FLORIDA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION

COMMISSION CONFERENCE AGENDA

CONFERENCE DATE AND TIME:  Tuesday, November 25, 2014, 9:30 a.m.

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

DATE ISSUED:  November 14, 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. 140001-EI – Fuel and purchased power cost recovery clause with generating performance incentive factor. 3

3..................... Docket No. 140001-EI – Fuel and purchased power cost recovery clause with generating performance incentive factor. 4

4**PAA......... Docket No. 130272-WU – Request to remove the fines imposed for the delay of filing annual reports for Cedar Acres, Inc. 5

5**PAA......... Docket No. 140197-EI – Petition for approval of base rate adjustment for extended power uprate project by Florida Power & Light Company. 6

6**PAA......... Docket No. 120285-SU – Application to transfer wastewater facilities and Certificate No. 137-S in Brevard County from Colony Park Utilities, Inc. to Colony Park Development Utilities, LLC. 7

7**PAA......... Docket No. 140057-EI – Petition for approval of 2014 nuclear decommissioning study, by Duke Energy Florida, Inc. 9

8**................. 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. 11

9**PAA......... Docket No. 140016-GU – 2014 depreciation study by Florida Public Utilities Company. 12

10**PAA....... Docket No. 140106-SU – Application for limited proceeding rate increase in Polk County by West Lakeland Wastewater, Inc. 13

11................... Docket No. 140186-WU – Application for staff-assisted rate case in Brevard County by Brevard Waterworks, Inc. 15

12**............... Docket No. 140171-WU – Request for approval of water rate tariff for a revision in customer billing from quarterly billing to monthly billing by W.B.B. Utilities, Inc. in Lake County. 17

13**PAA....... Docket No. 140179-EU – Joint petition for approval of amendment to territorial agreement between the City of Tallahassee and Talquin Electric Cooperative, Inc. 18

14**............... Docket No. 140183-GU – Petition for approval of Cast Iron/Bare Steel Pipe Replacement Rider (Rider CI/BSR), by Peoples Gas System. 19

15**............... Docket No. 140184-EI – Petition for approval of revised facilities rental agreement by Tampa Electric Company. 20

16................... Docket No. 140158-WS – Application for increase in water/wastewater rates in Highlands County by HC Waterworks, Inc. 21

17**PAA....... Docket No. 130194-WS – Application for staff-assisted rate case in Lake County by Lakeside Waterworks, Inc. 22

18................... Docket No. 130199-EI – Commission review of numeric conservation goals (Florida Power & Light Company).
Docket No. 130200-EI – Commission review of numeric conservation goals (Duke Energy Florida, Inc.).
Docket No. 130201-EI – Commission review of numeric conservation goals (Tampa Electric Company).
Docket No. 130202-EI – Commission review of numeric conservation goals (Gulf Power Company).
Docket No. 130203-EM – Commission review of numeric conservation goals (JEA).
Docket No. 130204-EM – Commission review of numeric conservation goals (Orlando Utilities Commission).
Docket No. 130205-EI – Commission review of numeric conservation goals (Florida Public Utilities Company). 27

19**PAA....... Docket No. 140122-EI – Petition to modify transmission structure inspection cycle, by Tampa Electric Company. 32

20................... Docket No. 140135-WS – Application for increase in water/wastewater rates in Pasco County by Labrador Utilities, Inc. 33

21**PAA....... Docket No. 140120-WU – Application for approval of transfer of Certificate No. 339-W from Brendenwood Utilities, LLC. to Brendenwood Waterworks, Inc. in Lake County. 35

22**PAA....... Docket No. 140121-WU – Application for approval of transfer of Certificate No. 539-W from Raintree Harbor Utilities, LLC to Raintree Waterworks, Inc. in Lake County. 36

23................... Docket No. 140142-EM – Petition for declaratory statement or other relief regarding the expiration of the Vero Beach electric service franchise agreement, by the Board of County Commissioners, Indian River County, Florida. 37

24**............... 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. 39

 


   1**                           Consent Agenda

PAA                            A)  Applications for Certificates of Authority to Provide Telecommunications Service.

DOCKET NO.

COMPANY NAME

140152‑TX

Integrated Path Communications, LLC

140191‑TX

GC Pivotal, LLC d/b/a Global Capacity

 

PAA                            B)  Request for Approval of Transfer of a Certificate of Necessity or Authority.

DOCKET NO.

COMPANY NAME

140161‑TX

VoDa Networks, Inc.

 

PAA                            C)  Application for Certificate of Authority to Provide Telecommunications Service.

DOCKET NO.

COMPANY NAME

140181‑TX

Talk America Services, LLC

 

PAA                            D)  Application for Certificate of Authority to Provide Pay Telephone Service.

DOCKET NO.

COMPANY NAME

140187‑TC

Lattice Incorporated d/b/a Lattice, Inc. of FL

 

                                    E)  Docket No. 140192-GU - Florida City Gas (Company) seeks authority to finance its on-going cash requirements through its participation and borrowings from and investments in AGL Resources Inc.'s (AGLR) Utility Money Pool during 2015.  Florida City Gas is a division of Pivotal Utility Holdings, Inc., which is a wholly-owned subsidiary of AGLR.  The maximum aggregate short-term borrowings by Pivotal Utility Holdings, Inc.'s three utilities (Elizabethtown Gas, Elkton Gas, and Florida City Gas) from the Utility Money Pool during 2015 will not exceed $800 million.  Florida City Gas states that its share of these borrowings will not exceed $250 million.

 

In connection with this application, Florida City Gas confirms that the capital raised pursuant to this application will be used in connection with the regulated natural gas operations of Florida City Gas 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 for the purposes enumerated in the Company’s petition as well as  unexpected events such as hurricanes, financial market disruptions, and other unforeseen circumstances.  Staff believes the requested amounts are appropriate.  Staff recommends the Company’s petition to issue securities be approved.

 

Recommendation:  For monitoring purposes, Docket No. 140192-GU should remain open until April 29, 2016, to allow the Company time to file the required Consummation Report.

