FLORIDA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION

COMMISSION CONFERENCE AGENDA

CONFERENCE DATE AND TIME:  Thursday, October 2, 2014, 9:30 a.m.

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

DATE ISSUED:  September 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**................. Consent Agenda. 1

2..................... 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. 5

3**................. Docket No. 140124-PU – Amendment of Rule 25-6.014, F.A.C., Records and Reports in General, Rule 25-6.015, F.A.C., Location and Preservation of Records, Rule 25-7.014, F.A.C., Records and Reports in General, Rule 25-7.015. F.A.C., Location and Preservation of Records, and Rule 25-7.0461, F.A.C., Capitalization Versus Expensing. 6

4**................. Docket No. 140141-TP – Proposed repeal of Rules 25-4.002, 25-24.505, 25-24.514, 25-24.555, and 25-24.560, F.A.C., and amendment of Rules 25-4.003, and 25-22.061, F.A.C. 7

5..................... Docket No. 140147-WS – Application for staff-assisted rate case in Sumter County by Jumper Creek Utility Company. 8

6**PAA......... Docket No. 140082-EI – Petition for change to requirements of Order No. PSC-06-0144-PAA-EI regarding pole inspection and load assessment, by Florida Power & Light Company. 10

7..................... Docket No. 140110-EI – Petition for determination of need for Citrus County Combined Cycle Power Plant, by Duke Energy Florida, Inc.
Docket No. 140111-EI – Petition for determination of cost effective generation alternative to meet need prior to 2018, by Duke Energy Florida, Inc. 11

8..................... Docket No. 140060-WS – Application for increase in water and wastewater rates in Seminole County by Sanlando Utilities Corporation. 15

9**PAA......... Docket No. 140137-EI – Petition for approval of modifications to tariff sheet Nos. 9.100 through 9.330 and tariff sheet Nos. 9.700 through 9.709 as-available purchase tariff and interconnection agreement, by Duke Energy Florida, Inc. 17

10**............... Docket No. 140166-GU – Joint petition for approval of Gas Reliability Infrastructure Program (GRIP) by Florida Public Utilities Company and the Florida Division of Chesapeake Utilities Corporation. 18

11**............... Docket No. 140151-GU – Petition for approval to close firm transportation service - 13 rate schedule, by Florida Division of Chesapeake Utilities Corporation. 19

12**PAA....... Docket No. 130265-WU – Application for staff-assisted rate case in Charlotte County by Little Gasparilla Water Utility, Inc. 20

13**............... Docket No. 140157-WS – Request to establish initial customer deposits in Highlands County by Country Club Utilities, Inc. 25

 


   1**                           Consent Agenda

                                    A)  Docket No. 140159-EI – Florida Power & Light Company (FPL or Company) seeks authority to issue and sell and/or exchange any combination of long-term debt and equity securities and/or to assume liabilities or obligations as guarantor, endorser, or surety in an aggregate amount not to exceed $6.1 billion during calendar year 2015.  In addition, FPL seeks permission to issue and sell short-term securities during calendar years 2015 and 2016 in an amount or amounts such that the aggregate principal amount of short-term securities outstanding at the time of and including any such sale shall not exceed $4.0 billion.

In connection with this application, FPL confirms that the capital raised pursuant to the application will be used in connection with the activities of FPL and FPL's regulated subsidiaries and not the unregulated activities of FPL or its unregulated subsidiary or affiliates.

Staff has reviewed the Company’s projected capital expenditures.  The amount requested by the Company exceeds its expected capital expenditures.  The additional amount requested exceeding the projected capital expenditures allows for financial flexibility with regards to unexpected events such as hurricanes, financial market disruptions and other unforeseen circumstances.  Staff believes the requested amounts are appropriate.  Staff recommends FPL’s petition to issue securities be approved.

 

                                    B)  Docket No. 140163-EI - Tampa Electric Company (Tampa Electric or Company) seeks the authority to issue, sell and/or exchange equity securities and issue, sell, exchange and/or assume long-term or short-term debt securities and/or to assume liabilities or obligations as guarantor, endorser, or surety during calendar year 2015. The Company also seeks authority to enter into interest rate swaps or other derivative instruments related to debt securities during calendar year 2015.

The amount of all equity and long-term debt securities issued, sold, exchanged or assumed and liabilities and obligations assumed or guaranteed as guarantor, endorser, or surety will not exceed in the aggregate $1.5 billion during calendar year 2015, including any amounts issued to retire existing long-term debt securities. The maximum amount of short-term debt outstanding at any one time will be $1.0 billion during calendar year 2015. This application is for both Tampa Electric and its local gas distribution division, Peoples Gas System.  In connection with this application, the Company confirms that the capital raised pursuant to this application will be used in connection with the activities of the Company’s regulated electric and gas divisions and not the unregulated activities of the utilities or their affiliates.

