Florida Public Service Commission native order document 02335-2026

FILED 4/23/2026
DOCUMENT NO. 02335-2026
FPSC 	- COMMISSION CLERK
BEFORE THE FLORIDA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION
In re: Petition for determination of need for
Andytown-Oasis transmission lines project in
Broward and Miami-Dade Counties, by Florida
Power & Light Company._
DOCKET NO. 20260020- EI
ORDER NO. PSC-2026-0098-PCO-EI
ISSUED: April 23, 2026
ORDER DENYING ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE FUND, INC.’S
MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSE TO DISCOVERY
On February 	9, 2026, pursuant to Section 403.537, Florida 	Statutes 	(F.S.), and Rule 25-
22.075, Florida Administrative Code 	(F.A.C.), 	Florida Power & Light Company (FPL) 	filed a
Notice of Intent 	to 	File 	Petition for Transmission Lines Need Determination. FPL subsequently
filed 	its 	Petition 	to Determine Need for 	Electrical Transmission Lines 	(Petition) on March 	11,
2026. The 	lines 	for which FPL 	seeks 	a 	need 	determination 	in 	the 	Petition 	are 	referred 	to
collectively as 	the “Andytown-Oasis Transmission Lines Project” (AOP). Pursuant to Order No.
PSC-2026-0056-PCO-EI 	(OEP), 	an 	April 7, 2026 	discovery 	deadline was 	established and an
evidentiary hearing on the Petition has been scheduled for April 23, 2026.
On March 27, 2026, 	the Environmental Defense Fund, 	Inc. (EDF) served 	its 	First Set of
Interrogatories (Nos. 	1-28) and 	First Request for Production of Documents (Nos. 	1-19) 	to FPL.
FPL served 	its objections and responses to these 	first sets of discovery requests on April 	3, 2026.
EDF 	then 	served 	its 	Second 	Set 	of 	Interrogatories 	(Nos. 	29-32) 	and 	Second 	Request 	for
Production 	of Documents 	(Nos. 	20-23) 	on 	April 	3, 	2026. FPL 	served 	its 	objections 	and
responses to these second sets of discovery requests on April 	6, 2026.
EDF 	sent 	its 	first conferral 	letter 	to resolve the discovery dispute on April 	13, 2026. FPL
responded 	to 	that conferral 	letter on April 15, 2026. EDF 	sent a second conferral 	letter on April
16, 	2026. On 	April 	17, 	2026, FPL 	responded 	to 	the 	second 	conferral 	letter 	via 	e-mail and
expressed that 	it stood behind the objections and responses 	as described in FPL’s response from
April 	15 th.
Motion to Compel Discovery
On April 	17, 2026, EDF 	filed a Motion 	to Compel 	Florida Power & Light Company 	to
Respond to Discovery (Motion). EDF argues 	that a number of FPL’s responses 	to 	its discovery
requests were 	legally 	insufficient, 	containing 	either boilerplate objections lacking 	specificity or
simply 	failing 	to 	fidly answer 	the question posed. EDF 	asserts 	that 	boilerplate 	objections 	that
discovery 	requests 	are 	“overly burdensome” 	or 	“not 	relevant, 	and 	not 	likely 	to 	lead 	to 	the
discovery 	of admissible 	evidence” 	do 	not comply 	with 	Rule 	1.280, 	Florida 	Rules 	of 	Civil
Procedure, because objections must be tailored and specific to the particular discovery request at
issue. EDF 	concludes 	that 	the 	objecting 	party 	to 	a 	discovery 	request 	has 	the 	burden 	of
establishing the validity of the objections.

ORDER NO. PSC-2026-0098-PCO-EI
DOCKET NO. 20260020-EI
PAGE 2
EDF also argues that the discovery it seeks is relevant and material because the
Prehearing Order, Order No. 2026-0091-PHO-EI, included Issues A and B to be addressed at
hearing, which touch upon Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) Order Nos. 1000
and 1920. EDF further asserts that its discovery questions fall within the bounds of the
Transmission Line Siting Act (TLSA) and the Florida Grid Bill. EDF argues the scope of
discovery is broad under Florida law.
Finally, EDF argues that its Motion is not untimely, even though it comes after discovery
has closed, because neither the Uniform Rules of Procedure nor the OEP contain a restriction on
the timing of a motion to compel discovery. According to EDF, the timeframes in this case do
not allow a party to receive discovery responses, review them, confer to resolve a dispute in good
faith, and then file a motion to compel discovery. EDF concludes that FPL should not be allowed
to serve insufficient discovery responses and then utilize timing deadlines as a shield against
compliance with discovery obligations.
FPL’s Response to the Motion
On April 20, 2026, FPL filed a Response in Opposition to EDF’s Motion to Compel
(Response). First, FPL asserts that it timely served its objections and responses to all of EDF’s
discovery requests. In each circumstance, FPL alleges it either (1) properly objected on the bases
of relevance or disproportionality to the needs of the case or (2) responded to the question, but
EDF disagrees with the answer. FPL argues that EDF waited until after the discovery period
closed to complain about dozens of FPL’s responses and thus, FPL concludes, the Motion is
untimely.
FPL further argues that discovery is not boundless. According to FPL, even under
Florida’s liberal discovery rules, the information requested must be tied to a claim or defense in
the pending case and proportional to the needs of that case. FPL alleges the burden of
establishing relevance is on the questioner and, FPL concludes, EDF has failed to demonstrate a
logical, non-speculative connection between what it seeks and the actual facts and issues to be
decided in the case. FPL notes there appears to be no dispute that regional transmission planning
processes were not used or applied to identify the local need for the AOP, and thus FERC Order
Nos. 1000 and 1920 are irrelevant to this proceeding. Furthermore, FPL argues the Florida Grid
Bill does not convert every TLSA proceeding into a free-ranging inquiry into regional planning
or invite adjudication of FERC’s regional planning regime.
FPL further alleges that EDF misrepresents the ruling in the Prehearing Order because
there was no finding that the FERC or Florida Reliability Coordinating Council issues raised by
EDF in discovery are relevant. Rather, FPL states, Issues A and B only set forth the basis on
which the parties can contend whether or not these considerations are jurisdictional and relevant
to the case. FPL adds that had the Prehearing Officer ruled the FERC Orders were relevant to
this proceeding, those two issues as written would have been moot. Thus, FPL concludes, the
ruling presupposes that EDF’s evidence on FERC Order Nos. 1000 and 1920 could be wholly
irrelevant and it does not signal that EDF has carte blanche to query FPL in all aspects of its
participation in, and communications with, regional planning entities.