 

The Commission should approve the action requested in Docket Nos. 140152-TX, 140191-TX, 140161-TX, 140181-TX and 140187-TC and close these dockets.

 


   2                               Docket No. 140001-EI – Fuel and purchased power cost recovery clause with generating performance incentive factor.

Critical Date(s):

None

Commissioners Assigned:

All Commissioners

Prehearing Officer:

Brown

Staff:

AFD:   Maurey

GCL:   Barrera

 

(Motion to Dismiss, Participation dependent on Issue No. 1.)

Issue 1: 

 Should oral argument on OPC’s Motion to Dismiss be granted?

Recommendation: 

 Oral argument should be granted at the Commission’s discretion. If oral argument is granted, 15 minutes for each side appears reasonable.    

Issue 2: 

 Should OPC’s motion to dismiss be granted?

Recommendation: 

 No.  The Commission has jurisdiction over the subject matter of FPL’s petition under its broad statutory authority to set rates for a public utility.  The fuel and purchased power cost recovery clause with generating performance incentive factor is a rate proceeding and FPL’s petition requests a prudence determination for its gas reserve project and a ruling that the costs are recoverable through the fuel and purchased power cost recovery clause.  The Commission does not have to assert jurisdiction over unregulated entities to rule on the merits of the petition.  The issues raised in the motion mainly address the prudence of FPL’s request and may be more appropriately presented as part of OPC’s position on the hearing issues.  

 

 


   3                               Docket No. 140001-EI – Fuel and purchased power cost recovery clause with generating performance incentive factor.

Critical Date(s):

None

Commissioners Assigned:

All Commissioners

Prehearing Officer:

Brown

Staff:

AFD:   Barrett, Lester, Mouring

ENG:   Matthews, Vickery

GCL:   Barrera, Mapp, Young

 

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

Issue 1C: 

 Has Duke made appropriate adjustments, if any are needed, to account for replacement power costs associated with April 2014 forced outage (transformer fire) at the Bartow Unit?  If appropriate adjustments are needed and have not been made, what adjustment(s) should be made?

Recommendation:  Yes.  Duke has removed approximately $12.7 million from retail fuel expense, which is the appropriate adjustment to account for replacement power costs associated with the April 2014 forced outage (transformer fire) at the Bartow unit.

 

Issue 10: 

 What are the appropriate total fuel adjustment true-up amounts to be collected/refunded from January 2015 to December 2015?

Recommendation: 

 Given the 2013 final true-up of an over-recovery of $27,234,093 and the 2014 actual/estimated true-up of an under-recovery of $100,906,296, the appropriate amount to be collected by Duke in 2015 is a net under-recovery of  $73,672,203.  Duke has correctly made the necessary adjustments and refunds pursuant to the Revised and Restated Stipulation and Settlement Agreement that the Commission approved by Order No. PSC-13-0598-FOF-EI. 

Issue 11: 

 What are the appropriate projected total fuel and purchased power cost recovery amounts for the period January 2015 through December 2015?

Recommendation: 

 The appropriate projected total fuel and purchased power cost recovery amount for Duke is $1,638,735,421.  Duke has correctly made the necessary adjustments and refunds pursuant to the Revised and Restated Stipulation and Settlement Agreement that the Commission approved by Order No. PSC-13-0598-FOF-EI. 

 

 


   4**PAA                   Docket No. 130272-WU – Request to remove the fines imposed for the delay of filing annual reports for Cedar Acres, Inc.

Critical Date(s):

None

Commissioners Assigned:

All Commissioners

Prehearing Officer:

Administrative

Staff:

AFD:   Polk, Fletcher

GCL:   Young

 

Issue 1: 

 Should the Commission approve the request to waive the fines imposed for the delay of filing annual reports for Cedar Acres, Inc.?

Recommendation: 

 Yes.  Cedar Acres’ request to waive the fines imposed for the delay of filing the Utility’s annual reports for 2008, 2009, 2010, and 2011 should be granted. 

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. 

 

 


   5**PAA                   Docket No. 140197-EI – Petition for approval of base rate adjustment for extended power uprate project by Florida Power & Light Company.

Critical Date(s):

None

Commissioners Assigned:

All Commissioners

Prehearing Officer:

Brisé

Staff:

AFD:   Fletcher

ECO:   Draper

GCL:   Young

 

Issue 1: 

 Should the Commission approve FPL's base rate revenue requirement reduction of $761,690  associated with the final true-up of the Company’s EPU project?

Recommendation: 

 Yes.  The Commission should approve FPL's base rate revenue requirement reduction of $761,690 associated with the final true-up of the Company’s EPU project. 

Issue 2: 

 What is the appropriate effective date of FPL's revised bate rates?

Recommendation: 

 If the Commission approves the staff recommendation in Issue 1, the revised base rates should be implemented with the first billing cycle for 2015, which falls on January 2, 2015.  Staff’s recommended base rate revenue requirement reduction should be allocated among the various rate classes consistent with the Cost of Service study approved by the Commission in Order No. PSC-13-0023-S-EI.[1]  Furthermore, FPL should file revised tariff sheets to reflect the revised base energy charges to implement the Commission vote in Issue 1 for administrative approval by staff prior to their effective date. 

Issue 3: 

 Should this docket be closed?

Recommendation: 

 If no person whose substantial interests are affected by the proposed agency action files a protest within 21 days of the issuance of the order, a consummating order should be issued.  FPL should file revised tariff sheets to reflect the base energy charges implemented by the Commission’s vote on Issue 1 for administrative approval by staff prior to the effective date of the new rates.  Once these actions are complete, this docket should be closed administratively.  

 

 


   6**PAA                   Docket No. 120285-SU – Application to transfer wastewater facilities and Certificate No. 137-S in Brevard County from Colony Park Utilities, Inc. to Colony Park Development Utilities, LLC.

