FLORIDA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION

COMMISSION CONFERENCE AGENDA

CONFERENCE DATE AND TIME:  Thursday, June 5, 2014, 9:30 a.m.

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

DATE ISSUED:  May 23, 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**................. Docket No. 140029-TP – Request for submission of proposals for relay service, beginning in June 2015, 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. 1

2**................. Docket No. 140093-WS – Proposed amendment of Rule 25-30.455, F.A.C., Staff Assistance in Rate Cases, Rule 25-30.456, F.A.C., Staff Assistance in Alternative Rate Setting, and Rule 25-30.457, F.A.C., Limited Alternative Rate Increase. 2

3**................. Docket No. 130188-EM – Complaint regarding electric rate structure for Gainesville Regional Utilities. 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

5**................. Docket No. 140055-TP – Complaint of FLATEL, Inc. against BellSouth Telecommunications, Inc. d/b/a AT&T Florida. 5

6**PAA......... Docket No. 110165-SU – Application for staff-assisted rate case in Highlands County by Utility Corporation of Florida, Inc. 6

7**PAA......... Docket No. 130243-WS – Application for staff-assisted rate case in Highlands County by Lake Placid Utilities Inc. 7

8**PAA......... Docket No. 140032-EI – Petition to recover capital costs of Big Bend fuel cost reduction project through the fuel cost recovery clause, by Tampa Electric Company. 13

9**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. 14

10**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. 16

11**PAA....... Docket No. 130172-WS – Application for approval of transfer of certain water and wastewater facilities and Certificate Nos. 501-W and 435-S of Aqua Utilities Florida, Inc. to Sunny Hills Utility Company in Washington County. 18

12**PAA....... Docket No. 130173-WU – Application for approval of transfer of certain water facilities and Certificate No. 053-W of Aqua Utilities Florida, Inc. to Lake Osborne Waterworks, Inc. in Palm Beach County. 20

13**PAA....... Docket No. 130174-WU – Application for approval of transfer of certain water facilities and Certificate No. 002-W of Aqua Utilities Florida, Inc. to Brevard Waterworks, Inc. in Brevard County. 22

14**PAA....... Docket No. 130175-WS – Application for approval of transfer of certain water and wastewater facilities and Certificate Nos. 422-W and 359-S of Aqua Utilities Florida, Inc. to HC Waterworks, Inc. in Highlands County. 24

15**............... Docket No. 130229-WS – Application for amendment of territory for Certificate Nos. 622-W and 564-S in Volusia and Brevard Counties by Farmton Water Resources LLC. 26

 


   1**                           Docket No. 140029-TP – Request for submission of proposals for relay service, beginning in June 2015, 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):

The current contract with AT&T expires May 31, 2015. Significant time is needed to issue the RFP, evaluate proposals, and to set-up the system.

Commissioners Assigned:

All Commissioners

Prehearing Officer:

Administrative

Staff:

TEL:     Williams, Casey

GCL:    Page

 

Issue 1: 

 Should the Request for Proposals be issued?

Recommendation: 

 Yes.  The Commission should issue the Request for Proposals, as set forth in Attachment A of staff’s memorandum dated May 22, 2014. 

Issue 2: 

 Should this docket be closed?

Recommendation: 

 No. 

 

 


   2**                           Docket No. 140093-WS – Proposed amendment of Rule 25-30.455, F.A.C., Staff Assistance in Rate Cases, Rule 25-30.456, F.A.C., Staff Assistance in Alternative Rate Setting, and Rule 25-30.457, F.A.C., Limited Alternative Rate Increase.

Rule Status:

Proposed

Commissioners Assigned:

All Commissioners

Prehearing Officer:

Brisé

Staff:

GCL:    Gervasi

AFD:    Bulecza-Banks

ECO:   Rome

 

Issue 1: 

 Should the Commission propose the amendment of Rule 25-30.455, F.A.C., Staff Assistance in Rate Cases, Rule 25-30.456, F.A.C., Staff Assistance in Alternative Rate Setting, and Rule 25-30.457, F.A.C., Limited Alternative Rate Increase?

Recommendation: 

 Yes, the Commission should propose the amendment of Rules 25-30.455, 25-30.456, and 25-30.457, F.A.C., as set forth in Attachment A of staff’s memorandum dated May 22, 2014. 

Issue 2: 

 Should this docket be closed?

Recommendation: 

 Yes, if no requests for hearing or comments are filed, the rule amendments as proposed should be filed for adoption with the Secretary of State and the docket should be closed. 

 

 


   3**                           Docket No. 130188-EM – Complaint regarding electric rate structure for Gainesville Regional Utilities.

