Florida Public Service Commission native order document 07101-2026

FILED 9/30/2026
DOCUMENT NO. 07101-2026
FPSC 	- COMMISSION CLERK
BEFORE THE FLORIDA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION
DOCKET NO. 2026001 0-EI
ORDER NO. PSC-2026-0349-FOF-EI
ISSUED: September 30, 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
ORDER APPROVING STORM COST RECOVERY
AMOUNTS AND RELATED TARIFFS AND ESTABLISHING
STORM COST RECOVERY FACTORS FOR THE PERIOD
JANUARY 2027 THROUGH DECEMBER 2027
APPEARANCES:
CHRISTOPHER T. WRIGHT and JOEL T. BAKER, ESQUIRES, Florida Power
& Light Company, 700 Universe Boulevard, Juno Beach, Florida 33408-0420
On behalf of Florida Power & Light Company (FPL) 	.
J. JEFFRY WAHLEN, MALCOLM 	N. MEANS 	and MATTHEW 	J. JONES,
ESQUIRES, Ausley McMullen, Post Office Box 391, Tallahassee, Florida 32302
On behalf of Tampa Electric Company (TECO) 	.
BETH KEATING, ESQUIRE, 	Gunster, 	Yoakley & 	Stewart, 	P.A., 	215 	South
Monroe 	Street, Suite 601, Tallahassee, Florida 32301
On behalf of Florida Public Utilities Company (FPUC) 	.
MATTHEW R. BERNIER and STEPHANIE A. CUELLO, ESQUIRES, 106 East
College Avenue, Suite 800, Tallahassee, Florida 32301
DIANNE M. TRIPLETT, ESQUIRE, Deputy General 	Counsel, 299 1	st Avenue
North, 	St. Petersburg, Florida 33701
On behalf of Duke Energy Florida, LLC (DEF) 	.
WALT 	TRIERWEILER, 	CHARLES 	REHWINKEL, 	and 	AUSTIN 	A.
WATROUS, 	ESQUIRES, 	Office 	of 	the 	Public 	Counsel, 	c/o 	The 	Florida
Legislature, 	111 	West Madison 	Street, 	Suite 	812, 	Tallahassee, 	Florida 32399-
1400
On behalf of Office of Public Counsel (OPC) 	.
In re: Storm protection plan cost recovery
clause.

ORDER NO. PSC-2026-0349-FOF-EI
DOCKET NO. 20260010-EI
PAGE 2
JON C. MOYLE, JR. and KAREN A. PUTNAL, ESQUIRES, Moyle Law Firm,
P.A., 118 North Gadsden Street, Tallahassee, Florida 32301
On behalf of Florida Industrial Power Users Group (FIPUG).
PETER J. MATTHEIS, MICHAEL K. LAVANGA, and JOSEPH R. BRISCAR,
ESQUIRES, Stone, Mattheis, Xenopoulos & Brew, PC, 1025 Thomas Jefferson
Street, NW, Eighth Floor, West Tower, Washington, DC 20007
On behalf of Nucor Steel Florida, Inc. (Nucor).
JAMES W. BREW, LAURA WYNN BAKER and SARAH B. NEWMAN,
ESQUIRES, Stone, Mattheis, Xenopoulos & Brew, PC, 1025 Thomas Jefferson
Street, NW, Suite 800 West, Washington, DC 20007
On behalf of White Springs Agricultural Chemicals, Inc. d/b/a PCS Phosphate –
White Springs (PCS Phosphate).
J. R. KELLY, ESQUIRE, Kelly Law Firm, 359 Milestone Drive, Tallahassee,
Florida 32312 and NEVIN J. ZIMMERMAN and BURKE BLUE, ESQUIRES,
221 McKenzie Avenue, Panama City, Florida 32401
On behalf of the City of Panama City, Florida (Panama City)
SUZANNE BROWNLESS, ESQUIRE, 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.
BY THE COMMISSION:
BACKGROUND
The 2019 Florida Legislature enacted Section 366.96, Florida Statutes (F.S.), entitled
“Storm protection plan cost recovery.” Section 366.96(3), F.S., established a new requirement
that each public utility file a transmission and distribution storm protection plan (SPP) covering
the immediate 10-year planning period, and explaining the systematic approach the utility will
follow to achieve the objectives of reducing restoration costs and outage times associated with
extreme weather events and enhancing reliability. Pursuant to Sections 366.96(5) and 366.96(6),
F.S., we are required every three years to determine whether it is in the public interest to
approve, approve with modification, or deny each utility’s SPP.

