FLORIDA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION

ADDENDUM*

COMMISSION CONFERENCE AGENDA

CONFERENCE DATE AND TIME:  Friday, May 9, 2014, 9:30 a.m.

LOCATION:  Betty Easley Conference Center, Joseph P. Cresse Hearing Room 148

DATE ISSUED:  May 5, 2014

 

NOTICE

Persons affected by Commission action on certain items on this agenda may be allowed to address the Commission, either informally or by oral argument, when those items are taken up for discussion at this conference. These items are designated by double asterisks (**) next to the agenda item number.

To participate informally, affected persons need only appear at the agenda conference and request the opportunity to address the Commission on an item listed on agenda.  Informal participation is not permitted:  (1) on dispositive motions and motions for reconsideration; (2) when a recommended order is taken up by the Commission; (3) in a rulemaking proceeding after the record has been closed; or (4) when the Commission considers a post-hearing recommendation on the merits of a case after the close of the record.  The Commission allows informal participation at its discretion in certain types of cases (such as declaratory statements and interim rate orders) in which an order is issued based on a given set of facts without hearing.

See Rule 25-22.0021, F.A.C., concerning Agenda Conference participation and Rule 25-22.0022, F.A.C., concerning  oral argument.

Agendas, staff recommendations, and vote sheets are available from the PSC Web site, http://www.floridapsc.com, by selecting Conferences &  Meeting Agendas  and Commission Conferences of the FPSC.  Once filed, a verbatim transcript of the Commission Conference will be available from this page by selecting the conference date, or by selecting Clerk's Office and the Item's docket number, (you can then advance to the Docket Details page and the Document Filings Index for that particular docket).  An official vote of "move staff" denotes that the Item's recommendations were approved.  If you have any questions, contact the Office of Commission Clerk at (850) 413-6770 or e-mail the clerk at Clerk@psc.state.fl.us.

In accordance with the American with Disabilities Act, persons needing a special accommodation to participate at this proceeding should contact the Office of Commission Clerk no later than five days prior to the conference at 2540 Shumard Oak Boulevard, Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0850, via 1-800-955-8770 (Voice) or 1-800-955-8771 (TDD), Florida Relay Service.  Assistive Listening Devices are available at the Office of Commission Clerk, Gerald L. Gunter Building, Room 152.

The Commission Conference has a live video broadcast the day of the conference, which is available from the PSC’s Web site.  Upon completion of the conference, the video will be available from the Web site by selecting Conferences &  Meeting Agendas, then Audio and Video Event Coverage.


1**................. Consent Agenda. 1

2**PAA......... Docket No. 110013-TP – Request for submission of proposals for relay service, beginning in June 2012, for the deaf, hard of hearing, deaf/blind, or speech impaired, and other implementation matters in compliance with the Florida Telecommunications Access System Act of 1991. 2

3**................. Docket No. 120208-TX – Petition to initiate rulemaking to revise and amend Rule 25-22.0365, F.A.C., by Competitive Carriers of the South, Inc. 3

4**PAA......... Docket No. 140024-EI – Initiation of formal proceedings on Complaint No. 1109752E of Brenda Rodriguez against Duke Energy Florida, Inc. for alleged improper billing. 4

4A**.............. Docket No. 140031-WS – Initiation of show cause proceedings against Country Club Utilities, Inc. in Highlands County for violations of Rule 25-30.120, FAC, Regulatory Assessment Fees; Water and Wastewater Utilities. 5

5**PAA......... Docket No. 140054-EU – Joint petition for approval of second amendment to territorial agreement in Polk County between Tampa Electric Company and the City of Lakeland. 6

6**PAA......... Docket No. 140006-WS – Water and wastewater industry annual reestablishment of authorized range of return on common equity for water and wastewater utilities pursuant to Section 367.081(4)(f), F.S. 7

7**PAA......... Docket No. 130171-WS – Application for approval of transfer of certain water and wastewater facilities and Certificate Nos. 507-W and 441-S of Aqua Utilities Florida, Inc. to The Woods Utility Company in Sumter County. 8

8**PAA......... Docket No. 130176-WS – Application for approval of transfer of certain water and wastewater facilities and Certificate Nos. 507-W and 441-S of Aqua Utilities Florida, Inc. to Jumper Creek Utility Company in Sumter County. 10

9**................. Docket No. 130209-SU – Application for expansion of certificate (CIAC) (new wastewater line extension charge) by North Peninsula Utilities Corp. 12

10**PAA....... Docket No. 130212-WS – Application for increase in water/wastewater rates in Polk County by Cypress Lakes Utilities, Inc. 13

11................... Docket No. 130223-EI – Petition for approval of optional non-standard meter rider, by Florida Power & Light Company. 19

