Florida Public Service Commission native order document 04602-2026

FILED 7/23/2026
DOCUMENT NO. 04602-2026
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 Debby, Helene, and
Milton, by Florida Power & Light Company.
DOCKET NO. 20240149-EI
ORDER NO. PSC-2026-0255-PAA-EI
ISSUED: July 23, 2026
The following Commissioners participated in the disposition of this matter:
GABRIELLA PASSIDOMO SMITH, Chairman
GARY F. CLARK
MIKE LA ROSA
BOBBY PAYNE
ANA ORTEGA
NOTICE OF PROPOSED AGENCY ACTION
ORDER APPROVING FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY’S
STORM RESTORATION COSTS RELATED TO HURRICANES
DEBBY, HELENE AND MILTON
BY THE COMMISSION:
NOTICE 	is 	hereby 	given by 	the 	Florida 	Public 	Service Commission 	that 	the 	action
discussed herein 	is preliminary 	in nature and will become 	final unless a person whose 	interests
are 	substantially 	affected 	files a petition 	for a fonnal proceeding, pursuant 	to Rule 	25-22.029,
Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.).
BACKGROUND
On 	October 	29, 	2024, 	Florida Power & 	Light Company (FPL 	or Company) 	filed 	a
petition 	for a 	limited proceeding 	seeking 	authority 	to implement an 	interim 	storm 	restoration
recovery charge to recover $1.2 billion for the incremental restoration costs related to Hurricanes
Debby, Helene, and Milton (the Storms), 	as well as the replenishment of its 	retail storm reserve.
Included in 	the $1.2 	billion 	is 	interest charged on 	the unrecovered balance of storm restoration
costs 	resulting from 	the 	Storms. 	On December 	17, 2024, we approved Order No. PSC-2024-
0503-PCO-EI, 	which 	authorized 	the Company 	to 	implement 	the 	interim 	storm 	restoration
recovery charge subject to refund.
On August 	13, 2025, FPL and the Office of Public Counsel (OPC) agreed that FPL would
have PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC) conduct an audit of the Company’s storm costs related to
Hurricane Milton. 1 The 	parties 	stated 	that 	the purpose of the 	third-party audit 	is 	to reduce 	the
1Document No. 07883-2025, Docket No. 20240149-EI

ORDER NO. PSC-2026-0255-PAA-EI
DOCKET NO. 20240149-EI
PAGE 2
need for discovery in the pending and future storm dockets. Additionally, the parties agreed that
the third-party audit in this docket would avoid the need for future similar audits as long as there
are not any substantive material changes in procedures or our rules and requirements. 	On
October 20, 2025, an amended agreement was filed to substitute Deloitte & Touch LLP
(Deloitte) as the third-party audit firm to conduct the independent examination of the Company’s
storm costs associated with Hurricane Milton.2 	On June 18, 2026, FPL and OPC filed
Stipulations resolving potential issues in this docket, Attachment A to this order. This order
addresses these Stipulations, as well as the remaining issues needing resolution by this
Commission.
We have jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to Sections 366.04, 366.05, 366.06, and
366.076, Florida Statutes (F.S.).
DECISION
Incremental cost and capitalization approach (ICCA)
Rule 25-6.0143, F.A.C., requires the ICCA methodology be used in determining the costs
to be charged to cover storm related damages. Therefore, the ICCA approach shall be used to
determine the reasonable and prudent amounts included in the storm restoration costs.
Payroll expenses
Rule 25-6.0143(1)(e)8., F.A.C., states that “overtime payroll and payroll related costs for
the utility personnel included in storm restoration activities” are allowed to be charged to the
reserve under the ICCA methodology. 	We find that the full amounts calculated by FPL are
allowable under Rule 25-6.0143, F.A.C.
As stated in FPL witness Mohomed’s testimony, the Company utilized multiple levels of
review to ensure the reasonableness and prudence of each cost associated with the Storms. 	In
preparation for the incoming storms, FPL sent email communications to all business units with
pertinent information regarding the listing of all applicable Work Breakdown Structures (WBSs)
by function and location, guidance on payroll, and guidance on the type of costs eligible to be
charged to storm WBSs. To ensure procedural compliance and prudent spending for the duration
of the storms, Finance Section Chiefs were assigned to each staging area and processing site.
Additionally, FPL’s Human Resources Department was available at many sites to assist
employees with their timesheets. 	Further, FPL had a storm controllership performed by each
business unit, which was reviewed by FPL’s Accounting Department for reasonableness, and for
classifying and recording each cost into the appropriate account: storm reserve, base Operations
and Maintenance (O&M) expense, capital, and below-the-line expense.
Witness Mohomed testified that regular payroll and related payroll overheads for FPL
employees represent time spent in direct support of storm restoration and exclude any bonuses
2 Document No. 14694-2025, Docket No. 20240149-EI