ORDER NO. PSC-2026-0349-FOF-EI
DOCKET NO. 20260010-EI
PAGE 3
In addition to reviewing SPPs at least every three years, we must conduct an annual
proceeding pursuant to Section 366.96(7), F.S., to determine a utility’s prudently incurred
transmission and distribution storm protection plan costs and allow the utility to recover such
costs through a charge separate and apart from its base rates, to be referred to as the storm
protection plan cost recovery clause (SPPCRC). 	The annual SPPCRC proceeding is a rolling
three-year review that includes a true-up of costs for the prior year, the calculation of
actual/estimated costs for the year of the filing, and projected factors for the following year. 	If
we determine that costs were prudently incurred, those costs will not be subject to disallowance
or further prudence review except for fraud, perjury, or intentional withholding of key
information by the public utility.
This docket was opened by Order No. PSC-2026-0010-PCO-EI issued January 5, 2026,
under the authority of Sections 366.96(5), 366.96(6), and 366.96(7), F.S. The purpose of this
2026 annual proceeding is for us to establish the amount of prudently incurred costs each utility
shall be allowed to recover through the SPPCRC and the specific terms of that recovery. TECO,
DEF, FIPUG, FPL, PCS Phosphate, Nucor, OPC, and FPUC each filed a Notice of Intent to
Retain Party Status. Panama City was granted intervention by Order No. PSC-2026-0085-PCO-
EI, issued April 10, 2026.
We conducted an evidentiary hearing for this matter on September 15, 2026. 	FIPUG,
Nucor, PCS Phosphate and Panama City were excused from the evidentiary hearing.
DECISION
FPL, TECO, FPUC, DEF, OPC, FIPUG, Nucor, PCS Phosphate, and Panama City have
reached Type 2 stipulations1 for Issues 1A through 1D, Issues 10 and 11. 	OPC has agreed to
Type 1 stipulations2 with FPL, DEF, TECO, and FPUC for OPC Issues A through D. 	Nucor,
PCS Phosphate, and Panama City have agreed to Type 2 stipulations for OPC Issues A through
D. At this time all issues have been stipulated to.
At the evidentiary hearing Exhibit Nos. 1-47 on the Comprehensive Exhibit List were
admitted into the record without objection. 	The prefiled testimony of all witnesses listed in
Section VI of the Prehearing Order, Order No. PSC-2026-0305-PHO-EI, was entered into the
record as though read. Upon review of the entire record, we accept and approve the Type 1 and
Type 2 stipulations, as stated in Attachment A hereto, as reasonable and supported by competent,
substantial evidence of record.
1 A Type 2 stipulation occurs on an issue when the utility and the staff, or the utility and at least one party
adversarial to the utility, agree on the resolution of the issue and the remaining parties (including staff if they do not
join in the agreement) do not object to the Commission relying on the agreed language to resolve that issue in a final
order. The OPC’s, FIPUG’s, Nucor’s, PSC Phosphate’s and Panama City’s position on each Type 2 stipulation
stated herein is as follows: The intervenors take no position on these issues nor do they have the burden of proof
related to them. 	As such, the Intervenors represent that they will not contest or oppose the Commission taking
action approving a proposed stipulation between the Company and another party or staff as a final resolution of
these issues. No person is authorized to state that the Intervenors are a participant in, or party to, a stipulation on
these issues, either in this docket, in an order of the Commission or in a representation to a Court.
2 A Type 1 stipulation occurs on an issue when the utility and intervenor agree on the resolution of the issue.

ORDER NO. PSC-2026-0349-FOF-EI
DOCKET NO. 2026001 O-EI
PAGE 4
We 	find 	that 	the 	revised 	tariffs 	’ reflecting 	storm 	protection plan 	cost 	recovery 	factors
found to be appropriate 	in this proceeding 	are approved. We 	direct Commission 	staff to 	verify
that the revised tariffs are consistent with our decision.
Based on the foregoing, 	it is
ORDERED by the Florida Public Service Commission that the 	stipulations and findings
set forth in the.body of this Order are hereby approved. 	It 	is further
ORDERED that each utility that was a party 	to 	this docket shall abide by the 	stipulations,
findings, and rulings herein which are applicable to 	it. 	It 	is further
ORDERED 	that Duke Energy 	Florida, LLC, 	Florida Power & Light Company, 	Florida
Public 	Utilities Company, and Tampa 	Electric Company 	are 	hereby 	authorized 	to 	apply 	the
storm 	cost recovery 	factors 	set 	forth above during the period January 2027 through December
2027. 	It 	is further
ORDERED 	that 	the 	revised 	tariffs 	reflecting 	the 	storm 	protection 	plan 	cost 	recovery
factors 	determined 	to 	be 	appropriate 	in 	this 	proceeding 	are 	hereby 	approved 	and we 	direct
Commission staff to verify that the revised tariffs are consistent with our decision. 	It 	is further
ORDERED that the storm protection plan cost recovery clause 	is a continuing docket and
shall remain open until a new docket number is assigned next year.
By ORDER of the Florida Public Service Commission this 30th day of September, 2026 	.
Commission ClZrk
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.
SBr

