recovery was under-recovered by 10 percent or greater.6 Characterizing these decisions to wait
as creating a “voluntary deferral period,” OPC, FRF and FIPUG argue that the Utilities should
not recover any carrying costs for the 2022 under-recoveries from July 1, 2022 until the date the
under-recoveries begin to be collected from customers, e.g, April 1, 2023. After that date, OPC,
FIPUG and FRF would apply the commercial paper rate on the unrecovered balance.
OPC also argues that there should be extended recovery periods for the under-recoveries,
e.g., 12, 16, or 18 months. OPC further contends that failure to request recovery for 2022 under-
recoveries violates Commission fuel cost recovery clause policy as stated in Rule 25-6.0424,
F.A.C., and Section 120.68(7)(e)(3), F.S. Finally, OPC contends that the Utilities’ assertion that
OPC, FRF, or FIPUG should have requested that DEF, FPL, and TECO file requests for
midcourse corrections in early 2022 is “audacious.” 	This is because the filing of a midcourse
correction letter, according to OPC, does not give parties a point of entry to request anything.
The burden to comply with Rule 25-6.0424, F.A.C., and Section 120.68(7)(e)(3), F.S., lies with
the Utilities, not the customers.
Additionally, FRF argues that at least some portion of DEF’s, FPL’s and TECO’s
identified under-recoveries, perhaps 25 percent of under-recoveries identified in their July 27
filings, should be recovered in the 2023 fuel cost recovery factor beginning January 1, 2023. 	If
this were done, FRF argues that the total cost to ratepayers would be decreased due to lower total
carrying costs. Additionally, if this were done, the rate impact would be decreased as the under-
recovery would be spread over a longer period of time. 	FRF also argues that allowing the
6 DEF – Letter dated March 29, 2022, Document No. 021134-2022; FPL – Letter dated April 15, 2022, Document
No. 02477-2022; TECO – Letter dated April 21, 2022, Document No. 02571-2022.

ORDER NO. PSC-2023-0026-FOF-EI
DOCKET NO. 20230001-EI
PAGE 8
Utilities to wait until the first quarter of 2023 to request and implement recovery of 2022 under-
recoveries violates the matching principle and results in rates that are not fair, just, and
reasonable.
Finally, FIPUG argues that the entire purpose of the fuel clause is to decrease the
regulatory lag between the time fuel is purchased and Utilities are paid. Doing this implements
the “matching principle”: the customers that use the electricity are the customers who pay for
that electricity. Operation of the fuel clause as has historically been done, FIPUG argues, gives
customers both transparency and timeliness with respect to what future costs are going to be.
FIPUG does not accept the Utilities’ contention that 2022 was an exceptionally volatile year for
natural gas prices arguing that there will always be unexpected events that will impact the natural
gas market.
Decision
The Order Establishing Procedure (OEP) 7 sets forth the filing dates for testimony in this
docket and the type of testimony to be filed. 	The Utilities’ filings can be roughly divided into
three parts: final true-up testimony and exhibits for 2021 due April 1, 2022; actual/estimated
true-up testimony and exhibits for 2022 due July 27, 2022; and projection testimony and exhibits
for 2023 due September 2, 2022.8 	These filings reflect the basic regulatory scheme of the
docket. First, true-up the fuel costs from the last year, here 2021, using the actual costs for 2021.
Second, get final numbers for January through June of the current year, here 2022, and updated
projections for the remainder of the current year, July through December. 	Third, make
projections for the next year, here 2023. 	This regulatory scheme is designed to allow the
Utilities to recover their incurred fuel costs and adjust their projected fuel costs in a systematic
and prompt manner.
In addition to the yearly adjustment of fuel clause factors, Rule 25-6.0424(2), F.A.C.,
allows for mid-course corrections should fuel costs actually exceed projected fuel costs by 10
percent. Rule 25-6.0424(2), F.A.C., states as follows:
(2) 	In the event that the absolute value of the over-recovery or under-recovery
either for fuel cost recovery or capacity cost recovery is 10 percent or greater, the
utility 	shall 	promptly 	notify 	the 	Commission 	by 	letter 	delivered 	to 	the
Commission Clerk. 	The notification of a 10 percent or greater estimated over-
recovery or under-recovery shall include a petition for mid-course correction to
the fuel cost recovery or capacity cost recovery factors, or shall include an
explanation of why a mid-course correction is not practical. 	This section in no
way precludes a utility from requested a mid-course correction prior to reaching
the 10 percent threshold requiring Commission notification.
(Emphasis added.)
Each of the Utilities filed 10 percent under-recovery letters with this Commission: DEF
on March 29, 2022; FPL on April 15, 2022; and TECO on April 21, 2022. 	In each of these
7Order No. PSC-2022-0052-PCO-EI, issued February 7, 2022, in Docket No. 20220001-EI, In re: Fuel and
purchased power cost recovery clause with generating performance incentive factor.
8 Id. at pp. 10-11.

