Florida Public Service Commission native order document 09666-2024

FILED 10/24/2024
DOCUMENT NO. 09666-2024
FPSC - COMMISSION CLERK
BEFORE THE FLORIDA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION
In re: Storm protection plan cost recovery
clause.
DOCKET NO. 20240010-EI
---------------~
ORDER NO. PSC-2024-0459-FOF-EI
ISSUED: October 24, 2024
The following Commissioners participated in the disposition of this matter:
MIKE LA ROSA, C hairman
ARTGRAHAM
GARY F. CLARK
ANDREW GILES FAY
GABRIELLA P ASSIDOMO
FINAL ORDER APPROVING STORM COST RECOVERY
AMOUNTS AND RELATED TARIFFS AND ESTABLISHING
STORM COST RECOVERY FACTORS FOR THE PERIOD
JANUARY 2025 THROUGH DECEMBER 2025
APPEARANCES:
J. JEFFRY WAHLEN, MALCOLM N. MEANS and VIRGINIA L. PONDER,
ESQUIRES, Ausley McMullen, Post Office Box 391, Tallahassee, Florida 32302
On behalf of Tampa Electric Company (TECO).
BETH KEATING, ESQUIRE, Gun ster, Yoakley & Stewart, P.A., 215 South
Monroe Street, Suite 601, Tallahassee, Florida 32301
On behalf of Florida Public Utilities Company {FPUC).
CHRISTOPHER T. WRIGHT and DAYID M. LEE, ESQUIRES, Florida Power
& Light Company, 700 Universe Boulevard, Juno Beach, Florida 33408-0420
On behalf of Florida Power & Light Company (FPL).
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 l5 1 Avenue
North, St. Petersburg, Florida 33701
On behalf of Duke Energy Florida, LLC (DEF).

ORDER NO. PSC-2024-0459-FOF-EI
DOCKET NO. 20240010-EI
PAGE 2
WALT 	TRIERWEILER, 	CHARLES 	REHWINKEL, 	PATRICIA 	A.
CHRISTENSEN, MARY A. WESSLING, OCTAVIO SIMOES-PONCE, 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).
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).
SHAW STILLER and DANIEL DOSE, ESQUIRES, 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.
KEITH C. HETRICK, 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),

ORDER NO. PSC-2024-0459-FOF-EI
DOCKET NO. 20240010-EI
PAGE 3
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.
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-2024-0010-PCO-EI, issued January 3, 2024,
under the authority of Sections 366.96(5), 366.96(6), and 366.96(7), F.S. The purposes of this
2024 annual proceeding are for us to establish the amount of prudently incurred costs each utility
is allowed to recover through the SPPCRC, and to specify the terms of that recovery. Tampa
Electric Company, Duke Energy Florida, LLC, Florida Industrial Power Users Group, Florida
Power & Light Company, PCS Phosphate – White Springs, Nucor Steel Florida, Inc., Office of
Public Counsel, and Florida Public Utilities Company each filed a Notice of Intent to Retain
Party Status. No other person filed for intervention.
On February 6, 2024, the Prehearing Officer issued the Order Establishing Procedure.1
The four utilities thereafter filed their petitions, along with direct testimony and exhibits,
requesting approval of the final true-up for 2023,2 and approval of 2024 actual/estimated costs,
and 2025 projected costs and cost recovery factors.3 	By Order issued April 19, 2024, the final
hearing in this matter was set for September 24-26, 2024.
On September 5, 2024, FPL filed a set of proposed stipulations that would fully resolve
all FPL issues in this docket. On September 6, 2024, DEF filed a set of proposed stipulations that
would fully resolve all DEF issues in this docket. On September 9, 2024, FPUC and TECO each
filed a set of proposed stipulations that would fully resolve their respective issues in this docket.
Taken together, these Type 24 stipulations fully address all issues identified in the Prehearing
Order. 5 Neither PSC staff nor any party identified additional issues.
The OPC position on all issues for every utility is a Type 2 stipulation as follows:
1 Order No. PSC-2024-0032-PCO-EI.
2 Document Nos. 01398-2024 (TECO), 01407-2024 (DEF), 01427-2024 (FPL), and 01440-2024 (FPUC).
3 Document Nos. 02638-2024 (DEF), 02639-2024 (TECO), 02670-2024 (FPUC), and 02672-2024 (FPL).
4 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.
5 Order No. PSC-2024-0426-PHO-EI, issued September 17, 2024.

