FLORIDA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION

COMMISSION CONFERENCE AGENDA

CONFERENCE DATE AND TIME:  Thursday, December 18, 2014, 9:30 a.m.

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

DATE ISSUED:  December 8, 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. 110013-TP – Request for submission of proposals for relay service, beginning in June 2012, for the deaf, hard of hearing, deaf/blind, or speech impaired, and other implementation matters in compliance with the Florida Telecommunications Access System Act of 1991.
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. 2

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

4**PAA......... Docket No. 110260-WS – Application for staff-assisted rate case in Lee County by Useppa Island Utilities Co., Inc. 4

5..................... Docket No. 130223-EI – Petition for approval of optional non-standard meter rider, by Florida Power & Light Company. 7

6**................. Docket No. 140204-GU – Joint petition for approval of flexible gas service tariff by Florida Public Utilities Company, Florida Public Utilities Company - Fort Meade, and Florida Public Utilities Company - Indiantown Division. 10

7**PAA......... Docket No. 140190-GU – Petition for approval of transportation service agreement for an extension in Palm Beach County with Florida Public Utilities Company, by Peninsula Pipeline Company, Inc. 11

8**PAA......... Docket No. 140189-GU – Petition for approval of transportation service agreement for an extension in Nassau County with Florida Public Utilities Company, by Peninsula Pipeline Company, Inc. 12

9**PAA......... Docket No. 140210-EU – Joint petition for approval of amendment to territorial agreement in Charlotte, Lee, and Collier Counties, by Florida Power & Light Company and Lee County Electric Cooperative. 13

10................... Docket No. 140007-EI – Environmental cost recovery clause. 14

11**PAA....... Docket No. 140180-EQ – Petition for approval of amendment to extend term of negotiated renewable energy power purchase contract with Rayonier Performance Fibers, LLC, by Florida Public Utilities Company. 15

12**PAA....... Docket No. 140185-EQ – Petition for approval of negotiated power purchase contract with Eight Flags Energy, LLC, by Florida Public Utilities Company. 16

13**PAA....... Docket No. 140113-EI – Petition for approval to construct an independent spent fuel storage installation and an accounting order to defer amortization pending recovery from the Department of Energy, by Duke Energy Florida, Inc. 17

14**............... Docket No. 140038-SU – Application for transfer of majority organizational control of Crooked Lake Park Sewerage Co. in Polk County, and for name change on Certificate No. 517-S to Glenbrook Properties, LLC, a Florida limited liability company. 18

15**............... Docket No. 140205-WS – Proposed adoption of Rule 25-30.091, F.A.C., Petition to Revoke Water Certificate of Authorization, and proposed amendment of Rule 25-30.440, F.A.C., Additional Engineering Information Required of Class A and B Water and Wastewater Utilities in an Application for Rate Increase. 19

 


   1**                           Consent Agenda

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

DOCKET NO.

COMPANY NAME

140211‑TX

Discount CLEC Services Corporation

 

                                    B)  Docket No. 140224-GU - Chesapeake Utilities Corporation (Chesapeake or Company) seeks authority to issue common stock, preferred stock, and secured and/or unsecured debt, and to enter into agreements for interest rate swap products, equity products and other financial derivatives, and to issue short-term borrowings in 2015.

      The Company seeks authority to issue during calendar year 2015: up to 9,765,000 shares of Chesapeake common stock, up to 1,000,000 shares of Chesapeake preferred stock, up to $300 million in secured and/or unsecured debt, to enter into agreements up to $150 million in interest rate swap products, equity products and other financial derivatives, and to issue short-term obligations in an amount not to exceed $210 million.

      Chesapeake Utilities Corporation allocates funds to the Florida Division, Florida Public Utilities, and Indiantown Gas Company on an as-needed basis, although in no event would such allocations exceed 75 percent of the proposed equity securities (common stock and preferred stock), long-term debt, short-term debt, interest rate swap products, equity products, and financial derivatives.

      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:  The Commission should approve the action requested in the dockets referenced above and close Docket No. 140211-TX.  For monitoring purposes, Docket No. 140224-GU should remain open until April 29, 2016, to allow the Company time to file the required Consummation Report.

 


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

03/03/15 (Parties have requested an early transition of Sprint's Relay contract from June 1, 2015 to March 3, 2015.)

Commissioners Assigned:

All Commissioners

Prehearing Officer:

Brisé (110013-TP)

Administrative (140029-TP)

Staff:

TEL:    Casey

GCL:   Page

 

Issue 1: 

 Should the Commission approve an amendment to the current AT&T relay contract to end its provision of relay service on February 28, 2015, and approve an amendment to the Sprint relay service contract to change the effective date of the Sprint contract to March 1, 2015, and change the end date to February 28, 2018?