ORDER NO. PSC-2023-0026-FOF-EI
DOCKET NO. 20230001-EI
PAGE 9
letters, the respective utility stated that their latest projection of fuel costs for the period ending
December 31, 2022, would be exceeded by 10 percent. None of the Utilities filed a petition for
mid-course correction at that time. Each of the Utilities stated that a mid-course correction was
not “practical” because the high volatility of the natural gas market made reliable predictions of
natural gas prices impossible. 	All stated that continuing to monitor the natural gas market to
determine if natural gas price forecasts would moderate, decreasing the amount of under-
recoveries passed on to customers, was the practical thing to do. Having given an explanation of
why each utility did not file a petition for mid-course correction, the Utilities argue that they
have complied with Rule 25-6.0424, F.A.C.
Section 120.68(7)(e)(3), F.S., states as follows:
(7) The court shall remand a case to the agency for further proceedings consistent
with the court’s decision or set aside agency action, as appropriate, when it finds
that:
. . .
(e) The agency’s exercise of discretion was:
. . .
3. 	Inconsistent with officially stated agency policy or a prior agency
practice, if deviation therefrom is not explained by the agency.
(Emphasis added.)
With regard to compliance with the requirements of Section 120.68(7)(e)(3), F.S., OPC,
FRF, and FIPUG argue that highly volatile natural gas market in 2022 is simply not sufficient to
support a deviation from long established policy for computing fuel cost recovery factors. 	The
Utilities say it is sufficient.
OPC’s, FRF, and FIPUG’s arguments that Rule 25-6.0424(2), F.A.C., and Section
120.68(7)(e)(3), F.S., are violated is based on the Utilities’ failure to include actual and projected
2022 fuel costs in the calculation of the 2023 cost recovery factors. In its simplest formulation,
these parties argue that market volatility, no matter how extreme, is not enough to deviate from
standard practice. 	We disagree. 	The plain language of both Rule 25-6.0424(2), F.A.C., and
Section 120.68(7)(e)(3), F.S., allows exceptions to be recognized.
Here there is extensive evidence in the record from each of the Utilities of the unique
circumstances affecting natural gas markets in 2022: very large swings in prices in July from
$5.72 to $9.46 per MMBtu; war in Ukraine which resulted in increased LNG exports to
European 	countries; 	limited 	ability 	to 	switch 	to 	coal-fired 	generation 	due 	to 	coal 	plant
retirements, transportation constraints, and below-average plant stockpiles; and higher than
normal temperatures causing increased demand for electricity. 	Additionally, the Utilities’
customers have been subjected in 2022 to record-high inflation, higher food prices, and higher
interest rates. 	Using actual fuel expense amounts eliminates the risk of charging already
burdened ratepayers too much. 	For these reasons we find that the exclusion of 2022 fuel costs
from the Utilities’ proposed 2023 cost recovery factors to be reasonable and approve levelized
fuel cost recovery factors for the period January 2023 through December 2023 of 6.257 cents per
kWh, 4.036 cents per kWh, and 4.825 cents per kWh for DEF, FPL, and TECO, respectively.

ORDER NO. PSC-2023-0026-FOF-EI
DOCKET NO. 20230001-EI
PAGE 10
We have heard the concerns of OPC, FRF, and FIPUG that time is of the essence in
determining the fuel costs that will be passed along to ratepayers both because customers need to
know fuel costs to plan their business activities and to limit the carrying costs imposed on the
deferred 2022 fuel cost balance. Each of the Utilities has testified that they will be able to file a
petition for mid-course correction using actual year end 2022 fuel cost amounts by mid-January
2023. Based on these representations, we will require DEF, FPL and TECO to file their petitions
for mid-course corrections on or before Monday, January 23, 2023.
IV. 	Levelized fuel cost recovery factors
The levelized fuel cost recovery factors requested by DEF, FPL, and TECO for the period
January 2023 through December 2023 are 6.257, 4.036, and 4.825 cents per kWh, respectively.
Based on our decision with regard to the recovery of 2022 fuel costs, we hereby approve these
factors.
V. 	Fuel cost recovery factor for each rate class/delivery voltage level class
The appropriate fuel cost recovery factors for each rate class/delivery voltage level
adjusted for line losses requested by DEF, FPL, and TECO are stated below. 	Based on our
decision with regard to the recovery of 2022 fuel costs, we hereby approve these factors.
DEF:
Fuel Cost Factors (cents/kWh)
Time of Use
Group 	Delivery
Voltage Level
First
Tier
Factor
Second
Tier
Factors
Levelized
Factors
On-
Peak
Off-
Peak
Super Off-
Peak
A 	Transmission 	-- 	-- 	6.141 	7.541 	6.178 	4.581
B 	Distribution Primary 	-- 	-- 	6.203 	7.617 	6.240 	4.627
C 	Distribution
Secondary
5.961 	7.031 	6.266 	7.695 	6.304 	4.674
D 	Lighting Secondary 	-- 	-- 	5.865 	-- 	--

ORDER NO. PSC-2023-0026-FOF-EI
DOCKET NO. 20230001-EI
PAGE 11
FPL:
GROUPS 	RATE SCHEDULE Average
Factor
Fuel Recovery
Loss Multiplier
Fuel Recovery
Factor
A 	RS-1 first 1,000 kWh 	4.036 	1.00283 	3.745
A 	RS-1 all additional kWh 	4.036 	1.00283 	4.745
A 	GS-1, SL-2, SL-2M, GSCU-1 	4.036 	1.00283 	4.047
A-1 	SL-1, SL-1M, OL-1, PL-1 (1), LT-1, OS I/II (1) 	3.972 	1.00283 	3.983
B 	GSD-1, GSD-1EV 	4.036 	1.00276 	4.047
C 	GSLD-1, GSLD-1EV, CS-1 	4.036 	1.00168 	4.043
D 	GSLD-2, CS-2, OS-2, MET 	4.036 	0.99393 	4.012
E 	GSLD-3, CS-3 	4.036 	0.97235 	3.924
A 	GST-1 On-Peak 	4.355 	1.00283 	4.367
A 	GST-1 Off-Peak 	3.899 	1.00283 	3.910
A 	RTR-1 On-Peak 	0.320
A 	RTR-1 Off-Peak 	(0.137)
B 	GSDT-1, CILC-1(G), SST-1D(1), HLFT-1 On-Peak 	4.355 	1.00276 	4.367
B 	GSDT-1, CILC-1(G), SST-1D(1), HLFT-1 Off-Peak 	3.899 	1.00276 	3.910
C 	GSLDT-1, CST-1, SST-1D(2), HLFT-2 On-Peak 	4.355 	1.00168 	4.362
C 	GSLDT-1, CST-1, SST-1D(2), HLFT-2 Off-Peak 	3.899 	1.00168 	3.906
D 	GSLDT-2, CST-2, SST-1D(3), HLFT-3 On-Peak 	4.355 	0.99420 	4.330
D 	GSLDT-2, CST-2, SST-1D(3), HLFT-3 Off-Peak 	3.899 	0.99420 	3.876
E 	GSLDT-3, CST-3, CILC-1(T), SST-1(T), ISST-1(T) On-Peak 	4.355 	0.97235 	4.235
E 	GSLDT-3, CST-3, CILC-1(T), SST-1(T), ISST-1(T) Off-Peak 	3.899 	0.97235 	3.791
F 	CILC-1(D), ISST-1(D) On-Peak 	4.355 	0.99448 	4.331
F 	CILC-1(D), ISST-1(D) Off-Peak 	3.899 	0.99448 	3.877
(1) Weighted average 16% on-peak and 84% off-peak