Staff has reviewed the Company’s projected capital expenditures.  The amount requested by the Company exceeds its expected capital expenditures.  The additional amount requested exceeding the projected capital expenditures allows for financial flexibility with regards to unexpected events such as hurricanes, financial market disruptions, and other unforeseen circumstances.  Staff believes the requested amounts are appropriate.  Staff recommends Tampa Electric’s petition to issue securities be approved.

 

                                    C)  Docket No. 140165-EI – Application by Gulf Power Company (Gulf Power or Company) for authority to receive equity funds from and/or to issue common equity securities to its parent company, Southern Company (Southern); issue and sell long-term debt and equity securities; and issue and sell short-term debt securities during 2015.  The amount of common equity contributions received from and issued to Southern, the amount of other equity securities issued, and the maximum principal amount of long-term debt securities issued will total not more than $700 million.  The maximum principal amount of short-term debt at any one time will total not more than $450 million.

In connection with this application, Gulf Power confirms that the capital raised pursuant to this application will be used in connection with the regulated electric operations of Gulf Power and not the unregulated activities of the utility or its affiliates.

Staff has reviewed the Company’s projected capital expenditures.  The amount requested by the Company exceeds its expected capital expenditures.  The additional amount requested exceeding the projected capital expenditures allows for financial flexibility with regards to unexpected events such as hurricanes, financial market disruptions and other unforeseen circumstances.  Staff believes the requested amounts are appropriate.  Staff recommends Gulf Power’s petition to issue securities be approved.

 

                                    D)  Docket No. 140169-EI - Application of Duke Energy Florida, Inc. (DEF or Company) for authority to issue, sell or otherwise incur during 2015 up to $1.5 billion of any combination of equity securities, long-term debt securities and other long-term obligations.

Additionally, the Company requests authority to issue, sell, or otherwise incur during 2015 and 2016 up to $1.5 billion outstanding at any time of short-term debt securities and other obligations. In connection with this application, DEF confirms that the capital raised pursuant to this application will be used in connection with the activities of DEF and not the unregulated activities of its unregulated subsidiaries or affiliates.

Staff has reviewed the Company’s projected capital expenditures.  The amount requested by the Company exceeds its expected capital expenditures.  The additional amount requested exceeding the projected capital expenditures allows for financial flexibility with regards to unexpected events such as hurricanes, financial market disruptions, and other unforeseen circumstances.  Staff believes the requested amounts are appropriate.  Staff recommends DEF’s  petition to issue securities be approved.

 

Recommendation:  For monitoring purposes, these dockets should remain open until April 29, 2016, to allow the Companies time to file the required Consummation Reports.

 


   2                               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):

Current contract with AT&T expires on May 31, 2015.

Commissioners Assigned:

All Commissioners

Prehearing Officer:

Administrative

Staff:

TEL:    Williams

GCL:   Page

 

(Participation is Limited to Commissioners and Staff.)

Issue 1:

 Should the Commission select Sprint as the relay service provider and direct the Commission's Executive Director or designee to: (1) issue the letter of intent (Attachment A of staff’s memorandum dated September 22, 2014); (2) provide notice on the Florida Department of Management Services Vendor Bid System of the Commission's decision to award a three-year contract to Sprint to be the provider of the statewide telecommunications relay service in Florida; and (3) finalize and sign a contract with Sprint to provide the Florida Relay Service?

Recommendation: 

 Yes, based upon the RFP evaluation process, the Commission should select Sprint as the relay service provider and direct the Commission's Executive Director or designee to: (1) issue the letter of intent (Attachment A of staff’s memorandum dated September 22, 2014); (2) provide notice on the Florida Department of Management Services Vendor Bid System of the Commission's decision to award a three-year contract to Sprint to be the provider of the statewide telecommunications relay service in Florida; and (3) finalize and sign a contract with Sprint to provide the Florida Relay Service.

Issue 2: 

 Should the Commission approve the appointment of Mr. Rick Kottler as a TASA advisory committee member effective immediately?

Recommendation: 

 Yes, the Commission should approve the appointment of Mr. Rick Kottler as a TASA advisory committee member effective immediately.

Issue 3: 

 Should this docket be closed?

Recommendation: 

 No.  This docket should remain open for the life of the contract.

 

 


   3**                           Docket No. 140124-PU – Amendment of Rule 25-6.014, F.A.C., Records and Reports in General, Rule 25-6.015, F.A.C., Location and Preservation of Records, Rule 25-7.014, F.A.C., Records and Reports in General, Rule 25-7.015. F.A.C., Location and Preservation of Records, and Rule 25-7.0461, F.A.C., Capitalization Versus Expensing.