ORDER NO. PSC-2024-0459-FOF-EI
DOCKET NO. 20240010-EI
PAGE 4
OPC takes no position on these issues nor does it have the burden of proof related
to them. As such, OPC further represents that it takes no position on, and thus will
not contest or oppose the Commission taking action approving a proposed
stipulation between each utility and another party or staff as a final resolution of
the issues. 	No person is authorized to state that the OPC is 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.
Decision
We conducted an evidentiary hearing September 25, 2024. At the hearing, exhibits 1–46
on the Comprehensive Exhibit List were admitted into evidence without objection. Pursuant to
the filed stipulations, the parties waived cross-examination and stipulated to the admission of the
prefiled direct testimony of all witnesses. Accordingly, the testimony of the following witnesses
was entered into the record as if read: M. Ashley Sizemore and C. David Sweat (TECO); P.
Mark Cutshaw and Michele D. Napier (FPUC); Michael Jarro and Richard L. Hume (FPL);
Christopher A. Menendez, Robert McCabe, and Robert Brong (DEF); and Tomer Kopelovich,
Ron Mavrides, and Donna D. Brown (PSC Staff).
Upon review of the entire record, we accept and approve the following Type 2
stipulations on the issues as reasonable and supported by competent, substantial record evidence.
Issues and Stipulations
ISSUE 1A: 	What jurisdictional amounts should the Commission approve as FPL’s final
2023 	prudently 	incurred 	costs 	and 	final 	true-up 	revenue 	requirement
amounts for the Storm Protection Plan Cost Recovery Clause?
FPL's final total SPPCRC cost incurred for 2023 is $1,371,442,934, which includes a total O&M
expense of $96,591,030 and a total capital expenditure of $1,274,851,904.6 FPL's SPPCRC final
jurisdictional revenue requirement true-up for the period January 2023 through December 2023,
including interest, is an under-recovery of $5,648,042.
ISSUE 1B: 	What jurisdictional amounts should the Commission approve as TECO’s
final 2023 prudently incurred costs and final true-up revenue requirement
amounts for the Storm Protection Plan Cost Recovery Clause?
TECO’s final SPPCRC jurisdictional revenue requirements are $70,079,782 and jurisdictional
cost recovery true-up under-recovery amount is $459,097 for the period January 2023 through
December 2023 including interest.
6 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-2024-0459-FOF-EI
DOCKET NO. 20240010-EI
PAGE 5
ISSUE 1C: 	What jurisdictional amounts should the Commission approve as the FPUC’s
final 2023 prudently incurred costs and final true-up revenue requirement
amounts for the Storm Protection Plan Cost Recovery Clause?
The final, end of period true up amount to be included in the calculation of the 2023 cost
recovery factors for FPUC is an under-recovery of $388,983, which reflects the difference
between the actual, end of period revenue requirement of $246,889 based on actual expenditures,
and the projected 2023 over-recovery of $142,094.
ISSUE 1D: 	What jurisdictional amounts should the Commission approve as the DEF’s
final 2023 prudently incurred costs and final true-up revenue requirement
amounts for the Storm Protection Plan Cost Recovery Clause?
DEF’s final total SPPCRC investments for 2023 is $684,389,980.7 DEF’s SPPCRC final
jurisdictional revenue requirement true-up for the period January 2023 through December 2023,
including interest, is an over-recovery of $5,364,450.
ISSUE 2A: 	What jurisdictional amounts should the Commission approve as the FPL’s
reasonably estimated 2024 costs and estimated true-up revenue requirement
amounts for the Storm Protection Plan Cost Recovery Clause?
FPL's total SPPCRC cost estimated for 2024 is $1,540,725,072, which includes a total O&M
expense of $126,982,092 and a total capital expenditure of $1,413,742,980.8 FPL's SPPCRC
actual/estimated jurisdictional revenue requirement true-up for the period January 2024 through
December 2024, including interest, is an under-recovery of $59,670,684.
ISSUE 2B: 	What jurisdictional amounts should the Commission approve as TECO’s
reasonably estimated 2024 costs and estimated true-up revenue requirement
amounts for the Storm Protection Plan Cost Recovery Clause?
TECO's actual/estimated Storm Protection Plan Cost Recovery Clause jurisdictional revenue
requirements are $90,297,357 and jurisdictional estimated cost recovery true-up under-recovery
amount is $606,964 for the period January 2024 through December 2024 including interest.
ISSUE 2C: 	What jurisdictional amounts should the Commission approve as FPUC’s
reasonably estimated 2024 costs and estimated true-up revenue requirement
amounts for the Storm Protection Plan Cost Recovery Clause?
FPUC projects an end of period 2024 under-recovery of $1,120,304, based on a revised 2024
revenue requirement of $3,481,578, which is net of $975,504 already recovered through base
rates.
7 See footnote 3.
8 See footnote 3.