12**............... Docket No. 140066-EI – Petition for approval of amendment to underground residential and commercial differential tariffs, by Florida Power & Light Company. 20

13**............... Docket No. 140067-EI – Petition for approval of revised underground distribution tariffs, by Duke Energy Florida, Inc. 21

14**............... Docket No. 140070-EI – Petition for approval of voluntary solar partnership pilot program and tariff, by Florida Power & Light Company. 22

15**PAA....... Docket No. 140034-GU – Petition for approval of special gas transportation service agreement with RockTenn CP, LLC by Peoples Gas System. 23

 


   1**                           Consent Agenda

                                    A)  Application for Certificate of Authority to Provide Telecommunications Service.

DOCKET NO.

COMPANY NAME

140041‑TX

Campus Communications Group, Inc.

 

 

Recommendation:  The Commission should approve the action requested in the docket referenced above and close this docket.

 


   2**PAA                    Docket No. 110013-TP – Request for submission of proposals for relay service, beginning in June 2012, for the deaf, hard of hearing, deaf/blind, or speech impaired, and other implementation matters in compliance with the Florida Telecommunications Access System Act of 1991.

Critical Date(s):

July 1, 2014 - Effective date of Florida Telecommunications Relay, Inc. budget. Notification of any change in the Telecommunications Access System Act surcharge must be made to carriers prior to July 1, 2014.

Commissioners Assigned:

All Commissioners

Prehearing Officer:

Brisé

Staff:

TEL:     C. Williams

GCL:    Page

 

Issue 1: 

 Should the Commission approve Florida Telecommunications Relay, Inc.’s proposed budget as outlined in Attachment A of staff’s memorandum dated April 24, 2014, for fiscal year 2014/2015, effective July 1, 2014, and should the Commission maintain the current Telecommunications Relay Service surcharge of $0.11 per month?

Recommendation: 

 Yes.  Staff recommends that the Commission approve Florida Telecommunications Relay, Inc.’s proposed budget operating revenue of $8,528,177 and proposed budget expenses of $8,263,702 for fiscal year 2014/2015, effective July 1, 2014.  Staff also recommends that the Telecommunications Relay Service surcharge be maintained at $0.11 per month per access line (up to 25 access lines) for fiscal year 2014/2015, effective July 1, 2014.  The Commission should order all telecommunications companies to continue billing the $0.11 surcharge for fiscal year 2014/2015, effective July 1, 2014.

Issue 2: 

 Should this docket be closed?

Recommendation: No. A Consummating Order should be issued unless a person whose substantial interests are affected by the Commission’s decision files a protest within 21 days of the issuance of the proposed agency action.  The docket should remain open to address all matters related to relay service throughout the life of the contract. 

 

 


   3**                           Docket No. 120208-TX – Petition to initiate rulemaking to revise and amend Rule 25-22.0365, F.A.C., by Competitive Carriers of the South, Inc.

Critical Date(s):

None

Commissioners Assigned:

All Commissioners

Prehearing Officer:

Balbis

Staff:

GCL:    Page, Cowdery

ECO:   King

TEL:     Bates, Fogleman

 

Issue 1: 

 Should the Commission amend Rule 25-22.0365, F.A.C., Expedited Dispute Resolution Process for Telecommunications Companies?

Recommendation: 

 Yes, the Commission should amend Rule 25-22.0365, F.A.C., as set forth in Attachment A of staff’s memorandum dated April 24, 2014.

Issue 2: 

 Should this docket be closed?

Recommendation: 

 Yes.  If no requests for hearing or comments are filed, the rule should be filed with the Department of State, and the docket should be closed.

 

 


   4**PAA                    Docket No. 140024-EI – Initiation of formal proceedings on Complaint No. 1109752E of Brenda Rodriguez against Duke Energy Florida, Inc. for alleged improper billing.

Critical Date(s):

None

Commissioners Assigned:

All Commissioners

Prehearing Officer:

Brown

Staff:

GCL:    Brownless

ECO:   Garl

ENG:   Moses

 

Issue 1: 

 Is there sufficient evidence that meter tampering occurred at the Rodriguez residence at 185 Anzio Drive, Kissimmee, Florida 34758, to permit Duke to back-bill the Rodriguez account for unmetered kilowatt hours?

Recommendation: 

 Yes.  The results of meter testing conducted at the Rodriguez residence by Duke and Commission staff confirm that meter tampering occurred.  Because Ms. Rodriguez is the customer of record, she should be held responsible for a reasonable amount of back-billing.  

Issue 2: 

 Is Duke’s back-billing period and estimate of usage for a total amount due of $11,555.14 for unmetered electric usage, and a $312.40 investigation charge reasonable and appropriate?