ORDER NO. PSC-2023-0026-FOF-EI
DOCKET NO. 20230001-EI
PAGE 12
TECO: 	The appropriate factors are as follows:
Fuel Charge
Metering Voltage Level 	Factor (cents per kWh)
Secondary 	4.832
RS Tier I (Up to 1,000 kWh) 	4.525
RS Tier II (Over 1,000 kWh) 	5.525
Distribution Primary 	4.784
Transmission 	4.735
Lighting Service 	4.767
Distribution Secondary 	5.179 	(on-peak)
4.683 	(off-peak)
Distribution Primary 	5.127 	(on-peak)
4.636 	(off-peak)
Transmission 	5.075 	(on-peak)
4.589 	(off-peak)
Per the stipulation of the parties, the new factors approved herein shall be effective with
the first billing cycle for January 2023 through the last billing cycle for December 2023. 	The
first billing cycle may start before January 1, 2023, and the last cycle may be read after
December 31, 2023, so that each customer is billed for twelve months regardless of when the
recovery factors became effective. The new factors shall continue in effect until modified by this
Commission.
We hereby approve revised tariffs for DEF, FPL, FPUC, and TECO reflecting the fuel
adjustment factors and capacity cost recovery factors determined to be appropriate in this
proceeding. We direct our staff to verify that the revised tariffs are consistent with our decision.
Finally, we find that FPUC did not provide sufficient support for deviating from our
long-standing policy of applying the 30-day non-financial commercial paper rate to deferred fuel
cost balances and deny its request to do so.
Based on the foregoing, it is
GROUPS 	RATE SCHEDULE Average
Factor
Fuel Recovery
Loss Multiplier
Fuel Recovery
Factor
B 	GSD(T)-1 On-Peak 	5.368 	1.00276 	5.383
B 	GSD(T)-1 Off-Peak 	3.866 	1.00276 	3.877
C 	GSLD(T)-1 On-Peak 	5.368 	1.00168 	5.377
C 	GSLD(T)-1 Off-Peak 	3.866 	1.00168 	3.873
D 	GSLD(T)-2 On-Peak 	5.368 	0.99420 	5.337
D 	GSLD(T)-2 Off-Peak 	3.866 	0.99420 	3.844

ORDER NO. PSC-2023-0026-FOF-EI
DOCKET NO. 20230001-EI
PAGE 13
ORDERED by the Florida Public Service Commission that the findings set forth in the
body of this order, and Attachment A hereto, are hereby approved. It is further
ORDERED that the Office of Public Counsel’s motion for reconsideration is denied. It is
further
ORDERED that Duke Energy Florida, LLC, Florida Power & Light Company, Florida
Public Utilities Company, and Tampa Electric Company are hereby authorized to apply the fuel
cost recovery factors set forth herein during the period January 2023 through December 2023. It
is further
ORDERED that the estimated true-up amounts contained in the fuel cost recovery factors
approved herein are hereby authorized subject to final true-up and further subject to proof of the
reasonableness and prudence of the expenditures upon which the amounts are based. It is further
ORDERED that Duke Energy Florida, LLC, Florida Power & Light Company, Florida
Public Utilities Company, and Tampa Electric Company are hereby authorized to apply the
capacity cost recovery factors set forth herein during the period January 2023 through December
2023. It is further
ORDERED that the estimated true-up amounts contained in the capacity cost recovery
factors approved herein are hereby authorized subject to final true-up and further subject to proof
of the reasonableness and prudence of the expenditures upon which the amounts are based. It is
further
ORDERED that the revised tariffs reflecting the fuel adjustment factors and capacity cost
recovery factors determined to be appropriate in this proceeding are hereby approved and we
direct Commission staff to verify that the revised tariffs are consistent with our decision. 	It is
further
ORDERED that Duke Energy Florida, LLC, Florida Power & Light Company and
Tampa Electric Company shall file their petitions for mid-course corrections using actual year
end 2022 fuel cost amounts on or before Monday, January 23, 2023. It is further
ORDERED that Florida Public Utilities Company shall apply the 30-day non-financial
commercial paper rate to deferred fuel cost balances. It is further
ORDERED that while the Fuel and Purchased Power Cost Recovery Clause with
Generating Performance Incentive Factor docket is assigned a separate docket number each year
for administrative convenience, it is a continuing docket and shall remain open.