Rule Status:

Proposed

Commissioners Assigned:

All Commissioners

Prehearing Officer:

Brown

Staff:

GCL:   Page

AFD:   Bulecza-Banks

APA:   Mailhot

ECO:   Rome

 

Issue 1: 

 Should the Commission propose the amendment of Rule 25-6.014, F.A.C., Records and Reports in General, Rule 25-6.015, F.A.C., Location and Preservation of Records, Rule 25-7.014, F.A.C., Records and Reports in General, Rule 25-7.015, F.A.C., Location and Preservation of Records, and Rule 25-7.0461, F.A.C., Capitalization Versus Expensing?

Recommendation: 

 Yes, the Commission should propose the amendment of Rules 25-6.014, 25-6.015, 25-7.014, 25-7.015, and 25-7.0461, F.A.C., as set forth in Attachment A of staff’s memorandum dated September 22, 2014. 

Issue 2: 

 Should this docket be closed?

Recommendation: 

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

 

 


   4**                           Docket No. 140141-TP – Proposed repeal of Rules 25-4.002, 25-24.505, 25-24.514, 25-24.555, and 25-24.560, F.A.C., and amendment of Rules 25-4.003, and 25-22.061, F.A.C.

Rule Status:

Adoption

Commissioners Assigned:

All Commissioners

Prehearing Officer:

Balbis

Staff:

GCL:   Cowdery

ECO:   Rome

TEL:    Casey, Salak

 

(Issue 1 may not be deferred because of the 90-day time limit of Section 120.54(3)(e)2., F.S., which runs Nov. 11, 2014.)

Issue 1: 

 Should the Commission adopt changes to proposed Rule 25-4.003, F.A.C., to address JAPC’s comments?

Recommendation: 

 Yes, the Commission should adopt proposed Rule 25-4.003, F.A.C., with changes, as set forth in Attachment A of staff’s memorandum dated September 22, 2014. 

Issue 2: 

 Should this docket be closed?

Recommendation: 

  Yes.  A Notice of Change should be published in the Florida Administrative Register for proposed Rule 25-4.003, F.A.C.  After the Notice of Change is published, proposed Rule 25-4.003, F.A.C., may be filed for adoption with the Secretary of State and the docket should be closed.

 

 


   5                               Docket No. 140147-WS – Application for staff-assisted rate case in Sumter County by Jumper Creek Utility Company.

Critical Date(s):

None

Commissioners Assigned:

All Commissioners

Prehearing Officer:

Edgar

Staff:

AFD:   Vogel, Mouring

ECO:   Thompson, Hudson

ENG:   Watts, King

GCL:   Tan

 

(Decision on Interim Rates - Participation is at the Discretion of the Commission.)

Issue 1: 

 Should any interim revenue increases be approved?

Recommendation: 

 Yes, Jumper Creek should be authorized to collect annual revenues as indicated below: 

 

Adjusted Test

Year Revenues

 

$ Increase

Revenue

Requirement

 

% Increase

Water

$13,078

$10,942

$24,020

83.67%

Wastewater

$18,624

$374

$18,998

2.01%

 

Issue 2: 

What are the appropriate interim water and wastewater rates?

Recommendation: 

 The existing service rates for Jumper Creek should be increased by 93.16 percent for water and 2.01 percent for wastewater to generate the recommended revenue increase for the interim period. The rates, as shown on Schedule Nos. 4-A and  4-B of staff’s memorandum dated September 22, 2014, should be effective for service rendered 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 Utility should file revised tariff sheets and a proposed customer notice to reflect the Commission-approved rates.  In addition, the approved rates should not be implemented until the required security has been filed, 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 3: 

 What is the appropriate security to guarantee the interim increase?

Recommendation: 

 The Utility should be required to open an escrow account or secure a surety bond or letter of credit to guarantee any potential refund of revenues collected under interim conditions.  If the security provided is an escrow account, the Utility should deposit $944 into the escrow account each month.  Otherwise, the surety bond or letter of credit should be in the amount of $7,546.  Pursuant to Rule 25-30.360(6), F.A.C., the Utility should provide a report by the 20th of each month indicating the monthly and total revenue collected subject to refund.  Should a refund be required, the refund should be with interest and in accordance with Rule 25-30.360, F.A.C. 

Issue 4: 

 Should this docket be closed?

Recommendation: 

 No.   The docket should remain open pending the Commission’s final action on the Utility’s requested rate increase.

 

 


   6**PAA                   Docket No. 140082-EI – Petition for change to requirements of Order No. PSC-06-0144-PAA-EI regarding pole inspection and load assessment, by Florida Power & Light Company.

