Florida Public Service Commission native order document 04623-2026

FILED 7/24/2026
DOCUMENT NO. 04623-2026
FPSC 	- COMMISSION CLERK
BEFORE THE FLORIDA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION
In re: Formal complaint of Justin Gage against
Duke Energy Florida, LLC for alleged
violations of Commission rules, orders, and
statutes governing electric utility safety
standards, compliance certifications, and
truthfulness in Commission 	filings._
DOCKET NO. 20260045-EI
ORDER NO. PSC-2026-0259-PAA-EI
ISSUED: July 24, 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 DENYING PETITIONER’S FORMAL COMPLAINT
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 formal proceeding, pursuant 	to Rule 	25-22.029,
Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.).
BACKGROUND
On 	October 	17, 	2025, 	Mr. 	Justin Gage 	(Mr. 	Gage) 	filed 	Informal 	Complaint 	No.
1488062E, 	alleging 	that a PME-4 switchgear unit 1administered by Duke Energy 	Florida, LLC
(DEF) 	located near his house was out of compliance with 	the National 	Electrical 	Safety Code
(NESC). 	In 	particular, Mr. Gage 	alleged 	that 	the PME-4 	unit had missing 	or improper 	safety
stickers, was improperly sealed at the base, and 	that the door of the unit was too close 	to nearby
bushes to be fully opened.
Mr. Gage had previously been in contact with DEF regarding the PME-4. On September
4, 2025, Mr. Gage reported 	that 	a loud boom had come from 	the PME-4. A DEF 	technician
arrived 	onsite 	and 	confirmed 	that 	Mr. Gage 	had 	power. At 	that 	time 	Mr. Gage 	raised 	his
concerns with 	the PME-4 with 	the 	technician. The 	technician 	told Mr. Gage 	that 	his concerns
would be investigated and put a 	safety 	sticker on 	the 	unit. A DEF 	investigation found 	that 	the
1A switchgear 	is composed of electrical disconnect switches, fuses, or circuit breakers used to control, protect, and
isolate electrical equipment.

ORDER NO. PSC-2026-0259-PAA-EI
DOCKET NO. 20260045-EI
PAGE 2
PME-4 was in compliance with the NESC and that Mr. Gage was not served by that PME-4 but
by a nearby transformer. Mr. Gage then filed an informal complaint with the Commission under
Rule 25-22.032, F.A.C.
While the informal complaint was being processed at the Commission, Mr. Gage also
filed a complaint with the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). OSHA
reached out to DEF about the complaint and a DEF Supervisor and Safety Professional examined
the PME-4 on November 25, 2025. They found no OSHA or NESC violations. On or about that
date, the bushes that were near the PME-4 were removed. In early December OSHA informed
Mr. Gage that his case was being closed because the bushes were removed.
On January 6, 2026, Commission engineering safety staff examined the PME-4 unit and
found no violations of the NESC. Mr. Gage was unsatisfied and the matter was referred to the
Commission’s Process Review Team (PRT) for review. In March, Commission staff advised Mr.
Gage that his informal complaint had been reviewed by the PRT, and it did not appear that DEF
had violated any Commission statutes, rules, orders, or its tariff in its handling of the matter, and
that the Commission did not have jurisdiction to award damages.
On March 27, 2026, Mr. Gage filed a formal complaint against DEF under Rule 25-
22.036(3)(b), F.A.C., alleging the same material facts contained in his informal complaint. The
formal complaint asserts that the PME-4 unit was out of compliance with the NESC from
September 2025 to December 2025. Mr. Gage further alleges that DEF made false or misleading
statements to the Commission regarding the PME-4’s compliance, and that Commission staff
failed to properly review his informal complaint.
On April 3, 2026, DEF filed a Motion to Dismiss the Complaint. DEF asserts that the
complaint does not comply with Rule 25-22.036, F.A.C., because the complaint fails to contain
competent substantial evidence that any action taken by DEF constitutes a violation of any
applicable statute, rule, Commission order, or the company tariff. Further, DEF denies that it
made any false statements to the Commission. On April 6, Mr. Gage filed a response, asserting
that the complaint sets forth photographic evidence of NESC violations.2
This order addresses whether DEF’s Motion to Dismiss the Complaint should be granted
and the appropriate disposition of Mr. Gage’s complaint against DEF. We have jurisdiction over
this matter pursuant to Section 366.04., Florida Statutes (F.S.).
DECISION
I. 	DEF’s Motion to Dismiss
To sustain a motion to dismiss, the moving party must show that, accepting all allegations
as true, the petition fails to state a cause of action for which relief may be granted. Varnes v.
Dawkins, 624 So. 2d 349, 350 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993). The moving party must specify the grounds
2 Mr. Gage’s OSHA complaint and the referenced photographs are attached to his formal complaint, Document No.
01812-2026, filed March 27, 2026, in Docket No. 20260045-EI.

