Florida Public Service Commission native order document 05086-2026

FILED 8/11/2026
DOCUMENT NO. 05086-2026
FPSC 	- COMMISSION CLERK
BEFORE THE FLORIDA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION
In re: Petition for determine of need for a new
combined cycle generating unit and onsite
associated facilities located at 	St. Johns River
Power Park Unit 3 in Duval County, by JEA.
DOCKET NO. 20260087-EM
ORDER NO. PSC-2026-0274-PHO-EM
ISSUED: August 11, 2026
PREHEARING ORDER
Pursuant to Notice and in accordance with Rule 28-106.209, Florida Administrative Code
(F.A.C.), a Prehearing Conference was held on August 4, 2026, in Tallahassee, 	Florida, before
Commissioner Michael La Rosa, as Prehearing Officer.
APPEARANCES:
BROOKE 	E. HUMPHREY 	and MATTHEW E.W. BRYANT, ESQUIRES,
Steams Weaver Miller, 106 E. College Ave, Tallahassee, FL 32301
On behalf of JEA .
ALISHA HIXON and SHAW STILLER 	, 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 .
ADRIA 	E. HARPER, ESQUIRE, 	General 	Counsel, 	Florida 	Public 	Service
Commission, 2540 Shumard Oak Boulevard, Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0850
Florida Public Service Commission General Counsel 	.
I. 	CASE BACKGROUND
On June 4, 2026, JEA filed 	its Petition for a Determination of Need for 	St. Johns River
Power Park Unit 3, in accordance with Section 403.519, Florida Statutes (F.S.), Chapter 120, F.S.,
and Rules 25-22.081 and 28-106.201, Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.). In 	its petition, JEA
seeks an affirmative determination of need for a new combined cycle generating unit and onsite
associated 	facilities 	to be 	located 	at 	the JEA’s 	existing 	St. 	Johns River Power Park 	site 	in
Jacksonville, Florida.

ORDER NO. PSC-2026-0274-PHO-EM
DOCKET NO. 20260087-EM
PAGE 2
In this docket, the Commission will consider that need determination. This matter has been
scheduled for a formal administrative hearing on August 18, 2026.
II. 	CONDUCT OF PROCEEDINGS
Pursuant to Rule 28-106.211, F.A.C., this Prehearing Order is issued to prevent delay and
to promote the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of all aspects of this case.
III. 	JURISDICTION
This Commission is vested with jurisdiction over the subject matter by the provisions of
Chapter 120, 366, and 403, Florida Statutes (F.S.). This hearing will be governed by said Chapters
and Chapters 25-22, and 28-106, F.A.C., as well as any other applicable provisions of law.
IV. 	PROCEDURE FOR HANDLING CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION
Information for which proprietary confidential business information status is requested
pursuant to Section 366.093, F.S., and Rule 25-22.006, F.A.C., shall be treated by the Commission
as confidential. The information shall be exempt from Section 119.07(1), F.S., pending a formal
ruling on such request by the Commission or pending return of the information to the person
providing the information. 	If no determination of confidentiality has been made and the
information has not been made a part of the evidentiary record in this proceeding, it shall be
returned to the person providing the information. If a determination of confidentiality has been
made and the information was not entered into the record of this proceeding, it shall be returned
to the person providing the information within the time period set forth in Section 366.093, F.S.
The Commission may determine that continued possession of the information is necessary for the
Commission to conduct its business.
It is the policy of this Commission that all Commission hearings be open to the public at
all times. 	The Commission also recognizes its obligation pursuant to Section 366.093, F.S., to
protect proprietary confidential business information from disclosure outside the proceeding.
Therefore, any party wishing to use any proprietary confidential business information, as that term
is defined in Section 366.093, F.S., at the hearing shall adhere to the following:
(1) 	When confidential information is used in the hearing that has not been filed as
prefiled 	testimony 	or 	prefiled 	exhibits, 	parties 	must 	have 	copies 	for 	the
Commissioners, necessary staff, and the court reporter, in red envelopes clearly
marked with the nature of the contents and with the confidential information
highlighted. 	Any party wishing to examine the confidential material that is not
subject to an order granting confidentiality shall be provided a copy in the same