Recommendation: 

 Yes.  The period back-billed, the estimate of energy used, the amount back-billed, and the investigation charge are reasonable and appropriate. 

Issue 3: 

 Should the Commission grant Ms. Rodriguez the relief sought in her petition?

Recommendation: 

 No.  Staff recommends that the Commission deny Ms. Rodriguez’s petition as it does not demonstrate that Duke’s attempt to collect $7,974.44 violates any statutes, rules or orders or that Duke’s calculation of the $7,974.44 is unreasonable. 

Issue 4: 

 Should this docket be closed?

Recommendation: 

  Yes.  If no timely protest is filed by a substantially affected person within 21 days of the Proposed Agency Action Order, a Consummating Order should be issued and the docket closed.   

 

 


   4A**                         Docket No. 140031-WS – Initiation of show cause proceedings against Country Club Utilities, Inc. in Highlands County for violations of Rule 25-30.120, FAC, Regulatory Assessment Fees; Water and Wastewater Utilities.

Critical Date(s):

None

Commissioners Assigned:

All Commissioners

Prehearing Officer:

Edgar

Staff:

GCL:    Corbari, Teitzman

TEL:     Earnhart

 

Issue 1: 

 Should the Commission accept the Settlement Agreement proposed by Country Club Utilities, Inc., to resolve the apparent violations of Rule 25-30.120, F.A.C., Regulatory Assessment Fees; Water and Wastewater Utilities?

Recommendation: 

 Yes. The Commission should accept the Settlement Agreement proposed by Country Club Utilities, Inc., to resolve the apparent violations of Rule 25-30.120, F.A.C., Regulatory Assessment Fees; Water and Wastewater Utilities, and to pay its delinquent Regulatory Assessment Fees, plus statutory penalties and interest, for the years 2010, 2011, 2012, and 2013.   

Issue 2: 

 Should this docket be closed?

Recommendation: 

 No.  If Issue 1 is approved, the Settlement Agreement would resolve all matters in Docket No. 140031-WS in accordance with Section 120.57(4), F.S., and Order No. PSC-14-0131-SC-WS should become final. Staff recommends the docket remain open to process the settlement payments and to monitor ongoing compliance with the terms of this Settlement Agreement.  Once all the terms of the Settlement Agreement and outstanding amounts owed have been satisfied, the docket may be administratively closed. Should Country Club fail to comply with any of the terms of the proposed Settlement Agreement, the Commission will seek to enforce the terms of the Settlement Agreement and pursue all reasonable means necessary to collect the amounts owed by Country Club, pursuant to Sections 120.69 and 367.121(1)(g) and (j), F.S., including, but not limited to, the placement of a lien on the real and personal property of Country Club. 

 

 


   5**PAA                    Docket No. 140054-EU – Joint petition for approval of second amendment to territorial agreement in Polk County between Tampa Electric Company and the City of Lakeland.

Critical Date(s):

None

Commissioners Assigned:

All Commissioners

Prehearing Officer:

Balbis

Staff:

GCL:    Klancke

ECO:   King

 

Issue 1: 

 Should the Commission approve the joint petition of Tampa Electric Company and the City of Lakeland for Approval of Second Amendment to the Territorial Agreement?

Recommendation: 

 Yes. The Second Amendment to the Territorial Agreement between Tampa Electric and Lakeland will not cause a detriment to the public interest; therefore, it should be approved. 

Issue 2: 

 Should this docket be closed?

Recommendation: 

 If no person whose substantial interests are affected by the proposed agency action files a protest within 21 days of the issuance of the order, this docket should be closed upon the issuance of a consummating order. 

 

 


   6**PAA                    Docket No. 140006-WS – Water and wastewater industry annual reestablishment of authorized range of return on common equity for water and wastewater utilities pursuant to Section 367.081(4)(f), F.S.

Critical Date(s):

None

Commissioners Assigned:

All Commissioners

Prehearing Officer:

Graham

Staff:

AFD:    D. Buys, Cicchetti

GCL:    Klancke

 

Issue 1: 

 What is the appropriate range of returns on common equity for water and wastewater utilities, pursuant to Section 367.081(4)(f), Florida Statutes?

Recommendation: 

 Staff recommends that the current leverage formula approved by the Commission in Order No. PSC-13-0241-PAA-WS continue to be used until the leverage formula is readdressed in 2015.  Accordingly, staff recommends the following leverage formula:

 

Return on Common Equity =  7.13% + (1.610 ÷ Equity Ratio)

 

Where the Equity Ratio = Common Equity ÷ (Common Equity + Preferred Equity + Long-Term and Short-Term Debt)

 

Range: 8.74% @ 100% equity to 11.16% @ 40% equity

 

Additionally, staff recommends that the Commission cap returns on common equity at 11.16 percent for all WAW utilities with equity ratios less than 40 percent.  Staff believes this will discourage imprudent financial risk.  This cap is consistent with the methodology in Order No. PSC-08-0846-FOF-WS. 