O RD ER N O. PSC-20 23 -0 026-FOF-El
DOCKET NO. 2023 0 00 I-El
PAGE 14
By O RD ER of th e Flo rid a Public Se rvice Co mmi ssion t hi s 6th day of January, 2023 .
SB r
Commission
Flo rid a Pu blic Serv ice Commission
2540 Shuma rd Oak Bo ulevard
Ta ll ahassee, Flo rid a 32399
(850) 41 3-6770
www. fl oridapsc.com
Co pi es furnished: 	A copy of this doc um ent is
prov id ed to t li e parties of record at the ti me of
issuance and, if appl ica bl e, interested perso ns.
NO TI CE OF FU RTHER PR OCEE DI NGS OR JUDI CIAL R EVI EW
The Flo ri da Public Serv ice Commission is req uired by Sect io n 120.569( I ), Flo ri da
Statutes, to no ti fy pa rti es of any admini strative hea rin g or jud ic ial rev iew of Co mmi ss ion orders
th at is ava il ab le under Sections 120 .57 or 120.68, Flo rid a Stat ut es, as we ll as the proced ur es and
time limi ts that apply. 	T hi s not ice sho ul d not be construed to mean a ll 	requests fo r an
admini stra ti ve hea rin g or ju dicial review w ill be gra nt ed or res ul t in the rel ief so ught.
Any party ad ve r se ly affected by th e Co mmission's fin al ac ti on in thi s matter may req uest:
I) reco ns id era ti on of the dec ision by fili ng a motion for reconsiderat ion w it h the Office of
Commission Clerk, 2540 Shuma rd Oa k Bo ul evard, Ta ll ahas see, Flo rid a 32399-0850, withi n
fi fteen ( 15) days of th e issuance of t hi s order in th e fo rm prescribed by Ru le 25 -22.060, Flo ri da
Ad mini stra ti ve Code; or 2) judic ial rev iew by th e Flo rid a · Supreme Court in th e case of an
elec tri c, gas or tele ph one utility or th e Firs t Di s tri ct Cou rt of Appea l in the case of a water and/or
wastewater utility by filing a no ti ce of appeal w ith the Office of Commission Clerk, and fi lin g a
copy of th e notice of a pp ea l and th e filing fee with the appropriate court. 	Th is fi lin g must be
co mpl eted within thir ty (3 0) days a ft er the issuance of thi s o rd er, pursua nt to Rule 9 .1 I0, Flo rid a
Rul es of Appe ll ate Procedure. 	The no ti ce of a pp ea l mu st be in the fo rm speci fi ed in Ru le
9.900(a), Fl o ri da R ul es of Appe ll ate Procedure.

ORDER NO. PSC-2023-0026-FOF-EI
DOCKET NO. 20230001-EI
PAGE 15
ATTACHMENT A
BEFORE THE FLORIDA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION
In re: Fuel and purchased power cost recovery
clause with generating performance incentive
factor.
DOCKET NO. 20220001-EI
ORDER NO.
ISSUED:
PROPOSED STIPULATIONS
The following issues are proposed as Type 2 9 stipulations in this proceeding 10 :
I. 	FUEL ISSUES
Duke Energy Florida, LLC.
ISSUE 1A: 	Should the Commission approve DEF’s 2023 Risk Management Plan?
Stipulation: 	Yes, but the parties agree that DEF will not enter into financial hedges for 2023
fuel burns. 	If DEF intends to restart its hedging program, it will subsequently
seek and obtain Commission approval.
ISSUE 1B: 	What is the appropriate subscription bill credit associated with DEF’s Clean
Energy Connection Program, approved by Order No. PSC-2021-0059-S-EI, to be
included for recovery in 2023?
Stipulation: 	$31,356,459.
ISSUE 1C: 	Has DEF made appropriate adjustments, if any are needed, to account for
replacement power costs associated with the January 2021 to April 2021 outage in
Bartow CC Unit 4A and/or the May 2021 to July 2021 outage in Bartow CC Unit
4C? 	If appropriate adjustments are needed and have not been made, what
adjustments should be performed?
Stipulation: 	No adjustments are needed.
9 A Type 2 stipulation occurs on an issue when the utility and 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.
10 The OPC position and the FRF position on each Type 2 stipulation stated herein is as follows:
OPC and FRF take no position on these issues nor do they have the burden of proof related to them. As
such, the OPC and FRF represent that they 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 these issues. No person
is authorized to state that the OPC or FRF 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.

ORDER NO. PSC-2023-0026-FOF-EI
DOCKET NO. 20230001-EI
PAGE 16
ISSUE 1D: 	What is the impact on this docket, if a decision is issued in Case SC20-1601
before January 1, 2023?
Stipulation: 	There is no impact. 	DEF has already recovered the costs and received a stay on
the refund.
ISSUE 1E: 	What is the impact on this docket, if a decision is issued in Case SC22-94 before
January 1, 2023?
Stipulation: 	Currently there is no impact as this case is still pending before the Florida
Supreme Court.
ISSUE 1F: 	If the decision in Case SC22-94 requires the return of replacement power costs to
customers, what interest amount should be applied?
Stipulation: 	This issue is not ripe for a decision at this time.
ISSUE 1G: 	Has DEF made appropriate adjustments, if any are needed, to account for
replacement power costs associated with the March 2022 outage at Hines Unit 4?
If appropriate adjustments are needed and have not been made, what adjustments
should be performed?
Stipulation: 	No adjustments are needed.
Florida Power & Light Company
ISSUE 2A: 	What was the total gain under FPL’s Incentive Mechanism approved by Order
No. PSC-2016-0560-AS-EI that FPL may recover for the period January 2021
through December 2021, and how should that gain to be shared between FPL and
customers?
Stipulation: 	The 	total 	gain 	is 	$63,092,506 	with 	$49,237,003 	given 	to 	customers 	and
$13,855,504 given to the Company.
ISSUE 2B: 	What is the appropriate amount of Incremental Optimization Costs under FPL’s
Incentive Mechanism approved by Order No. PSC-2016-0560-AS-EI that FPL
should be allowed to recover through the fuel clause for Personnel, Software, and
Hardware costs for the period January 2021 through December 2021?
Stipulation: 	$495,972.
ISSUE 2C: 	What is the appropriate amount of Variable Power Plant O&M Attributable to
Off-System Sales under FPL’s Incentive Mechanism approved by Order No.
PSC-2016-0560-AS-EI that FPL should be allowed to recover through the fuel
clause for the period January 2021 through December 2021?