ORDER NO. PSC-2024-0459-FOF-EI
DOCKET NO. 20240010-EI
PAGE 6
ISSUE 2D: 	What 	jurisdictional 	amounts 	should 	the 	Commission 	approve 	as 	DEF’s
reasonably estimated 2024 costs and estimated true-up revenue requirement
amounts for the Storm Protection Plan Cost Recovery Clause?
DEF’s total SPPCRC investment for 2024 is $771,943,413. 9 DEF’s SPPCRC actual/estimated
jurisdictional revenue requirement true-up for the period January 2024 through December 2024,
including interest, is an over-recovery of $10,259,107.
ISSUE 3A: 	What 	jurisdictional 	amounts 	should 	the 	Commission 	approve 	as 	FPL’s
reasonably projected 2025 costs and projected revenue requirement amounts
for the Storm Protection Plan Cost Recovery Clause?
FPL's total SPPCRC cost projected for 2025 is $1,471,820,854, which includes a total O&M
expense of $134,563,013 and a total capital expenditure of $1,337,257,841.10 FPL's projected
SPPCRC jurisdictional revenue requirement for the period January 2025 through December 2025
is $721,264,550.
ISSUE 3B: 	What jurisdictional amounts should the Commission approve as TECO’s
reasonably projected 2025 costs and projected revenue requirement amounts
for the Storm Protection Plan Cost Recovery Clause?
TECO's 	projected 	Storm 	Protection 	Plan 	Cost 	Recovery 	Clause 	jurisdictional 	revenue
requirements are $116,458,022 for the period January 2025 through December 2025.
TECO has certain proposals pending in its current base rate case in Docket No. 20240026-EI that
may affect the company's storm protection plan cost recovery charges and associated tariffs. The
above revenue requirement may be amended to reflect revisions ordered by the Commission in
that docket.
ISSUE 3C: 	What jurisdictional amounts should the Commission approve as FPUC’s
reasonably projected 2025 costs and projected revenue requirement amounts
for the Storm Protection Plan Cost Recovery Clause?
FPUC projects total expenditures of $20.44 million, with a revenue requirement of $4,153,106,
which is net of $975,504 already recovered through base rates.
ISSUE 3D: 	What 	jurisdictional 	amounts 	should 	the 	Commission 	approve 	as 	DEF’s
reasonably projected 2025 costs and projected revenue requirement amounts
for the Storm Protection Plan Cost Recovery Clause?
DEF’s total SPPCRC projected investments for 2025 is $845,476,201.11 DEF’s projected
SPPCRC jurisdictional revenue requirement for the period January 2025 through December 2025
9 See footnote 3.
10 See footnote 3.
11 See footnote 3.

ORDER NO. PSC-2024-0459-FOF-EI
DOCKET NO. 20240010-EI
PAGE 7
is $285,580,616, based on the updated 2025 testimony of Christopher A. Menendez and updated
Exhibit CAM-3.
ISSUE 4A: 	What 	are 	the 	Storm 	Protection 	Plan 	Cost 	Recovery 	Clause 	total
jurisdictional cost recovery amounts, including true-ups, to be included in
establishing 2025 Storm Protection Plan Cost Recovery factors for FPL?
The projected total SPPCRC jurisdictional revenue requirement for the period January 2025
through December 2025, including true-up amounts, is $786,583,276.
ISSUE 4B: 	What 	are 	the 	Storm 	Protection 	Plan 	Cost 	Recovery 	Clause 	total
jurisdictional cost recovery amounts, including true-ups, to be included in
establishing 2025 Storm Protection Plan Cost Recovery factors for TECO?
The SPPCRC total jurisdictional cost recovery amounts, including true-ups, to be included in
establishing Storm Protection Plan Cost Recovery factors for the period January 2025 through
December 2025 is $117,623,744.
TECO has certain proposals pending in its current base rate case in Docket No. 20240026-EI that
may affect the company's storm protection plan cost recovery charges and associated tariffs. The
above jurisdictional cost recovery amount may be amended to reflect revisions ordered by the
Commission in that docket.
ISSUE 4C: 	What 	are 	the 	Storm 	Protection 	Plan 	Cost 	Recovery 	Clause 	total
jurisdictional cost recovery amounts, including true-ups, to be included in
establishing 2025 Storm Protection Plan Cost Recovery factors for FPUC?
The total amount upon which FPUC's proposed factors are calculated is $5,667,195, which is
adjusted for taxes.
ISSUE 4D: 	What 	are 	the 	Storm 	Protection 	Plan 	Cost 	Recovery 	Clause 	total
jurisdictional cost recovery amounts, including true-ups, to be included in
establishing 2025 Storm Protection Plan Cost Recovery factors for DEF?
The projected total SPPCRC jurisdictional revenue requirement for the period January 2025
through December 2025, including true-up amounts, is $269,957,058, based on the updated 2025
testimony of Christopher A. Menendez and updated Exhibit CAM-3.
ISSUE 5A: 	What depreciation rates should be used to develop the depreciation expense
included in the total 2025 Storm Protection Plan Cost Recovery Clause
amounts for FPL?
The depreciation rates used to calculate the depreciation expense should be the Commission-
approved depreciation rates that are in effect during the period the allowed capital investment is
in service. For the period January 2025 through December 2025, FPL's depreciation rates are