Issue 2: 

 Should this docket be closed?

Recommendation: 

 No.  Upon expiration of the protest period, if a timely protest is not received from a substantially affected person, the decision should become final and effective upon the issuance of a Consummating Order.  However, this docket should remain open to allow staff to monitor changes in capital market conditions and to readdress the reasonableness of the leverage formula as conditions warrant. 

 

 


   7**PAA                    Docket No. 130171-WS – Application for approval of transfer of certain water and wastewater facilities and Certificate Nos. 507-W and 441-S of Aqua Utilities Florida, Inc. to The Woods Utility Company in Sumter County.

Critical Date(s):

None

Commissioners Assigned:

All Commissioners

Prehearing Officer:

Balbis

Staff:

ENG:   Rieger

AFD:    Frank, Springer

ECO:   Thompson

GCL:    Gilcher

 

(Proposed Agency Action for Issues 2 and 3.)

Issue 1: 

 Should the Commission approve the transfer of Aqua Utilities Florida, Inc., water and wastewater systems and Certificate Nos. 507-W and 441-S to The Woods Utility Company, including the deletion of the Jumper Creek territory?

Recommendation: Yes.  The transfer of The Woods water and wastewater systems and Certificate Nos. 507-W and 441-S is in the public interest, and should be approved effective the date of the Commission vote.  The Woods territories being transferred and the Jumper Creek territories being deleted out of Certificate Nos. 507-W and 441-S are described in Attachment A of staff’s memorandum dated April 24, 2014.  The resultant order should serve as The Woods’ certificates and should be retained by the Utility.  The Utility’s existing rates and charges should remain in effect until a change is authorized by the Commission in a subsequent proceeding.  The tariff pages reflecting the transfer should be effective on or after the stamped approval date on the tariff sheets, pursuant to Rule 25-30.475(1), Florida Administrative Code, (F.A.C.).  The Woods should be responsible for filing the Utility’s 2013 annual reports and paying 2014 Regulatory Assessment Fees (RAFs) and should be responsible for filing all future annual reports and RAFs. 


Issue 2: 

 What are the appropriate net book values for The Wood’s water and wastewater systems for transfer purposes?

Recommendation: 

 For transfer purposes, the net book values (NBVs) of The Woods’s water and wastewater systems are $320,488 and $89,042, respectively, as of March 28, 2013.  Within 30 days of the date of the final order, The Woods should be required to provide general ledgers which show its books have been updated to reflect the Commission-approved balances as of March 28, 2013.  The adjustments should be reflected in the Utility’s 2013 annual report. 

Issue 3: 

 Should an acquisition adjustment be recognized for rate-making purposes?

Recommendation: 

 Yes.  Pursuant to Rule 25-30.0371, F.A.C., a negative acquisition adjustment of $256,382 for the water system and $71,232 for the wastewater system should be recognized for rate-making purposes.  Beginning with the date of the issuance of the order approving the transfer, 50 percent of the negative acquisition, which is $128,191 for the water system and $35,616 for the wastewater system, should be amortized over a seven-year period and the remaining 50 percent should be amortized over the remaining life of the assets. 

Issue 4: 

 Should this docket be closed?

Recommendation: 

 Yes.  If no protest to the proposed agency action is filed by a substantially affected person within 21 days of the date of the order, a consummating order should be issued and the docket should be closed administratively after The Woods has provided proof that its general ledgers have been updated to reflect the Commission-approved balances as of March 28, 2013. 

 

 


   8**PAA                    Docket No. 130176-WS – Application for approval of transfer of certain water and wastewater facilities and Certificate Nos. 507-W and 441-S of Aqua Utilities Florida, Inc. to Jumper Creek Utility Company in Sumter County.

Critical Date(s):

None

Commissioners Assigned:

All Commissioners

Prehearing Officer:

Balbis

Staff:

ENG:   Rieger

AFD:    Kelly, Springer

ECO:   Bruce

GCL:    Gilcher

 

(Proposed Agency Action for Issues 2 and 3.)

Issue 1: 

 Should the Commission approve the transfer of Aqua Utilities Florida, Inc., water and wastewater systems and the issuance of Certificate Nos. 667-W and 570-S to Jumper Creek Utility Company?