ORDER NO. PSC-2026-0349-FOF-EI
DOCKET NO. 20260010-EI
PAGE 5
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.
Any party adversely affected by the Commission's final action in this matter may request:
1) reconsideration of the decision by filing a motion for reconsideration with the Office of
Commission Clerk, 2540 Shumard Oak Boulevard, Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0850, within
fifteen (15) days of the issuance of this order in the form prescribed by Rule 25-22.060, 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 and/or
wastewater utility by filing a notice of appeal with the Office of Commission Clerk, and filing a
copy of the notice of appeal and the filing fee with the appropriate court. 	This filing must be
completed within thirty (30) days after the issuance of this order, pursuant to Rule 9.110, Florida
Rules of Appellate Procedure. 	The notice of appeal must be in the form specified in Rule
9.900(a), Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure.

ORDER NO. PSC-2026-0349-FOF-EI
DOCKET NO. 20260010-EI 	Attachment A
PAGE 6 	Page 1 of 12
ATTACHMENT A
BEFORE THE FLORIDA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION
In re: Storm protection plan cost recovery
clause.
DOCKET NO. 20260010-EI
PROPOSED STIPULATIONS
The following issues are proposed as Type 2 3 stipulations in this proceeding: 4
GENERIC STORM PROTECTION PLAN COST RECOVERY ISSUES
ISSUE 1A: 	What jurisdictional amounts should the Commission approve as FPL’s final 2025
prudently incurred costs and final true-up revenue requirement amounts for the
Storm Protection Plan Cost Recovery Clause?
Stipulation: 	FPL’s final total SPPCRC cost incurred for 2025 is $1,636,170,425, which
includes a total operations and maintenance (“O&M”) expense of $131,109,181
(Line 5 of Form 5A, Exhibit ALE-1, p. 5) and a total capital expenditure of
$1,505,061,245 (sum of Line 1a of Form 7A, Exhibit ALE-1, pp. 11-18).5 FPL’s
SPPCRC final jurisdictional revenue requirement true-up for the period January
2025 	through 	December 	2025, 	including 	interest, 	is 	an 	over-recovery 	of
$16,579,976 (Line 9 of Form 1A, Exhibit ALE-1, p. 1).
ISSUE 1B: 	What jurisdictional amounts should the Commission approve as TECO’s final
2025 prudently incurred costs and final true-up revenue requirement amounts for
the Storm Protection Plan Cost Recovery Clause?
Stipulation: 	The Commission should approve final Storm Protection Plan Cost Recovery
Clause prudently incurred jurisdictional revenue requirements of $111,505,149
3 A Type 2 stipulation occurs on an issue when the utility and staff, or the utility and at least one party adversarial to
the utility, agree on the resolution of the issue and the remaining parties (including staff if they do not join in the
agreement) do not object to the Commission relying on the agreed language to resolve that issue in a final order.
Issue OPC A through D are Type 1 stipulations. All other issues are a Type 2 stipulations.
4 The OPC’s, FIPUG’s, Nucor’s, PSC Phosphate’s and Panama City’s position on each Type 2 stipulation stated
herein is as follows: The intervenors take no position on these issues nor do they have the burden of proof related to
them. 	As such, the Intervenors represent that they will not contest or oppose the Commission taking action
approving a proposed stipulation between the Company and another party or staff as a final resolution of these
issues. No person is authorized to state that the Intervenors are a participant in, or party to, a stipulation on these
issues, either in this docket, in an order of the Commission or in a representation to a Court.
5 The jurisdictional separation factors are applied to the revenue requirements and not the costs incurred. Therefore,
the total jurisdictional cost incurred for the applicable calendar year is not available.