ORDER NO. PSC-2026-0274-PHO-EM
DOCKET NO. 20260087-EM
PAGE 3
fashion as provided to the Commissioners, subject to execution of any appropriate
protective agreement with the owner of the material.
(2) 	Counsel and witnesses are cautioned to avoid verbalizing confidential information
in such a way that would compromise confidentiality. 	Therefore, confidential
information should be presented by written exhibit when reasonably possible.
At the conclusion of that portion of the hearing that involves confidential information, all
copies of confidential exhibits shall be returned to the proffering party. If a confidential exhibit
has been admitted into evidence, the copy provided to the court reporter shall be retained in the
Office of Commission Clerk’s confidential files. If such material is admitted into the evidentiary
record at hearing and is not otherwise subject to a request for confidential classification filed with
the Commission, the source of the information must file a request for confidential classification of
the information within 21 days of the conclusion of the hearing, as set forth in Rule 25-
22.006(8)(b), F.A.C., if continued confidentiality of the information is to be maintained.
V. 	PREFILED TESTIMONY AND EXHIBITS; WITNESSES
Testimony of all witnesses to be sponsored by the parties (and Staff) has been prefiled and
will be inserted into the record as though read after the witness has taken the stand and affirmed
the correctness of the testimony and associated exhibits. All testimony remains subject to timely
and appropriate objections. Upon insertion of a witness’ testimony, exhibits appended thereto may
be marked for identification. Each witness will have the opportunity to orally summarize his or
her testimony at the time he or she takes the stand. Summaries of testimony shall be limited to
three minutes.
Witnesses are reminded that, on cross-examination, responses to questions calling for a
simple yes or no answer shall be so answered first, after which the witness may explain his or her
answer. 	After all parties and Staff have had the opportunity to cross-examine the witness, the
exhibit may be moved into the record. All other exhibits may be similarly identified and entered
into the record at the appropriate time during the hearing.
The Commission frequently administers the testimonial oath to more than one witness at a
time. 	Therefore, when a witness takes the stand to testify, the attorney calling the witness is
directed to ask the witness to affirm whether he or she has been sworn.
The parties shall avoid duplicative or repetitious cross-examination. Further, friendly
cross-examination will not be allowed. 	Cross-examination shall be limited to witnesses whose
testimony is adverse to the party desiring to cross-examine. Any party conducting what appears
to be a friendly cross-examination of a witness should be prepared to indicate why that witness’
direct testimony is adverse to its interests.
All parties must refer to the Exhibit Number established by the Comprehensive Exhibit
List when referencing an exhibit during cross-examination.

ORDER NO. PSC-2026-0274-PHO-EM
DOCKET NO. 20260087-EM
PAGE 4
VI. 	ORDER OF WITNESSES
Each witness whose name is preceded by a plus sign (+) will present direct and rebuttal
testimony together.
Witness 	Proffered By 	Issues #
Direct
Name 	Utility/Staff
Jody L. Brooks 	JEA 	1-7
James Stancin 	JEA 	1, 3-6
Melinda Fischer 	JEA 	1-6
Wayne J. Oliver
Hua Fang
JEA
JEA
3, 5, 6
4-6
Matt M. Oakes 	JEA 	5, 6
Brian Pippin 	JEA 	2, 5, 6
Jim Herndon 	JEA 	2, 5, 6
Bradley E. Kushner 	JEA 	1-7
VII. 	BASIC POSITIONS
JEA: 	The Commission should grant the petition for determination of need for St.
Johns River Power Park (SJRPP) Unit 3 because the analysis presented in the
pre-filed testimony and exhibits of JEA’s witnesses demonstrate that the
proposed combined cycle facility is needed to meet the electrical demand of
JEA’s customers and otherwise favorably addresses all of the factors set forth in
section 403.519, Florida Statutes. JEA’s analyses demonstrate that SJRPP Unit
3 with an in-service date of January 1, 2031, is the most cost-effective and system
beneficial alternative to meet JEA’s capacity needs, while providing for more
efficient use of natural gas, increasing fuel diversity, reducing CO 2 emissions,
enhancing flexibility and reliability, relieving power import strains on JEA’s
electric transmission system, and helping to avoid costly updates that would