Recommendation: 

Yes.  The transfer of Jumper Creek’s water and wastewater systems and the issuance of Certificate Nos. 667-W and 570-S to Jumper Creek Utility Company is in the public interest and should be approved effective the date of the Commission vote.  The Jumper Creek territories are described in Attachment A of staff’s memorandum dated April 24, 2014.  The resultant order should serve as Jumper Creek’s certificates and should be retained by the Utility.  The Utility’s existing rates and charges should remain in effect until a change is authorized by the Commission in a subsequent proceeding.  The tariff pages reflecting the transfer should be effective on or after the stamped approval date on the tariff sheets, pursuant to Rule 25-30.475(1), Florida Administrative Code, (F.A.C.).  Jumper Creek will be responsible for filing the Utility’s 2013 annual reports and paying 2014 Regulatory Assessment Fees (RAFs) and should be responsible for filing all future annual reports and RAFs. 

Issue 2: 

 What are the appropriate net book values for the Jumper Creek water and wastewater systems as of March 28, 2013?

Recommendation:  For transfer purposes, the net book values (NBVs) of the water and wastewater systems as of March 28, 2013, are $261,128 and $131,072, respectively, as shown on Schedule Nos. 2 and 3 of staff’s memorandum dated April 24, 2014.  Within 30 days of the date of the final order, Jumper Creek should be required to provide general ledgers which show its books have been updated to reflect the Commission-approved net book values and balances as of March 28, 2013.  The adjustments should be reflected in the Utility’s 2013 annual report when filed. 

Issue 3: 

 Should an acquisition adjustment be recognized for rate-making purposes?

Recommendation: 

 Yes.  Pursuant to Rule 25-30.0371, F.A.C., a negative acquisition adjustment of $208,895 for the water system and $104,855 for the wastewater system should be recognized for rate-making purposes.  Beginning with the date of the issuance of the order approving the transfer, 50 percent of the negative acquisition adjustment, which is $104,448 for the water system and $52,427 for the wastewater system, should be amortized over a seven-year period and the remaining 50 percent should be amortized over the remaining life of the assets. 

Issue 4: 

 Should this docket be closed?

Recommendation: 

 Yes.  If no protest to the proposed agency action is filed by a substantially affected person within 21 days of the date of the order, a consummating order should be issued and the docket should be closed administratively after Jumper Creek has provided proof that its general ledgers have been updated to reflect the Commission-approved balances as of March 28, 2013.  

 

 


   9**                           Docket No. 130209-SU – Application for expansion of certificate (CIAC) (new wastewater line extension charge) by North Peninsula Utilities Corp.

Critical Date(s):

05/09/14 (60-Day Suspension Date)

Commissioners Assigned:

All Commissioners

Prehearing Officer:

Edgar

Staff:

ENG:   Rieger, Lee

ECO:   Bruce

GCL:    Gilcher

 

Issue 1: 

 Should North Peninsula's proposed tariff sheet for approval of a main extension charge be suspended?

Recommendation: 

 Yes.  North Peninsula's proposed tariff sheet for approval of a main extension charge should be suspended. 

Issue 2: 

 Should this docket be closed?

Recommendation: 

 No.  The docket should remain open pending the Commission’s decision action on the Utility’s requested application. 

 

 


10**PAA                    Docket No. 130212-WS – Application for increase in water/wastewater rates in Polk County by Cypress Lakes Utilities, Inc.

Critical Date(s):

5-Month Effective Date Waived Through 05/09/14

Commissioners Assigned:

All Commissioners

Prehearing Officer:

Edgar

Staff:

ENG:   Lee

AFD:    T. Brown, Kelly, Prestwood, Springer

ECO:   Thompson

GCL:    Gilcher

 

(Proposed Agency Action except for Issues 22 and 23.)

Issue 1:  

Is the quality of service provided by Cypress Lakes Utilities, Inc., satisfactory?

Recommendation:  Yes.  Staff recommends that the quality of service provided by Cypress Lakes Utilities, Inc. (CLU or Utility), be considered satisfactory.  There are no outstanding enforcement issues regarding the operational condition of the Utility’s water and wastewater facilities.  Based on test results, the water provided by the Utility appears to meet all quality standards and CLU appears to be responsive to its customers. 

Issue 2: 

 Should the audit adjustments to rate base to which the Utility agrees be made?

Recommendation: 

 Yes.  Based on the audit adjustments agreed to by the Utility and staff, adjustments should be made to rate base as set forth in the analysis portion of staff’s memorandum dated April 24, 2014. 

Issue 3: 

 Should any adjustments be made to the Utility’s Project Phoenix Financial/Customer Care Billing System (Phoenix Project)?