ORDER NO. PSC-2026-0255-PAA-EI
DOCKET NO. 20240149-EI
PAGE 3
and incentive compensation. 	The reasonable and prudent regular payroll expenses for each
storm are listed below.
Table 1
Regular Payroll Expense
Storm 	Amount (Million)
Debby 	$3.018
Helene 	4.730
Milton 	11.335
Total 	$19.083 Million
Source: Exhibits AM-1, AM-2, and AM-3
We have reviewed Deloitte’s work papers and found that the scope, procedures, and
conclusion were reasonable. 	The Company confirmed that costs and invoices for Hurricanes
Debby and Helene were handled in the same manner as Hurricane Milton, which was the subject
of the Deloitte audit. Therefore, we find that the reasonable and prudent amount of regular
payroll expense to be included in the total storm restoration costs is $19.083 million.
Overtime payroll expense
The Company utilized multiple levels of review to ensure the reasonableness and
prudence of each cost associated with the Storms. 	Witness Mohomed also testified that the
overtime payroll and related payroll tax overheads for FPL employees include time spent in
direct support of storm restoration. 	The reasonable and prudent overtime payroll expenses for
each storm are listed below.
Table 2
Overtime Payroll Expense
Storm 	Amount (Million)
Debby 	$8.650
Helene 	11.174
Milton 	24.938
Total 	$44.762 Million
Source: Exhibits AM-1, AM-2, and AM-3
We 	reviewed 	Deloitte’s 	work 	papers 	and 	found 	that 	the 	scope, 	procedures, 	and
conclusion were reasonable. 	The Company confirmed that costs and invoices for Hurricanes
Debby and Helene were handled in the same manner as Hurricane Milton, which was the subject
of the Deloitte audit. 	Therefore, we find that the reasonable and prudent amount of overtime
payroll expense for all the hurricanes to be included in the total storm restoration costs is
$44.762 million.

ORDER NO. PSC-2026-0255-PAA-EI
DOCKET NO. 20240149-EI
PAGE 4
Contractor Costs
Per FPL witness Jarro, contractor costs include costs related to external line contractors,
mutual assistance utilities, FPL embedded contractors, and contractors performing overhead line
patrols 	and 	environmental 	assessments. 	These 	costs 	also 	include 	mobilization 	and 	de-
mobilization costs.3 Pursuant to Rule 25-6.0143(1)(e)1., F.A.C., contractor costs may be charged
to the storm reserve under the ICCA methodology. 	FPL witness Mohomed explained that FPL
determined the amount of non-incremental contractor costs by calculating the prior three-year
average for the months in which storm restoration activities were incurred and compared it to the
actual contractor costs incurred in the month in which storm restoration work was performed.4
When asked why the contractor costs were updated from the petition to witness
Mohomed’s testimony, FPL stated that the changes reflect the normal and expected variances
from the preliminary estimated costs to the final recorded costs after completion of restoration,
invoice review, cost validation, and application of incremental costing and capitalization
methodologies, as required by Rule 25-6.0143, F.A.C. 5 	The reasonable and prudent total
contractor costs for each storm are listed below.
Table 3
Contractor Costs
Storm 	Amount (Million)
Debby 	$51.638
Helene 	101.605
Milton 	471.521
Total 	$624.764 Million
Source: Exhibits AM-1, AM-2, and AM-3
We have reviewed Deloitte’s work papers and found that the scope, procedures, and
conclusion were reasonable. 	The Company confirmed that costs and invoices for Hurricanes
Debby and Helene were handled in the same manner as Hurricane Milton, which was the subject
of the Deloitte audit.6 	Therefore, we find that the reasonable and prudent amount of contractor
costs to be included in total storm restoration costs is $624.764 million.
Line clearing costs
Per 	FPL 	witness 	Jarro, 	line 	clearing 	costs 	consist 	of 	costs 	related to 	vegetation
contractors, including mobilization and de-mobilization costs.7 FPL witness Mohomed explained
that since FPL recovers all actual vegetation costs through the Storm Protection Plan Cost
3 Document No. 15505-2025
4 Document No. 15506-2025
5 Document No. 03064-2026
6 Document No. 02783-2026
7 Document No. 15505-2025

ORDER NO. PSC-2026-0255-PAA-EI
DOCKET NO. 20240149-EI
PAGE 5
Recovery Clause, an ICCA adjustment under Rule 25-6.0143(1)(e)11., F.A.C., is not required.
All vegetation management costs charged to the storm accounts are considered incremental.8
When asked why the line clearing costs were updated from the petition to witness
Mohomed’s testimony, FPL stated that the changes reflect the normal and expected variances
from the preliminary estimated costs to the final recorded costs after completion of restoration,
invoice review, cost validation, and applications of incremental costing and capitalization
methodologies, as required by Rule 25-6.0143, F.A.C. 9 	The reasonable and prudent total line
clearing costs for each storm are listed below.
Table 4
Line Clearing Costs
Storm 	Amount (Million)
Debby 	$23.066
Helene 	30.649
Milton 	148.305
Total 	$202.020 Million
Source: Exhibits AM-1, AM-2, and AM-3
We have reviewed Deloitte’s work papers and found that the scope, procedures, and
conclusion were reasonable. The Company confirmed that costs and invoices for Hurricanes
Debby and Helene were handled in the same manner as Hurricane Milton.10 Therefore, we find
that the reasonable and prudent amount of line clearing costs to be included in total storm
restoration costs is $202.020 million.
Vehicle and fuel costs
Per FPL witness Jarro, vehicle and fuel costs include vehicle utilization and fuel costs for
FPL and contractor vehicles used during storm restoration efforts.11 	FPL witness Mohomed
explained that all FPL-owned vehicle costs charged to the storm reserve are considered non-
incremental under the ICCA methodology. Pursuant to Rule 25-6.0143(1)(e)9., F.A.C., fuel costs
may be charged to the storm reserve under the ICCA methodology. 	Witness Mohomed
explained that FPL determined the amount of non-incremental fuel costs by calculating the prior
three-year average for the months in which storm restoration activities were incurred and
compared it to the actual fuel costs incurred in the month in which storm restoration work was
performed.12
When asked why the vehicle and fuel costs were updated from the petition to witness
Mohomed’s testimony, FPL stated that the changes reflect the normal and expected variances
from the preliminary estimated costs to the final recorded costs after completion of restoration,
8 Document No. 15506-2025
9 Document No. 03064-2026
10 Document No. 02783-2026
11 Document No. 15505-2025
12 Document No. 15506-2025