ORDER NO. PSC-2023-0026-FOF-EI
DOCKET NO. 20230001-EI
PAGE 17
Stipulation: 	$2,103,997.
ISSUE 2D: 	What is the appropriate amount of Variable Power Plant O&M Avoided due to
Economy Purchases under FPL’s Incentive Mechanism approved by Order No.
PSC-2016-0560-AS-EI that FPL should be allowed to recover through the fuel
clause for the period January 2021 through December 2021?
Stipulation: 	$256,452.
ISSUE 2E: 	What is the appropriate subscription credit associated with FPL’s SolarTogether
Program 	approved 	by 	Order 	No. 	PSC-2020-0084-S-EI, 	to 	be 	included 	for
recovery in 2023?
Stipulation: 	$143,020,130.
ISSUE 2F: 	Should the Commission approve FPL’s 2023 Risk Management Plan?
Stipulation: 	Yes.
Tampa Electric Company
ISSUE 4A: 	What was the total gain under TECO’s Optimization Mechanism approved by
Order No. PSC-2017-0456-S-EI that TECO may recover for the period January
2021 through December 2021, and how should that gain to be shared between
TECO and customers?
Stipulation: 	The optimization gains for 2021 were $13,439,732. 	Customer benefits were
$8,619,866 and Company benefits were $4,819,866.
ISSUE 4B: 	Should the Commission approve TECO’s 2023 Risk Management Plan?
Stipulation: 	Yes.
ISSUE 4C: 	Has TECO made the appropriate adjustments, if any are needed, to account for
replacement power costs associated with ay outages that occurred during 2021
and 2022? 	If appropriate adjustments are needed and have not been made, what
adjustments should be performed?
Stipulation: 	The appropriate adjustment is a reduction of $104,000.
GENERIC FUEL ADJUSTMENT ISSUES
ISSUE 5: 	What are the appropriate actual benchmark levels for calendar year 2022 for gains
on non-separated wholesale energy sales eligible for a shareholder incentive?

ORDER NO. PSC-2023-0026-FOF-EI
DOCKET NO. 20230001-EI
PAGE 18
Stipulation:
DEF: 	$1,909,411.
FPL: 	N/A
TECO: 	N/A
ISSUE 6: 	What are the appropriate estimated benchmark levels for calendar year 2023 for
gains 	on 	non-separated 	wholesale 	energy 	sales 	eligible 	for 	a 	shareholder
incentive?
Stipulation:
DEF: 	$2,379,586.
FPL: 	N/A
TECO: 	N/A
ISSUE 7: 	What are the appropriate final fuel adjustment true-up amounts for the period
January 2021 through December 2021?
Stipulation:
DEF: 	An over-recovery of $2,934,170.
FPL: 	An over-recovery of $10,256,384.
FPUC: 	An under-recovery of $3,790,314 which was the amount included for recovery
through FPUC’s mid-course correction.
GULF: 	An over-recovery of $21,938,913.
TECO: 	$0.
ISSUE 8: 	What are the appropriate fuel adjustment actual/estimated true-up amounts for the
period January 2022 through December 2022?
Stipulation:
FPUC: 	An under-recovery of $15,143,447.
ISSUE 9: 	What 	are 	the 	appropriate 	total 	fuel 	adjustment 	true-up 	amounts 	to 	be
collected/refunded from January 2023 through December 2023?

ORDER NO. PSC-2023-0026-FOF-EI
DOCKET NO. 20230001-EI
PAGE 19
Stipulation:
FPUC: 	An under-recovery of $7,063,744.
ISSUE 10: 	What are the appropriate projected total fuel and purchased power cost
recovery amounts for the period January 2023 through December 2023?
Stipulation:
FPUC: 	$68,427,727.
COMPANY-SPECIFIC 	GENERATING 	PERFORMANCE 	INCENTIVE 	FACTOR
ISSUES
Duke Energy Florida, LLC.
No company-specific GPIF issues for Duke Energy Florida, Inc. have been identified at this
time. If such issues are identified, they shall be numbered 11A, 11B, 11C, and so forth, as
appropriate.
Florida Power & Light Company
No company-specific GPIF issues for Florida Power and Light Company have been identified at
this time. If such issues are identified, they shall be numbered 12A, 12B, 12C, and so forth, as
appropriate.
Gulf Power Company
Any company-specific capacity issues for Gulf Power Company will be addressed under Florida
Power & Light Company above.
Tampa Electric Company
No company-specific GPIF issues for Tampa Electric Company have been identified at this time.
If such issues are identified, they shall be numbered 13A, 13B, 13C, and so forth, as appropriate.
GENERIC GPIF ISSUES
ISSUE 14: 	What is the appropriate GPIF reward or penalty for performance achieved during
the period January 2021 through December 2021 for each investor-owned electric
utility subject to the GPIF?
Stipulation:
DEF: 	A penalty of $206,463.
FPL: 	A reward of $6,994,619.