ORDER NO. PSC-2026-0274-PHO-EM
DOCKET NO. 20260087-EM
PAGE 5
otherwise 	be 	necessary to 	extend the 	life 	of 	JEA’s 	existing 	Northside
Generating Station (NGS) Unit 3.
Based on its continuing evaluation and assessment of its resource portfolio
against its load forecast and reliability criteria, JEA projects a need for an
additional 72 MW in the 2031 timeframe, increasing to 222 MW in 2033 and
802 MW in 2035, to ensure a reliable long-term energy supply for JEA’s
customers. This projected need results primarily from increased demand during
the winter and summer peaks, organic load growth in both the residential and
commercial/industrial sectors, and planned unit retirement. The demand-side
management (DSM) and conservation savings actually and estimated to be
achieved by JEA and its customers through its Commission-approved DSM
plan pursuant to the Florida Energy Efficiency and Conservation Act (FEECA),
section 366.82, Florida Statutes, as well as other DSM programs, are reflected
in JEA’s load forecast, yet JEA still has a growing need. There are no additional
cost-effective DSM or conservation measures reasonably available to offset
JEA’s need.
JEA’s Board unanimously approved moving forward with developing SJRPP
Unit 3 following JEA’s thorough evaluation of generating and non-generating
alternatives to meet its needs, including renewable resources and DSM options.
As part of this analysis, JEA initiated a highly transparent, competitive
solicitation for firm, fully dispatchable capacity. JEA conducted an extensive
multi-phase economic and qualitative evaluation of the proposals received, as
well as JEA’s own self-build resource, monitored and confirmed by an
independent evaluator. The self-build resource – a one-on-one (1 x 1) natural
gas- and fuel-oil fired combined cycle unit – was the most cost-effective
alternative, and also highest ranked in terms of system benefits related to
dispatch, flexibility, and reliability. SJRPP Unit 3 would result in savings of
approximately $92 million in cumulative present worth cost (CPWC) over the
next least cost alternative. Importantly, the next least cost alternative would
include constructing a 1 x 1 combined cycle facility (like SJRPP Unit 3) in
2035. 	The economic cost of even a one-year delay of SJRPP Unit 3 is
approximately $20 million in CPWC. SJRPP Unit 3 is the most cost-effective
and system beneficial option to meet the needs of JEA and its customers.
STAFF: 	Staff’s positions are preliminary and based on materials filed by the parties and on
discovery. The preliminary positions are offered to assist the parties in preparing
for the hearing. Staff’s final positions will be based upon all the evidence in the
record and may differ from the preliminary positions.

ORDER NO. PSC-2026-0274-PHO-EM
DOCKET NO. 20260087-EM
PAGE 6
VIII. 	ISSUES AND POSITIONS
ISSUE 1: 	Is there a need for the proposed St. Johns River Power Park Unit 3, taking
into account the need for electric system reliability and integrity, as this
criterion is used in Section 403.519(3), Florida Statutes?
JEA: 	Yes. 	JEA’s power supply planning process begins with the development of its
forecast of peak demand and net energy to load (NEL) based on customer growth,
historical energy sales and weather data. 	JEA’s peak demand forecast, plus an
additional 15 percent reserve margin, is utilized to determine the need for additional
resources. 	The DSM and conservation savings achieved and estimated to be
achieved by JEA and its customers through its FEECA DSM plan and other
conservation efforts are reflected in JEA’s load forecast, yet JEA still has a growing
need. 	JEA’s required reserve margin is projected to fall below the 15 percent
reserve 	margin 	beginning 	in 	the 	winter 	of 	2028 	with 	increasing 	capacity
requirements thereafter. Based on JEA’s current forecasted winter demand, JEA
has a need for 72 MW in 2031, increasing to 222 MW in 2033 and 802 MW in
2035. SJRPP Unit 3 will provide 678 MW (net; winter) of capacity starting in
January 2031 to meet this need (additional off-system purchases can be made to
maintain the target reserve margin until 2031). SJRPP Unit 3 will also increase fuel
diversity, allow for more efficient use of natural gas, reduce CO2 emissions,
enhance flexibility and reliability, enhance grid reliability, and help to avoid
approximately $834.1 million in updates that would otherwise be necessary to
extend the life of JEA’s existing NGS Unit 3. (Brooks, Stancin, Fischer, Kushner).
STAFF: 	Staff has no position at this time.
ISSUE 2: 	Are there any renewable energy sources and technologies or conservation
measures taken by or reasonably available to JEA, which might mitigate the
need for the proposed St. Johns River Power Park Unit 3?
JEA: 	No. JEA has faced substantial challenges expanding renewable technologies within
its service territory and regulatory changes have impacted their affordability.
Additional renewable technologies and energy storage as alternatives to SJRPP
Unit 3 were considered in the evaluation of generating alternatives and were
evaluated as potential resources that would be added if doing so was part of the
overall most cost-effective resource plan to meet demand. The results show that
the addition of renewable energy resources would not be cost-effective relative to
SJRPP Unit 3.
The DSM and conservation savings achieved and estimated to be achieved by JEA
and its customers are reflected in JEA’s load forecast at a level approximately two
times JEA’s Commission-approved numeric conservation goals. JEA will still need
72 MW of additional capacity in 2031, increasing to 222 MW in 2033 and 802 MW