ORDER NO. PSC-2026-0255-PAA-EI
DOCKET NO. 20240149-EI
PAGE 6
invoice review, cost validation, and applications of incremental costing and capitalization
methodologies, as required by Rule 25-6.0143, F.A.C. 13 	The reasonable and prudent total
vehicle and fuel costs for each storm are listed below.
Table 5
Vehicle and Fuel Costs
Storm 	Amount (Million)
Debby 	$3.898
Helene 	6.456
Milton 	22.063
Total 	$32.417 Million
Source: Exhibits AM-1, AM-2, and AM-3
We have reviewed Deloitte’s work papers and found that the scope, procedures, and
conclusion were reasonable. 	The Company confirmed that costs and invoices for Hurricanes
Debby and Helene were handled in the same manner as Hurricane Milton.14 Therefore, we find
that the reasonable and prudent amount of vehicle and fuel costs to be included in total storm
restoration costs is $32.417 million.
Materials and supplies
Per FPL witness Jarro, materials and supplies expenses include items such as wire,
transformers, poles, and other electrical equipment used during storm restoration efforts.15 	As
shown on Exhibits AM-1 through AM-3, there were no ICCA adjustments found to be made for
materials and supplies costs.16
When asked why the materials and supplies costs were updated from the petition to
witness Jarro’s testimony, FPL stated that the changes reflect the normal and expected variances
from the preliminary estimated costs to the final recorded costs after completion of restoration,
invoice review, cost validation, and applications of incremental costing and capitalization
methodologies, as required by Rule 25-6.0143, F.A.C. 17 	The reasonable and prudent total
materials and supplies expenses for each storm are listed below.
Table 6
Materials and Supplies Expense
Storm 	Amount (Million)
Debby 	$3.111
Helene 	9.309
Milton 	43.639
Total 	$56.059 Million
13 Document No. 03064-2026
14 Document No. 02783-2026
15 Document No. 15505-2025
16 Document No. 15506-2025
17 Document No. 03064-2026

ORDER NO. PSC-2026-0255-PAA-EI
DOCKET NO. 20240149-EI
PAGE 7
Source: Exhibits AM-1, AM-2, and AM-3
We have reviewed Deloitte’s work papers and found that the scope, procedures, and
conclusion were reasonable. The Company confirmed that costs and invoices for Hurricanes
Debby and Helene were handled in the same manner as Hurricane Milton.18 Therefore, we find
that the reasonable and prudent amount of materials and supplies expense to be included in total
storm restoration costs is $56.059 million.
Total storm restoration costs
Per FPL witness Jarro, logistics costs include costs related to staging and processing sites,
meals, lodging, buses, transportation, and rental equipment used by employees and contractors
during storm restoration efforts.19 	As shown on Exhibits AM-1 through AM-3, there were no
ICCA adjustments found to be made for logistics costs.20
When asked why the logistics costs were updated from the petition to witness Jarro’s
testimony, FPL stated that the changes reflect the normal and expected variances from the
preliminary estimated costs to the final recorded costs after completion of restoration, invoice
review, 	cost 	validation, 	and 	applications 	of 	incremental 	costing 	and 	capitalization
methodologies, as required by Rule 25-6.0143, F.A.C. 21 	The reasonable and prudent total
logistics costs for each storm are listed below.
Table 7
Logistics Costs
Storm 	Amount (Million)
Debby 	$11.889
Helene 	25.771
Milton 	144.709
Total 	$182.369 Million
Source: Exhibits AM-1, AM-2, and AM-3
We 	reviewed 	Deloitte’s 	work 	papers 	and 	found 	that 	the 	scope, 	procedures, 	and
conclusion were reasonable. The Company confirmed that costs and invoices for Hurricanes
Debby and Helene were handled in the same manner as Hurricane Milton.22 Therefore, we find
that the reasonable and prudent amount of logistics costs to be included in total storm restoration
costs is $182.369 million.
18 Document No. 02783-2026
19 Document No. 15505-2025
20 Document No. 15506-2025
21 Document No. 03064-2026
22 Document No. 02783-2026

ORDER NO. PSC-2026-0255-PAA-EI
DOCKET NO. 20240149-EI
PAGE 8
Other costs
As stated previously, the Company utilized multiple levels of review to ensure the
reasonableness and prudence of each cost associated with the Storms. Witness Mohomed stated
that other costs included payroll and related overhead from affiliate personnel directly supporting
storm restoration. 	Included in the other cost category is the cost for assistance provided to
employees during the Storms labeled as employee assistance in the amounts of $58,000,
$115,000, and $362,000, for Hurricanes Debby, Helene, and Milton, respectively. 	These costs
are considered non-incremental under the ICCA methodology and the adjustments to remove
these costs from the recoverable storm costs are reflected in Exhibits AM-1 through AM-3. The
reasonable and prudent amount of other costs for each storm are listed below.
Table 8
Other Costs
Storm 	Amount (Million)
Debby 	$1.910
Helene 	3.227
Milton 	9.605
Total 	$14.742 Million
Source: Exhibits AM-1, AM-2, and AM-3
We 	reviewed 	Deloitte’s 	work 	papers 	and 	found 	that 	the 	scope, 	procedures, 	and
conclusion were reasonable. The Company confirmed that costs and invoices for Hurricanes
Debby and Helene were handled in the same manner as Hurricane Milton. Therefore, we find
that the reasonable and prudent amount of other costs to be included in the total storm restoration
costs is $14.742 million.
Total Costs
Based on the above, we find that the reasonable and prudent amounts of incurred storm
restoration costs for each storm are listed below.
Table 9
Total Expense
Storm 	Amount (Million)
Debby 	$107.180
Helene 	192.922
Milton 	876.115
Total 	$1,176 Million
Source: Exhibits AM-1, AM-2, and AM-3
Therefore, we find that the reasonable and prudent amount of total expenses to be
included in the total storm restoration costs is $1.176 billion.