ORDER NO. PSC-2026-0098-PCO-EI
DOCKET NO. 20260020-EI
PAGE 3
Analysis
Rule 28-106.206, F.A.C., provides that:
After commencement of a proceeding, parties may obtain discovery through the
means and in the manner provided in Rules 1.280 through 1.400, Florida Rules of
Civil Procedure. The presiding officer may issue appropriate orders to effectuate
the purposes of discovery and to prevent delay, including the imposition of
sanctions in accordance with the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, except
contempt.
While the scope of discovery is generally broad, courts possess “significant discretion” in
regulating the discovery process. Adkins v. Sotolongo, 337 So. 3d 110 (Fla. 3d DCA 2021). “The
trial court is given wide discretion in dealing with discovery matters, and unless there has been a
clear abuse of discretion, the trial court’s order will not be disturbed by the appellate court.”
American Funding, Ltd. v. Hill, 402 So.2d 1369, 1371 (Fla. 1st DCA 1981). A party must
demonstrate diligence in obtaining the discovery it seeks. See Southern California Funding, Inc.
v. Hutto, 438 So. 2d 426, 432 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983).
Because I find EDF’s Motion to be untimely, I do not reach the underlying arguments
raised by the parties as to the merits of the Motion. FPL points out that the OEP, issued on
March 12, 2026, established the governing timeframes in this docket, pursuant to Section
403.537(1)(a), F.S. The discovery deadline was established at that time as April 7, 2026. EDF
has been on notice of the time limitations in this docket and the speed with which discovery
responses must be served. To that same end, the OEP directed the parties to address discovery
disputes on an expedited timeframe:
When 	a 	discovery 	request 	is 	served 	and 	the 	respondent 	intends 	to 	seek
clarification of any portion of the discovery request, the respondent shall request
such clarification within 4 days of service of the discovery request. For discovery
requests served after the filing of rebuttal testimony, such clarification must be
requested within 1 day. This procedure is intended to reduce delay in resolving
discovery disputes.1
Despite this context, EDF did not confer with FPL on the alleged discovery response
deficiencies until April 13, 2026—10 days after FPL provided its first set of discovery responses
and 6 days after the discovery period had concluded. If FPL’s responses were as facially
inadequate as EDF seems to allege, the inadequacies should have been readily apparent.
Meaning EDF should have initiated the conferral process sooner, filed its motion to compel
before the discovery deadline, or moved to briefly extend the discovery window in accordance
with Rule 28-106.204, F.A.C., to permit review or conferral. To reopen discovery on a motion
1 Order No. PSC-2026-0056-PCO-EI, issued March 12, 2026, in Docket No. 20260020-EI, In re: Petition for
determination of need for Andytown-Oasis transmission lines project in Broward and Miami-Dade Counties, by
Florida Power & Light Company.

ORDER NO. PSC-2026-0098-PCO-EI
DOCKET NO. 20260020-EI
PAGE 4
filed four business days prior to hearing would cause delay and increase the expense in the
timely disposition of this case.
Conclusion
The Motion is untimely because it was filed after the discovery deadline had expired.
Therefore, it is
ORDERED 	by 	Commissioner 	Bobby 	Payne, 	as 	Prehearing 	Officer, 	that 	the
Environmental Defense Fund Inc.’s Motion to Compel Florida Power & Light Company to
Respond to Discovery is DENIED.
By ORDER of Commissioner Bobby Payne, as Prehearing Officer, this 23rd day of
April, 2026.
BOBBY PAYNE
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.
CMM

ORDER NO. PSC-2026-0098-PCO-EI
DOCKET NO. 20260020-EI
PAGE 5
NOTICE OF FURTHER PROCEEDINGS OR JUDICIAL REVIEW
The Florida Public Service Commission (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. 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.