ORDER NO. PSC-2026-0274-PHO-EM
DOCKET NO. 20260087-EM
PAGE 7
in 2035. To mitigate the need for SJRPP Unit 3, JEA would need to achieve more
than 30 times the amount of DSM reflected in JEA’s current goals for 2031, and 46
times the amount of DSM JEA achieved in 2025 (winter). JEA updated its analysis
of potential DSM resources from that presented to the Commission in support of its
FEECA goal setting in 2024. 	This updated analysis, coupled with JEA’s own
analyses and ongoing efforts, demonstrates that cost-effective DSM or conservation
measures are not reasonably available to JEA to mitigate the need for SJRPP Unit
3. (Brooks, Fischer, Pippin, Herndon, Kushner)
STAFF: 	Staff has no position at this time.
ISSUE 3: 	Is there a need for the proposed St. Johns River Power Park Unit 3, taking
into account the need for adequate electricity at a reasonable cost, as this
criterion is used in Section 403.519(3), Florida Statutes?
JEA: 	Yes. SJRPP Unit 3 will be a highly efficient, state-of-the art combined cycle facility
that will allow for more efficient use of natural gas, reduce system CO2 emissions
and help avoid costly updates that would otherwise be necessary to extend the life
of JEA’s existing NGS Unit 3. Locating SJRPP Unit 3 on a parcel formerly utilized
for electric generation will allow for use of existing infrastructure, allow power to
be transported via existing 230-kV transmission lines, and significantly minimize
overall environmental impacts as compared to locating new generation on a
greenfield site—all providing substantial benefits to JEA’s customers.
Based on a competitive market process following JEA’s issuance of a request for
proposals (RFP), consideration of system benefits and risks, and extensive
economic modeling, the resource plan that includes SJRPP Unit 3 coming into
service in January 2031, is the most cost-effective alternative for meeting JEA’s
capacity needs, resulting in a CPWC savings of approximately $92 million as
compared to the next lowest cost alternative. (Brooks, Fischer, Stancin, Kushner,
Oliver)
STAFF: 	Staff has no position at this time.
ISSUE 4: 	Is there a need for the proposed St. Johns River Power Park Unit 3, taking
into account the need for fuel diversity and supply reliability, as this criterion
is used in Section 403.519(3), Florida Statutes?
JEA: 	Yes. 	SJRPP Unit 3 will provide reliable dispatchable power, allow for more
efficient use of natural gas, reduce system CO2 emissions, provide support to
reliably integrate the import of power into the JEA system, and enhance flexibility
and reliability. 	The output of SJRPP Unit 3 will displace all gas-fired energy