Critical Date(s):

None

Commissioners Assigned:

All Commissioners

Prehearing Officer:

Administrative

Staff:

ENG:   P. Buys

GCL:   Young

 

Issue 1: 

 Should FPL be granted authority to deviate from the excavation requirements of Order No. PSC-08-0615-PAA-EI for chromium copper arsenate (CCA) wood poles less than 28 years old?

Recommendation: 

 Yes.  Based upon updated data, the failure rate (0.08 percent) for CCA wood poles less than 28 years old is the same as the failure rate the Commission relied upon in Order No. PSC-08-0615-PAA-EI.  Consistent with Order No. PSC-08-0615-PAA-EI, FPL will continue to sound and selectively bore all CCA poles and perform sampling excavation of CCA poles less than 28 years of age.  The results of the sampling will be included in FPL’s annual distribution reliability reports.  As such, reliability of FPL’s system should not be compromised and FPL projects annual savings of $1.0 million. 

Issue 2: 

 Should FPL be granted authority to deviate from performing strength impact (load) assessments as required by Order No. PSC-06-0144-PAA-EI during the second eight-year pole inspection cycle with regards to any pole that had a load assessment of less than 80 percent of full load during the first eight-year cycle?

Recommendation: 

 Yes.  Based upon updated data, the probability of a pole failing a load assessment test during the second eight-year inspection cycle is projected to be 0.07 percent for poles that have a load assessment of 80 percent of full load during the first eight-year cycle.  This failure rate is less than the failure rate the Commission relied upon in Order No. PSC-08-0615-PAA-EI and FPL has processes and procedures to address modification to poles during the second eight-year inspection cycle.  As such, reliability of FPL’s system should not be compromised and FPL projects annual savings of $528,000. 

Issue 3: 

 Should this docket be closed?

Recommendation: 

 Yes.  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. 

 

 


   7                               Docket No. 140110-EI – Petition for determination of need for Citrus County Combined Cycle Power Plant, by Duke Energy Florida, Inc.
Docket No. 140111-EI – Petition for determination of cost effective generation alternative to meet need prior to 2018, by Duke Energy Florida, Inc.

Critical Date(s):

October 2, 2014 - For Docket No. 140110-EI the Commission must render a decision within 135 days of filing, per Section 403.519(4), Florida Statutes.

Commissioners Assigned:

All Commissioners

Prehearing Officer:

Brisé

Staff:

ENG:   Graves, Mtenga, Woodbery

AFD:   Cicchetti, Lester, Mouring

ECO:   Higgins, McNulty, Ortega, Wu

GCL:   Lawson

IDM:   B. Crawford

 

(Post Hearing Decision - Participation is Limited to Commissioners and Staff.)

Issue 1: 

 Is the proposed Citrus County Plant needed, taking into account the need for electric system reliability and integrity?

Recommendation: 

 Yes.  There is no record evidence to indicate that the recession of 2008-2009 has fundamentally altered DEF’s expected forecast result for 2018 demand in a manner that casts doubt of the reasonableness of the forecast.  Staff recommends the Commission find the results of DEF’s load forecast presented in this docket as reasonable for the purposes of determining the need for DEF’s proposed Citrus County Plant in 2018.  Based on the evidence in the record, if DEF did not construct the proposed Citrus County Plant in 2018, the projected reserve margin could drop as low as 12.3 percent in 2018. 

Issue 2: 

 Is the proposed Citrus County Plant needed, taking into account the need for adequate electricity at a reasonable cost?

Recommendation: 

 Yes.  Staff recommends that DEF’s assumptions and forecasts in its analysis of the proposed Citrus County Plant are reasonable for evaluation purposes. 

Issue 3: 

 Is the proposed Citrus County Plant needed, taking into account the need for fuel diversity and supply reliability?

Recommendation: 

 Yes.  Staff recommends that DEF’s selection of the proposed Sabal Trail pipeline to serve the Citrus County Plant can reduce fuel cost volatility and provide fuel supply reliability.  Furthermore, the supply reliability benefits associated with the Sabal Trail agreement and the Company’s existing fleet of dual fuel combined cycle power plants supports the Company’s decision to operate the proposed Citrus County Plant on a single fuel source. 

 

Issue 4: 

 Are there any renewable energy sources and technologies or conservation measures taken by or reasonably available to Duke Energy Florida that might mitigate the need for the proposed Citrus County Plant?

Recommendation: 

 No.  Staff recommends that DEF’s Integrated Resource Planning (IRP) process used to determine its resource needs fully takes into account all projected Demand-Side Management (DSM) benefits based on its existing Commission-approved programs.  DEF’s ongoing Request for Renewables (RFR) and open-ended 2018 request for proposals did not identify any renewable resources that could possibly mitigate DEF’s capacity needs in 2018. 