ORDER NO. PSC-2026-0349-FOF-EI
DOCKET NO. 20260010-EI 	Attachment A
PAGE 7 	Page 2 of 12
and a jurisdictional cost recovery true-up under-recovery amount of $47,212 for
the period January 2025 through December 2025 including interest.
ISSUE 1C: 	What jurisdictional amounts should the Commission approve as the FPUC’s final
2025 prudently incurred costs and final true-up revenue requirement amounts for
the Storm Protection Plan Cost Recovery Clause?
Stipulation: 	The final, end of period true up amount to be included in the calculation of the
2027 cost recovery factors is an over-recovery of $161,122, reflecting an actual,
end 	of 	period 	under-recovery 	$1,356,307, 	as 	compared 	to 	the 	Company’s
projected under-recovery of $1,517,429, as reflected in Order No. PSC-2025-
0439-FOF-EI, issued November 24, 2025.
ISSUE 1D: 	What jurisdictional amounts should the Commission approve as the DEF’s final
2025 prudently incurred costs and final true-up revenue requirement amounts for
the Storm Protection Plan Cost Recovery Clause?
Stipulation: 	Investments of $865,967,524 (System). Under-recovery of $9,612,868.
ISSUE 2A: 	What jurisdictional amounts should the Commission approve as the FPL’s
reasonably estimated 2026 costs and estimated true-up revenue requirement
amounts for the Storm Protection Plan Cost Recovery Clause?
Stipulation: 	FPL’s total SPPCRC cost estimated for 2026 is $1,331,530,178, which includes a
total O&M expense of $220,721,371 (Line 6 of Form 5E, Exhibit ALE-2, p. 6)
and a total capital expenditure of $1,110,808,806 (sum of Line 1a of Form 7E,
Exhibit ALE-2, pp. 12-20).6 	FPL’s SPPCRC actual/estimated jurisdictional
revenue requirement true-up for the period January 2026 through December 2026,
including interest, is an over-recovery of $17,107,391 (Line 4 of Form 1E of
Exhibit ALE-2, p. 1).
ISSUE 2B: 	What 	jurisdictional 	amounts 	should 	the 	Commission 	approve 	as 	TECO’s
reasonably estimated 2026 costs and estimated true-up revenue requirement
amounts for the Storm Protection Plan Cost Recovery Clause?
Stipulation: 	The Commission should approve actual/estimated Storm Protection Plan Cost
Recovery Clause jurisdictional revenue requirements of $134,604,618 and a
jurisdictional 	estimated 	cost 	recovery 	true-up 	over-recovery 	amount 	of
$4,092,856 for the period January 2026 through December 2026 including
interest.
6 See Footnote 5.

ORDER NO. PSC-2026-0349-FOF-EI
DOCKET NO. 20260010-EI 	Attachment A
PAGE 8 	Page 3 of 12
ISSUE 2C: 	What 	jurisdictional 	amounts 	should 	the 	Commission 	approve 	as 	FPUC’s
reasonably estimated 2026 costs and estimated true-up revenue requirement
amounts for the Storm Protection Plan Cost Recovery Clause?
Stipulation: 	The Company projects to incur $3.59 million of O&M expense and $18.51
million of capital expenditures for a total of $22.10 million in 2026, which
produces an estimated true-up under-recovery for the period of January 2026
through December 2026 of $971,609.
ISSUE 2D: 	What 	jurisdictional 	amounts 	should 	the 	Commission 	approve 	as 	DEF’s
reasonably estimated 2026 costs and estimated true-up revenue requirement
amounts for the Storm Protection Plan Cost Recovery Clause?
Stipulation: 	Investments of $774,466, 133 (System). Under-recovery of $9,269,300.
ISSUE 3A: 	What jurisdictional amounts should the Commission approve as FPL’s reasonably
projected 2027 costs and projected revenue requirement amounts for the Storm
Protection Plan Cost Recovery Clause?
Stipulation: 	FPL’s total SPPCRC cost projected for 2027 is $1,313,289,925, which includes a
total O&M expense of $247,545,259 (Line 6 of Form 2P, Amended Exhibit ALE-
3, p. 2) and a total capital expenditure of $1,065,744,666 (sum of Line 1a of the
applicable Form 3P schedules, Amended Exhibit ALE-3, pp. 6-14).7 	FPL’s
projected SPPCRC jurisdictional revenue requirement for the period January 2027
through December 2027 is $1,138,572,247 (Line 1 of Form 1P, Amended Exhibit
ALE-3, p. 1).
ISSUE 3B: 	What 	jurisdictional 	amounts 	should 	the 	Commission 	approve 	as 	TECO’s
reasonably projected 2027 costs and projected revenue requirement amounts for
the Storm Protection Plan Cost Recovery Clause?
Stipulation: 	The Commission should approve reasonably projected Storm Protection Plan Cost
Recovery Clause jurisdictional revenue requirements of $161,610,479 for the
period January 2027 through December 2027.
ISSUE 3C: 	What 	jurisdictional 	amounts 	should 	the 	Commission 	approve 	as 	FPUC’s
reasonably projected 2027 costs and projected revenue requirement amounts for
the Storm Protection Plan Cost Recovery Clause?
Stipulation: 	FPUC projects the total jurisdictional projected revenue requirement for 2027 is
$12,508,958, based upon its projection of $3.93 million of O&M expense and
$19.5 million of capital expenditures for a total of $23.43 million in SPP
expenditures in 2027.
7 See Footnote 5.