ORDER NO. PSC-2026-0255-PAA-EI
DOCKET NO. 20240149-EI
PAGE 9
Capitalized costs
Pursuant 	to 	Rule 	25-6.0143(1)(d), 	F.A.C., 	under 	the 	ICCA 	methodology, 	capital
expenditures for storm-related facility damage must exclude the normal cost of removal,
retirement, and replacement of those facilities in the absence of a storm. FPL witness Mohomed
testified that, after accounting for the above-mentioned exclusion, FPL reclassified the remaining
capitalizable amount by crediting FERC Account 186, Miscellaneous Deferred Debits, and
debiting FERC Account 107, Construction Work in Progress.23
When asked about the variance in total capitalizable costs from the petition to witness
Mohomed’s testimony, FPL stated that the difference was a result of actual capitalizable costs
differing from those originally estimated.24 The reasonable and prudent total costs that have been
capitalized for each storm are listed below.
Table 10
Total Capitalizable Costs
Storm 	Amount (Million)
Debby 	$14.887
Helene 	22.006
Milton 	94.198
Total 	$131.091 Million
Source: Exhibits AM-1, AM-2, and AM-3
We have reviewed Deloitte’s work papers and found that the scope, procedures, and
conclusion were reasonable. 	The Company confirmed that costs and invoices for Hurricanes
Debby and Helene were handled in the same manner as Hurricane Milton.
Therefore, we find that the costs that were capitalized for all of the hurricanes are
reasonable and prudent and the appropriate amount to capitalize is $131.091 million.
ICAA non-incremental O&M adjustments
As stated in Rule 25-6.0143(1)(d), F.A.C.:
Under the ICCA methodology, the costs charged to cover storm-related damages
must exclude those costs that normally would be charged to non-cost recovery
clause operating expenses in the absence of a storm. Under the ICCA methodology
for determining the allowable costs to be charged to cover storm-related damages,
the utility will be allowed to charge Account No. 228.1 costs that are incremental
to costs normally charged to non-costs recovery clause operating expenses in the
absence of a storm.
23 Document No. 15506-2025
24 Document No. 03089-2026

ORDER NO. PSC-2026-0255-PAA-EI
DOCKET NO. 20240149-EI
PAGE 10
Witness Mohomed testified that for regular payroll, overtime payroll, and contractors’
costs, the average of the costs for the prior three years for the months in which storm restoration
activities were incurred, exceeded the costs charged to O&M in the months in which restoration
work was performed. Therefore, based on the ICCA methodology, adjustments were made for
the non-incremental amounts of the above-mentioned categories. Fuel costs charged during the
storm restoration activities were determined similarly. However, for Hurricanes Debby and
Helene, the fuel costs did not exceed fuel costs charged to O&M in the months in which
restoration work was performed. 	Therefore, based on the ICCA methodology, fuel costs were
considered incremental, and no adjustment was needed. 	However, as stated in response to
Staff’s Fifth Data Request, the fuel costs for Hurricane Milton exceeded the fuel costs charged to
O&M for the prior three years in the months which storm restoration activities incurred.
Therefore, FPL removed the non-incremental portion of the fuel cost associated with Hurricane
Milton.
Further, Witness Mohomed stated that line clearing costs are recovered through the
Storm Protection Plan Cost Recovery Clause and therefore are considered incremental and do
not require an adjustment under Rule 25-6.0143(1)(e)11, F.A.C. Additionally, witness Mohomed
verified that the vehicle utilization costs charged to the storm WBSs for FPL owned vehicles
would be considered non-incremental under the ICCA methodology. The “other” category of
storm restoration costs includes employee assistance which is considered non-incremental under
the ICCA methodology. Pursuant to Rule 25-6.0143, F.A.C., the reasonable and prudent storm
related costs that should be ICCA non-incremental O&M adjustments are listed below.
Table 11
ICCA Adjustments
ICCA Adjustments 	Hurricane Debby 	Hurricane Helene 	Hurricane Milton
Regular Payroll 	$753,000 	$698,000 	$618,000
Overtime Payroll 	142,000 	210,000 	44,000
Contractors 	1,305,000 	- 	-
Vehicle Utilization 	1,332,000 	1,453,000 	3,526,000
Fuel 	- 	- 	82,000
Employee Assistance 	58,000 	115,000 	362,000
Total 	$3,591,000 	$2,476,000 	$4,632,000
Source: Exhibits AM-1, AM-2, and AM-3
We have reviewed Deloitte’s work papers and found that the scope, procedures, and
conclusion were reasonable. 	The Company confirmed that costs and invoices for Hurricanes
Debby and Helene were handled in the same manner as Hurricane Milton. Therefore, we find
that the reasonable and prudent amount of storm-related costs that should be ICCA non-
incremental O&M adjustments is $10.699 million.
Retail recoverable storm costs
Based upon the previously stated storm restoration costs categories and adjustments, we
find that the reasonable and prudent retail recoverable storm costs are listed below.