ORDER NO. PSC-2024-0459-FOF-EI
DOCKET NO. 20240010-EI
PAGE 8
those approved by Commission Order Nos. PSC-2021-0446-S-EI and PSC-2021-0446A-S-EI in
Docket No. 20210015-EI.
ISSUE 5B: 	What depreciation rates should be used to develop the depreciation expense
included in the total 2025 Storm Protection Plan Cost Recovery Clause
amounts for TECO?
The depreciation rates from TECO's most current Depreciation Study, approved by Order No.
PSC-2021-0423-S-EI issued November 10, 2021, within Docket No. 20210034-EI, should be
and were used to develop the depreciation expense included in the total SPPCRC amounts for
2025.
TECO has certain proposals pending in Docket No. 20240026-EI that may affect the company's
storm protection plan cost recovery charges and associated tariffs. The company's cost recovery
clause factors may be amended to reflect any changes to depreciation rates and depreciation
expense ordered by the Commission in Docket Nos. 20230139-EI and 20240026-EI.
ISSUE 5C: 	What depreciation rates should be used to develop the depreciation expense
included in the total 2025 Storm Protection Plan Cost Recovery Clause
amounts for FPUC?
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 2025 Storm Protection Plan Cost Recovery Clause
amounts for DEF?
For the period January 2025 through December 2025, DEF should use the depreciation rates that
were approved in Final Order No. PSC-2021-0202A-AS-EI, consistent with DEF’s settlement
agreement filed on July 15, 2024, in Docket No. 20240025-EI and reflected in the updated 2025
testimony of Christopher A. Menendez and updated Exhibit CAM-3.
ISSUE 6A: 	What are the appropriate 2025 jurisdictional separation factors for FPL?
As shown on page 1 of Exhibit RLH-4, FPL's retail jurisdictional separation factors for the
period January 2025 through December 2025 are:
DEMAND
Transmission 	0.887807
Non-Stratified Production 	0.960110
Intermediate Strata Production 	0.954157
Peaking Strata Production 	0.949428
Distribution 	1.000000

ORDER NO. PSC-2024-0459-FOF-EI
DOCKET NO. 20240010-EI
PAGE 9
ENERGY
Total Sales 	0.938401
Non-Stratified Sales 	0.957062
Intermediate Strata Sales 	0.939405
Peaking Strata Sales 	0.956020
GENERAL LABOR
Labor 	0.969425
ISSUE 6B: 	What are the appropriate 2025 jurisdictional separation factors for TECO?
The appropriate jurisdictional separation factors are as follows:
FPSC Jurisdictional Factor: 	93.5213%
FERC Jurisdictional Factor: 	6.4787%
ISSUE 6C: 	What are the appropriate 2025 jurisdictional separation factors for FPUC?
There is no jurisdictional separation applicable to FPUC.
ISSUE 6D: 	What are the appropriate 2025 jurisdictional separation factors for DEF?
As shown in updated Exhibit CAM-3, DEF’s retail jurisdictional separation factors for the period
January 2025 through December 2025 are:
DEMAND
Transmission 	0.703692
Distribution 	1.000000
ISSUE 7A: 	What are the appropriate 2025 Storm Protection Plan Cost Recovery Clause
factors for each rate class for FPL?
As shown on Form SP of Exhibit RLH-3, p. 15, the appropriate FPL 2025 SPPCRC factors for
each rate class are as follows:

ORDER NO. PSC-2024-0459-FOF-EI
DOCKET NO. 20240010-EI
PAGE 10
Rate Class
SPP
Factor
($/kW)
SPP
Factor
($/kWh)
RDC
($/KW)
SDD
($/KW)
RSI/RTRl 	0.00810
GSI/GSTl 	0.00730
GSDl/GSDTl/HLFTI/GSDl-EV 	1.42
OS2 	0.02199
GSLD1/GSLDTl/CS l/CSTl/HLFT2/GSLDI-EV 	1.44
GSLD2/GSLDT2/CS2/CST2/HLFT3 	1.32
GSLD3/GSLDT3/CS3/CST3 	0.16
SSTIT 	0.02 	0.01
SSTlDI/SSTI D2/SST1D3 	0.23 	0.10
ClLC D/CILC G 	1.34
ClLCT 	0.17
MET 	1.60
OLI/SLI/SLlM/PLI/OSl/11 	0.00558
SL2/SL2M/GSCU I 	0.00683
ISSUE 7B: 	What are the appropriate 2025 Storm Protection Plan Cost Recovery Clause
factors for each rate class for TECO?
The appropriate January 2025 through December 2025 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.
20210034-EI are as follows:
Cost Recovery Factors
Rate Schedule 	(cents per kWh)
RS 	0.838
GS and CC 	1.040
GSD Optional – Secondary 	0.188
GSD Optional – Primary 	0.186
GSD Optional – Subtransmission 	0.184
LS-1, LS-2 	5.246

ORDER NO. PSC-2024-0459-FOF-EI
DOCKET NO. 20240010-EI
PAGE 11
Cost Recovery Factors
Rate Schedule 	(cents per kWh)
GSD – Secondary 	0.77
GSD – Primary 	0.76
GSD – Subtransmission 	0.76
SBD – Secondary 	0.77
SBD – Primary 	0.76
SBD – Subtransmission 	0.76
GSLD – Primary 	0.64
GSLD – Subtransmission 	0.15
TECO has certain proposals pending in its current base rate case in Docket No. 20240026-EI that
may affect the company's storm protection plan cost recovery charges and associated tariffs. The
above cost recovery clause factors may be amended to reflect revisions ordered by the
Commission in that docket.
ISSUE 7C: 	What are the appropriate 2025 Storm Protection Plan Cost Recovery Clause
factors for each rate class for FPUC?
As reflected on Revised Exhibit MDN-2, page 13 of 36, SPPCRC Form 5P, the appropriate
Storm Protection Plan Cost Recovery factors for 2025 for each rate class for FPUC are as
follows:

ORDER NO. PSC-2024-0459-FOF-EI
DOCKET NO. 20240010-EI
PAGE 12
ISSUE 7D: 	What are the appropriate 2025 Storm Protection Plan Cost Recovery Clause
factors for each rate class for DEF?
As shown on Form 6P of updated Exhibit CAM-3, the appropriate DEF 2025 SPPCRC factors
for each rate class are as follows:
Customer Class 	SPPCRC Factor
Residential 	0.801 cents/kWh
General Service Non-Demand 	0.694 cents/kWh
@ Primary Voltage 	0.687 cents/kWh
@ Transmission Voltage 	0.680 cents/kWh
General Service 100% Load Factor 	0.355 cents/kWh
General Service Demand 	1.92 $/kW
@ Primary Voltage 	1.90 $/kW
@ Transmission Voltage 	0.33 $/kW
Curtailable 	1.15 $/kW
@ Primary Voltage 	1.14 $/kW
@ Transmission Voltage 	1.13 $/kW
Interruptible 	1.54 $/kW
@ Primary Voltage 	1.26 $/kW
@ Transmission Voltage 	0.25 $/kW
Standby Monthly 	0.170 $/kW
@ Primary Voltage 	0.168 $/kW
@ Transmission Voltage 	0.167 $/kW
Standby Daily 	0.081 $/kW
@ Primary Voltage 	0.080 $/kW
@ Transmission Voltage 	0.079 $/kW
Lighting 	0.586 cents/kWh
ISSUE 8A: 	What should be the effective date of the 2025 Storm Protection Plan Cost
Recovery Clause factors for billing purposes for FPL?
The 2025 SPPCRC Factors should become effective for application to bills beginning the first
billing cycle in January 2025 through the last billing cycle December 2025 and continuing until
modified by subsequent order of this Commission.
ISSUE 8B: 	What should be the effective date of the 2025 Storm Protection Plan Cost
Recovery Clause factors for billing purposes for TECO?
The effective date of the new Storm Protection Plan Cost Recovery Clause factors should be
January 1, 2025.