ORDER NO. PSC-2026-0349-FOF-EI
DOCKET NO. 20260010-EI 	Attachment A
PAGE 9 	Page 4 of 12
ISSUE 3D: 	What 	jurisdictional 	amounts 	should 	the 	Commission 	approve 	as 	DEF’s
reasonably projected 2027 costs and projected revenue requirement amounts for
the Storm Protection Plan Cost Recovery Clause?
Stipulation: 	Investments of $859,022,025 (System). Revenue requirement $439,359,485.
ISSUE 4A: 	What are the Storm Protection Plan Cost Recovery Clause total jurisdictional cost
recovery amounts, including true-ups, to be included in establishing 2027 Storm
Protection Plan Cost Recovery factors for FPL?
Stipulation: 	The projected total SPPCRC jurisdictional revenue requirement for the period
January 	2027 	through 	December 	2027, 	including 	true-up 	amounts, 	is
$1,104,884,879 (Line 4 of Form 1P, Amended Exhibit ALE-3, p. 1).
ISSUE 4B: 	What are the Storm Protection Plan Cost Recovery Clause total jurisdictional cost
recovery amounts, including true-ups, to be included in establishing 2027 Storm
Protection Plan Cost Recovery factors for TECO?
Stipulation: 	The Storm Protection Plan Cost Recovery Clause total jurisdictional cost recovery
amounts, including true-ups, to be included in establishing Storm Protection Plan
Cost Recovery factors for the period January 2027 through December 2027 is
$157,698,450.
ISSUE 4C: 	What are the Storm Protection Plan Cost Recovery Clause total jurisdictional cost
recovery amounts, including true-ups, to be included in establishing 2027 Storm
Protection Plan Cost Recovery factors for FPUC?
Stipulation: 	When the estimated true-up under-recovery for the period of January 2026
through December 2026 of $971,609 and the final true-up over-recovery for the
period of January 2025 through December 2025 of $161,122 are included, and
adjustments are made for taxes, this amounts to recovery of $13,330,740 in 2027.
ISSUE 4D: 	What are the Storm Protection Plan Cost Recovery Clause total jurisdictional cost
recovery amounts, including true-ups, to be included in establishing 2027 Storm
Protection Plan Cost Recovery factors for DEF?
Stipulation: 	Revenue requirement $458,241,653.
ISSUE 5A: 	What depreciation rates should be used to develop the depreciation expense
included in the total 2027 Storm Protection Plan Cost Recovery Clause amounts
for FPL?
Stipulation: 	The depreciation rates used to calculate the depreciation expense should be the
Commission-approved depreciation rates that are in effect during the period the

ORDER NO. PSC-2026-0349-FOF-EI
DOCKET NO. 20260010-EI 	Attachment A
PAGE 10 	Page 5 of 12
allowed capital investment is in service. 	For the period January 2027 through
December 2027, FPL’s depreciation rates are those approved by Commission
Order No. PSC-2026-0022-S-EI in Docket No. 20250011-EI.
ISSUE 5B: 	What depreciation rates should be used to develop the depreciation expense
included in the total 2027 Storm Protection Plan Cost Recovery Clause amounts
for TECO?
Stipulation: 	The depreciation rates from Tampa Electric’s Depreciation Study, approved by
Order No. PSC-2025-0038-FOF-EI issued February 3, 2025, in Docket No.
20230139-EI should be used to develop the depreciation expense included in the
2027 Storm Protection Plan Cost Recovery Clause amounts.
ISSUE 5C: 	What depreciation rates should be used to develop the depreciation expense
included in the total 2027 Storm Protection Plan Cost Recovery Clause amounts
for FPUC?
Stipulation: 	The appropriate depreciation rates are those approved in Order No. PSC-2023-
0384-PAA-EI, issued December 21, 2023, in Docket No. 20230079-EI.
ISSUE 5D: 	What depreciation rates should be used to develop the depreciation expense
included in the total 2027 Storm Protection Plan Cost Recovery Clause amounts
for DEF?
Stipulation: 	DEF should use the depreciation rates that were approved in Final Order No.
PSC-2024-0472-AS-EI.
ISSUE 6A: 	What are the appropriate 2027 jurisdictional separation factors for FPL?
Stipulation: 	As shown on page 1 of Amended Exhibit ALE-4, FPL’s retail jurisdictional
separation factors for the period January 2027 through December 2027 are:
DEMAND
Transmission 	0.893622
Distribution 	1.000000
ENERGY
Total Sales 	0.938651
Non-Stratified Sales 	0.957084
GENERAL PLANT
Labor 	0.968271