Recommendation: 

 Yes.  Plant should be reduced by $14,801 for water and $13,593 for wastewater.  Corresponding adjustments should be made to reduce accumulated depreciation by $13,658 for water and $12,545 for wastewater and to reduce depreciation expense by $4,032 for water and $3,703 for wastewater.  Computer maintenance expense should be reduced by $2,306 for water and $2,118 for wastewater.  In addition, consistent with the Commission’s previous decisions, CLU should be authorized to create a regulatory asset or liability for costs associated with the Phoenix Project, and to accrue interest on the regulatory asset or liability at the 30-day commercial paper rate until the establishment of rates in the Utility’s next rate proceeding.  Furthermore, when appropriate, the regulatory asset or liability should be amortized over four years. 

Issue 4:  Should any additional test year plant adjustments be made for water?

Recommendation:  Yes.  Plant should be increased by $24,256 for water and Material and Supplies (M&S) expense should be decreased by $1,718, and accordingly, corresponding adjustments should be made to increase accumulated depreciation by $3,141, depreciation expense by $775, and property taxes by $320.  Accumulated deferred income taxes (ADITs) should also be increased by $4,637. 

Issue 5:  Should any adjustments be made to the Utility’s pro forma plant additions?

Recommendation:  Yes.  The appropriate amount of pro forma plant additions for wastewater is $108,338.  This results in a decrease of $1,662 from the Utility’s requested amount.  Corresponding adjustments should also be made to increase accumulated depreciation by $1,667 and decrease depreciation expense by $52.  Additionally, pro forma property taxes should be decreased by $704 for water and $189 for wastewater.  ADITs should be increased by $20,740. 

Issue 6: 

What are the Used and Useful percentages of the Utility’s water and wastewater systems?

Recommendation:  The Utility’s water and wastewater systems should continue to be 100 percent Used and Useful (U&U).  The test year wastewater treatment cost of purchased power and chemicals should be reduced by 1 percent, or $626 due to excessive infiltration and inflow.  No adjustment should be made for excessive unaccounted for water. 

Issue 7: 

 What is the appropriate working capital allowance?

Recommendation:  The appropriate working capital allowances are $26,177 for water and $34,875 for wastewater.  As such, the working capital allowances should be decreased by $2,875 and $2,522 for water and wastewater, respectively. 

Issue 8: 

 What is the appropriate rate base for the test year ended December 31, 2012?

Recommendation:  Consistent with other recommended adjustments, the appropriate rate base for the test year ended December 31, 2012, is $721,607 for water and $1,762,598 for wastewater. 

Issue 9: 

 What is the appropriate return on equity?

Recommendation:  Based on the Commission leverage formula currently in effect, the appropriate return on equity (ROE) is 10.29 percent.  Staff recommends an allowed range of plus or minus 100 basis points be recognized for ratemaking purposes. 

Issue 10: 

 What is the appropriate weighted average cost of capital including the proper components, amounts, and cost rates associated with the capital structure for the test year ended December 31, 2012?

Recommendation:  The appropriate weighted average cost of capital for the test year ended December 31, 2012, is 8.18 percent. 

Issue 11:  

What is the appropriate amount of test year revenues for the Utility’s water and wastewater systems?

Recommendation: 

 The appropriate test year revenues for Cypress Lakes’ water and wastewater systems are $313,273 and $667,342, respectively. 

 

Issue 12:  Should the audit adjustments to net operating income to which the Utility agrees be made?

Recommendation: 

Yes.  Based on the audit adjustments agreed to by the Utility and staff, the following adjustments should be made to net operating income as set forth in the analysis portion of staff’s memorandum dated April 24, 2014. 

Issue 13: 

 Should any adjustments be made to the Utility’s salaries and wages, pensions and benefits, and payroll taxes?

Recommendation:   Yes.  Salaries and Wages expense should be reduced by $1,967 for water and $1,806 for wastewater.  Corresponding adjustments should also be made to reduce payroll taxes for water and wastewater by $282 and $259, respectively. 

Issue 14: 

 What is the appropriate amount of rate case expense for the current case?

Recommendation:  The appropriate amount of rate case expense is $118,428.  This expense should be recovered over four years for an annual expense of $29,607.  Therefore, annual rate case expense for water and wastewater should be increased by $868 and $798, respectively, from the amount requested in the Utility’s initial filing. 

Issue 15:  Should further adjustments be made to the Utility’s test year O&M expense?

Recommendation:  Yes.  O&M expense should be reduced by $5,881 for water and $5,401 for wastewater to reflect the appropriate level of contractual services-engineering, miscellaneous, and contractual services-other expenses. 

Issue 16: 

 Should any further adjustments be made to property taxes?