Critical Date(s):

None

Commissioners Assigned:

All Commissioners

Prehearing Officer:

Balbis

Staff:

GCL:    Barrera, J. Crawford

ECO:   Draper

 

(Notice of Voluntary Dismissal.)

Issue 1: 

 Should the Commission acknowledge Complainants’ Notice of Voluntary Dismissal Without Prejudice?

Recommendation: Yes, the Commission should acknowledge Complainants’ voluntary dismissal of its Petition without prejudice. 

Issue 2: 

 Should this docket be closed?

Recommendation:  Yes.  No further action by the Commission is required in this docket 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.   

 

 


   5**                           Docket No. 140055-TP – Complaint of FLATEL, Inc. against BellSouth Telecommunications, Inc. d/b/a AT&T Florida.

Critical Date(s):

None

Commissioners Assigned:

All Commissioners

Prehearing Officer:

Administrative

Staff:

GCL:    Murphy

TEL:     Curry

 

Issue 1: 

 Should the Commission grant FLATEL’s Amended Petition?

Recommendation: 

  No. the Commission should dismiss  FLATEL’s Amended Petition with prejudice for again failing to comply with applicable rules.

Issue 2: 

 Should this docket be closed?

Recommendation: 

 Yes. If staff’s recommendation is approved, this docket should be closed.

 

 


   6**PAA                    Docket No. 110165-SU – Application for staff-assisted rate case in Highlands County by Utility Corporation of Florida, Inc.

Critical Date(s):

None

Commissioners Assigned:

All Commissioners

Prehearing Officer:

Brown

Staff:

AFD:    Prestwood, Springer

ECO:   Daniel, Hudson, Roberts

ENG:   King, Lee

GCL:    Murphy, Teitzman

 

Issue 1: 

 Should the Utility's request to not implement Phase II rates be approved and the docket be closed?

Recommendation: 

 Yes.  The Utility’s request to not implement Phase II rates should be approved and the docket should be closed.  If no timely protest is filed by a substantially affected person, this docket should be closed upon the issuance of a Consummating Order. 

 

 


   7**PAA                    Docket No. 130243-WS – Application for staff-assisted rate case in Highlands County by Lake Placid Utilities Inc.

Critical Date(s):

03/02/15 (15-Month Effective Date (SARC))

Commissioners Assigned:

All Commissioners

Prehearing Officer:

Brown

Staff:

AFD:    Vogel, Golden, T. Brown, Mouring, Prestwood

ECO:   Roberts

ENG:   Watts

GCL:    Tan

 

(Proposed Agency Action - Except Issue Nos. 12 through 15.)

Issue 1: 

  

 Should the quality of service provided by Lake Placid be considered satisfactory?

Recommendation: 

 Yes.  Lake Placid is current in meeting water quality standards for all required chemical analyses and the water provided by Lake Placid is meeting applicable primary and secondary standards as prescribed in the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) rules.  In addition, staff recommends the condition of the wastewater and water treatment facilities is satisfactory.  It also appears the Utility has attempted to address the customers’ concerns.  Therefore, the overall quality of service for the Lake Placid system in Highlands County is satisfactory. 

Issue 2: 

 What are the used and useful percentages for the Utility’s water and wastewater treatment, distribution and collection systems?

Recommendation: 

 Lake Placid’s water treatment plant (WTP), water distribution, and wastewater collection system should be considered 100 percent Used and Useful (U&U).  The Utility’s wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) should be considered 28.5 percent U&U.  Staff recommends that a 1.85 percent adjustment to purchased power and chemical expenses for the WTP should be made for excessive unaccounted for water (EUW).  No adjustment is recommended for excessive infiltration and inflow (I&I). 

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 $1,325 for water and $1,478 for wastewater.  Corresponding adjustments should be made to reduce accumulated depreciation by $1,288 for water and $1,305 for wastewater and to reduce depreciation expense by $373 for water and $391 for wastewater.  Computer maintenance expense should be reduced by $216 for water and $219 for wastewater.  In addition, consistent with the Commission’s previous decisions, Lake Placid 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: 

 What is the appropriate average test year rate base for Lake Placid?

Recommendation: 

 The appropriate average test year rate base for Lake Placid is $162,872 for water and $74,297 for wastewater. 

Issue 5: 

 What is the appropriate return on equity and overall rate of return for Lake Placid?

Recommendation: 

 The appropriate return on equity (ROE) is 10.45 percent with a range of 9.45 percent to 11.45 percent.  The appropriate overall rate of return is 7.99 percent. 

Issue 6: 

 What are the appropriate test year revenues?