Issue 5: 

 Is the proposed Citrus County Plant the most cost-effective alternative available to meet the needs of Duke Energy Florida and its customers?

Recommendation: 

 Yes.  Staff recommends that DEF’s analysis of multiple scenarios, including delaying the in-service date of the project, indicate a high likelihood that the proposed project will result in savings for DEF’s customers.  Based on DEF’s analysis the proposed project will result in a savings of $477 to $1,218 million when compared to alternatives received through the Company’s RFP. 

Issue 6: 

 Did Duke Energy Florida reasonably evaluate all alternative scenarios for cost effectively meeting the needs of its customers over the relevant planning horizon?

Recommendation: 

 Yes.  Staff recommends that DEF’s RFP process, including oversight by an independent monitor, was sufficient to ensure a reasonable evaluation of alternative scenarios. 

Issue 7: 

 Based on the resolution of the foregoing issues, should the Commission grant the requested determination of need for the proposed Citrus County Plant?

Recommendation: 

 Yes. Staff recommends that the Commission grant the requested determination of need as the proposed Citrus County Plant represents the optimal resource option to meet the Company’s projected need in 2018.

Issue 8: 

 Should this docket be closed?

Recommendation: 

 Yes.  The docket should be closed after the time for filing an appeal has run. 

Docket No. 140111-EI

Issue A: 

 Does the Commission have jurisdiction in this docket to grant Duke’s request for a determination that the proposed Suwannee Simple Cycle Project and Hines Chillers Power Uprate Project are the most cost-effective generation alternatives to meet Duke’s needs prior to 2018?    

Recommendation: 

 Yes, under Chapter 366, F.S., the Commission has jurisdiction to grant or deny DEF’s petition for a determination of need that the proposed Hines Chillers Power Uprate Project is a cost-effective generation alternative to meet DEF’s needs prior to 2018. 

Issue 9: 

 Is the Hines Chillers Power Uprate Project needed, taking into account the need for electric system reliability and integrity?

Recommendation: 

 Yes. If DEF did not construct the proposed Hines Project in 2017, the projected reserve margin could fall below 19 percent.  Although, the need is relatively small, the record demonstrates that the addition of the Hines Project is cost-effective even when the capacity of the project was not required to meet the reserve margin. 

Issue 10: 

 Is the Hines Chillers Power Uprate Project needed, taking into account the need for adequate electricity at a reasonable cost?

Recommendation: 

 Yes.  Staff recommends that DEF’s assumptions and forecasts in its analysis of the proposed Hines Project are reasonable for evaluation purposes. 

Issue 11: 

 Is the Hines Chillers Power Uprate Project needed, taking into account the need for fuel diversity and supply reliability?

Recommendation: 

 Yes.  Staff recommends that the Hines Project will increase the overall efficiency of DEF’s generation fleet.  Staff recommends that the increased efficiency will reduce fuel costs and will provide benefits with respect to mitigating the impacts of fuel cost volatility.  

Issue 12: 

 Are there any renewable energy sources and technologies or conservation measures taken by or reasonably available to Duke Energy Florida, Inc. that might mitigate the need for the Hines Chillers Power Uprate Project?

Recommendation: 

 No.  Staff recommends that DEF’s IRP process used to determine its resource needs, fully takes into account all projected DSM benefits based on its existing Commission-approved programs.  DEF’s ongoing RFR did not identify any renewable resources that could possibly mitigate DEF’s capacity prior to 2018.

 

Issue 13: 

 Is the Hines Chillers Power Uprate Project in 2017 the most cost-effective alternatives available to meet the needs of Duke Energy Florida, Inc. and its customers?

Recommendation: 

 Yes.  Staff recommends that the proposed Hines Project is the most cost-effective option for DEF to satisfy part of its need prior to 2018.  Staff recommends that DEF’s analysis of multiple scenarios indicate a high likelihood that the proposed project will result in savings for DEF’s customers.  Based on DEF’s analysis, the Hines Project could provide a savings of $90 to $140 million.  

Issue 14: 

 Did Duke Energy Florida, Inc. reasonably evaluate all alternative scenarios for cost effectively meeting the needs of its customers over the relevant planning horizon?

Recommendation: 

 Yes.  Staff recommends that DEF used reasonable assumptions in its evaluation that determined that the Hines Project will result in savings to customers. 

Issue 15: 

 Based on the resolution of the foregoing issues, should the Commission grant the requested determination that the proposed Hines Project is the most cost-effective generation alternative to meet Duke’s needs prior to 2018?

Recommendation: 

 Yes.  Staff recommends that the Commission grant DEF’s petition as the proposed Hines Project represents the optimal resource option to meet the Company’s projected need prior to 2018. 

Issue 16: 

 Should this docket be closed?