ORDER NO. PSC-2023-0026-FOF-EI
DOCKET NO. 20230001-EI
PAGE 20
TECO: 	A reward of $546,170.
ISSUE 15: 	What should the GPIF targets/ranges be for the period January 2023 through
December 2023 for each investor-owned electric utility subject to the GPIF?
Stipulation:
DEF:
Table 15-1
GPIF Targets/Ranges for the period January-December, 2023
DEF
Plant/Unit
EAF 	ANOHR
Target 	Maximum 	Target 	Maximum
EAF
( % )
EAF
( % )
Savings
($000's) ANOHR
Btu/kWh
ANOHR
Btu/kWh
Savings
($000's)
Bartow 4 	84.52 	88.62 	2,800 	7,571 	7,928 	15,422
Citrus County 1 	88.99 	90.18 	973 	6,645 	6,770 	4,923
Citrus County 2 	88.95 	90.16 	991 	6,665 	6,785 	4,811
Crystal River 4 	84.37 	91.42 	1,794 	10,972 	11,674 	4,338
Hines 1 	81.52 	83.63 	791 	7,368 	7,546 	3,168
Hines 2 	88.93 	89.63 	256 	7,624 	7,800 	2,426
Hines 3 	86.94 	88.32 	296 	7,216 	7,377 	3,379
Hines 4 	81.42 	84.50 	1,150 	7,068 	7,227 	3,454
Totals 	9,050 	41,921
Source: GPIF Target and Range Summary (Exhibit MIJ-1P, Page 4 of 85).
FPL:
Table 15-2
GPIF Targets/Ranges for the period January-December, 2023
FPL
Plant/Unit
EAF 	ANOHR
Target 	Maximum 	Target 	Maximum
EAF
( % )
EAF
( % )
Savings
($000's)
ANOHR
Btu/kWh
ANOHR
Btu/kWh
Savings
($000's)
Canaveral 3 	90.9 	93.4 	404 	6,734 	6,639 	2,810
Ft. Myers 2 	88.4 	90.9 	396 	7,139 	7,020 	6,114
Manatee 3 	84.5 	87.0 	519 	6,935 	6,680 	9,852
Martin 8 	82.3 	84.8 	414 	6,995 	6,882 	3,593
Okeechobee 	90.8 	93.3 	741 	6,355 	6,268 	5,866
Port Everglades
5 	82.5 	85.0 	742 	6,675 	6,587 	3,501
Riviera 5 	89.8 	92.3 	422 	6,643 	6,557 	3,434
St. Lucie 1 	93.6 	96.6 	9,115 	10,427 	10,333 	364
St. Lucie 2 	84.8 	87.8 	7,870 	10,307 	10,209 	281

ORDER NO. PSC-2023-0026-FOF-EI
DOCKET NO. 20230001-EI
PAGE 21
Table 15-2
GPIF Targets/Ranges for the period January-December, 2023
FPL Plant/Unit
EAF 	ANOHR
Target 	Maximum 	Target 	Maximum
EAF
( % )
EAF
( % )
Savings
($000's)
ANOHR
Btu/kWh
ANOHR
Btu/kWh
Savings
($000's)
Turkey Point 3 	82.8 	85.8 	7,635 	10,522 	10,363 	536
Turkey Point 4 	83.2 	86.2 	7,822 	10,807 	10,424 	1,271
Turkey Point 5 	85.3 	87.8 	450 	7,225 	7,127 	2,714
West County 1 	82.2 	85.2 	665 	7,058 	6,894 	5,685
West County 2 	87.3 	89.8 	612 	6,867 	6,782 	3,797
West County 3 	73.1 	75.6 	588 	6,920 	6,814 	3,678
Totals* 	$38,395 	$53,496
Source: GPIF Target and Range Summary (Exhibit CRR-3, Pages 6-7 of 40).
*May not compute due to rounding.
TECO:
Table 15-3
GPIF Targets/Ranges for the period January-December, 2023
TECO
Plant/Unit
Target 	Maximum 	Target 	Maximum
EAF
( % )
EAF
( % )
Savings
($000's) ANOHR
Btu/kWh
ANOHR
Btu/kWh
Savings
($000's)
Big Bend 4 	61.2 	66.1 	1,010 	10,777 	11,497 	4,734
Polk 2 	90.9 	92.1 	1,404 	7,279 	7,470 	5,090
Bayside 1 	90.0 	91.2 	1,059 	7,481 	7,655 	2,606
Bayside 2 	75.2 	76.9 	202 	8,280 	8,582 	1,743
Totals 	$3,675 	$14,173
Source: GPIF Target and Range Summary (Exhibit PAB-2, Document 1, Page 4 of 28).
FUEL FACTOR CALCULATION ISSUES
ISSUE 16: 	What are the appropriate projected net fuel and purchased power cost recovery
and Generating Performance Incentive amounts to be included in the recovery
factor for the period January 2023 through December 2023?
Stipulation:
FPUC: 	$75,491,471.

ORDER NO. PSC-2023-0026-FOF-EI
DOCKET NO. 20230001-EI
PAGE 22
ISSUE 17: 	What is the appropriate revenue tax factor to be applied in calculating each
investor-owned electric utility’s levelized fuel factor for the projection period
January 2023 through December 2023?
Stipulation:
DEF: 	N/A – applied with the Gross Receipts Tax.
FPL: 	N/A – applied with the Gross Receipts Tax.
FPUC: 	1.00072.
TECO: 	1.00072.
ISSUE 18: 	What are the appropriate levelized fuel cost recovery factors for the period
January 2023 through December 2023?
Stipulation:
FPUC: 	8.976 cents per kWh.
ISSUE 19: 	What are the appropriate fuel recovery line loss multipliers to be used in
calculating the fuel cost recovery factors charged to each rate class/delivery
voltage level class?
Stipulation:
DEF:
Table 19-1
DEF Fuel Recovery Line Loss Multipliers
for the period January-December, 2023
Delivery Voltage Level 	Line Loss Multiplier
Transmission 	0.98
Distribution Primary 	0.99
Distribution Secondary 	1.00
Lighting Service 	1.00
Source: Schedule E1-D, Exhibit GPD-3, Part 2, Page 1 of 1.
FPL: 	The appropriate fuel recovery line loss multipliers to be used in calculating the
fuel cost recovery factors charged to each rate class/delivery voltage level class
are shown in Issue No. 20.
FPUC: 	The appropriate fuel recovery line loss multiplier to be used in calculating the fuel
cost recovery factors charged to each rate class/delivery voltage level class is
1.00000.