ORDER NO. PSC-2026-0349-FOF-EI
DOCKET NO. 20260010-EI 	Attachment A
PAGE 11 	Page 6 of 12
ISSUE 6B: 	What are the appropriate 2027 jurisdictional separation factors for TECO?
Stipulation: 	The appropriate jurisdictional separation factors are as follows:
FPSC Jurisdictional Factor: 	93.5213%
FERC Jurisdictional Factor: 	6.4787%
ISSUE 6C: 	What are the appropriate 2027 jurisdictional separation factors for FPUC?
Stipulation: 	There is no jurisdictional separation applicable to FPUC.
ISSUE 6D: 	What are the appropriate 2027 jurisdictional separation factors for DEF?
Stipulation: 	DEF should apply the appropriate jurisdictional separation factors that were
approved in Final Order No. PSC-2024-0472-AS-EI.
Distribution: 	1.000000
Transmission: 0.703690
ISSUE 7A: 	What are the appropriate 2027 Storm Protection Plan Cost Recovery Clause
factors for each rate class for FPL?
Stipulation:
Rate Class
SPP
Factor
($/kW)
SPP
Factor
($/kWh)
RDC
($/kW)
DDC
($/kW)
RS1/RTR1/RS-2EV 	0.01088
GS1/GST1 	0.01022
GSD1/GSDT1/HLFT1/GSD1-EV 	1.98
OS2 	0.02879
GSLD1/GSLDT1/CS1/CST1/HLFT2/GSLD-
1EV 	1.98
GSLD2/GSLDT2/CS2/CST2/HLFT3/GSLD-
2EV 	1.82
GSLD3/GSLDT3/CS3/CST3/LLCS-1/LLCS-
2 	0.20
SST1T 	0.02 	0.01
SST1D1/SST1D2/SST1D3 	0.33 	0.16
CILC D/CILC G 	1.83
CILC T 	0.20
MET 	2.37
OL1/SL1/SL1M/PL1/OSI/II 	0.00619

ORDER NO. PSC-2026-0349-FOF-EI
DOCKET NO. 20260010-EI 	Attachment A
PAGE 12 	Page 7 of 12
SL2/SL2M/GSCU1 	0.01043
ISSUE 7B: 	What are the appropriate 2027 Storm Protection Plan Cost Recovery Clause
factors for each rate class for TECO?
Stipulation: 	The appropriate January 2027 through December 2027 cost recovery clause
factors 	utilizing 	the 	appropriate 	recognition 	of 	Federal 	Energy 	Regulatory
Commission transmission jurisdictional separation, revenue tax factors and the
rate design and cost allocation as put forth in Docket No. 20240026-EI are as
follows:
Rate Schedule
Cost Recovery Factors
(cents per kWh)
RS 	0.952
GS and CS 	0.769
GSD Optional – Secondary 	0.605
GSD Optional – Primary 	0.599
GSD Optional – Subtransmission 	0.593
LS-1, LS-2 	0.827
Cost Recovery Factors
Rate Schedule 	(dollars per kW)
GSD/GSDT/SBD/SBDT – Secondary 	2.48
GSD/GSDT/SBD/SBDT – Primary 	2.45
GSD/GSDT/SBD/SBDT – Subtransmission 	2.43
GSLD/GSLDT/SBLD/SBLDT - Primary 	2.10
GSLD/GSLDT/SBLD/SBLDT - Subtransmission 	0.16
ISSUE 7C: 	What are the appropriate 2027 Storm Protection Plan Cost Recovery Clause
factors for each rate class for FPUC?
Stipulation:
Rate Schedule 	Dollars PER
KWH
Tax
Factor
SPP Factors
PER KWH
Residential 	$0.02367 	1.000848 	$0.02369
General Service 	$0.03106 	1.000848 	$0.03108

ORDER NO. PSC-2026-0349-FOF-EI
DOCKET NO. 20260010-EI 	Attachment A
PAGE 13 	Page 8 of 12
Rate Schedule 	Dollars PER
KWH
Tax
Factor
SPP Factors
PER KWH
General Service Demand 	$0.01610 	1.000848 	$0.01612
General Service Large Demand 	$0.01033 	1.000848 	$0.01034
Industrial/Standby 	$0.00611 	1.000848 	$0.00611
Lighting Service 	$0.05749 	1.000848 	$0.05754
ISSUE 7D: 	What are the appropriate 2027 Storm Protection Plan Cost Recovery Clause
factors for each rate class for DEF?
Stipulation: 	Customer Class 	SPPCRC Factor
Residential 	1.364 cents/kWh
General Service Non-Demand 	1.183 cents/kWh
@ Primary Voltage 	1.137 cents/kWh
@ Transmission Voltage 	0.194 cents/kWh
General Service 100% Load Factor 	0.605 cents/kWh
General Service Demand 	3.20 $/kW
@ Primary Voltage 	3.12 $/kW
@ Transmission Voltage 	0.57 $/kW
Curtailable 	2.87 $/kW
@ Primary Voltage 	2.84 $/kW
@ Transmission Voltage 	2.81 $/kW
Interruptible 	2.86 $/kW
@ Primary Voltage 	2.38 $/kW
@ Transmission Voltage 	0.46 $/kW
Standby Monthly 	0.287 $/kW
@ Primary Voltage 	0.284 $/kW
@ Transmission Voltage 	0.281 $/kW
Standby Daily 	0.137 $/kW
@ Primary Voltage 	0.136 $/kW
@ Transmission Voltage 	0.134 $/kW
Lighting 	0.996 cents/kWh
ISSUE 8A: 	What should be the effective date of the 2027 Storm Protection Plan Cost
Recovery Clause factors for billing purposes for FPL?

