Florida Public Service Commission native order document 04432-2026

FILED 7/17/2026
DOCUMENT NO. 04432-2026
FPSC 	- COMMISSION CLERK
BEFORE THE FLORIDA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION
In re: Petition for a limited proceeding to
approve large load tariff, by Duke Energy
Florida, LLC._
DOCKET NO. 20260064- EI
ORDER NO. PSC-2026-0253-PCO-EI
ISSUED: July 	17, 2026
ORDER DENYING DUKE ENERGY FLORIDA. LLC’S MOTION TO
STRIKE FLORIDA RISING, INC. AS AN INTERVENING PARTY
On April 	22, 	2026, Duke Energy 	Florida, LLC (DEF 	or 	Utility) 	filed 	a 	petition 	for a
limited proceeding 	seeking 	approval of a new Large Load Customer 	Policy (LLCP), 	a Large
Load Customer Agreement (LLCA), and revised Contribution 	in Aid of Construction (CIAC)
tariffs. DEF 	states 	that 	this 	filing complies with newly passed 	state 	legislation, Senate 	Bill 484
(SB 484).
On May 	15, 2026, Florida Rising, Inc. (FR) requested intervention in this docket, alleging
that FR’s membership will face higher electricity rates and bills as DEF’s proposed tariffs do not
appropriately cover costs 	for 	large load users and expansion of infrastructure. FR’s request 	for
intervention was 	granted by Order No. PSC-2026-023 3-PCO-EI on June 	23, 	2026, 	subject 	to
proof of 	standing 	or 	stipulations 	that 	there 	are 	sufficient 	facts 	to 	support 	all 	elements 	for
standing. On June 	24, 2026, FR 	filed 	the testimony of Katina Rentas Negron 	in 	this docket 	to
support 	its 	standing. 	In 	the 	testimony, FR’s 	witness Negron 	states 	that FR has 	estimated 	190
members as current DEF customers. 1
On June 	26, 2026, DEF 	filed a Motion 	to 	Strike 	Florida Rising, 	Inc. 	as an Intervening
Party (Motion to 	Strike), requesting that FR be excluded from further participation 	in 	this docket
for a 	lack of standing. On 	July 7, 2026, FR and 	the Office of Public Counsel 	filed 	individual
responses to the Motion to Strike, requesting that 	it be denied.
This 	Order 	is 	issued 	pursuant 	to 	the 	authority 	granted by 	Rule 	28-106.211, 	Florida
Administrative Code 	(F.A.C.), which provides 	that 	the presiding 	officer before whom a case 	is
pending may issue any orders necessary to effectuate discovery, prevent delay, and promote 	the
just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of all aspects of the case.
DEF’s Motion to Strike
DEF 	asserts 	that FR has 	failed 	to meet 	the 	standards 	for 	standing 	to 	participate 	in 	this
docket because 	it has not demonstrated that a substantial number of its members are substantially
1The 190 member estimate 	is based on a pro rata 	calculation where the percentage of DEF customers 	in each
Florida county is applied to the FR member count for each respective county. For example, in Orange County, DEF
serves 434,749 customers 	out of the 672,416 	that 	reside 	in 	the county (approximately 64.65%). 	Per witness
Negrón’s 	testimony, FR 	applies 	this pro 	rata proportion 	to 	125 members 	in Orange County 	to 	estimate 	that
approximately 80 customers in Orange County are both DEF customers and FR members. Across 	all counties, this
process estimates approximately 190 members of FR are also DEF customers according to FR’s testimony.

ORDER NO. PSC-2026-0253-PCO-EI
DOCKET NO. 20260064-EI
PAGE 2
affected. Specifically, DEF takes issue with FR estimating the number of its members that are
DEF customers and the use of a pro rata methodology to create its estimate, claiming that such
an estimate is not competent substantial evidence. DEF also argues that FR’s estimate of 190 out
of 1,255 of its members being DEF customers does not result in in a “substantial number.” See
Fla. Home Builders Ass’n v. Dep’t of Labor and Emp’t Security, 412 So. 2d 351 (Fla. 1982).
DEF 	further 	asserts 	that 	FR’s 	alleged 	injury 	is 	speculative 	and 	fails 	the 	Agrico
requirement. Agrico Chem. Co. v. Dep’t of Envtl. Reg’l, 406 So. 2d 478 (Fla 2d DCA 1981).
DEF argues that there are multiple contingencies that must take place following approval of its
proposed tariff before any residential rate impact can occur, including a future rate proceeding.
Until then, DEF notes that its rates are fixed through 2027 under a Commission-approved
settlement, and such rates are not being changed through this proceeding.
FR’s Response to the Motion to Strike
FR responds that estimates are competent substantial evidence and valid as factual
determinations, noting prior DEF rate cases where intervenors used estimates regarding the
intervenor’s membership, which was relied upon in decisions made by the Commission and
upheld by the Florida Supreme Court. FR defends that a substantial number of its members will
be affected by this docket and the threshold for “substantial number” under Florida Home
Builders is not based upon a majority or a minimum percentage. FR notes that all 65 of its
alleged members in Pinellas County will be affected by this docket, which it asserts is a
substantial number on its own. Finally, FR argues that this docket could result in billions of
dollars in cost-shifting onto residential customers. FR asserts that if DEF’s proposal is allowed to
go forward, it will ultimately result in increased rates for FR’s members.
OPC’s Response to the Motion to Strike
OPC responds that DEF did not allege that estimates are not commonly relied upon by a
reasonably prudent person. Consequently, DEF’s motion is not a relevancy issue but rather a
sufficiency argument. The proper result would be continued discovery. As it stands, dismissal of
a genuine issue of material fact (i.e., standing) is premature if a party has not had the opportunity
to complete discovery and provide testimony. As of the filing of the Motion to Strike, FR has yet
to offer its testimony into evidence.
Analysis and Decision
As noted in the responses to the Motion to Strike, DEF’s motion is akin to a motion for
summary final order. As provided in the Order Granting Intervention,2 FR’s petition for
intervention was “granted subject to proof of standing or stipulations that there are sufficient
facts to support all elements for standing.” FR has prefiled testimony to address that requirement,
and the evidentiary record remains open until the conclusion of the hearing, which is scheduled
for August 25-26, 2026. Whether FR’s testimony is sufficient is a question of weight for
2 Order No. PSC-2026-0233-PCO-EI.

ORDER NO. PSC-2026-0253-PCO-EI
DOCKET NO. 20260064-EI
PAGE 3
Commission to consider as the trier of fact at hearing. Consequently, DEF’s Motion to Strike is
hereby denied.
Therefore, it is
ORDERED by Commissioner Gary F. Clark, as Prehearing Officer, that the Motion to
Strike Florida Rising, Inc. as an Intervening Party is denied.
By ORDER of Commissioner Gary F. Clark, as Prehearing Officer, this 17th day of July,
2026.
GARY F. CLARK
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.
MRT/SF

ORDER NO. PSC-2026-0253-PCO-EI
DOCKET NO. 20260064-EI
PAGE 4
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.