ORDER NO. PSC-2026-0274-PHO-EM
DOCKET NO. 20260087-EM
PAGE 8
currently produced by NGS Unit 3, utilizing 37% less gas per MWh. 	This
efficiency reduces JEA’s aggregate gas requirement to serve the same load and will
result in a reduction of 0.22 tons of CO2 per MWh. 	SJRPP Unit 3 also has dual-
fuel capability (natural gas or fuel oil), which enhances fuel supply resilience and
overall efficiency by moderating exposure to gas price volatility and supporting a
more balanced and reliable generation mix. (Brooks, Stancin, Fischer, Fang
Kushner)
STAFF: 	Staff has no position at this time.
ISSUE 5: 	Will the proposed St. Johns River Power Park Unit 3 provide the most cost-
effective alternative available, as this criterion is used in Section 403.519(3),
Florida Statutes?
JEA: 	Yes. SJRPP Unit 3 is the most cost-effective alternative to meet the needs of JEA’s
customers. Based on a competitive market process following JEA’s issuance of a
RFP overseen by an independent evaluator and extensive economic modeling, the
resource plan that includes SJRPP Unit 3 coming into service in January 2031, is
the most cost-effective alternative to meet JEA’s capacity needs, resulting in a
CPWC savings of approximately $92 million as compared to the next lowest cost
alternative. Importantly, the next lowest cost alternative would include the addition
of an advanced class combined cycle unit (like SJRPP Unit 3) in 2035. Thus, the
next lowest cost alternative would still include the addition of combined cycle
technology in the relatively near-term, essentially reflecting a 4-year delay in the
addition of the proposed SJRPP Unit 3. (All JEA witnesses)
STAFF: 	Staff has no position at this time.
ISSUE 6: 	Based on the resolution of the foregoing issues and other matters within its
jurisdiction which it deems relevant, should the Commission grant JEA’s
petition to determine the need for the proposed St. Johns River Power Park
Unit 3?
JEA: 	Yes. 	The analyses and other information presented in the testimony of JEA’s
witnesses demonstrate that an affirmative need determination is warranted for
SJRPP Unit 3 based on consideration of the relevant factors set forth in section
403.519, Florida Statutes. JEA will have a need for 72 MW in 2031, increasing to
222 MW in 2033 and 802 MW in 2035. The proposed SJRPP Unit 3 will ensure
that JEA has an adequate supply of power to serve its customers’ needs at a
reasonable cost. 	The competitive RFP process overseen by an independent
evaluator; 	extensive 	economic 	analyses 	of 	various 	technologies, 	including
renewable 	technologies; 	and 	consideration 	of 	system 	risks 	and 	benefits;

ORDER NO. PSC-2026-0274-PHO-EM
DOCKET NO. 20260087-EM
PAGE 9
demonstrate that SJRPP Unit 3 is the most cost-effective, system-beneficial
alternative to meet JEA’s power supply needs. SJRPP Unit 3 will improve system
reliability, fuel diversity, and operational flexibility while avoiding substantial and
costly system upgrades and reducing emissions. JEA implements DSM programs
pursuant 	to 	its 	Commission-approved 	DSM 	plan, 	along 	with 	additional
conservation efforts, all of which are accounted for in JEA’s projected need.
Additional cost-effective conservation measures are not available to mitigate the
need for SJRPP Unit 3. (All JEA witnesses)
STAFF: 	Staff has no position at this time.
ISSUE 7: 	Should this docket be closed?
JEA: 	Yes. Upon issuance of a final order granting JEA’s petition for need determination
for SJRPP Unit 3, Docket No. 20260087-EM should be closed.
STAFF: 	Yes, upon the issuance of a final order.
IX. 	EXHIBIT LIST
Witness 	Proffered By 	Description
Direct
Jody Brooks 	JEA 	JB-1 	Resume of Jody Brooks
Jody Brooks 	JEA 	Revised
JB-2 JEA Need Study (Rev. 1)
Sections 1.0, 1.1, 1.2, 1.7, 1.8,
2.0, 3.0, 3.1, 3.3,
3.3.3, 8.0, 9.0, and all tables
and figures referenced therein.
Jody Brooks 	JEA 	JB-3 	JEA Service Territory
Jody Brooks 	JEA 	JB-4 	JEA 	Existing 	Power
Purchase Agreement Schedule
James Stancin 	JEA 	JS-1 	Resume of James Stancin
James Stancin 	JEA 	JS-2 	Project Layout
James Stancin 	JEA 	JS-3 	Site Location