ORDER NO. PSC-2026-0349-FOF-EI
DOCKET NO. 20260010-EI 	Attachment A
PAGE 14 	Page 9 of 12
Stipulation: 	The 2027 SPPCRC Factors should become effective for application to bills
beginning the first billing cycle in January 2027 through the last billing cycle in
December 2027 and continuing until modified by subsequent order of this
Commission.
ISSUE 8B: 	What should be the effective date of the 2027 Storm Protection Plan Cost
Recovery Clause factors for billing purposes for TECO?
Stipulation: 	The effective date of the new Storm Protection Plan Cost Recovery Clause factors
should be January 1, 2027.
ISSUE 8C: 	What should be the effective date of the 2027 Storm Protection Plan Cost
Recovery Clause factors for billing purposes for FPUC?
Stipulation: 	The effective date for FPUC's cost recovery factors should be the first billing
cycle for January 1, 2027, which could include some consumption from the prior
month. 	Thereafter, customers should be billed the approved factors for a full 12
months, unless the factors are otherwise modified by the Commission.
ISSUE 8D: 	What should be the effective date of the 2027 Storm Protection Plan Cost
Recovery Clause factors for billing purposes for DEF?
Stipulation: 	The factors shall be effective beginning with the specified Storm Protection Plan
Cost Recovery Clause cycle and thereafter for the period January 2027 through
December 2027. Billing cycles may start before January 1, 2027, and the last
cycle may be read after December 31, 2027, so that each customer is billed for
twelve months, regardless of when the adjustment factor became effective. These
charges shall continue in effect until modified by subsequent order of this
Commission.
ISSUE 9A: 	Should 	the 	Commission 	approve 	revised 	tariffs 	reflecting 	the 	2027 	Storm
Protection Plan Cost Recovery Clause factors determined to be appropriate in this
proceeding for FPL?
Stipulation: 	Yes. The Commission should authorize Staff to approve administratively revised
tariffs reflecting the 2027 SPPCRC factors determined to be appropriate in this
proceeding.
ISSUE 9B: 	Should 	the 	Commission 	approve 	revised 	tariffs 	reflecting 	the 	2027 	Storm
Protection Plan Cost Recovery Clause factors determined to be appropriate in this
proceeding for TECO?
Stipulation: 	Yes, the Commission should approve revised tariffs reflecting the new Storm
Protection Plan Cost Recovery Clause factors determined to be appropriate in this
proceeding.

ORDER NO. PSC-2026-0349-FOF-EI
DOCKET NO. 20260010-EI 	Attachment A
PAGE 15 	Page 10 of 12
ISSUE 9C: 	Should 	the 	Commission 	approve 	revised 	tariffs 	reflecting 	the 	2027 	Storm
Protection Plan Cost Recovery Clause factors determined to be appropriate in this
proceeding for FPUC?
Stipulation: 	Yes. The Commission should approve revised tariffs reflecting the SPPCRC factors
determined to be appropriate in this proceeding. The Commission should direct staff
to verify that the revised tariffs are consistent with the Commission’s decision.
ISSUE 9D: 	Should 	the 	Commission 	approve 	revised 	tariffs 	reflecting 	the 	2027 	Storm
Protection Plan Cost Recovery Clause factors determined to be appropriate in this
proceeding for DEF?
Stipulation: 	Yes. The Commission should approve DEF’s revised tariffs reflecting the Storm
Protection Plan Cost Recovery Clause factors determined to be appropriate in this
proceeding. The Commission should direct Staff to verify that the revised tariffs
are consistent with the Commission’s decision. The Commission should grant
Staff Administrative authority to approve revised tariffs reflecting the new Storm
Protection Plan Cost Recovery Clause factors determined to be appropriate in this
proceeding.
COMPANY-SPECIFIC STORM PROTECTION PLAN COST RECOVERY ISSUES
ISSUE 10: 	Does the City of Panama City, Florida have standing to intervene in this
proceeding limited to Florida Power & Light Company issues?
Stipulation: 	Yes.
ISSUE 11: 	Should this docket be closed?
Stipulation: 	No. This is a continuing docket and should remain open.
The following issues are proposed as Type 1 8 and Type 2 stipulations in this proceeding:
PROPOSED ISSUES
OPC
ISSUE A: 	Does FPL’s SPPCRC filing comply with the Joint Stipulation approved by the
Commission in Order No. PSC-2025-0218-FOF-EI? If so, what has the company
done to comply with the order?
Stipulation: 	(i) with respect to Issue 2A, FPL has executed on the programs contained in its
2026 Storm Protection Plan (“SPP” approved by Order No. PSC-2025-0218-FOF-
EI, and is progressing toward the targeted number of annual projects for the
8 A Type 1 stipulation occurs on an issue when the utility and intervenors agree on the resolution of the issue.