Critical Date(s):

None

Commissioners Assigned:

All Commissioners

Prehearing Officer:

Balbis

Staff:

AFD:   Norris, Fletcher

ECO:   Hudson

ENG:   Watts

GCL:   Lawson

IDM:   Roberts

 

(Proposed Agency Action for Issue 2.)

Issue 1: 

 Should the Commission approve the transfer of Colony Park Utilities, Inc. and wastewater Certificate No. 137-S to Colony Park Development Utilities, LLC?

Recommendation: 

  Yes.  The transfer of Colony Park Utilities, Inc. (Colony Park or Utility) wastewater system and the transfer of Certificate No. 137-S to Colony Park Development Utilities, LLC (Colony Park Development or Buyer) is in the public interest and should be approved effective the date of the Commission vote.  The territory being transferred is described in Attachment A of staff’s memorandum dated November 13, 2014.  The resultant order should serve as Colony Park Development’s wastewater certificate and should be retained as such.  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.).  Colony Park Development will be responsible for annual reports and regulatory assessment fees for 2014 and all future years. 

Issue 2: 

 What is the appropriate net book value for Colony Park Development for transfer purposes, and should an acquisition adjustment be approved?

Recommendation: 

 The net book value (NBV) of Colony Park Development’s wastewater system for transfer purposes is $56,933, as of September 27, 2012.  An acquisition adjustment should not be included in rate base.  Within 30 days of the final order, Colony Park Development should be required to provide general ledgers that show its books have been updated to reflect the Commission-approved balances as of September 27, 2012, along with a statement that these adjustments will also be reflected in the Utility’s 2014 Annual Report. 

Issue 3: 

 Should Colony Park be required to show cause for why it should not be fined for an apparent violation of Section 367.071(1), F.S., for failing to obtain Commission approval prior to the transfer of its assets?

Recommendation: 

 No. Staff recommends that the Utility's apparent violation of Section 367.071(1), F.S. does not rise to the level which warrants the initiation of a show cause proceeding. Therefore, Colony Park should not be required to show cause for failing to obtain Commission approval prior to closing on the sale of its facilities. 

Issue 4: 

 Should this docket be closed?

Recommendation: 

 Yes.  If no protest to the proposed agency action issue is filed by a substantially affected person within 21 days of the date of the order, the docket should be closed administratively after Colony Park Development has provided proof that its general ledgers have been updated to reflect the Commission-approved balances net book values and balances as of September 27, 2012. 

 

 


   7**PAA                   Docket No. 140057-EI – Petition for approval of 2014 nuclear decommissioning study, by Duke Energy Florida, Inc.

Critical Date(s):

None

Commissioners Assigned:

All Commissioners

Prehearing Officer:

Balbis

Staff:

ECO:   Higgins

AFD:   Holmes, Springer, Cicchetti

GCL:   Young

 

Issue 1: 

 What is the estimated cost to decommissioning the CR3 nuclear power plant in 2013 dollars? 

Recommendation: Staff recommends the Commission find the total estimated cost to decommission the Crystal River Nuclear Power Plant in the amount of $1,180,128,000 in 2013 dollars is reasonable.  This total cost amount, inclusive of a 13.5 percent contingency allowance, is comprised of three categories of costs; license termination costs of $861,902,000, spent fuel management costs of $265,505,000, and site restoration costs of $52,721,000. 

Issue 2: 

 What is the appropriate annual accrual in equal dollar amounts necessary to recover the future decommissioning costs of the CR3 nuclear power plant for DEF?

Recommendation: 

 Staff recommends a continuation of the suspension of the accrual for nuclear decommissioning as approved by the Commission in Order Nos. PSC-02-0655-AS-EI,[2] PSC-05-0945-S-EI,[3] and PSC-12-0225-PAA-EI.[4]  Accordingly, the appropriate jurisdictional annual accrual amount necessary to recover future decommissioning costs for the CR3 nuclear unit is zero.  Additionally, staff recommends that the assumptions included in DEF’s 2014 decommissioning study to determine the annual accrual are reasonable. 

Issue 3: 

 What should be the effective dates for adjusting the annual decommissioning accrual amount?

Recommendation: 

 If the staff recommendations in Issues 1 and 2 are approved, there is no change to the current approved zero decommissioning accrual.  Therefore, an effective date for adjusting the annual decommissioning accrual is moot. 

Issue 4: When should DEF file its next nuclear decommissioning study?

Recommendation: 

 DEF’s next decommissioning cost study for CR3 should be filed no later than March 21, 2019. 

Issue 5: Should this docket be closed?

Recommendation:  Yes.  If no person whose substantial interests are affected by the Commission’s 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. 

 

 


   8**                           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):

04/27/15 (8-Month Effective Date)

Commissioners Assigned:

All Commissioners

Prehearing Officer:

Administrative

Staff:

ECO:   Ollila

GCL:   Young

 

Issue 1: 

 Should the Commission approve FPUC's and Chesapeake's proposed GRIP surcharge factors for 2015?

Recommendation: 

 Yes.  FPUC’s and Chesapeake’s calculations of the GRIP surcharge factors are reasonable and accurate. 

Issue 2: 

 Should this docket be closed?

Recommendation: 

 Yes.  If Issue 1 is approved, the tariffs should become effective on January 1, 2015.  If a protest is filed within 21 days of the issuance of the order, the tariffs should remain in effect, with any revenues 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. 

 

 


   9**PAA                   Docket No. 140016-GU – 2014 depreciation study by Florida Public Utilities Company.

Critical Date(s):

None

Commissioners Assigned:

All Commissioners

Prehearing Officer:

Brisé

Staff:

ECO:   Ollila, Higgins, Wu

AFD:   Cicchetti, Fletcher, Trueblood

GCL:   Barrera

 

Issue 1: 

 What are the appropriate depreciation rates?

Recommendation: 

 Staff’s recommended remaining lives, net salvage percentages, reserve percentages, and the resulting depreciation rates are contained in Attachment A of staff’s memorandum dated November 13, 2014.  Attachment B of staff’s memorandum shows a total annual expense of $7,197,946, which is $60,409 less than the Company proposed expense of $7,258,355. 