ORDER NO. PSC-2026-0255-PAA-EI
DOCKET NO. 20240149-EI
PAGE 11
Table 12
Retail Recoverable Storm Costs
Storm 	Amount (Million)
Debby 	$88.324
Helene 	167.613
Milton 	774.372
Storm Reserve Replenishment and Interest 	95.079
Total 	$1,125 Million
Source: Exhibits AM-1, AM-2, AM-3, and AM-4
Therefore, we find that the reasonable and prudent amount of retail recoverable storm costs is
$1,125 million ($1.125 billion).
Storm cost recovery surcharge
Based on FPL’s witness Anderson’s supplemental testimony, we find that FPL collected
$1.205 billion through the storm restoration recovery surcharge, during the recovery period of
January 2025 through December 2025.
Under-over recovery treatment
In FPL witness Mohomed’s testimony, the total retail recoverable storm cost requested is
$1.125 billion. In FPL witness Anderson’s supplemental testimony, the reported amount
recovered through the storm cost recovery surcharge totals $1.205 billion. Therefore, we find
that the recovery of the storm costs resulted in an over-recovery of approximately $80 million,
plus interest.
Any under- or over-recovery should be addressed through an adjustment to the non-fuel
energy charge. Interest shall be applied to any excess or shortfalls at the 30-day commercial
paper rate, consistent with Rule 25-6.109, F.A.C. The true-up rates shall be structured in a
manner consistent with the cost allocation methodology used for the interim storm charge rates
approved in this docket. FPL shall apply the true-up rates through the non-fuel energy charge on
customers’ bills beginning on cycle day 1 of the first month that is more than 30 days after this
order becomes final.
Stipulations
On June 18, 2026, FPL and OPC filed Stipulations which addressed the following:
1) 	Procedural issues regarding testimony, witness appearances, exhibits, and waiver of a
request for hearing if the Stipulations are approved.
2) 	Compliance with the terms of Order No. PSC-2019-0319-S-EI (Irma Settlement) and
Order No. PSC-2024-0227-S-EI (Ian Stipulations). 	This conclusion is based on the

ORDER NO. PSC-2026-0255-PAA-EI
DOCKET NO. 20240149-EI
PAGE 12
Deloitte 	independent 	evaluation 	of 	Hurricane 	Milton 	costs 	and 	evaluation 	of
discovery by OPC and Commission staff.
3) 	Restoration costs for Hurricane Debby of $88.3 million; for Hurricane Helene of
$167.6 million and Hurricane Milton of $774.4 million.
4) 	FPL’s total retail recoverable storm costs of $1.125 billion.
5) 	Compliance with the Incremental Cost and Capitalization Approach prescribed in
Rule 25-6.0143, F.A.C.
6) 	Actual revenues collected under the storm cost recovery surcharge is $1.205 billion.
7) 	Refund of the storm cost surcharge over-recovery through the application of true-up
rates administratively approved by Commission staff consistent with the Commission
vote for a one-month period through the non-fuel energy charge starting on Cycle
Day 1 after a final decision adopting the Stipulations.
8) 	Notification of the one-time true-up to customers at least thirty days prior the rate
change.
9) 	There is no need for third party audits of storm costs in the future unless there is a
substantial and material change in FPL’s processes/procedures or the Commission’s
rules and requirements.
10) FPL will continue to implement and update the process provisions of Sections 5
through 17 of the Irma Settlement. 	FPL may implement a cost per mile payment
structure in its contracts that includes travel, meals, fuel and lodging. FPL will notify
OPC of implementation of the cost per mile payment method.
11) OPC and FPL agree that the Stipulations has no impact on the Commission’s
statutory audit authority.
The Stipulations’ terms can be sorted into five basic areas: compliance with Rule 25-
6.0143, F.A.C.; retail recoverable storm costs; actual revenues collected pursuant to the storm
cost recovery surcharge; over-charge refund mechanism; and FPL’s processes. 	There is no
provision in the Stipulations that we must accept all of the terms. The Stipulations are attached
to this Order.
Rule 25-6.0143, F.A.C.
With regard to compliance with Rule 25-6.0143, F.A.C., we agree that Rule 25-6.0143’s
ICCA approach shall be used to determine the reasonable and prudent amounts included in the
storm restoration costs.

ORDER NO. PSC-2026-0255-PAA-EI
DOCKET NO. 20240149-EI
PAGE 13
Retail recoverable storm costs and actual revenues collected
We also agree, as discussed above, that the total retail recoverable storm costs for
Hurricanes Debby, Helene and Milton is $1.125 billion and that the actual revenues collected
pursuant to the storm cost recovery surcharge is $1.205 billion.
Over-charge refund mechanism
We further agree that the refund of over-recovered storm costs shall be accomplished by
an adjustment to the non-fuel energy charge with interest applied to the excess at the 30-day
commercial paper rate. The true-up rates through the non-fuel energy charge on customer’s bills
shall begin on cycle day 1 of the first month that is more than 30 days after this order becomes
final.
FPL processes
The process issues agreed to by the parties appear to be reasonable and practical
modifications to the previous process and procedures approved in the Irma Settlement and Ian
Stipulations. The agreement not to request a third-party audit in the future is specifically binding
on the parties only, not the Commission. For these reasons we approve these issues.
Since the Stipulations are in agreement with our decisions on the issues discussed above
in this docket, we approve these Stipulations and grant our staff the ability to administratively
approve the true-up rates which will be submitted by the Company if consistent with our
decisions as stated above.
Based on the foregoing it is
ORDERED by the Florida Public Service Commission that Florida Power & Light
Company’s petition for recovery of incremental storm restoration costs related to Hurricanes
Debby, Helene, and Milton is hereby granted as discussed above. It is further
ORDERED that the Stipulations filed by the Office of Public Counsel and Florida Power
& Light Company on June 18, 2026, are approved as set forth herein. It is further
ORDERED that the provisions of this Order, issued as proposed agency action, shall
become final and effective upon the issuance of a Consummating Order, unless an appropriate
petition, in the form provided by Rule 28-106.201, Florida Administrative Code, is received by
the Commission Clerk, 2540 Shumard Oak Boulevard, Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0850, by the
close of business on the date set forth in the “Notice of Further Proceedings” attached hereto. It
is further
ORDERED that in the event this Order becomes final, this docket shall be closed.