ORDER NO. PSC-2026-0274-PHO-EM
DOCKET NO. 20260087-EM
PAGE 10
Witness 	Proffered By 	Description
James Stancin 	JEA 	JS-4 	Renderings
James Stancin 	JEA 	JS-5 	Site and Vicinity
James Stancin 	JEA 	JS-6 	Capital Cost Estimate
James Stancin 	JEA 	Revised
JB-2
JEA Need Study (Rev. 1)
Sections 1.3, 3.3.1, 4.1, 4.1.1,
4.1.2, 4.1.3, 4.1.4, 4.1.5, 4.1.6,
4.1.7, 	4.1.8, 	4.1.10, 4.1.11,
6.2.2, and all tables and figures
referenced therein.
Melinda Fischer 	JEA 	MF-1 	Resume of Melinda Fischer
Melinda Fischer 	JEA 	MF-2 	2026 Ten-Year Site Plan
Melinda Fischer 	JEA 	MF-3 	Table of Large Load
Assumptions
Melinda Fischer 	JEA 	MF-4 	Market Test RFP
Melinda Fischer 	JEA 	MF-5 	Tables of Economic Results
and Scoring
Melinda Fischer 	JEA 	MF-6 	Table of Qualitative Evaluation
Melinda Fischer 	JEA 	MF-7 	Total RFP Scores
Melinda Fischer 	JEA 	Revised
JB-2
JEA Need Study (Rev. 1)
Sections 1.4, 1.5, 3.2, 3.3.2,
3.3.2.1, 3.3.2.2, 3.3.2.3, 3.3.2.4,
3.3.2.5, 3.3.2.6, 3.3.2.7, 3.4,
4.1.9, 5.1, 5.2, 5.2.1, 5.2.2,
5.2.3, 5.2.3.1, 5.2.3.2, 5.2.4,
5.2.5, 5.2.6, 5.2.7, 5.3, 5.4,
5.5, 6.0, 6.1, 6.2, 6.2.1, 6.2.3,
6.3, and all tables and figures
referenced therein
Hua Fang 	JEA 	HF-1 	Resume of Hua Fang
Hua Fang 	JEA 	Revised
HF-2
Base Fuel Price Assumptions

ORDER NO. PSC-2026-0274-PHO-EM
DOCKET NO. 20260087-EM
PAGE 11
Witness 	Proffered By 	Description
Hua Fang 	JEA 	Revised
HF-3
High 	and 	Low 	Fuel
Price Assumptions
Hua Fang 	JEA 	Revised
JB-2
JEA Need Study (Rev. 1)
Section 6.4.5 and Tables 6-3 and
6-4
Matt Oakes 	JEA 	MO-1 	Resume of Matt Oakes
Matt Oakes 	JEA 	Second
Revised
MO-2
Cost and Performance
Assumptions for Generating
Alternatives (natural gas
generating alternatives)
Matt Oakes 	JEA 	Revised
JB-2
JEA Need Study (Rev. 1)
Section 6.4.4 and Table 6-2
Jim Herndon 	JEA 	JH-1 	Resume of Jim Herndon
Jim Herndon 	JEA 	JH-2 	MPS for JEA (2024)
Jim Herndon 	JEA 	JH-3 	Update to MPS for JEA (2026)
Jim Herndon 	JEA 	JB-2 	JEA Need Study (Rev. 1)
Section 7.2
Brian Pippin 	JEA 	BP-1 	Resume of Brian Pippin
Brian Pippin 	JEA 	BP-2 	JEA’s DSM Goals 2025-2034
Brian Pippin 	JEA 	Revised
JB-2
JEA Need Study (Rev. 1)
Sections 1.6, 7.0, 7.1.1, and
7.1.2, and all tables and figures
referenced therein.
Bradley Kushner 	JEA 	BK-1 	Resume of Bradley E. Kushner
Bradley Kushner 	JEA 	Revised
BK-2
Modeling Results Table
Bradley Kushner 	JEA 	Second
Revised
MO-2
Cost and Performance
Assumptions for Generating
Alternatives (solar, battery
energy storage, and small
modular reactor alternatives)