Recommendation:  Yes.  Property taxes should be decreased by $10,318 for water and $9,483 for wastewater. 

Issue 17: 

 What is the appropriate revenue requirement for the test year?

Recommendation:  The following revenue requirement should be approved.

 

 

Test Year Revenue

$ Increase/ (Decrease)

Revenue

Requirement

% Increase/ (Decrease)

Water

$313,273

$60,781

$374,054

19.40%

Wastewater

$667,342

($8,134)

$659,208

(1.22%)

 

 

Issue 18:  What are the appropriate rate structures and rates for Cypress Lakes’ water and wastewater systems?

Recommendation:  The recommended rate structures and monthly water and wastewater rates are shown on Schedule Nos. 4-A and 4-B, respectively, of staff’s memorandum dated April 24, 2014.  The Utility should file revised tariff sheets and a proposed customer notice to reflect the Commission-approved rates.  The approved rates should be effective for service rendered on or after the stamped approval date on the tariff sheet, pursuant to Rule 25-30.475(1), F.A.C.  In addition, the approved rates should not be implemented until staff has approved the proposed customer notice and the notice has been received by the customers.  The Utility should provide proof of the date the notice was given within ten days of issuance. 

Issue 19: 

Should Cypress Lake’s request to implement a $5.25 late payment charge be approved?

Recommendation:  Yes.  The Utility’s request to implement a $5.25 late payment charge should be approved.  The Utility should be required to file a proposed customer notice to reflect the Commission-approved charge.  The approved charge should be effective for services rendered on or after the stamped approval date on the tariff sheet, pursuant to Rule 25-30.475(1), F.A.C.  In addition, the approved charge should not be implemented until staff has approved the proposed customer notice.  The Utility should provide proof of the date the notice was given within ten days of issuance. 

Issue 20:  What are the appropriate initial customer deposits for Cypress Lakes?

Recommendation: 

 The appropriate initial customer deposits should be $43 and $84 for the residential 5/8″ x 3/4″ meter size for water and wastewater, respectively.  The initial customer deposits for all other residential meter sizes and all general service meter sizes should be two times the average estimated bill for water and wastewater.  The approved customer deposits should be effective for services rendered or connections made on or after the stamped approval date on the tariff sheets, pursuant to Rule 25-30.475, F.A.C.  The Utility should be required to charge the approved charges until authorized to change them by the Commission in a subsequent proceeding. 

Issue 21:  In determining whether any portion of the water interim increases granted should be refunded, how should the refund be calculated, and what is the amount of the refund, if any?

Recommendation: 

The appropriate refund amount should be calculated by using the same data used to establish final rates, excluding rate case expense and other items not in effect during the interim period.  The revised revenue requirements for the interim collection period should be compared to the amount of interim revenues granted.  This results in a refund of 15.78 percent for water.  The refund should be made with interest in accordance with Rule 25-30.0360(4), F.A.C.  The Utility should be required to submit proper refund reports, pursuant to Rule 25-30.360(7), F.A.C.  The Utility should treat any unclaimed refunds as Contributing in Aid of Construction (CIAC), pursuant to Rule 25-30.360(8), F.A.C.  Further, the corporate undertaking should be released upon staff’s verification that the required refunds have been made. 

Issue 22:  What is the appropriate amount by which rates should be reduced in four years after the published effective date to reflect the removal of the amortized rate case expense as required by Section 367.0816, F.S.?

Recommendation:  The water and wastewater rates should be reduced as shown on Schedule Nos. 4-A and 4-B of staff’s memorandum dated April 24, 2014, to remove rate case expense grossed up for regulatory assessment fees and amortized over a four-year period.  The decrease in rates should become effective immediately following the expiration of the four-year rate case expense recovery period, pursuant to Section 367.0816, F.S.  CLU should be required to file revised tariffs and a proposed customer notice setting forth the lower rates and the reason for the reduction no later than one month prior to the actual date of the required rate reduction.  If the Utility files this reduction in conjunction with a price index or pass-through rate adjustment, separate data should be filed for the price index and/or pass-through increase or decrease and the reduction in the rates due to the amortized rate case expense. 

Issue 23:  Should the Utility be required to provide proof, within 90 days of an effective order finalizing this docket, that it has adjusted its books for all the applicable National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners (NARUC) Uniform System of Accounts (USOA) primary accounts associated with the Commission-approved adjustments? 

Recommendation:  Yes.  To ensure that the Utility adjusts its books in accordance with the Commission’s decision, CLU should provide proof, within 90 days of the final order in this docket, that the adjustments for all the applicable NARUC USOA primary accounts have been made. 

Issue 24:  Should this docket be closed?