ORDER NO. PSC-2023-0026-FOF-EI
DOCKET NO. 20230001-EI
PAGE 23
TECO:
Table 19-2
TECO Fuel Recovery Line Loss Multipliers
for the period January-December, 2023
Delivery Voltage Level 	Line Loss Multiplier
Transmission 	0.98
Distribution Primary 	0.99
Distribution Secondary 	1.00
Lighting Service 	1.00
Sources: Schedule E1-D and E1-E.
ISSUE 20: 	What are the appropriate fuel cost recovery factors for each rate class/delivery
voltage level class adjusted for line losses?
FPUC: 	The appropriate fuel cost recovery factors for each rate class/delivery voltage
level class adjusted for line losses for the period January 2023 through December
2023, are shown in Tables 20-4, 20-5, and 20-6 below:
Table 20-4
FPUC Fuel Cost Recovery Factors for the period January-December 2023
Fuel Recovery Factors – By Rate Schedule Fuel Recovery Factors – By Rate Schedule
Rate Schedule 	Levelized Adjustment (cents/kWh)
RS 	11.753
GS 	11.797
GSD 	11.201
GSLD 	10.937
LS 	9.355
Source: Schedule E1, Page 3 of 3 (Exhibit MDN-1, Page 3 of 8).
Table 20-5
FPUC Fuel Cost Recovery Factors for the period January-December 2023
Step Rate Allocation For Residential Customers (RS Rate Schedule)
Rate Schedule and Allocation Levelized Adjustment
(cents/kWh)
RS Rate Schedule – Sales Allocation 	11.753
RS Rate Schedule with less than or equal to 1,000 kWh/month 	11.396
RS Rate Schedule with greater than 1,000 kWh/month 	12.646
Source: Schedule E1, Page 3 of 3 (Exhibit MDN-3, Page 3 of 8).

ORDER NO. PSC-2023-0026-FOF-EI
DOCKET NO. 20230001-EI
PAGE 24
Table 20-6
FPUC Fuel Cost Recovery Factors for the period January-December 2023
Fuel Recovery Factors for Time Of Use – By Rate Schedule
Rate Schedule Levelized Adjustment
On Peak (cents/kWh)
Levelized
Adjustment
Off Peak (cents/kWh)
RS 	19.796 	7.496
GS 	15.797 	6.797
GSD 	15.201 	7.951
GSLD 	16.937 	7.937
Interruptible 	9.437 	10.937
Source: Schedule E1, Page 3 of 3 (Exhibit MDN-3, Page 3 of 8).
II. 	CAPACITY ISSUES
COMPANY-SPECIFIC CAPACITY COST RECOVERY FACTOR ISSUES
Duke Energy Florida, LLC.
ISSUE 21A: 	What is the appropriate amount of costs for the Independent Spent Fuel Storage
Installation (ISFSI) that DEF should be allowed to recover through the capacity
cost recovery clause pursuant to DEF’s 2017 Settlement?
Stipulation: 	$6,879,837.
ISSUE 21B: 	What adjustment amounts should the Commission approve to be refunded through
the capacity clause associated with the Duette SoBRA III project in Docket No.
20200245-EI?
Stipulation: 	A credit of $1,144,593.
ISSUE 21C: 	What DOE Settlement Spent Fuel Claim amount should the Commission approve
to be recovered through the capacity clause?
Stipulation: 	$19,328,945.
Florida Power & Light Company
No company-specific capacity cost recovery factor issues for Florida Power & Light Company
have been identified at this time. If such issues are identified, they will be numbered 22A, 22B,
22C, and so forth, as appropriate.
Gulf Power Company
Any company-specific capacity issues for Gulf Power Company will be addressed under Florida
Power & Light Company above.

ORDER NO. PSC-2023-0026-FOF-EI
DOCKET NO. 20230001-EI
PAGE 25
Tampa Electric Company
No company-specific capacity cost recovery factor issues for Tampa Electric Company have
been identified at this time. If such issues are identified, they will be numbered 23A, 23B, 23C,
and so forth, as appropriate.
GENERIC CAPACITY COST RECOVERY FACTOR ISSUES
ISSUE 24: 	What are the appropriate final capacity cost recovery true-up amounts for the
period January 2021 through December 2021?
Stipulation:
DEF: 	An over-recovery of $2,850,425.
FPL: 	An under-recovery of $303,310.
TECO: 	$0.
ISSUE 25: 	What are the appropriate capacity cost recovery actual/estimated true-up amounts
for the period January 2022 through December 2022?
Stipulation:
DEF: 	An over-recovery of $3,896,674.
FPL: 	An under-recovery of $2,922,069.
TECO: 	An over-recovery of $3,967,826.
ISSUE 26: 	What are the appropriate total capacity cost recovery true-up amounts to be
collected/refunded during the period January 2023 through December 2023?
Stipulation:
DEF: 	An over-recovery of $6,747,100.
FPL: 	An under-recovery of $3,225,379.
TECO: 	An over-recovery of $3,967,826.
ISSUE 27: 	What are the appropriate projected total capacity cost recovery amounts for the
period January 2023 through December 2023?
Stipulation:
DEF: 	$458,620,998.
FPL: 	$245,356,422.

ORDER NO. PSC-2023-0026-FOF-EI
DOCKET NO. 20230001-EI
PAGE 26
TECO: 	$846,862.
ISSUE 28: 	What are the appropriate projected net purchased power capacity cost recovery
amounts to be included in the recovery factor for the period January 2023 through December
2023?
Stipulation:
DEF: 	$458,753,735.
FPL: 	$248,581,801, as filed.
TECO: 	($3,123,211).
ISSUE 29: 	What are the appropriate jurisdictional separation factors for capacity revenues
and costs to be included in the recovery factor for the period January 2023
through December 2023?
Stipulation:
DEF: 	Base: 97.403 percent, Intermediate: 92.637 percent, and Peaking: 95.110 percent.
FPL: 	Demand: 	Transmission 	89.9282 	percent, 	Base/Solar 	96.0478 	percent,
Intermediate 95.4028 percent, Peaking 95.3285 percent, Distribution 100 percent.
Energy: Base/Solar 95.8159 percent, Intermediate 94.5063 percent, Peaking
95.7054 percent.
General Plant: Labor 96.7270 percent.
TECO: 	The appropriate jurisdictional separation factor is 1.00.
ISSUE 30: 	What are the appropriate capacity cost recovery factors for the period January
2023 through December 2023?
Stipulation:
DEF:
The appropriate capacity cost recovery factors for the period January 2023
through December 2023 is shown in Table 30-1 below:

ORDER NO. PSC-2023-0026-FOF-EI
DOCKET NO. 20230001-EI
PAGE 27
Table 30-1
DEF Capacity Cost Recovery Factors for the period January – December 2023
Rate Class
Capacity and ISFSI
Cost Recovery Factors
¢/kWh 	$/kW-month
Residential (RS-1, RST-1, RSL-1, RSL-2, RSS-1)
At Secondary Voltage 	1.328
General Service Non-Demand (GS-1, GST-1)
At Secondary Voltage 	1.173
At Primary Voltage 	1.161
At Transmission Voltage 	1.150
General Service (GS-2) 	0.822
Lighting (LS-1) 	0.341
General Service Demand (GSD-1, GSDT-1, SS-1)
At Secondary Voltage 	3.37
At Primary Voltage 	3.34
At Transmission Voltage 	3.30
Curtailable (CS-2, CST-2, CS-3, CST-3, SS-3)
At Secondary Voltage 	1.67
At Primary Voltage 	1.65
At Transmission Voltage 	1.64
Interruptible (IS-2, IST-2, SS-2)
At Secondary Voltage 	2.69
At Primary Voltage 	2.66
At Transmission Voltage 	2.64
Standby Monthly (SS-1, 2, 3)
At Secondary Voltage 	0.325
At Primary Voltage 	0.322
At Transmission Voltage 	0.319
Standby Daily (SS-1, 2, 3)
At Secondary Voltage 	0.155
At Primary Voltage 	0.153
At Transmission Voltage 	0.152
Source: Schedule E12-E (Exhibit GPD-3, Part 3, Page 1 of 1)
FPL: 	If FPL’s Amended Petition to Approve Refund and Rate Reduction Resulting
from Implementation of Inflation Reduction Act, filed in Docket 20220165-EI, is
approved, FPL’s capacity cost recovery factors for January 2023 should reflect
the one-time refund to customers as set forth in that Docket (Sixtieth Revised
Sheet No. 8.030) and the capacity cost recovery factors for the period February
2023 through December 2023 set forth in Table 30-2.
If FPL’s Amended Petition to Approve Refund and Rate Reduction Resulting
from Implementation of Inflation Reduction Act, filed in Docket 20220165-EI, is

ORDER NO. PSC-2023-0026-FOF-EI
DOCKET NO. 20230001-EI
PAGE 28
denied, FPL’s capacity cost recovery factors for the period January 2023 through
December 2023 are set forth in FPL Table 30-2.
TABLE 30-2
(Deaton)
TECO: The appropriate capacity cost recovery factors for the period January 2023 through
December 2023 is shown in Table 30-3 below:
Rate Schedule
Capacity
Recovery Factor
($/KW)
Capacity
Recovery
Factor
($/kw h)
RDC
($/KW)
SDD
($/KW)
RS1/RTR1 	0.00212
GS1/GST1 	0.00220
GSD1/GSDT1/HLFT1/GSD1-EV 	0.72
OS2 	0.00127
GSLD1/GSLDT1/CS1/CST1/HLFT2/GSLD1-EV 	0.80
GSLD2/GSLDT2/CS2/CST2/HLFT3 	0.80
GSLD3/GSLDT3/CS3/CST3 	0.73
SST1T 	0.09 	0.04
SST1D1/SST1D2/SST1D3 	0.09 	0.04
CILC D/CILC G 	0.81
CILC T 	0.79
MET 	0.69
OL1/SL1/SL1M/PL1/OSI/II/LT1 	0.00016
SL2/SL2M/GSCU1 	0.00137

ORDER NO. PSC-2023-0026-FOF-EI
DOCKET NO. 20230001-EI
PAGE 29
Table 30-3
TECO Capacity Cost Recovery Factors for the period January-December, 2023
Rate Class and Metering Voltage 2023 Capacity Cost Recovery Factors
$/kWh 	$/kW
RS 	(0.00018) -
GS and CS 	(0.00017)
GSD, RSD
Secondary
-
(0.06)
Primary 	(0.06)
Transmission 	(0.06)
GSD Optional
Secondary 	(0.00014) -
Primary 	(0.00014)
Transmission 	(0.00014)
GSLDPR/GSLDTPR/SBLDPR/SBLDTPR - (0.05)
GSLDSU/GSLDTSU/SBLDSU/SBLDTSU 	(0.04)
LS-1 	(0.00003) 	-
Source: Exhibit MAS-3, Document Number 1, Page 3 of 4.
III. 	EFFECTIVE DATE
ISSUE 31: 	What should be the effective date of the fuel adjustment factors and capacity cost
recovery factors for billing purposes?
Stipulation: 	The new factors should be effective with the first billing cycle for January 2023
through the last billing cycle for December 2023. The first billing cycle may start
before January 1, 2023, and the last cycle may be read after December 31, 2023,
so that each customer is billed for twelve months regardless of when the recovery
factors became effective. The new factors shall continue in effect until modified
by the Commission.
ISSUE 32: 	Should the Commission approve revised tariffs reflecting the fuel adjustment
factors and capacity cost recovery factors determined to be appropriate in this
proceeding?
Stipulation: 	Yes. 	The 	Commission 	should 	approve 	revised 	tariffs 	reflecting 	the 	fuel
adjustment factors and capacity cost recovery factors determined to be reasonable
in this proceeding. The Commission should direct staff to verify that the revised
tariffs are consistent with the Commission decision.
ISSUE 33: 	Should this docket be closed
Stipulation: 	No, this is a continuing docket and should remain open.