Florida Public Service Commission native order document 04743-2026

FILED 7/29/2026
DOCUMENT NO. 04743-2026
FPSC 	- COMMISSION CLERK
BEFORE THE FLORIDA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION
In re: Storm protection plan cost recovery 	DOCKET NO. 202600 10- EI
clause. 	ORDER NO. PSC-2026-0266-PCO-EI
_ ISSUED: July 29, 2026
ORDER GRANTING CITY OF PANAMA CITY, FLORIDA’S
MOTION TO FILE DIRECT TESTIMONY
On July 	1, 2026, the City of Panama City, Florida (City) filed a Motion for Leave to File
the direct testimony of Jonathan Hayes 	in support of the City’s standing (Motion). 	In 	its Motion
the City requests that 	it be allowed to 	file 	its direct testimony after June 16, 2026, the date to 	file
intervenor 	testimony 	established by 	the 	Order 	Establishing 	Procedure, Order No. PSC-2026-
0040-PCO-EI. 1 The City 	states 	that Witness Hayes’ 	testimony only addresses 	the 	issue of the
City’s standing and does not address any of the disputed 	substantive 	issues 	in 	the docket. 	The
City 	also 	argues 	that 	Florida Power & 	Light Company (FPL) 	did not 	file an 	objection 	to 	its
petition for intervention. 	That being the case, the City argues that there 	is no prejudice 	to FPL,
Commission staff or any other party to the docket to allow 	it to 	file this standing testimony.
The City 	states 	that Tampa 	Electric Company, 	Florida Public 	Utilities Company, PCS
Phosphate, Florida Industrial Power Users Group, and Nucor Steel Florida, 	Inc. take no position
on 	the Motion. 	The Office of the Public Counsel and Duke Energy 	Florida, LLC reserved the
right 	to 	take 	a 	position on 	the Motion when 	it was 	filed. 	Neither of those 	parties has 	filed
objections 	or responses 	to 	the Motion. 	FPL 	filed a 	letter responding 	to 	the Motion on 	July 	7,
2026, 	in which 	it 	stated: “FPL 	does 	not 	challenge 	the 	City’s 	standing 	to 	intervene 	in 	this
proceeding, nor 	the Motion 	. 	. 	.’’ 	FPL goes on 	to 	state 	that 	it 	disagrees with 	the City 	that by
responding 	to 	the 	City’s 	discovery 	it 	has 	“accepted 	or 	stipulated 	to 	the 	City’s 	standing 	to
intervene 	and 	that 	therefore no 	prejudice 	to FPL 	will 	arise 	through 	the 	offered 	late-filed
testimony.”
Review 	of 	Jonathan 	Hayes 	testimony 	filed 	on 	July 	1, 	2026, 	confirms 	that 	it 	only
addresses the City’s standing 	issue, and no other issues raised in this docket. 	It 	is also true that
neither FPL nor any 	other party 	to 	the docket 	filed 	objections 	to Order No. PSC-2026-0085-
PCO-EI 2granting provisional intervention to 	the City, which was issued over four months ago.
Additionally, 	it 	is 	difficult to 	tell from FPL’s 	letter concerning 	the 	City’s Motion whether FPL
thinks 	that 	the 	City, 	an FPL 	ratepayer, 	does 	not 	actually have 	legal 	standing 	or whether 	its
objection 	is a procedural one, 	i.e., that the City did not meet 	its burden of proof to prove standing
by timely filing testimony supporting 	its party status.
FPL has not provided any information regarding how 	it will be prejudiced 	if the City 	is
allowed to late-file 	its testimony. No new facts in support of its standing have been raised by the
1Order No. PSC-2026-0040-PCO-EI, issued February 6, 2026, in Docket No.20260010-EI, In re: Storm protection
plan cost recovery clause.
2 Order No. PSC-2026-0085-PCO-EI, issued April 	10, 2026, in Docket No.20260010-EI, In re: Storm protection
plan cost recovery clause.

ORDER NO. PSC-2026-0266-PCO-EI
DOCKET NO. 20260010-EI
PAGE 2
City in its Motion that were not also stated in its petition for intervention filed on March 16,
2026, four months ago. Further, the discovery deadline in this docket is August 7, 2026, giving
FPL ample time to conduct discovery on Witness Hayes’ testimony and exhibit.
Based on the above, I find that there is no prejudice to the parties, staff, or the
Commission by allowing the City to late-file the testimony of Witness Hayes. 	This order is
limited to the issue of whether the City should be allowed to late-file Witness Hayes’ testimony
and exhibit. 	The issue of whether the City has proven its substantial interest in this docket
necessary to meet the standing requirements will be decided by the full Commission.
Based on the foregoing, it is
ORDERED by Commissioner Gary F. Clark, as Prehearing Officer, that the City of
Panama City, Florida’s Motion to File Direct Testimony is granted as stated in the body of this
Order.
By ORDER of Commissioner Gary F. Clark, as Prehearing Officer, this 29th 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.
SBr

ORDER NO. PSC-2026-0266-PCO-EI
DOCKET NO. 20260010-EI
PAGE 3
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.