ORDER NO. PSC-2024-0459-FOF-EI
DOCKET NO. 20240010-EI
PAGE 13
ISSUE 8C: 	What should be the effective date of the 2025 Storm Protection Plan Cost
Recovery Clause factors for billing purposes for FPUC?
The effective date for FPUC's cost recovery factors should be the first billing cycle for January 1,
2025, 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 2025 Storm Protection Plan Cost
Recovery Clause factors for billing purposes for DEF?
The factors shall be effective beginning with the specified Storm Protection Plan Cost Recovery
Clause cycle and thereafter for the period January 2025 through December 2025. Billing cycles
may start before January 1, 2025, and the last cycle may be read after December 31, 2025, 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 2025 Storm
Protection Plan Cost Recovery Clause factors determined to be appropriate
in this proceeding for FPL?
Yes. FPL will submit to Staff for administrative approval revised tariffs reflecting the SPPCRC
amounts and SPPCRC Factors approved in this proceeding.
ISSUE 9B: 	Should the Commission approve revised tariffs reflecting the 2025 Storm
Protection Plan Cost Recovery Clause factors determined to be appropriate
in this proceeding for TECO?
Yes, the Commission should approve revised tariffs reflecting the new Storm Protection Plan
Cost Recovery factors determined to be appropriate in this proceeding.
The Commission should also grant Staff administrative authority to approve revised tariffs
reflecting amended cost recovery clause factors that incorporate any revisions that are necessary
as a result of the Commission's decision in TECO's current base rate case in Docket No.
20240026-EI.
ISSUE 9C: 	Should the Commission approve revised tariffs reflecting the 2025 Storm
Protection Plan Cost Recovery Clause factors determined to be appropriate
in this proceeding for FPUC?
The 	Company 	will 	submit, 	and 	the 	Commission 	should 	authorize 	its 	staff 	to 	approve
administratively, 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.

ORDER NO. PSC-2024-0459-FOF-EI
DOCKET NO. 20240010-EI
PAGE 14
ISSUE 9D: 	Should the Commission approve revised tariffs reflecting the 2025 Storm
Protection Plan Cost Recovery Clause factors determined to be appropriate
in this proceeding for DEF?
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.
ISSUE 10: 	Should this docket be closed?
No. While a separate docket number is assigned each year for administrative convenience, this is
a continuing docket and should remain open.
Conclusion
As a result of our decisions on these issues, we have adjudicated all issues associated
with all parties to this docket. We grant our staff administrative authority to approve adjustments
as necessary to reflect our final actions in Docket No. 20240026-EI.
Per stipulation of the parties, new storm cost recovery factors will become effective for
application to bills beginning the first billing cycle in January 2025 through the last billing cycle
December 2025 and continuing until modified by subsequent order of this Commission.
We hereby approve revised tariffs for DEF, FPL, FPUC, and TECO reflecting the storm
cost recovery factors determined to be appropriate in this proceeding. We direct our 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, findings, and
rulings herein 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 we hereby grant Commission staff administrative authority to approve
adjustments to the storm cost recovery factors for each rate group as necessary to reflect our final
actions in Docket No. 20240026-EI. 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

ORDER NO. PSC-2024-0459-FOF-EI
DOCKET NO. 20240010-EI
PAGE 15
storm cost recovery factors set forth above during the period January 2025 through December
2025. It is further
ORDERED that the revised tariffs reflecting the storm 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.
SPS
By ORDER of the Florida Public Service Commission this 24th day of October, 2024.
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.
NOTICE OF FURTHER PROCEEDINGS OR JU DICIAL REVIEW
The Florida Public Service Commission is required by Section 	120.569(1 ), Florida
Statutes, to notify parties of any administrative hearing or judicial re view 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:
I) 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 ( I 5) days of the issuance of this order in the fo1m prescribed by Rule 25-22.060, Florida

ORDER NO. PSC-2024-0459-FOF-EI
DOCKET NO. 20240010-EI
PAGE 16
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.