Issue 2: 

 What should be the implementation date for the new depreciation rates?

Recommendation: 

 Staff recommends approval of the Company’s proposed January 1, 2014 implementation date for revised depreciation rates. 

Issue 3: 

 Should the Commission approve Florida Public Utilities Company’s proposal to defer $61,851 associated with consulting fees as a regulatory asset, and to amortize the asset over a five-year period beginning January 1, 2014?

Recommendation:  No.  The Commission should approve Florida Public Utilities Company to defer $58,452 associated with consulting fees incurred by the Company in the development of the three depreciation studies that were subsequently consolidated.  The $58,452 should be recorded as a regulatory asset in Account 182.3, Other Regulatory Assets, and be amortized to Account 407.3, Regulatory Debits, over a five-year period beginning January 2014. 

Issue 4: 

 Should the current amortization of investment tax credits (ITCs) be revised to reflect the approved depreciation rates?

Recommendation: 

 Yes.  The current amortization of ITCs should be revised to match the actual recovery periods for the related property.  The Company should file detailed calculations of the revised ITC amortization at the same time it files its surveillance report covering the period ending December 31, 2014. 

Issue 5: 

 Should this docket be closed?

Recommendation: 

 Yes.  If no person whose substantial interests are affected by the Commission’s 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**PAA                   Docket No. 140106-SU – Application for limited proceeding rate increase in Polk County by West Lakeland Wastewater, Inc.

Critical Date(s):

None

Commissioners Assigned:

Brisé, Balbis, Brown

Prehearing Officer:

Balbis

Staff:

ECO:   Thompson, Daniel, Hudson

AFD:   Mouring

ENG:   King, Watts

GCL:   Barrera

 

Issue 1: 

 What is the appropriate increase in revenues for this utility?

Recommendation: 

 The appropriate revenue increase is $2,379 for wastewater. 

Issue 2: 

 What are the appropriate wastewater rates for West Lakeland?

Recommendation: 

 The appropriate monthly wastewater rates are shown on Schedule No. 1 of staff’s memorandum dated November 13, 2014.  The recommended rates should be designed to produce additional service revenues of $2,379 or a 1.98 percent increase. The percent increase should be applied as an across-the-board increase to the existing rates.  The Utility should file revised tariff sheets and a proposed customer notice to reflect the Commission-approved rates.  The approved rates should be effective for service rendered on or after the stamped approval date on the tariff sheet, pursuant to Rule 25-30.475(1), Florida Administrative Code (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 3: 

 Should the recommended rates be approved for West Lakeland on a temporary basis, subject to refund, in the event of a protest filed by a substantially affected person?

Recommendation: 

 Yes. The recommended rates should be approved for the Utility on a temporary basis, subject to refund, in the event of a protest filed by a substantially affected person.  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 November 13, 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’s 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.  Should a refund be required, the refund should be with interest and undertaken in accordance with Rule 25-30.360, F.A.C. 

Issue 4: 

 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 wastewater rates should be reduced as shown on Schedule No. 1 of staff’s memorandum dated November 13, 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.  West Lakeland 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 5: 

 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. 

 

 


11                               Docket No. 140186-WU – Application for staff-assisted rate case in Brevard County by Brevard Waterworks, Inc.

Critical Date(s):

11/28/14 (60-Day Suspension Date)

Commissioners Assigned:

All Commissioners

Prehearing Officer:

Brown

Staff:

ECO:   Thompson, Hudson

AFD:   Monroe, Norris, Holmes

ENG:   P. Buys, King

GCL:   Murphy

 

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

Issue 1: 

 Should an interim revenue increase be approved?

Recommendation: 

  Yes, Brevard Waterworks should be authorized to collect annual revenues as indicated below: 

 

 

Adjusted Test

Year O&M Expenses

Annualized Operating Revenues

$ Increase

 

% Increase

Water

$150,411

$136,788

$13,623

9.96%

 

Issue 2: 

 What are the appropriate interim water rates?

Recommendation: 

 The interim rate increase of 10.51 percent for water should be applied as an across-the-board increase to the existing rates. The rates, as shown on Schedule No. 1 of staff’s memorandum dated November 13, 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 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 $1,135 into the escrow account each month.  Otherwise, the surety bond or letter of credit should be in the amount of $9,084.  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.

 

 


12**                           Docket No. 140171-WU – Request for approval of water rate tariff for a revision in customer billing from quarterly billing to monthly billing by W.B.B. Utilities, Inc. in Lake County.

Critical Date(s):

60-Day Suspension Date Waived Through 11/25/14

Commissioners Assigned:

All Commissioners

Prehearing Officer:

Administrative

Staff:

IDM:   Roberts

ECO:   Hudson

GCL:   Villafrate, Janjic

 

Issue 1: 

 Should W.B.B’s proposed tariff to change its billing cycle from quarterly to monthly be approved?

Recommendation: 

 Yes.  W.B.B.’s proposed tariff to change its billing from quarterly to monthly should be approved.  W.B.B. should be required to bill on a monthly basis until authorized to change the billing cycle by this Commission in a subsequent proceeding.  W.B.B. should be required to file a proposed customer notice indicating the change from quarterly to monthly billing and the date on which the change to monthly billing will become effective.  The monthly billing should be effective for services rendered on or after the stamped approval date of the tariff sheet, pursuant to Rule 25-30.475(1), F.A.C.  In addition, the monthly billing 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 2: 

 Should this docket be closed?

Recommendation: 

 If no protest is filed by a person whose interests 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 pending the resolution of the protest, and the docket should remain open. 

 

 


13**PAA                   Docket No. 140179-EU – Joint petition for approval of amendment to territorial agreement between the City of Tallahassee and Talquin Electric Cooperative, Inc.

Critical Date(s):

None

Commissioners Assigned:

All Commissioners

Prehearing Officer:

Brisé

Staff:

ECO:   Garl

GCL:   Villafrate

 

Issue 1: 

 Should the Commission approve the proposed amendment to the existing territorial agreement between the City and Talquin?