ORDER NO. PSC-2026-0255-PAA-EI
DOCKET NO. 20240149-EI
PAGE 14
By ORDER of the Florida Public Service Commission this 23rd day of July, 2026 	.
AN
erk
Service Commission
I Oak Boulevard
ADA
Commi^ion
Florida Publi
2540 Shuma
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.
SBR
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 	that 	is 	available under Section 	120.57,
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 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.
The 	action 	proposed 	herein 	is 	preliminary 	in 	nature. Any 	person whose 	substantial
interests 	are 	affected by 	the 	action proposed by 	this 	order may 	file 	a 	petition 	for 	a 	formal
proceeding, 	in 	the 	form 	provided by 	Rule 	28-106.201, 	Florida 	Administrative 	Code. 	This
petition must be received by 	the 	Office of Commission 	Clerk, 2540 Shumard Oak Boulevard,
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0850, by the close of business on August 	13, 2026 	.
In 	the absence of such a 	petition, 	this 	order 	shall become 	final and 	effective upon the
issuance of a Consummating Order.

ORDER NO. PSC-2026-0255-PAA-EI
DOCKET NO. 20240149-EI
PAGE 15
Any objection or protest filed in this/these docket(s) before the issuance date of this order
is considered abandoned unless it satisfies the foregoing conditions and is renewed within the
specified protest period.

ORDER NO. PSC-2026-0255-PAA-EI
DOCKET NO. 20240149-EI 	Attachment A
PAGE 16 	Page 1 of 8
FILED 6/18/2026
DOCUMENT NO. 03621-2026
FPSC 	- COMMISSION CLERK
FPL.
June 18, 2026
VIA ELECTRONIC FILING
Joel T. Baker
Senior Attorney
Florida Power & Light Company
700 Universe Blvd (LAW/JB)
Juno Beach, FL 33408-0420
Phone: (561)691-7255
E-mail: Joel.Baker@fpl.com
Fla. Bar No. 0108202
Mr. Adam J. Teitzman, Commission Clerk
Division of Commission Clerk and Administrative Services
Florida Public Service Commission
2540 Shumard Oak Boulevard
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0850
Re: 	Docket No. 20240149-EI
Petition for limited proceeding for recovery of incremental storm restoration costs
related 	to Hurricanes Debby, Helene, and Milton, by Florida Power & Light
Company
Joint Stipulations Between Florida Power & Light Company and the Office of
Public Counsel_
Dear Mr. Teitzman:
On behalf of Florida Power & Light Company (“FPL”) and the Office of Public Counsel
(“OPC”), enclosed for filing in the above-referenced matter are joint stipulations between FPL and
OPC to address all potential issues and contentions in Docket No. 20240149-EI.
Copies of this filing are being served in accordance with the attached certificate of service.
If you or your staff have any questions regarding this filing, please contact me at (561) 691-7255.
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Joel T. Baker_
Joel T. Baker
Fla. Bar No. 0108202
Enclosure
cc: Ken Hoffinan (kenJioffmgn^fpLcoin)
Florida Power & Light Company
700 Universe Boulevard, Juno Beach, FL 33408
Page 	| 	1

ORDER NO. PSC-2026-0255-PAA-EI
DOCKET NO. 20240149-EI 	Attachment A
PAGE 17 	Page 2 of 8
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I HEREBY CERTIFY that true and correct copies of the foregoing have been furnished by
Electronic Mail to the following parties of record this 18th day of June 2026:
/s/ Joel T. Baker
Joel T. Baker
Fla. Bar No. 0108202
Jennifer Crawford
Suzanne Brownless
Florida Public Service Commission
2540 Shumard Oak Boulevard
Tallahassee, FL 32399
jcrawfor@psc.state.fl.us
sbrownle@psc.state.fl.us
For Commission Staff
Walt Trierweiler
Charles 	J. Rehwinkel
Austin A. Watrous
c/o Tire Florida Legislature
111 West Madison Street, Room 812
Tallahassee, FL 32399-1400
Trierweiler. walt@leg.state.fl.us
rehwinkel.charles@leg.state.fl.us
watrous.austin@leg.state.fl.us
For Office of Public Counsel
Attorney for Florida Power & Light Company