ORDER NO. PSC-2026-0349-FOF-EI
DOCKET NO. 20260010-EI 	Attachment A
PAGE 16 	Page 11 of 12
Distribution Feeder Hardening Program, Distribution Lateral Hardening Program,
and the Transmission Hardening Program as set for in the Joint Stipulations
approved by that order; (ii) with respect to Issue 3A, FPL is executing on the
programs contained in its 2026 SPP approved by Order No. PSC-2025-0218-
FOF-EI, and is progressing toward the targeted number of annual projects for the
Distribution Feeder Hardening Program, Distribution Lateral Hardening Program,
and the Transmission Hardening Program. 	This activity is consistent and in
compliance with the joint stipulations and proposed resolutions as approved by
that order.9
OPC
ISSUE B: 	Does DEF’s SPPCRC filing comply with the Joint Stipulation approved by the
Commission in Order No. PSC-2025-0217-FOF-EI? If so, what has the company
done to comply with the order?
Stipulation: 	Yes. DEF has advanced on the programs contained in its 2026 Storm Protection
Plan approved by Order No. PSC-2025-0217-FOF-EI, and is progressing towards
the 	Feeder 	and 	Lateral 	Hardening 	scope 	targets 	as 	set 	forth 	in 	the 	Joint
Stipulations approved by that order. This activity is consistent and in compliance
with the joint stipulations.
OPC
ISSUE C: 	Does TECO’s SPPCRC filing comply with the Joint Stipulation approved by the
Commission in Order No. PSC-2025-0219-FOF-EI? If so, what has the company
done to comply with the order?
Stipulation: 	Yes. 	The company’s filing complies with Order No. PSC-2025-0219-FOF-EI.
The 	Commission-approved 	Joint 	Stipulation 	required 	Tampa 	Electric 	to
implement a “target of 75 miles of underground conversions per year under the
2026-2035 SPP.” The parties agreed that this would be “an annual mileage target
and not a hard cap.” 	See: Order No. PSC-2025-0219-FOF-EI, issued June 19,
2025, in Docket No. 20250016-EI, (Review of 2026-2035 Storm Protection Plan,
pursuant to Rule 25-6.030, F.A.C., Tampa Electric Company), at page 17.
The company filed the direct testimony of Kevin E. Palladino and Exhibit KEP-2
in this docket on May 1, 2026. Witness Palladino testified on page 7 of his Direct
Testimony that “Tampa Electric plans to work on converting 60 miles of overhead
lines in 2026 and 65 miles in 2027.” 	Document No. 8 of Exhibit KEP-2 also
states that the company plans to convert 60 miles of overhead lines in 2026 and
65 miles of overhead lines in 2027. 	The Commission should find that Tampa
Electric’s SPPCRC filing complies with Order No. PSC-2025-0219-FOF-EI
based on this testimony and exhibit.
9 Issues OPC A through D are Type 1 stipulations for OPC and are Type 2 stipulations for FIPUG. PCS Phosphate
and Nucor have agreed to Type 2 stipulations for OPC Issue B.

ORDER NO. PSC-2026-0349-FOF-EI
DOCKET NO. 20260010-EI 	Attachment A
PAGE 17 	Page 12 of 12
OPC
ISSUE D: 	Does FPUC’s SPPCRC filing comply with the Joint Stipulation approved by the
Commission in Order No. PSC-2025-0216-FOF-EI? If so, what has the company
done to comply with the order?
Stipulation: 	A. With respect to Issue 2C, FPUC has executed on the programs contained in its
2026 revised Storm Protection Plan (“SPP”) approved by Order No. PSC-2025-
0216-FOF-EI, and is progressing toward the targeted number of annual projects
for the following programs: Overhead Feeder Hardening; Overhead Lateral
Hardening; Overhead Lateral Undergrounding; Distribution Pole Inspections and
Replacements; Transmission System Inspection and Hardening; and Transmission
and Distribution Vegetation Management Program as set forth in the Joint
Stipulations approved by that order. This activity is consistent and in compliance
with the joint stipulations and proposed resolutions approved by that order.
B. With respect to Issue 3C, FPUC is executing on the programs contained in its
2026 	revised 	SPP 	approved 	by 	Order 	No. 	PSC-2025-0216-FOF-EI 	and 	is
progressing toward the targeted number of annual projects for the Overhead
Feeder 	Hardening; 	Overhead 	Lateral 	Hardening; 	Overhead 	Lateral
Undergrounding; Distribution Pole Inspections and Replacements; Transmission
System Inspection and Hardening; and Transmission and Distribution Vegetation
Management Program. 	This activity is consistent and in compliance with the
joint stipulations and proposed resolutions approved by that order.