Recommendation: 

 Yes.  The docket should be closed after the time for filing an appeal has run. 

 

 


   8                               Docket No. 140060-WS – Application for increase in water and wastewater rates in Seminole County by Sanlando Utilities Corporation.

Critical Date(s):

60-Day Suspension Waived Through 10/02/14

Commissioners Assigned:

All Commissioners

Prehearing Officer:

Balbis

Staff:

ENG:   Graves, Hill, Rieger

AFD:   Brown, Frank, Springer, D. Buys

ECO:   Thompson

GCL:   Young

 

(Decision on Suspension of Rates and Interim Rates - Participation is at the Discretion of the Commission.)

Issue 1: 

 Should the Utility’s proposed final water and wastewater rates be suspended?

Recommendation: 

 Yes.  Sanlando’s proposed final water and wastewater rates should be suspended. 

Issue 2: 

 Should any interim revenue increases be approved?

Recommendation: 

 Yes.  Sanlando has demonstrated the need for an interim rate increase for the water system. Sanlando should be authorized to collect annual water and wastewater revenues as indicated below:

 

Adjusted Test

Year Revenues

$ Increase

Revenue

Requirement

% Increase

Water

$4,168,292

$102,527

$4,270,819

2.46%

Wastewater

$3,935,620

$0

$3,935,620

 0%

 

Issue 3: 

 What are the appropriate interim water and wastewater rates?

Recommendation:  The existing service rates for Sanlando should be increased by 2.48 percent for water to generate the recommended revenue increase for the interim period. The rates, as shown on Schedule No. 4-A of staff’s memorandum dated September 22, 2014, should be effective for service rendered on or after the stamped approval date on the tariff sheets, pursuant to Rule 25-30.475(1), F.A.C.  The Utility should file revised tariff sheets and a proposed customer notice to reflect the Commission-approved rates.  In addition, the approved rates should not be implemented until the required security has been filed, 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 4: 

What is the appropriate security to guarantee the interim increase?

Recommendation:  A cumulative corporate undertaking is acceptable contingent upon receipt of the written guarantee of the parent company, Utilities, Inc. (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).  UI should be required to file a corporate undertaking on behalf of its subsidiaries to guarantee any potential refunds of revenues collected under interim conditions.  UI’s total guarantee should be a cumulative amount of $109,441, which includes an amount of $59,819 subject to refund in this docket.  Pursuant to Rule 25-30.360(6), F.A.C., the Utility should provide a report by the 20th of each month indicating the monthly and total revenue collected subject to refund.  Should a refund be required, the refund should be with interest and in accordance with Rule 25-30.360, F.A.C. 

Issue 5: 

 Should this docket be closed?

Recommendation: 

No.  The docket should remain open pending the Commission’s PAA decision on the Utility’s requested rate increase. 

 

 


   9**PAA                   Docket No. 140137-EI – Petition for approval of modifications to tariff sheet Nos. 9.100 through 9.330 and tariff sheet Nos. 9.700 through 9.709 as-available purchase tariff and interconnection agreement, by Duke Energy Florida, Inc.

Critical Date(s):

None

Commissioners Assigned:

All Commissioners

Prehearing Officer:

Administrative

Staff:

ECO:   Ollila, Draper

ENG:   Matthews, Mtenga

GCL:   Brownless

 

Issue 1: 

 Should the Commission approve DEF's proposed modifications to its as-available purchase tariff and interconnection agreement?

Recommendation: 

 Yes.  The Commission should approve DEF’s proposed modifications to its as-available purchase tariff and interconnection agreement. 

Issue 2: 

 Should this docket be closed?

Recommendation: 

 Yes.  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. 

 

 


10**                           Docket No. 140166-GU – Joint petition for approval of Gas Reliability Infrastructure Program (GRIP) by Florida Public Utilities Company and the Florida Division of Chesapeake Utilities Corporation.

Critical Date(s):

10/27/14 (60-Day Suspension Date)

Commissioners Assigned:

All Commissioners

Prehearing Officer:

Administrative

Staff:

ECO:   Ollila

GCL:   Young

 

Issue 1: 

 Should the proposed tariffs associated with the GRIP program 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. 

 

 


11**                           Docket No. 140151-GU – Petition for approval to close firm transportation service - 13 rate schedule, by Florida Division of Chesapeake Utilities Corporation.

Critical Date(s):

10/12/14 (60-Day Suspension Date)

Commissioners Assigned:

All Commissioners

Prehearing Officer:

Edgar

Staff:

ECO:   Garl

GCL:   Mapp

 

Issue 1: 

 Should the Commission approve Chesapeake’s proposal to close rate schedule FTS-13 to new customers?