Recommendation:  No.  If no person whose substantial interests are affected by the proposed agency action files a protest within 21 days of the issuance of the order, a consummating order should be issued.  The docket should remain open for staff’s verification that the revised tariff sheets and customer notice have been filed by the Utility and approved by staff, and that the interim refund has been completed and verified by staff.  Once these actions are complete, this docket should be closed administratively. 

 

 


11                               Docket No. 130223-EI – Petition for approval of optional non-standard meter rider, by Florida Power & Light Company.

Critical Date(s):

12-month deadline, pursuant to Section 366.06(3), F.S., has been waived through December 31, 2014

Commissioners Assigned:

All Commissioners

Prehearing Officer:

Edgar

Staff:

ECO:   Draper, King, Rome

GCL:    Brownless

IDM:    Clemence, Marr

 

(Motions for Reconsideration Prior to Hearing - Oral Argument Requested; Participation is at the Commission's Discretion.)

Issue 1: 

 Should the Commission grant the request for oral argument?

Recommendation: 

 Yes.  Oral argument will aid the Commission in understanding and evaluating the issues to be decided and should be granted.  However, staff recommends that the time granted be limited to ten minutes per side. 

Issue 2: 

 What action should the Commission take regarding the Ahn Motion?

Recommendation: 

 The Commission should deny the Ahn Motion since the Protestors have not identified any point of fact or law that the Prehearing Officer overlooked or failed to consider in rendering her order. 

Issue 3: 

 What action should the Commission take regarding the Martin Motion?

Recommendation: 

 The Commission should deny the Martin Motion since the Protestors have not identified any point of fact or law that the Prehearing Officer overlooked or failed to consider in rendering her order. 

Issue 4: 

 Should this docket be closed?

Recommendation: 

 No.  This docket should remain open for the Commission to conduct the requested administrative hearing. 

 

 


12**                           Docket No. 140066-EI – Petition for approval of amendment to underground residential and commercial differential tariffs, by Florida Power & Light Company.

Critical Date(s):

05/31/14 (60-Day Suspension Date)

Commissioners Assigned:

All Commissioners

Prehearing Officer:

Administrative

Staff:

ECO:   King

GCL:    Brown

 

Issue 1: 

  

 Should the Commission suspend FPL's Underground Residential Distribution Tariff and Underground Commercial/Industrial Distribution Tariff?

Recommendation: 

 Yes. 

Issue 2: 

 Should this docket be closed?

Recommendation: 

 No. This docket should remain open pending the Commission decision on the proposed tariffs.

 

 


13**                           Docket No. 140067-EI – Petition for approval of revised underground distribution tariffs, by Duke Energy Florida, Inc.

Critical Date(s):

05/31/14 (60-Day Suspension Date)

Commissioners Assigned:

All Commissioners

Prehearing Officer:

Administrative

Staff:

ECO:   Rome

GCL:    Klancke

 

Issue 1: 

 Should DEF's proposed URD tariff revisions be suspended?

Recommendation: 

 Yes. 

Issue 2: 

 Should this docket be closed?

Recommendation: 

 No.  This docket should remain open pending the Commission’s decision on the proposed tariff revisions. 

 

 


14**                           Docket No. 140070-EI – Petition for approval of voluntary solar partnership pilot program and tariff, by Florida Power & Light Company.

Critical Date(s):

06/02/14 (60-Day Suspension Date)

Commissioners Assigned:

All Commissioners

Prehearing Officer:

Brown

Staff:

ECO:   Garl

GCL:    M. Brown

IDM:    B. Crawford

 

Issue 1: 

 Should the Commission suspend the tariff associated with the voluntary solar partnership pilot program proposed by Florida Power & Light Company?

Recommendation: 

 Yes. 

Issue 2: 

 Should this docket be closed?

Recommendation: 

 No.  This docket should remain open pending the Commission’s decision on the proposed tariff revisions. 

 

 


15**PAA                    Docket No. 140034-GU – Petition for approval of special gas transportation service agreement with RockTenn CP, LLC by Peoples Gas System.

Critical Date(s):

None

Commissioners Assigned:

All Commissioners

Prehearing Officer:

Brown

Staff:

ECO:   Garl

GCL:    Brownless

 

Issue 1: 

 Should the Commission approve the special contract between Peoples and RockTenn?

Recommendation: 

 Yes, the Commission should approve the special contract because it precludes potential bypass by RockTenn, establishes rates that cover the cost of service, and provides protection for Peoples and its general body of ratepayers. 

Issue 2: 

 Should this docket be closed?

Recommendation: 

 Yes.  If no protest is filed by a person whose substantial interests are affected within 21 days of the issuance of the Order, this docket should be closed upon the issuance of a Consummating Order.