Recommendation: 

 Yes.  The amendment to the territorial agreement between the City and Talquin will not cause a detriment to the public interest; therefore, it should be approved. 

Issue 2: 

 Should this docket be closed?

Recommendation: 

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

 

 


14**                           Docket No. 140183-GU – Petition for approval of Cast Iron/Bare Steel Pipe Replacement Rider (Rider CI/BSR), by Peoples Gas System.

Critical Date(s):

8-Month Effective Date: 5/5/15

Commissioners Assigned:

All Commissioners

Prehearing Officer:

Administrative

Staff:

ECO:   Garl

GCL:   Villafrate

 

Issue 1: 

 Should the Commission approve Peoples' proposed CI/BSR Rider surcharges for 2015?

Recommendation: 

 Yes.  Peoples’ calculation of the CI/BSR Rider surcharge for each rate class is reasonable and accurate. 

Issue 2: 

 Should this docket be closed?

Recommendation: 

 Yes.  If Issue 1 is approved, the tariffs should become effective on January 1, 2015.  If a protest is filed within 21 days of the issuance of the order, the tariffs should remain in effect, with any revenues 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. 

 

 


15**                           Docket No. 140184-EI – Petition for approval of revised facilities rental agreement by Tampa Electric Company.

Critical Date(s):

60-Day Suspension Date Waived until 11/25/14

Commissioners Assigned:

All Commissioners

Prehearing Officer:

Brown

Staff:

ECO:   Garl

GCL:   Janjic

 

Issue 1: 

 Should the Commission approve TECO's revisions to its facilities rental agreement?

Recommendation: 

 Yes.  TECO=s proposed revision to its facilities rental agreement should be approved. 

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. 

 

 


16                               Docket No. 140158-WS – Application for increase in water/wastewater rates in Highlands County by HC Waterworks, Inc.

Critical Date(s):

12/02/2014 (60-Day Suspension Date)

Commissioners Assigned:

All Commissioners

Prehearing Officer:

Brisé

Staff:

ECO:   Bruce, Daniel, Hudson

GCL:   Crawford, Mapp

 

(Suspension of Rates - Participation is at the Discretion of the Commission.)

Issue 1: 

 Should HC's proposed final water and wastewater rates be suspended?

Recommendation: 

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

Issue 2: 

 Should this docket be closed?

Recommendation: 

 No.  This docket should remain open pending the Commission’s final action on HC’s application for increase in rates and charges. 

 

 


17**PAA                   Docket No. 130194-WS – Application for staff-assisted rate case in Lake County by Lakeside Waterworks, Inc.

Critical Date(s):

12/17/14 (15-Month Effective Date (SARC))

Commissioners Assigned:

All Commissioners

Prehearing Officer:

Edgar

Staff:

ENG:   Watts, Rieger

AFD:   Barrett

GCL:   Murphy

IDM:   Roberts

 

(Proposed Agency Action Except for Issue Nos. 10 and 14.)

Issue 1: 

 Is the overall quality of service provided by Lakeside satisfactory?

Recommendation:  Yes. Staff recommends that the condition of the water and wastewater treatment facilities are satisfactory and the water provided by Lakeside is meeting applicable water quality standards, including primary and secondary standards, as prescribed in the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) rules.  It also appears that the Utility has attempted to address the customers’ concerns.  Therefore, staff recommends that the overall quality of service for the Lakeside water and wastewater systems in Lake County is satisfactory. 

Issue 2:  What are the used and useful percentages (U&U) of Lakeside’s WTP, water storage facilities, WWTP, and distribution and collection systems? 

Recommendation:  Lakeside’s WTP should be considered 40.5 percent U&U, its water storage facilities should be considered 100 percent U&U, its WWTP should be considered 16.8 percent U&U, and its water distribution and wastewater collection systems should be considered 100 percent U&U.  There is no indication of excessive inflow and infiltration (I&I) or excessive unaccounted for water (EUW). 

Issue 3: What is the appropriate average test year rate base for Lakeside?

Recommendation: 

 The appropriate average test year rate base for Lakeside is $30,811 for water and $27,925 for wastewater

Issue 4: 

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

Recommendation: 

 The appropriate return on equity (ROE) is 8.74 percent with a range of 7.74 percent to 9.74 percent.  The appropriate overall rate of return is 8.74 percent. 

Issue 5: 

What are the appropriate test year revenues?

Recommendation:  The appropriate test year revenues for this Utility are $38,806 for water and $32,176 for wastewater. 

Issue 6:  What is the appropriate amount of operating expense?

Recommendation:  The appropriate amount of operating expense is $55,770 for water and $55,482 for wastewater. 

Issue 7: 

 Should the Commission utilize the operating ratio methodology as an alternative means to calculate the revenue requirement for Lakeside and, if so, what is the appropriate margin?

Recommendation: 

Yes, the Commission, on its own motion, should utilize the operating ratio methodology for calculating the revenue requirement for Lakeside.  The margin should be 10 percent of O&M expense for water and wastewater. 

Issue 8: 

 What is the appropriate revenue requirement?

Recommendation: 

 

 The appropriate revenue requirement is $60,768 for water and $60,675 for wastewater, resulting in an annual increase of $21,962 for water (56.59 percent), and an annual increase of $28,499 for wastewater (88.57 percent). 

Issue 9:  What are the appropriate rate structures and rates for Lakeside’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, respectively, of staff’s memorandum dated November 13, 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 is the appropriate amount by which rates should be reduced in four years after the published effective date to reflect the removal of the amortized rate case expense as required by Section 367.0816, F.S.?

Recommendation: 

 The rates should be reduced as shown on Schedule Nos. 4-B for water and 4-D for wastewater, of staff’s memorandum dated November 13, 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.  Lakeside 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 11: 

 What are the appropriate initial customer deposits for Lakeside?