Recommendation: 

 Yes.  Staff recommends approval of Chesapeake’s proposal to close rate schedule FTS-13 to new customers.  The proposed tariff should become effective on October 2, 2014. 

Issue 2: 

 Should this docket be closed?

Recommendation: 

 Yes. If Issue 1 is approved, and a protest is filed within 21 days of the issuance of the order, the tariff should remain in effect, with any increase in revenue collected held subject to refund, pending resolution of the protest.  If no timely protest is filed, this docket should be closed upon the issuance of a consummating order. 

 

 


12**PAA                   Docket No. 130265-WU – Application for staff-assisted rate case in Charlotte County by Little Gasparilla Water Utility, Inc.

Critical Date(s):

04/03/2015 (15-Month Effective Date (SARC))

Commissioners Assigned:

All Commissioners

Prehearing Officer:

Edgar

Staff:

ECO:   Bruce, Daniel, Hudson

AFD:   Golden, Mouring, Vogel

ENG:   P. Buys, King, Lewis, Vickery

GCL:   Murphy

 

(Proposed Agency Action - Except Issue Nos. 9 and 13.)

Issue 1: 

 Is the quality of service provided by Little Gasparilla satisfactory?

Recommendation: 

 No.  Staff recommends the Commission find that the current quality of service is marginal.  While the Utility is currently meeting all applicable primary standards as prescribed in DEP’s rules, it has one secondary standard, Chloride, that exceeds acceptable levels and the Utility has not corrected the deficiencies identified in the last two DEP Sanitary Survey Reports.  However, the Utility is taking a proactive approach to mitigate these issues and the quality of water by proposing an interconnection with Charlotte County.  Therefore, staff does not recommend a reduction in the return on equity (ROE) or any other follow-up measures due to the Utility’s proactive action to improve and maintain the quality of service for the existing customers of Little Gasparilla. 

Issue 2: 

 What are the used and useful percentages (U&U) of the subaqueous interconnection pipeline and the water distribution system?

Recommendation: 

 Staff is not recommending U&U percentages for Little Gasparilla’s water treatment plant and storage facilities due to the fact that these assets will be retired as a result of the pending interconnection with Charlotte County.  Little Gasparilla’s subaqueous interconnection pipeline should be considered 100 percent U&U and the water distribution system should be considered 57 percent.  Staff recommends that a seven percent adjustment to purchased power, chemicals, and purchased water should be made for excessive unaccounted for water (EUW).

Issue 3: 

 What is the appropriate average test year rate base for Little Gasparilla?

Recommendation: 

 The appropriate average test year rate base for Little Gasparilla is $538,123.  The Utility should be required to submit a copy of the final invoices and cancelled checks for the pro forma subaqueous pipeline and interconnection project prior to implementing the Phase I rates. 

Issue 4: 

 What are the appropriate return on equity and overall rate of return for Little Gasparilla?

Recommendation: 

 The appropriate return on equity (ROE) is 11.16 percent with a range of 10.16 percent to 12.16 percent.  The appropriate overall rate of return is 6.28 percent. 

Issue 5: 

 What is the appropriate amount of test year revenues?

Recommendation: 

  The appropriate amount of test year revenues for Little Gasparilla’s water system is $264,149. 

Issue 6: 

 What is the appropriate amount of operating expenses?

Recommendation: 

 The appropriate amount of operating expenses for the Utility is $297,602.  The Utility should be required to provide proof that the SEP has been established and that contributions to the fund have begun prior to implementation of the Phase II rates. 

Issue 7: 

 What is the appropriate Phase I revenue requirement?

Recommendation: 

 The appropriate Phase I revenue requirement is $331,416, resulting in an annual increase of $67,267 (25.47 percent). 

Issue 8: 

 What are the appropriate rate structure and rates for Little Gasparilla?

Recommendation: 

 Staff recommends no change to water rate structure.  Staff recommends that the water rates for Little Gasparilla be increased by 25.56 percent.  The recommended monthly water rates shown on Schedule No. 4 of staff’s memorandum dated September 22, 2014 should continue to be billed on a quarterly basis.  The Utility should file revised tariff sheets and a proposed customer notice to reflect the Commission-approved rates.   The Utility should be allowed to implement the Phase I rates once all pro forma items have been completed and documentation provided showing that the improvements have been made.  Once verified, the 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.  The rates should not be implemented until notice has been received by the customers.  Little Gasparilla should provide proof of the date notice was given within 10 days of the date of the notice.  If the Utility encounters any unforeseen events that will impede the completion of the pro forma items, the Utility should immediately notify the Commission in writing. 

Issue 9: 

 What is the appropriate amount by which rates should be reduced 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 rates should be reduced as shown on Schedule No. 4 of staff’s memorandum dated September 22, 2014, to remove rate case expense grossed up for RAFs 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.  The Utility 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 Little Gasparilla 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 10: 

 Should the Commission approve a Phase II increase for pro forma items for Little Gasparilla?