Recommendation: 

 The appropriate test year revenues for this Utility are $57,778 for water and $70,940 for wastewater. 

Issue 7: 

 What is the appropriate amount of operating expense?

Recommendation: 

 The appropriate amount of operating expense for the Utility is $56,368 for water and $63,844 for wastewater.

Issue 8: 

 What is the appropriate revenue requirement?

Recommendation: 

 The appropriate revenue requirement is $69,382 for water and $69,781 for wastewater, resulting in an annual increase of $11,604 for water (20.08 percent), and an annual decrease of $1,159 for wastewater (1.63 percent). 

Issue 9: 

 What are the appropriate rate structures and rates for Lake Placid’s water and wastewater systems?

Recommendation: 

 The recommended rate structures and monthly water and wastewater rates are shown on Schedule Nos. 4-A through 4-D of staff’s memorandum dated May 22, 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 services rendered on or after the stamped approval date on the tariff sheets, 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 notice was given within 10 days of the date of the notice. 

Issue 10: 

 What are the appropriate initial customer deposits for Lake Placid?

Recommendation: 

 The appropriate initial customer deposits should be $60 and $50 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 service.  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 11: 

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

Recommendation: 

 Yes.  Lake Placid’s request to implement a $5.25 late payment charge should be approved.  Lake Placid 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 notice was given no less than ten days after the date of the notice.

Issue 12: 

 What is the appropriate amount by which rates should be reduced four years after the established 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-B and 4-D of staff’s memorandum dated May 22, 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.  Lake Placid 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 13: 

 Should the recommended rates be approved for the Utility on a temporary basis, subject to refund with interest, in the event of a protest?

Recommendation: 

 Yes.  Pursuant to Section 367.0814(7), F.S., the recommended water rates and current wastewater rates should be approved for the Utility on a temporary basis, subject to refund with interest, in the event of a protest filed by a party other than the Utility.  Further, pursuant to Section 367.0814(6), F.S., continuation of the current wastewater rates should be approved for the Utility on a temporary basis, subject to refund with interest, in the event of a protest of the wastewater decrease by the Utility.  Lake Placid 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 temporary rates should not be implemented until staff has approved the proposed notice, and the notice has been received by the customers.  Prior to implementation of any temporary rates, the Utility should provide appropriate security.  Staff recommends that a cumulative corporate undertaking of $58,133 is acceptable contingent upon receipt of the written guarantee of UI and written confirmation that the cumulative outstanding guarantees on behalf of UI-owned utilities in other states will not exceed $1.2 million (inclusive of all Florida utilities).  If the recommended water rates or current wastewater rates are approved on a temporary basis, the rates collected by the Utility should be subject to the refund provisions discussed in the analysis portion of staff’s memorandum dated May 22, 2014.  In addition, after the temporary rates are in effect, pursuant to Rule 25-30.360(6), F.A.C., the Utility should file reports with the Commission’s Office of Commission Clerk no later than the 20th of each month indicating the monthly and total amount of money subject to refund at the end of the preceding month.  The report filed should also indicate the status of the security being used to guarantee repayment of any potential refund. 

Issue 14: 

 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 applicable National Association of Regulatory Commissioners Uniform System of Accounts (NARUC 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, Lake Placid should provide proof, within 90 days of the final order in this docket, that the adjustments for all applicable NARUC USOA primary accounts have been made. 

Issue 15: 

 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.  Once these actions are complete, this docket should be closed administratively. 

 

 


   8**PAA                    Docket No. 140032-EI – Petition to recover capital costs of Big Bend fuel cost reduction project through the fuel cost recovery clause, by Tampa Electric Company.

Critical Date(s):

None

Commissioners Assigned:

All Commissioners

Prehearing Officer:

Brown

Staff:

AFD:    Barrett, Lester, Mouring

ENG:   Matthews

GCL:    Barrera

 

Issue 1: 

 Should the Commission approve Tampa Electric’s Petition to recover the capital investment of its proposed fuel conversion project at the Big Bend Power Station through the Fuel Clause?

Recommendation: 

 Yes.  Tampa Electric’s Petition to recover the capital investment of its proposed fuel conversion project at the Big Bend Power Station through the Fuel Clause should be granted, with the following conditions:

            Tampa Electric should be permitted to recover the projected conversion costs through the Fuel Clause beginning on the date the first unit (Big Bend Unit 3) is placed into service, and ending five years after the fourth and final unit (Big Bend Unit 1) is placed into service.  Tampa Electric should amortize the Big Bend Power Station fuel conversion costs over a five-year period.  Cost recovery should be limited to actual fuel savings, and the Company should use the actual weighted average cost of capital in its most current earnings surveillance report.  Finally, if actual fuel savings during the annual period are less than the amortization of the conversion costs, Tampa Electric should limit cost recovery to actual fuel savings and defer recovery of the difference to future periods through the Fuel Clause. 