Recommendation:  The appropriate initial customer deposits should be $55 and $76 for the residential 5/8 inch x 3/4 inch meter size for water and wastewater, respectively.  The initial customer deposits for all other residential meter sizes and all general service meter sizes should be two times the average estimated bill for water and wastewater.  The approved initial 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 collect the approved deposits until authorized to change them by the Commission in a subsequent proceeding. 

Issue 12: 

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

Recommendation:  Yes.  Lakeside’s request to implement a $5.25 late payment charge should be approved.  Lakeside 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 13: 

 Should Lakeside’s request to revise its existing service availability charges be approved, and if so, what are the appropriate charges?

Recommendation: 

 Yes.  Staff recommends that Lakeside’s existing service availability charges be revised.  A main extension charge per ERC of $210 for water and $131 for wastewater should be approved.  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 14: 

 Should the recommended rates 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?

Recommendation: 

 Yes.  Pursuant to Section 367.0814(7), F.S., the recommended 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.  Lakeside 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 November 13, 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 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 15:  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, Lakeside 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 16: 

 Should this docket be closed?

Recommendation: 

 No.  If no person whose substantial interests are affected by the proposed agency action files a protest within 21 days of the issuance of the order, a consummating order should be issued.  The docket should remain open for staff’s verification that the revised tariff sheets and customer notice have been filed by the Utility and approved by staff, and that the adjustments for all applicable NARUC USOA primary accounts have been made.  Once these actions are complete, this docket should be closed administratively. 

 

 


18                               Docket No. 130199-EI – Commission review of numeric conservation goals (Florida Power & Light Company).
Docket No. 130200-EI – Commission review of numeric conservation goals (Duke Energy Florida, Inc.).
Docket No. 130201-EI – Commission review of numeric conservation goals (Tampa Electric Company).
Docket No. 130202-EI – Commission review of numeric conservation goals (Gulf Power Company).
Docket No. 130203-EM – Commission review of numeric conservation goals (JEA).
Docket No. 130204-EM – Commission review of numeric conservation goals (Orlando Utilities Commission).
Docket No. 130205-EI – Commission review of numeric conservation goals (Florida Public Utilities Company).

Critical Date(s):

Pursuant to Section 366.82(6), F.S., the Commission must review conservation goals at least every five years. New conservation goals must be set by January 1, 2015.

Commissioners Assigned:

All Commissioners

Prehearing Officer:

Brisé

Staff:

ENG:   P. Buys, Ellis, Graves, Matthews

ECO:   Brown, Gilbert, Lingo, Ortega

GCL:   Corbari, Murphy, Tan

IDM:   Clemence, Dowds, Marr

 

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

Issue 1: 

 Are the Company’s proposed goals based on an adequate assessment of the full technical potential of all available demand-side and supply-side conservation and efficiency measures, including demand-side renewable energy systems, pursuant to Section 366.82(3), F.S.?

Recommendation: 

 Yes.  Consistent with Order No. PSC-13-0386-PCO-EU, the FEECA utilities employed a common methodology wherein the Technical Potential Study utilized for the 2009 goal-setting proceeding was updated to reflect new technologies, current marketplace conditions, and appliance and efficiency standards. 

Issue 2: 

 Do the Company’s proposed goals adequately reflect the costs and benefits to customers participating in the measure, pursuant to Section 366.82(3)(a), F.S.?

Recommendation: 

 Yes.  Consistent with Order No. PSC-09-0855-FOF-EG, the FEECA utilities correctly calculated the costs and benefits to the customers participating in the energy savings and demand reduction measures included in their goals by properly utilizing the Participants test.  The goals proposed by the utilities adequately reflect these costs and benefits, pursuant to Section 366.82(3)(a), F.S. 

Issue 3: 

 Do the Company’s proposed goals adequately reflect the costs and benefits to the general body of ratepayers as a whole, including utility incentives and participant contributions pursuant to Section 366.82(3)(b), F.S.?

Recommendation: 

  Yes.  Staff recommends that consideration of both the RIM and TRC is necessary to fulfill the requirements of Section 366.82(3)(b), F.S.  Consistent with Order No. PSC-13-0386-PCO-EU, the Utilities provided information based on the RIM and TRC tests. 

Issue 4: 

 Do the Company’s proposed goals adequately reflect the need for incentives to promote both customer-owned and utility-owned energy efficiency and demand-side renewable energy systems, pursuant to Section 366.82, F.S.?

Recommendation: 

 Yes.  Staff recommends that the Utilities methodology of applying customer incentives for the purpose of establishing goals in this proceeding is adequate.  Staff recommends that performance incentives for Utilities are not necessary at this time.

Issue 5: 

 Do the Company’s proposed goals adequately reflect the costs imposed by state and federal regulations on the emission of greenhouse gases, pursuant to Section 366.82(3)(d), F.S.?

Recommendation: 

 Yes.  Currently there are no costs imposed by state and federal regulations on the emissions of greenhouse gases (GHG).  Consistent with Order No. PSC-13-0386-PCO-EU, the Utilities filed base case goals assuming a cost of zero dollars for carbon dioxide (CO2).  Pursuant to Section 366.82(6), F.S., the Commission may change the goals for a reasonable cause.  Once the compliance costs associated with any regulations on the emission of GHGs are known, including carbon dioxide, the Commission has the authority to review and, if appropriate, modify goals. 

 

 

Issue 6: 

 What cost-effectiveness test or tests should the Commission use to set goals, pursuant to Section 366.82, F.S.?

Recommendation: 

 Consistent with Order No. PSC-09-0855-FOF-EG, a combination of the Participants Test, the RIM test, and the TRC test should all be used to set goals. 

Issue 7: 

 Do the Company’s proposed goals appropriately reflect consideration of free riders?