ORDER NO. PSC-2026-0274-PHO-EM
DOCKET NO. 20260087-EM
PAGE 12
Witness 	Proffered By 	Description
Bradley Kushner 	JEA 	Revised
JB-2
JEA Need Study (Rev. 1)
Sections 6.4, 6.4.1, 6 . 4 . 2 ,
6.4.2.1, 6.4.3, 6.4.6, 6.4.7,
6.4.7.1, 6.4.7.2, 6.5, and all
tables and figures referenced
therein.
Wayne Oliver 	JEA 	WO-1 	Resume of Wayne Oliver
Wayne Oliver 	JEA 	WO-2 	Independent Evaluation Report
X. 	PROPOSED STIPULATIONS
There are no proposed stipulations at this time.
XI. 	PENDING MOTIONS
There are no pending motions.
XII. 	PENDING CONFIDENTIALITY MATTERS
JEA’s Request for Confidential Classification of information provided in responses to
Staff’s First Set of Interrogatories No. 1(b) filed July 7, 2026.
XIII. 	POST-HEARING PROCEDURES
If no bench decision is made, each party shall file a post-hearing statement of issues and
positions. A summary of each position, set off with asterisks, shall be included in that statement.
If a party’s position has not changed since the issuance of this Prehearing Order, the post-hearing
statement may simply restate the prehearing position; however, if the prehearing position is longer
than 50 words, it must be reduced to no more than 50 words. If a party fails to file a post-hearing
statement, that party shall have waived all issues and may be dismissed from the proceeding.
Pursuant to Rule 28-106.215, F.A.C., a party’s proposed findings of fact and conclusions
of law, if any, statement of issues and positions, and brief, shall together total no more than 40
pages and shall be filed at the same time.

ORDER NO. PSC-2026-0274-PHO-EM
DOCKET NO. 20260087-EM
PAGE 13
XIV. 	RULINGS
Opening statements, if any, shall not exceed five minutes per party.
It is therefore,
ORDERED by Commissioner Michael La Rosa, as Prehearing Officer, that this Prehearing
Order shall govern the conduct of these proceedings as set forth above unless modified by the
Commission.
By ORDER of Commissioner Mike La Rosa, as Prehearing Officer, this 11th day of
August, 2026.
MIKE LA ROSA
Commissioner and Prehearing Officer
Florida Public Service Commission
2540 Shumard Oak Boulevard
Tallahassee, Florida 32399
(850) 413-6770
www.floridapsc.com
Copies furnished: 	A copy of this document is
provided to the parties of record at the time of
issuance and, if applicable, interested persons.
AH

ORDER NO. PSC-2026-0274-PHO-EM
DOCKET NO. 20260087-EM
PAGE 14
NOTICE OF FURTHER PROCEEDINGS OR JUDICIAL REVIEW
The Florida Public Service Commission is required by Section 120.569(1), Florida
Statutes, to notify parties of any administrative hearing or judicial review of Commission orders
that is available under Sections 120.57 or 120.68, Florida Statutes, as well as the procedures and
time limits that apply. 	This notice should not be construed to mean all requests for an
administrative hearing or judicial review will be granted or result in the relief sought.
Mediation may be available on a case-by-case basis. If mediation is conducted, it does not
affect a substantially interested person's right to a hearing.
Any 	party 	adversely 	affected 	by 	this 	order, 	which 	is 	preliminary, 	procedural 	or
intermediate in nature, may request: (1) reconsideration within 10 days pursuant to Rule 25-
22.0376, Florida Administrative Code; or (2) judicial review by the Florida Supreme Court, in the
case of an electric, gas or telephone utility, or the First District Court of Appeal, in the case of a
water or wastewater utility. 	A motion for reconsideration shall be filed with the Office of
Commission Clerk, in the form prescribed by Rule 25-22.0376, Florida Administrative Code.
Judicial review of a preliminary, procedural or intermediate ruling or order is available if review
of the final action will not provide an adequate remedy. Such review may be requested from the
appropriate court, as described above, pursuant to Rule 9.100, Florida Rules of Appellate
Procedure.