Duke Energy Florida, LLC v. Clark
Duke Energy Florida sought roughly $16 million in replacement power costs after a steam turbine at its Bartow plant went offline in 2017 and was returned at derated capacity. An ALJ found DEF operated the turbine imprudently in an early period (2009-2012) but prudently thereafter, and concluded as a matter of law that the earlier imprudence could bar recovery only if it caused the 2017 outage; the PSC adopted that order and denied recovery. The Supreme Court reversed, holding the causation determination was contrary to the record because no evidence—including OPC's own expert's testimony—supported a finding that the pre-2012 operation caused post-2012 blade damage, and ordered entry of an order awarding the costs.
Key facts
- Duke Energy Florida sought approximately $16 million in replacement power costs after a steam turbine at its Bartow generating plant went offline in 2017 and was returned at reduced capacity.
- An Administrative Law Judge found that DEF operated the turbine imprudently during 2009-2012 but prudently thereafter, and concluded that the earlier imprudence could only bar recovery if it caused the 2017 outage; the PSC adopted this order and denied recovery.
- +2 more key facts with a free trial
Why it matters
The decision is a useful preservation and standard-of-review tool: it reaffirms that exceptions to a recommended order are read as a whole for preservation purposes, and shows a reviewing court will set aside 'findings'… — full analysis with a trial
🔒 Read the full opinion, holding & search the library
The full opinion PDF, the rules the court applied, our significance analysis, the background facts, and full-text search across every tracked Florida decision are available to members. Start a free 30-day trial — no credit card.
Not ready to sign up? Get the free Friday digest — the week's key Florida decisions by email, no login required.
Florida Court Tracker provides summaries of publicly available court opinions for informational and research purposes only. This is not legal advice and does not create an attorney–client relationship. Always verify holdings against the official opinion.