Recommendation: 

 Yes.  In response to Rule 25-17.0021(3), F.A.C., and Order No. PSC-13-0386-PCO-EU, the FEECA Utilities filed a base case with a two-year payback to account for free riders.  The Commission has approved goals based on a two-year payback criterion to identify free riders since 1994 and staff recommends the Commission continue this policy.  Each Utility should continue to broadly educate all customer groups on energy efficiency opportunities.  When the FEECA Utilities file their DSM implementation plans, each plan should address how the Utilities will assist and educate their low income customers, specifically with respect to the measures with a two-year or less payback. 

Issue 8: 

 What residential summer and winter megawatt (MW) and annual Gigawatt-hour (GWh) goals should be established for the period 2015-2024?

Recommendation: 

 The Commission should establish goals for the FEECA Utilities based upon a cost-effectiveness analysis that allows all ratepayers, participants and non-participants, to benefit from the Utilities’ demand-side management programs.  Staff recommends annual goals based upon the unconstrained RIM Achievable Potential be adopted.  As the RIM test eliminates cross-subsidies, using an unconstrained RIM allows for maximum participation by customers while keeping rates equitable.  Based upon staff’s recommendation in Issues 5 and 7, staff recommends the use of two-year payback as a free-ridership screen and no inclusion of potential CO2 costs to establish goals.  A breakdown of annual goals for each of the utilities is included in Attachment B of staff’s memorandum dated November 13, 2014.

Issue 9: 

 What commercial/industrial summer and winter megawatt (MW) and annual Gigawatt hour (GWh) goals should be established for the period 2015-2024?

Recommendation: 

 As discussed in Issue 8, staff recommends annual goals based upon the unconstrained RIM achievable potential be adopted.  Based upon staff’s recommendation in Issues 5 and 7, staff recommends the use of two-year payback as a free-ridership screen and no inclusion of potential CO2 costs to establish goals.  A breakdown of annual goals for each of the utilities is included in Attachment C of staff’s memorandum dated November 13, 2014.

 

 

 

 

 

Issue 10: 

 What goals, if any, should be established for increasing the development of demand-side renewable energy systems, pursuant to Section 366.82(2), F.S.?

Recommendation: 

 Each of the IOUs should continue to implement the provisions of Rule 25-6.065, F.A.C., Interconnection and Net Metering of Customer-Owned Renewable Generation.  The rule is an appropriate means to encourage the development of demand-side renewable energy, as it expedites the interconnection of customer-owned renewable energy systems and benefits participating customers through net metering. 

Issue 11: 

 Should the Company’s existing solar pilot programs be extended and, if so, should any modifications be made to them?

Recommendation: 

 No.  Staff recommends that the existing solar pilot programs be allowed to expire December 31, 2015.  The programs are not cost-effective and experience gained since the last goals proceeding indicates that consumers have continued to install systems without any rebates.  The current solar rebates represent a large subsidy from the general body of ratepayers to a very small segment of each utility’s customers. 

Issue 12: 

 Should these dockets be closed?

Recommendation: 

 Yes.  These dockets should be closed after the time for filing an appeal has run.  Within 90 days of the issuance of the final order, each Utility should file a demand-side management plan designed to meet the Utility’s approved goals.

 

 


19**PAA                   Docket No. 140122-EI – Petition to modify transmission structure inspection cycle, by Tampa Electric Company.

Critical Date(s):

None

Commissioners Assigned:

All Commissioners

Prehearing Officer:

Brown

Staff:

ENG:   C. Lewis

GCL:   Mapp, Crawford

 

Issue 1:

Should TECO be allowed to modify its Transmission Structure Inspection Cycle from a six-year cycle to an eight-year cycle for transmission poles?

Recommendation:

Yes.   Since many repairs and replacements have been performed during the first complete cycle, increasing the transmission structure inspection cycle from six to eight years does not appear to be a detriment to overall system reliability.  The projected savings are $108,000 per year. Therefore, staff recommends that TECO should be allowed to increase its transmission structure inspection cycle from six to eight years.  

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. 

 

 


20                               Docket No. 140135-WS – Application for increase in water/wastewater rates in Pasco County by Labrador Utilities, Inc.

Critical Date(s):

60-Day Suspension Waived Through 11/25/14

Commissioners Assigned:

All Commissioners

Prehearing Officer:

Brown

Staff:

ENG:   P. Buys, Hill, King

AFD:   Fletcher, Archer

ECO:   Bruce, Hudson

GCL:   Mapp, Crawford

 

(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.  Labrador’s proposed final water and wastewater rates should be suspended. 

Issue 2: 

 Should any interim revenue increase be approved?

Recommendation: 

 Yes, Labrador should be authorized to collect annual water and wastewater revenues as indicated below:

 

 

Adjusted Test

Year Revenues

 

$ Increase

Repvenue

Requirement

 

% Increase

Water

   $266,438

$34,665

$301,102

 13.01%

Wastewater

   $410,128

$83,096

$493,223

20.26%

 

Issue 3: 

 What are the appropriate interim water and wastewater rates?

Recommendation: 

 The interim rate increase of 13.09 percent for water and 20.31 percent for wastewater should be applied as an across-the-board increase to the service rates in effect as of December 31, 2013.  The rates, as shown on Schedule Nos. 4-A and 4-B of staff’s memorandum dated November 13, 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 of $178,147 is acceptable contingent upon receipt of the written guarantee of the parent company, Utilities, Inc. (UI or Company) 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 $178,147, which includes an amount of $68,706 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.

 

 


21**PAA                   Docket No. 140120-WU – Application for approval of transfer of Certificate No. 339-W from Brendenwood Utilities, LLC. to Brendenwood Waterworks, Inc. in Lake County.

Critical Date(s):

None

Commissioners Assigned:

All Commissioners

Prehearing Officer:

Brown

Staff:

ENG:   Hill, King

AFD:   Frank, Norris, Fletcher

GCL:   Young

IDM:   Roberts

 

(Proposed Agency Action for Issue 2.)

Issue 1: 

 Should the transfer of Brendenwood Utilities, LLC’s water system and Certificate No. 339-W to Brendenwood Waterworks, Inc. be approved?