Recommendation: 

 Yes.  The Commission should approve an amendment to the current AT&T relay contract to end its provision of relay service on February 28, 2015, with the condition that AT&T reimburse Florida Telecommunications Relay, Inc. (FTRI) $0.33 per session minute for traditional relay service and $0.16 per session minute for CapTel service from March 1, 2015 through May 31, 2015.  The Commission should also approve an amendment to the Sprint relay service contract to change the effective date of that contract to March 1, 2015, and change the end date to February 28, 2018.  The amendments to the contracts should be effective upon the signature of the Commission’s Executive Director, Sprint, and AT&T. 

Issue 2: 

 Should these dockets be closed?

Recommendation: 

  Docket No. 140029-TP should remain open for the duration of the contract.  Docket No. 110013-TP should be closed administratively by staff after the last rate differential payment is made by AT&T to FTRI. 

 

 


   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, Cicchetti, Fletcher, Lester, Maurey, Springer

ECO:   Higgins, Margolis, McNulty

ENG:   Lee, Matthews, Vickery

GCL:   Barrera, Mapp, Young

IDM:   Laux

 

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

Oral discussion to address the following issues:

Issue 1: Should the Commission approve Florida Power & Light Company’s (FPL) request to recover the amounts it would pay to its subsidiary for gas obtained from the PetroQuest joint venture through the fuel cost recovery clause on the basis and in the manner proposed by FPL in the June 25 Petition?

Issue 2: If the Commission answers Issue 1 in the negative, what standard should the Commission apply to a request by FPL to recover the price that FPL pays to its subsidiary/affiliate for gas obtained through the joint venture with PetroQuest?

Issue 3:  What amount, if any, associated with the transactions proposed in FPL’s June 25 Petition should be included for recovery through FPL’s 2015 fuel cost recovery factor?

Issue 6: Is FPL contractually precluded by paragraph 6 of the Stipulation and Settlement Agreement dated December 12, 2012, and approved by the Commission in Order No. PSC-13-0023-S-EI from seeking to increase rates as it proposes?

Issue 8: What effect, if any, does the Commission’s decision on Issue 3 have on the fuel cost recovery factor and  GPIF targets/ranges for the period January 2015 through December 2015?

 

 


   4**PAA                   Docket No. 110260-WS – Application for staff-assisted rate case in Lee County by Useppa Island Utilities Co., Inc.

Critical Date(s):

None

Commissioners Assigned:

All Commissioners

Prehearing Officer:

Brisé

Staff:

AFD:   Springer, Cicchetti

ECO:   Bruce, Daniel, Hudson

ENG:   Rieger

GCL:   Murphy, Teitzman

 

(Proposed Agency Action Except for Issue Nos. 4 & 5.)

Issue 1: 

 What are the appropriate revenue increases for Phase II rates?

Recommendation: 

  The appropriate revenue increases for Phase II rates are $9,334 for water and $9,334 for wastewater. 

Issue 2: 

 What is the appropriate Phase I wastewater revenue requirement to be used as a basis for establishing Phase II rates?

Recommendation: 

 The Phase I wastewater revenue requirement should be corrected to reflect the stipulated revenue requirement of $158,183.  The revised Phase I wastewater rates shown on Schedule No. 4-B of staff’s memorandum dated December 4, 2014, should be used as the basis for implementing the recommended Phase II revenue increase discussed in Issue 1. 

Issue 3: 

 What are the appropriate water and wastewater rates for Phase II?

Recommendation: 

 The Phase II rate increases of 5.49 percent for water and 5.90 percent for wastewater should be applied across-the-board to the existing Phase I water rates and revised Phase I wastewater rates, respectively.  The rates, as shown on Schedule Nos. 4-A and 4-B of staff’s memorandum dated December 4, 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 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 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. 4-B of staff’s memorandum dated December 4, 2014, to remove rate case expense grossed up for RAFs and amortized over a four-year period.  The expiration of the four-year amortization of rate case expense is October 2016.  No change to the four-year rate reduction for water is necessary. 

Issue 5: 

  Should the recommended rates 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?

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, in the event of a protest filed by a party other than the Utility.  Useppa 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 December 4, 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 6: 

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

Recommendation: 

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

Issue 7:  Should this docket be closed?

 

Recommendation: 

  No.  If no person whose substantial interests are affected by the proposed agency action files a protest within twenty-one days of the issuance of the order, a consummating order will 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.  When the tariff and notice actions are complete, this docket may be closed administratively. 

 

 


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

Critical Date(s):

12/31/14 - FPL waived final tariff implementation until this date.

Commissioners Assigned:

All Commissioners

Prehearing Officer:

Edgar

Staff:

ECO:   Draper, Ollila, Rome

GCL:   Brownless

IDM:   Clemence, Marr

 

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

Issue 1Is it appropriate for customers who receive service through a non-standard meter to bear the cost of that service?