Recommendation: 

 Yes. The Commission should approve a Phase II revenue requirement associated with pro forma items.  The Utility’s Phase II revenue requirement is $375,832 which equates to a 13.40 percent increase over the Phase I revenue requirement.  Staff recommends that the increase be applied as an across-the-board increase to the Phase I.

Implementation of the Phase II rates are conditioned upon Little Gasparilla completing the pro forma items within 12 months of the issuance of the consummating order.  The Utility should be required to submit a copy of the final invoices and cancelled checks for all pro forma plant items.  The Utility should be allowed to implement the above rates once all pro forma items have been completed and documentation provided showing that the improvements have been made related to the items discussed in Issue 10, and documentation has been provided related to the SEP Plan discussed in Issue 6.  Once verified, the 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.  The rates should not be implemented until notice has been received by the customers.  Little Gasparilla should provide proof of the date notice was given within 10 days of the date of the notice.  If the Utility encounters any unforeseen events that will impede the completion of the pro forma items, the Utility should immediately notify the Commission in writing. 

Issue 11: 

 What is the appropriate initial customer deposit for Little Gasparilla?

Recommendation: 

 The appropriate initial customer deposit should be $150 for the residential 5/8” x 3/4" meter size.  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.  The Utility should file revised tariff sheets consistent with the Commission’s vote.  The initial customer deposits should become effective for connections made on or after the stamped approval date of the revised tariff sheets. 

Issue 12: 

 Should Little Gasparilla’s existing service availability charges be revised, and if so, what are the appropriate charges?

Recommendation: 

 Yes.  Staff recommends that Little Gasparilla’s existing service availability charges be revised.  A meter installation charge of $577 for a 5/8” x 3/4” meter, a tap-in charge of $239 per ERC, and a main extension charge of $1,550 per ERC should be approved.  In addition, the Utility should be authorized to collect the system development charges required by Charlotte County for all new connections after the interconnection.  The approved service availability charges should be effective for service rendered on or after the stamped approval date of the tariff, pursuant to Rule 25-30.475, F.A.C. 

Issue 13: 

 Should the recommended rates be approved for Little Gasparilla on a temporary basis, subject to refund, in the event of a protest filed by a party other than the Utility?

Recommendation: 

 Yes.  Pursuant to Section 367.0814(7), F.S., the recommended rates for Phase I should be approved for the Utility on a temporary basis, subject to refund, in the event of a protest filed by a party other than the Utility.  Little Gasparilla 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.  If the recommended 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 September 22, 2014.  In addition, after the increased rates are in effect, pursuant to Rule 25-30.360(6), F.A.C., the Utility should file reports with the Commission Clerk’s office 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 Little Gasparilla be required to provide proof, within 90 days of an effective order finalizing this docket, that it has adjusted all applicable NARUC USOA primary accounts to reflect the Commission-approved adjustments?

Recommendation: 

 Yes.  To ensure that the Utility adjusts its books in accordance with the Commission’s decision, Little Gasparilla 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 outstanding Phase I pro forma items have been completed, the revised tariff sheets and customer notice have been filed by the Utility and approved by staff, and the Utility has provided staff with proof that the adjustments for all the applicable NARUC USOA primary accounts have been made.  Also, the docket should remain open to allow staff to verify that the SEP has been established and contributions have begun, Phase II pro forma items have been completed, and the Phase II rates properly implemented.  Once these actions are complete, this docket should be closed administratively. 

 

 


13**                           Docket No. 140157-WS – Request to establish initial customer deposits in Highlands County by Country Club Utilities, Inc.

Critical Date(s):

10/13/14 (60-Day Suspension Date)

Commissioners Assigned:

All Commissioners

Prehearing Officer:

Administrative

Staff:

ECO:   Bruce

GCL:   Mapp

 

Issue 1: 

 What are the appropriate initial customer deposits for Country Club?

Recommendation: 

 Staff recommends that the initial customer deposits shown on Schedule No. 1 of staff’s memorandum dated September 22, 2014 be approved.  The Utility should file revised tariff sheets consistent with the Commission’s vote.  The initial customer deposits should become effective for connections made on or after the stamped approval date of the revised tariff sheets.

Issue 2: 

 Should this docket be closed?

Recommendation: 

 No.  If no protest is filed by a person whose interest are substantially affected within 21 days of the issuance of the Order, the Tariff Order will become final upon the issuance of a Consummating Order and the docket should be closed.  If a protest is filed within 21 days of the issuance of the Order, the tariff should remain in effect subject to refund pending the resolution of the protest, and the docket should remain open.