ORDER NO. PSC-2026-0259-PAA-EI
DOCKET NO. 20260045-EI
PAGE 3
for the motion to dismiss, and all material allegations must be construed against the moving party
in determining if the petitioner has stated the necessary allegations. A determination of the
petition’s sufficiency is confined to the petition and the documents incorporated therein and the
grounds asserted in the motion to dismiss. Id. All allegations in the petition must be viewed as
true and in the light most favorable to the petitioner in order to determine whether there is a
cause of action upon which relief may be granted. Id.
Rule 25-22.036., F.A.C., prescribes the elements that must be contained in a formal
complaint:
1. 	The rule, order, or statute that has been violated;
2. 	The actions that constitute the violation;
3. 	The name and address of the person against whom the complaint is lodged; and
4. 	The specific relief requested, including any penalty sought.
Mr. Gage’s formal complaint states that DEF violated three Rules: Rule 25-6.0345,
F.A.C., which adopts the 2023 NESC as the applicable safety standards for transmission and
distribution facilities; Rule 25-6.039, F.A.C., which requires utilities to establish safe work
practices; and Rule 25-6.0346, which requires utilities to submit quarterly reports certifying work
order compliance with all applicable safety standards. To support these claims, Mr. Gage
supplied photographs purporting to show the violations with explanatory text.
DEF’s Motion to Dismiss states that the complaint “fails to provide competent or
substantial evidence” that any of DEF’s actions violate any rule. DEF states that it has repeatedly
inspected the PME-4 and have found no NESC violations. DEF further states that it has never
made false or misleading statements to the Commission regarding the inspections of the PME-4.
Mr. Gage’s response to DEF’s Motion to Dismiss reiterates the claims made in the formal
complaint about the physical condition of the PME-4.
We have previously held pro se litigants such as Mr. Gage to a relaxed pleading standard,
in order to prevent delay and promote resolution of litigants’ claims. We find the petition states a
cause of action related to the safety compliance of DEF facilities, which is under our jurisdiction
as provided under Section 366.04(6), F.S. We find that the factual allegations contained in Mr.
Gage’s complaint are sufficiently clear to show which of DEF’s actions Mr. Gage believes
violated our rules. The complaint and accompanying photographs show how Mr. Gage believes
the PME-4 was out of compliance with the NESC. 	Mr. Gage alleges insufficient clearance for
the PME-4’s door and improper safety labelling.
We find that these allegations relate to DEF’s compliance with our safety standards and
that the facts and documentation in the docket sufficiently state a cause of action for us to make a
determination on the formal complaint. Therefore, we deny DEF’s Motion to Dismiss. Instead,
we will make a decision on the substance of Mr. Gage’s complaint, as discussed in the next
section of this order.

ORDER NO. PSC-2026-0259-PAA-EI
DOCKET NO. 20260045-EI
PAGE 4
II. 	The Disposition of Mr. Gage’s Complaint
Based on the information provided, it does not appear that DEF violated a statute, rule,
order, or applicable provision of DEF’s Commission-approved tariff. Section 25-6.0345, F.A.C.,
states that “[t]he safety standards prescribed by the 2023 National Electrical Safety Code
(NESC) C2-2023, are adopted and incorporated by reference into this rule as the applicable
safety 	standards 	for 	transmission 	and 	distribution 	facilities 	subject 	to 	the 	Commission’s
jurisdiction.” The other potential rule violations, including DEF’s alleged false statements to the
Commission, depend on finding that DEF violated the NESC.
The PME-4 unit was inspected at least three times. First, on September 4, 2025, a DEF
technician responded to Mr. Gage’s report of a loud boom coming from the unit, and Mr. Gage
raised his concerns with the DEF technician. At that time, the technician examined the unit,
logged Mr. Gage’s complaints, and placed a new safety sticker on the unit.3 DEF’s investigation
at that time found no NESC violations; in particular, it found that the unit was properly sealed
and that the unit could be safely accessed. Second, on November 25, 2025, a DEF Supervisor
and Safety Professional inspected the PME-4 and found no NESC or OSHA violations. At that
time DEF put new safety stickers on the unit and notified the HOA that the bushes near the unit
were being removed “to satisfy Mr. Gage’s complaint.” Third, on January 6, 2026, Commission
staff inspected the unit and found that it was in good condition and well maintained. Commission
staff found no NESC violations.
We find that DEF did not violate the NESC. Multiple inspections by DEF technicians and
Commission staff failed to find any violations of the NESC. In his complaint, Mr. Gage fails to
identify which provisions of the NESC he believes were violated. DEF put new safety stickers on
the unit and removed the nearby bushes to satisfy Mr. Gage; we find these actions appear to
resolve Mr. Gage’s concerns with the PME-4, as the formal complaint acknowledges the unit
was brought into compliance in December. OSHA did not conclude that DEF violated the NESC,
merely closing its case after the conditions Mr. Gage complained about were removed. Mr. Gage
also alleges that Commission staff improperly investigated his complaint. Mr. Gage does not
explain how Commission staff improperly reviewed his complaint or how Commission staff
improperly used its discretion. We find that DEF did not violate a statute, rule, order, or
applicable provision of DEF’s Commission-approved tariff in the condition or maintenance of
the PME-4 unit; therefore, the petitioner’s complaint shall be denied.
Based on the foregoing, it is
ORDERED by the Florida Public Service Commission that Duke Energy Florida, LLC’s
Motion to Dismiss is hereby denied. It is further
ORDERED that Mr. Gage’s formal complaint is denied. It is further
3 NESC Rule 381G requires that a prominent and appropriate safety sign should be visible when the first door or
barrier is opened or removed. National Electrical Safety Code, IEEE Std C2-2023 (New York: IEEE, 2023), Rule
381G.

ORDER NO. PSC-2026-0259-PAA-EI
DOCKET NO. 20260045-EI
PAGE 5
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.
By ORDER of the Florida Public Service Commission this 24th day of July . 2026 	.
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.
JSC

ORDER NO. PSC-2026-0259-PAA-EI
DOCKET NO. 20260045-EI
PAGE 6
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 14, 2026.
In the absence of such a petition, this order shall become final and effective upon the
issuance of a Consummating Order.
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.