Issue 2: 

 Should this docket be closed?

Recommendation: 

 Yes.  If no person whose interests are substantially affected files a timely protest of the Commission’s Proposed Agency Action, this docket may be closed upon issuance of a Consummating Order.

 

 


   9**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:    J. Crawford

 

(Proposed Agency Action for Issues 2 and 3.)

Issue 1: 

 Should the Commission approve the transfer of Aqua Utilities Florida, Inc.’s 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 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 Report 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 as of March 28, 2013?

Recommendation: 

 For transfer purposes, the net book values (NBVs) of The Woods’s water and wastewater systems are $323,989 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 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 $259,183 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 $129,592 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. 

 

 


10**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:    J. Crawford

 

(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 Aqua’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 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 should be responsible for filing the Utility’s 2013 Annual Report 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 are $261,128 and $131,072, respectively, as of March 28, 2013.  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 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.  

 

 


11**PAA                    Docket No. 130172-WS – Application for approval of transfer of certain water and wastewater facilities and Certificate Nos. 501-W and 435-S of Aqua Utilities Florida, Inc. to Sunny Hills Utility Company in Washington County.

Critical Date(s):

None

Commissioners Assigned:

All Commissioners

Prehearing Officer:

Brown

Staff:

ENG:   Watts, Jopling

AFD:    Frank, Springer

ECO:   Thompson

GCL:    Barrera

 

(Proposed Agency Action for Issues 2 and 3.)

Issue 1: 

 Should the Commission approve the transfer of Aqua Utilities Florida, Inc.’s water and wastewater systems and Certificate Nos. 501-W and 435-S to Sunny Hills Utility Company?

Recommendation: 

 Yes.  The transfer of Aqua’s water and wastewater systems and the transfer of Certificate Nos. 501-W and 435-S to Sunny Hills Utility Company (Sunny Hills) is in the public interest and should be approved effective the date of the Commission’s vote.  The resultant order should serve as Sunny Hill’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.).  Sunny Hills should be responsible for filing the Utility’s 2013 Annual Report 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 Sunny Hills’ water and wastewater systems as of March 28, 2013?

Recommendation: 

 For transfer purposes, the net book values (NBVs) of Sunny Hills’ water and wastewater systems are $1,934,902 and $134,393, respectively, as of March 28, 2013.  Within 30 days of the date of the final order, Sunny Hills 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 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 $1,538,571 for the water system and $106,865 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 $769,286 for the water system and $53,433 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 Sunny Hills has provided proof that its general ledgers have been updated to reflect the Commission-approved balances as of March 28, 2013. 

 

 


12**PAA                    Docket No. 130173-WU – Application for approval of transfer of certain water facilities and Certificate No. 053-W of Aqua Utilities Florida, Inc. to Lake Osborne Waterworks, Inc. in Palm Beach County.

Critical Date(s):

None

Commissioners Assigned:

All Commissioners

Prehearing Officer:

Brown

Staff:

ENG:   Jopling, Watts

AFD:    Coughlin, Springer

ECO:   Roberts

GCL:    Brownless

 

(Proposed Agency Action for Issue 2.)

Issue 1: 

 Should the Commission approve the transfer of Aqua Utilities Florida, Inc. water system and Certificate No. 053-W to Lake Osborne Waterworks, Inc.?

Recommendation: 

 Yes.  The transfer of Aqua’s Palm Beach County water system and the transfer of Certificate No. 053-W to Lake Osborne Waterworks, Inc., (LOWI) is in the public interest and should be approved effective the date of the Commission vote.  The resultant order should serve as LOWI’s certificate 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.).  LOWI should be responsible for filing the Utility’s 2013 Annual Report and paying 2014 Regulatory Assessment Fees (RAFs) and should be responsible for filing all future annual reports and RAFs. 

Issue 2: 

 What is the appropriate net book value for LOWI’s water system as of March 28, 2013?

Recommendation: 

 For transfer purposes, the net book value (NBV) of LOWI’s water system is $120,404, as of March 28, 2013.  Because the difference in the purchase price and the NBV in this instance is de minimis, and LOWI has not requested an acquisition adjustment, staff recommends that no acquisition adjustment be made in this case.  Within 30 days of the date of the final order, LOWI 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 when filed. 

Issue 3:  

 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 LOWI has provided proof that its general ledgers have been updated to reflect the Commission-approved balances, as of March 28, 2013. 