Recommendation: 

 Yes.  The transfer of the water system and Certificate No. 339-W is in the public interest and should be approved effective the date of the Commission vote.  The resultant order should serve as the buyer’s certificate and should be retained by the buyer.  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 buyer should be responsible for filing the 2014 Annual Report, 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 the water system for transfer purposes and should an acquisition adjustment be approved?

Recommendation: 

 The net book value of Brendenwood’s water system for transfer purposes is $22,770 as of May 23, 2014.  An acquisition adjustment should not be included in rate base.  Within 30 days of the date of the final order, Brendenwood should be required to provide general ledger balances which show that its books have been updated to reflect the Commission-approved balances as of May 23, 2014.  The adjustments should be reflected in the Utility’s 2014 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 Brendenwood Waterworks, Inc. has provided proof that its general ledgers have been updated to reflect the Commission-approved balances as of November 25, 2014. 

 

 


22**PAA                   Docket No. 140121-WU – Application for approval of transfer of Certificate No. 539-W from Raintree Harbor Utilities, LLC to Raintree Waterworks, Inc. in Lake County.

Critical Date(s):

None

Commissioners Assigned:

All Commissioners

Prehearing Officer:

Brown

Staff:

ENG:   Hill, King

AFD:   Frank, Norris, Fletcher

GCL:   Young

IDM:   Roberts

 

(Proposed Agency Action for Issue 2.)

Issue 1: 

 Should the transfer of Raintree Harbor Utilities, LLC’s water system and Certificate No. 539-W to Raintree Waterworks, Inc. be approved?

Recommendation: 

 Yes.  The transfer of the water system and Certificate No. 539-W is in the public interest and should be approved effective the date of the Commission vote.  The resultant order should serve as the buyer’s certificate and should be retained by the buyer.  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 buyer should be responsible for filing the 2014 Annual Report, 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 the water system for transfer purposes and should an acquisition adjustment be approved?

Recommendation: 

 The net book value of Raintree’s water system for transfer purposes is $52,788 as of May 23, 2014.  An acquisition adjustment should not be included in rate base.  Within 30 days of the date of the final order, Raintree should be required to provide general ledger balances which show its books have been updated to reflect the Commission-approved balances as of May 23, 2014.  The adjustments should be reflected in the Utility’s 2014 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 Raintree Waterworks, Inc. has provided proof that its general ledgers have been updated to reflect the Commission-approved balances as of November 25, 2014. 

 

 


23                               Docket No. 140142-EM – Petition for declaratory statement or other relief regarding the expiration of the Vero Beach electric service franchise agreement, by the Board of County Commissioners, Indian River County, Florida.

Critical Date(s):

May not be deferred - statutory deadline for issuing final order was waived by petitioner until December 15, 2014.

Commissioners Assigned:

All Commissioners

Prehearing Officer:

Balbis

Staff:

GCL:   Cowdery

ECO:   Draper

 

(Decision on Declaratory Statement - Participation on Issue 2 is based on Commission's vote on Issue 1; Participation on Issue 4 is based on Commission's vote on Issue 3.)

Issue 1: 

 Should the Commission grant Indian River County’s request for oral argument on its request for reconsideration of Prehearing Order No. PSC-14-0423-PCO-EM granting Orlando Utilities Commission’s motion to intervene?

Recommendation: 

 No.  The Commission should deny Indian River County’s request for oral argument because oral argument will not aid the Commission in understanding and evaluating the issues to be decided.  

Issue 2: 

 Should the Commission grant Indian River County’s request for reconsideration of Order No. PSC-14-0423-PCO-EM granting Orlando Utilities Commission’s motion to intervene?

Recommendation: 

No.  The Commission should deny Indian River County’s request for reconsideration of Order No. PSC-14-0423-PCO-EM granting Orlando Utilities Commission’s motion to intervene.

Issue 3:  Should the Commission grant the motions to address the Commission and allow participation at the Agenda Conference on the issues raised in the Petition?

Recommendation: 

 Yes, the motions to address the Commission should be granted, and all parties and amici curiae should be allowed to participate at the Agenda Conference on the issues raised in the Petition.

Issue 4: 

 Should the Commission grant Indian River County’s Petition for Declaratory Statement?

Recommendation: 

 No. The Commission should deny the Petition and decline to issue a declaratory statement because the Petition fails to meet the statutory requirements necessary to obtain a declaratory statement.  Accordingly, the Commission should deny the motions to dismiss filed by Vero Beach and OUC as moot.  The Commission should take administrative notice of the pending circuit court case, Town of Indian River Shores v. City of Vero Beach, Case No. 312014 CA 000748 (Fla. 19th Cir. in and for Indian River County, Complaint filed July 18, 2014) and of Resolution 2014-069 of the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County because of their relevance to the Commission’s determination of Question j of the Petition.  Consistent with Rule 28-105.003, F.A.C., the Commission should rely on the facts set forth in the Petition without taking a position on the validity of those facts.  Whether the Commission decides to issue or declines to issue a declaratory statement, in whole or in part, the Commission should deny Indian River County’s alternative request for relief. 

Issue 5: 

 Should this docket be closed?

Recommendation: 

 Yes, the docket should be closed.  

 

 


24**                           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 November 13, 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.

 

 


 



[1] See Order No. PSC-13-0023-S-EI, issued January 14, 2013, in Docket No. 120015-EI, In re: Petition for increase in rates by Florida Power & Light Company.

[2] See Order No. PSC-02-0655-AS-EI, issued May 14, 2002, in Docket No. 000824-EI, In re: Review of Florida Power Corporation's earnings, including effects of proposed acquisition of Florida Power Corporation by Carolina Power & Light.

[3] See Order No. PSC-05-0945-S-EI, issued September 28, 2005, in Docket No. 050078-EI, In re: Petition for rate increase by Progress Energy Florida, Inc.

[4] See Order No. PSC-12-0225-PAA-EI, issued April 30, 2012, in Docket No. 100461-EI, In re: Petition for approval of nuclear decommissioning cost study, by Progress Energy Florida, Inc.