ORDER NO. PSC-2026-0255-PAA-EI
DOCKET NO. 20240149-EI 	Attachment A
PAGE 18 	Page 3 of 8
BEFORE THE FLORIDA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION
In 	re: 	Petition 	for 	limited 	proceeding 	for 	DOCKET NO.: 	20240149-EI
recovery of incremental storm restoration costs
related 	to 	Hurricanes 	Debby, 	Helene, 	and 	DATE: June 18,2026
Milton, by Florida Power & Light Company.
STIPULATIONS
Florida Power & Light Company (“FPL” or the “Company”) and the Office of Public
Counsel (“OPC”) 	(hereinafter referred 	to individually as “Party” or collectively as “Parties”)
hereby agree to submit for approval by the Florida Public Service Commission (“Commission”)
the following 	stipulations 	to 	fully resolve 	all 	potential 	issues and contentions 	in Docket No.
20240149-EI on the following terms and conditions:
1. 	The Parties stipulate to having 	all 	pre-filed testimony and exhibits 	filed 	in 	this docket
entered into the record, specifically the following:
a. 	The direct testimony of FPL witness Michael 	Jarro, along with Exhibits MJ-1
through MJ-9;
b. 	The direct testimony of FPL witness Amber De Lucenay ;
c. 	The direct testimony of FPL witness Amin Mohomed, along with Exhibits AM-1
through AM-6; and
d. 	The direct testimony of Edward J. Anderson, along with Exhibit EJA-l 	.
2. 	The Parties agree that, with Commission approval of these stipulations, neither Party will
seek or request a hearing on FPL’s December 19, 2025, petition filed in this docket under
the procedures set forth in Section 120.57, Florida Statutes.
3. 	The Parties agree to waive cross-examination of all witnesses and, upon Commission
approval of these 	stipulations, have no 	objection 	to 	witnesses 	being excused 	from
appearing at any evidentiary hearing in this proceeding.

ORDER NO. PSC-2026-0255-PAA-EI
DOCKET NO. 20240149-EI 	Attachment A
PAGE 19 	Page 4 of 8
4. 	The Parties stipulate to having 	all FPL’s responses to Commission Staffs data requests
entered into the record.
5. 	The Parties stipulate and agree that the Incremental Cost and Capitalization Approach
prescribed 	in Rule 25-6.0143, Florida Administrative Code, 	is applicable to determining
the reasonable and prudent amounts to be included 	in FPL’s 	final Recoverable Storm
Amount' to be approved in this docket.
6. 	The 	Parties 	stipulate and agree 	that FPL’s 	pre-filed testimony, 	exhibits, and materials
submitted 	with FPL’s December 	19, 	2025, 	Notice of Filing 	Confidential 	Materials
(collectively, the “FPL Storm Cost Support”), 	in combination with the 	results of the
independent examination of FPL’s Hurricane Milton 	costs performed by 	Deloitte &
Touche LLP pursuant to the Parties’ October 17, 2025, Amended Joint Stipulations filed
in this docket (the “Deloitte Examination”), along with the review of discovery by the OPC
and Commission 	Staff, support a Commission finding that the applicable terms of the
Stipulation and Settlement of FPL’s Hurricane Irma storm restoration costs approved by
Commission 	Order No. 	PSC-2019-0319-S-EI 	in 	Docket No. 	20180049-EI 	(“Irma
Settlement”), as carried forward through the Stipulations of FPL’s Ian and Nicole storm
restoration 	costs approved by 	the Commission 	in Order No. PSC-2024-0227-S-EI 	in
Docket No. 202300 17-EI (“Ian Stipulations”), 2have been satisfied and met.
1The Recoverable Storm Amount, upon which the Interim Storm Restoration Recovery Charge (“Interim Storm
Charge”) was based, includes: 	(i) the actual 	retail incremental storm restoration costs associated with Hurricane
Debby; (ii) the actual retail incremental storm restoration costs associated with Hurricane Helene; (iii) the actual retail
incremental storm restoration costs associated with Hurricane Milton; and (iv) the replenishment of FPL’s storm
reserve in accordance with Paragraph 10 of the Stipulation and Settlement approved in Order No. PSC-2021-0446-S-
El.
2 The lan Stipulations approved by the Commission 	in Docket No. 202300 17-EI require “FPL 	[to] continue to
implement and update the process provisions set forth in Sections 5 through 17 of the [Irma Settlement].”
2

ORDER NO. PSC-2026-0255-PAA-EI
DOCKET NO. 20240149-EI 	Attachment A
PAGE 20 	Page 5 of 8
7. 	The Parties stipulate and agree that the FPL Storm Cost Support and Deloitte Examination
of the Hurricane Milton 	costs conducted pursuant 	to 	the 	Parties’ October 	17, 2025,
Amended 	Joint 	Stipulations, 	support 	a Commission 	finding 	that 	the 	actual 	retail
incremental storm restoration costs of $88.3 million associated with Hurricane Debby, as
shown in Exhibit AM-1, were reasonable and prudent.
8. 	The Parties stipulate and agree that the FPL Storm Cost Support and Deloitte Examination
of the Hurricane Milton 	costs conducted pursuant 	to 	the 	Parties’ October 	17, 2025,
Amended 	Joint 	Stipulations, 	support 	a Commission 	finding 	that 	the 	actual 	retail
incremental storm restoration costs of $167.6 million associated with Hurricane Helene, as
shown in Exhibit AM-2, were reasonable and prudent.
9. 	The Parties stipulate and agree that the FPL Storm Cost Support and Deloitte Examination
support a Commission finding that the actual retail incremental storm restoration costs of
$774.4 	million 	associated with Hurricane 	Milton, 	as shown 	in 	Exhibit AM-3, were
reasonable and prudent.
10. 	The Parties stipulate and agree that the FPL Storm Cost Support and Deloitte Examination
support a Commission finding 	that FPL’s 	total Recoverable Storm Amount 	is $1,125
million, as shown on Exhibit AM-4.
11. 	The Parties stipulate and agree that the FPL Storm Cost Support supports a Commission
finding that FPL’s final Recoverable Storm Amount was calculated in compliance with the
Incremental Cost and Capitalization Approach 	prescribed 	in Rule 25-6.0143, 	Florida
Administrative Code.
3