 

 


13**PAA                    Docket No. 130174-WU – Application for approval of transfer of certain water facilities and Certificate No. 002-W of Aqua Utilities Florida, Inc. to Brevard Waterworks, Inc. in Brevard County.

Critical Date(s):

None

Commissioners Assigned:

All Commissioners

Prehearing Officer:

Brown

Staff:

ENG:   Jopling, Watts

AFD:    Coughlin, Springer

ECO:   Roberts

GCL:    Brownless

 

(Proposed Agency Action for Issue 2.)

Issue 1: 

 Should the Commission approve the transfer of Aqua Utilities Florida, Inc.’s water systems and Certificate No. 002-W to Brevard Waterworks, Inc.?

Recommendation: 

 Yes.  The transfer of Aqua’s Kingswood and Oakwood water systems and Certificate No. 002-W to Brevard Waterworks, Inc. is in the public interest and should be approved, effective the date of the Commission’s vote.  The resultant order should serve as BWI’s certificate, should be transferred to BWI, and 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.).  BWI should be responsible for filing the Utility’s 2013 Annual Report and paying 2014 Regulatory Assessment Fees (RAFs) and should be responsible for filing all future annual reports and RAFs. 

Issue 2: 

 What is the appropriate net book value for Brevard Waterworks, Inc.’s water system as of March 28, 2013?

Recommendation: 

 For transfer purposes, the net book value (NBV) of BWI’s water system is $61,588, as of March 28, 2013.  Because the difference in the purchase price and the NBV in this instance is de minimis, and BWI has not requested an acquisition adjustment, staff recommends that no acquisition adjustment be made in this case.  Within 30 days of the date of the final order, BWI 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 when filed. 

Issue 3: 

 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.  The docket should be closed administratively after BWI has provided proof that its general ledgers have been updated to reflect the Commission-approved balances net book values and balances as of March 28, 2013.  

 

 


14**PAA                    Docket No. 130175-WS – Application for approval of transfer of certain water and wastewater facilities and Certificate Nos. 422-W and 359-S of Aqua Utilities Florida, Inc. to HC Waterworks, Inc. in Highlands County.

Critical Date(s):

None

Commissioners Assigned:

All Commissioners

Prehearing Officer:

Brown

Staff:

ENG:   Watts, Jopling

AFD:    Springer

ECO:   Bruce

GCL:    Barrera

 

(Proposed Agency Action for Issues 2 and 3.)

Issue 1: 

 Should the Commission approve the transfer of Aqua Utilities Florida, Inc.’s water and wastewater systems and Certificate Nos. 422-W and 359-S to HC Waterworks, Inc.?

Recommendation: 

 Yes.  The transfer of Aqua’s water system and wastewater system and the transfer of Certificate Nos. 422-W and 359-S to HC Waterworks, Inc., is in the public interest and should be approved effective the date of the Commission’s vote.  The resultant order should serve as HC Waterworks, Inc.’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.).  HCW should be responsible for filing the Utility’s 2013 Annual Report 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 HCW’s water and wastewater systems as of March 28, 2013?

Recommendation: 

 For transfer purposes, the net book values (NBVs) of the HCW water and wastewater systems are $2,724,527 and $67,606, respectively, as of March 28, 2013.  Within 30 days of the date of the final order, HCW 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 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 $849,440 for the water system and $21,078 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 $424,720 for the water system and $10,539 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 HCW has provided proof that its general ledgers have been updated to reflect the Commission-approved balances as of March 28, 2013.  

 

 


15**                           Docket No. 130229-WS – Application for amendment of territory for Certificate Nos. 622-W and 564-S in Volusia and Brevard Counties by Farmton Water Resources LLC.

Critical Date(s):

None

Commissioners Assigned:

All Commissioners

Prehearing Officer:

Administrative

Staff:

ENG:   Watts

AFD:    Cicchetti

ECO:   Roberts

GCL:    Klancke

 

Issue 1: 

 Should the Commission approve Farmton’s application for amendment of Certificate Nos. 622-W and 564-S in Volusia and Brevard Counties?

Recommendation: 

 Yes.  It is in the public interest to amend Certificate Nos. 622-W and 564-S to reflect the territory as described in Attachment A of staff’s memorandum dated May 22, 2014, effective the date of the Commission’s vote.  The resultant order should serve as Farmton’s amended certificates and should be retained by the Utility.  The Utility should charge the customers in the territory added herein the rates and charges contained in its current tariffs until a change is authorized by the Commission in a subsequent proceeding. 

Issue 2: 

 Should this docket be closed?

Recommendation: 

 Yes.  If staff’s recommendation in Issue 1 is approved, no further action is required and the docket should be closed.