Furthermore, a motion for reconsideration should not be granted “based upon an arbitrary feeling that a mistake may have been made, but should be based upon specific factual matters set forth in the record and susceptible to review.” Steward Bonded Warehouse, Inc. In a motion for reconsideration, it is not appropriate to reargue matters that have already been considered. KEATING) Staff Analysis: The standard of review for a motion for reconsideration of a Prehearing Officer’s order is whether the motion identifies a point of fact or law that the Prehearing Officer overlooked or failed to consider in rendering the order. SUSI’s motion for reconsideration fails to identify any point of fact or law that the Prehearing Officer overlooked or failed to consider in rendering the order dismissing SUSI as a party.

PSC-04-0591-PCO-EI dismissing SUSI as a party to this proceeding? Recommendation: No. The Commission has jurisdiction pursuant to Chapter 366, Florida Statutes, including Sections 366.04 and 366.05, Florida Statutes.ĭiscussion of Issues Issue 1: Should the Commission grant SUSI’s motion for reconsideration of that portion of Order No. This recommendation addresses SUSI’s motion for reconsideration and FPL’s motion for clarification. There was no response to FPL’s motion for clarification. On June 28, 2004, FPL filed a response in opposition to SUSI’s motion for reconsideration. FPL filed its own motion for clarification of a portion of Order No. PSC-04-0591-PCO-EI dismissing SUSI as a party. On June 21, 2004, SUSI filed a motion for reconsideration of that portion of Order No. PSC-04-0591-PCO-EI, issued June 11, 2004, the Prehearing Officer, among other matters, granted FPL’s motion to dismiss SUSI as a party. SUSI responded in opposition to FPL’s motion on January 12, 2004. On January 5, 2004, FPL moved to dismiss SUSI as a party from this proceeding for lack of standing. FPL filed a protest to the PAA Order on the same date. Penney Corporation, Dillards Department Stores, and Target Stores, Inc., protested the PAA Order by filing a petition for a formal administrative hearing on some of the complaints addressed in the PAA Order. On December 10, 2003, SUSI, along with Ocean Properties. (“SUSI”) on behalf of various commercial customers against Florida Power & Light Company (“FPL”) concerning type 1V thermal demand meters that over-registered demand of those customers. PSC-03-1320-PAA-EI, issued November 19, 2003, as proposed agency action (“PAA Order”), the Commission addressed several complaints by Southeastern Utility Service, Inc. 030623-EI – Complaints by Southeastern Utility Services, Inc., on behalf of various customers, against Florida Power & Light Company concerning thermal demand meter error.Ġ8/17/04 – Regular Agenda – Decision Prior to Hearing – Motions for Reconsideration and Clarification of Non-Final Order – Oral Argument Not Requested Participation at the Commission’s Discretionīy Order No.

Keating)ĭivision of Economic Regulation (Floyd, Kummer, Matlock, Wheeler)ĭivision of Regulatory Compliance & Consumer Assistance (Mills, Ruehl)ĭocket No. 2540 Shumard Oak Boulevardĭirector, Division of the Commission Clerk & Administrative Services (Bayó).

Sample motion for reconsideration