ORDER NO. PSC-2026-0255-PAA-EI
DOCKET NO. 20240149-EI 	Attachment A
PAGE 21 	Page 6 of 8
12. 	The Parties stipulate and agree that the FPL Storm Cost Support supports a Commission
finding that the actual revenues collected under the Interim Storm Charge was $1,205
million, as shown on Exhibit EJA-1.
13. 	The Parties stipulate and agree that the FPL Storm Cost Support supports a Commission
finding that the one-time true-up methodology for the actual revenues collected under the
Interim Storm Charge, as proposed 	in the direct testimony of FPL witness Edward 	J.
Anderson, 	is reasonable and appropriate. 	Specifically, the 	Parties agree that once the
Commission has made 	its determination of the final actual Recoverable Storm Amount in
this proceeding, FPL shall compare the approved Recoverable Storm Amount to the actual
total revenues collected from the Interim Storm Charge, as shown on Exhibit EJA-1, 	in
order to determine any excess or shortfall in recovery. The Parties also agree that interest
shall be applied to any excess or shortfall at the thirty-day commercial paper rate consistent
with Rule 25-6.109, Florida Administrative Code.
14. 	The Parties stipulate and agree that for this proceeding, specifically, the FPL Storm Cost
Support supports a Commission finding that FPL’s proposal to make a compliance filing
with the Commission that sets forth the calculation of the appropriate true-up rates to apply
to customer bills 	in order to refund the excess or collect the shortfall 	is reasonable and
appropriate. 	The true-up 	rates 	shall apply 	to customer 	bills 	for a one-month 	period.
Specifically, the Parties agree that the true-up rates shall be designed in a manner that 	is
consistent with the 	cost allocation used 	for the 	Interim Storm Charge 	rates 	filed and
approved in Order Nos. PSC-2024-0503-PCO-EI, and that FPL shall apply the true-up rates
through the non-fuel energy charge on customers’ bills starting on Cycle Day 	1 of the first
month following the Commission’s issuance of either 	(i) a Consummating Order that
4

ORDER NO. PSC-2026-0255-PAA-EI
DOCKET NO. 20240149-EI 	Attachment A
PAGE 22 	Page 7 of 8
consummates a proposed agency action adopting these stipulations or 	(ii) any other final
decision adopting these stipulations.
15. 	The Parties stipulate and agree that for this proceeding specifically the Commission should
authorize 	its Staff to review and verify the final true-up rates contained in FPL's proposed
compliance filing referenced in Paragraph 14 above.
16. 	The Parties stipulate and agree that for this proceeding specifically the FPL Storm Cost
Support supports a Commission 	finding that FPL’s proposal 	to notify customers of the
change in their rates, due to the one-time true-up, at least thirty days in advance 	in the form
of a message on 	their 	bill, with more detailed information regarding the Interim Storm
Charge 	tariff provided 	on 	FPL's 	website, 	www.FPL.coin/rates . 	is 	reasonable 	and
appropriate.
17. 	The 	Parties 	agree 	that 	the 	Deloitte 	Examination performed 	pursuant 	to 	the 	Parties'
Amended 	Joint 	Stipulations, 	filed 	in 	this 	proceeding 	on 	October 	20. 	2025, 	was
satisfactorily executed and reduced the need for discovery in this proceeding. The Parties
agree that FPL need not perform such external, independent storm attestations/audits in the
future unless there 	is a substantive material change 	in FPL's processes/procedures or the
Commission's rules and requirements.
18. 	The Parties stipulate and agree that FPL shall continue to implement and update the process
provisions set forth 	in Sections 5 through 	17 of the Irma Settlement. Consistent with the
principles of the Irma Settlement and 	the aim of continuous improvement, 	the 	Parties
further agree that the process provisions of Sections 5 through 	17 of the Irma Settlement
may be updated 	to 	reflect advancements 	in data automation and the use of technology,
including smart phone applications and data collection programs.
5

ORDER NO. PSC-2026-0255-PAA-EI
DOCKET NO. 20240149-EI 	Attachment A
PAGE 23 	Page 8 of 8
19. 	To reduce the review burden and manual effort required to calculate a crew’s pace of travel
in accordance with Sections 8, 10, and 11 of the Irma Settlement, the Parties agree that FPL
may investigate and, 	if practicable, implement a cost per mile payment structure 	in 	its
vendor contracts that includes travel, meals, fuel, and lodging. The Parties agree that such
a change in payment structure would not constitute a substantive material change in FPL’s
processes/procedures pursuant to Paragraph 17 of these stipulations. 	If FPL determines
that a cost per mile payment structure 	is practicable, FPL shall promptly notify OPC of
such determination.
20. 	The 	Parties acknowledge 	that 	this stipulation has no impact upon 	the Commission’s
statutory audit authority under Chapter 366 of the Florida Statutes.
In Witness Whereof, FPL and OPC evidence their acceptance and agreement with all provisions
of these Stipulations by their signature.
FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY 	OFFICE OF PUBLIC COUNSEL
By:
John'/T. Burnett
Vice President and General Counsel
Florida Power & Light Company
700 Universe Boulevard
Juno Beach, FL 33408-0420
Walt Trierweiler
Public Counsel
c/o The Florida Legislature
111 West Madison Street, Suite 812
Tallahassee, FL 32399-1400
6