Recommendation:  Yes.  Consistent with Commission policy and the record in this case, it is appropriate for customers who choose to receive service through a non-standard meter to bear the incremental cost of providing that service.

Issue 2: What are the appropriate staffing levels for the customer care employees and the meter reading lead position functions to enroll and serve customers on the NSMR tariff?

Recommendation: The appropriate FPL staffing levels for customer care employees are four employees for the initial three-month enrollment period and one employee for the remainder of the five-year recovery period for the NSMR tariff.  The appropriate staffing levels for the meter reading routing function are one employee for the initial six months of the NSMR program. 

Issue 3:  Are the various cost components and their amounts FPL included in developing the charges for the NSMR tariff appropriate?  If not, what cost components and their associated amounts, if any, should be excluded from the calculations?

Recommendation:  With the exception of the adjustments identified in Issues 2 and 8, the NSMR tariff charges are appropriate.  Staff’s recommended Enrollment Fee and Monthly Surcharge reflecting the adjustments are presented in Issue 11. 

Issue 4

 Is the requirement for a manual monthly meter reading by FPL reasonable and justified or should customers be offered alternatives (e.g., self-read or estimated billing options) to ensure fair and reasonable rates are established and costs to FPL are minimized?

Recommendation:  Yes.  The requirement for a manual monthly meter reading by FPL is reasonable and justified. 


Issue 5:  Should customers with several non-standard meters at the same property location pay multiple enrollment fees?  If not, what is the appropriate enrollment fee?

Recommendation:  Yes.  Customers with several non-standard meters at the same property location should pay multiple enrollment fees. 

Issue 6:  Are there any cost savings associated with the NSMR program that have not been used in accounting for the NSMR charges?  If so, what are the sources of such savings, and what and how should the amounts be reflected in the NSMR calculations?

Recommendation:  Staff recommends no adjustments to the NSMR tariff with regard to the cost savings items discussed in the analysis portion of staff’s memorandum dated December 4, 2014. 

Issue 7

 What is the appropriate projection of the number of FPL customers who may subscribe to the NSMR tariff for purposes of deriving the NSMR charges?

Recommendation:  The appropriate projection of the number of FPL customers who may subscribe to the NSMR tariff for purposes of deriving the NSMR charges is 12,000. 

Issue 8:  How should the NSMR charges, if any, be designed?

Recommendation:  The design of the NSMR tariff should consist of two basic components: an Enrollment Fee and a Monthly Surcharge.  This basic design should be modified as follows: (1) Extend the recovery period from three years to five years so that the recovery period matches the period over which the rate base is being depreciated, and (2) Remove the $0.08 for field collections and $0.37 for manual disconnects/reconnects from the Monthly Surcharge. 

Issue 9:  What additional information, if any, should FPL be required to file in its annual smart meter progress reports?

Recommendation:   Through March 2019 or until FPL’s next rate case, whichever occurs first, FPL should file the following information regarding NSMR: actual participation rates, actual costs associated with the operation and administration of the program, and actual revenues received in the form of customer Enrollment Fees and Monthly Surcharge payments.  

Issue 10:  Are FPL's proposed terms and conditions of the NSMR tariff appropriate?  If not, what changes should be made?

Recommendation:  No.  Staff recommends that the following language be added to the tariff: “Under normal operating conditions the use of a temporary standard meter should not exceed one full billing period.  If the customer who is taking service pursuant to the NSMR tariff is required to have the standard meter for more than one full billing cycle, FPL will suspend the Monthly Surcharge until a non-standard meter is installed.” 


Issue 11

 Based on the resolution of the previous issues, what are the appropriate NSMR charges?

Recommendation: 

 Based on the record and the resolution of the previous issues, staff recommends an Enrollment Fee of $89 and a Monthly Surcharge of $13.  Per Order No. PSC-14-0036-TRF-EI the current NSMR tariff is in effect subject to refund and contains a $95 Enrollment Fee and $13 Monthly Surcharge.  If the Commission approves lower NSMR charges, FPL should provide refunds to NSMR customers that paid the current charges within 45 days of the date of the order.  FPL should file a revised NSMR tariff within 10 days of the Commission’s vote for administrative approval by staff.  

Issue 12

 Should this docket be closed?

Recommendation: 

 This docket should be closed administratively after any motions for reconsideration are disposed of and the time for filing an appeal of the final order issued in this docket has run, FPL has made refunds to its existing NSMR customers who have paid the current charges, and FPL has received staff approval of a revised NSMR tariff reflecting the Commission’s vote. 


   6**                           Docket No. 140204-GU – Joint petition for approval of flexible gas service tariff by Florida Public Utilities Company, Florida Public Utilities Company - Fort Meade, and Florida Public Utilities Company - Indiantown Division.

Critical Date(s):

60-Day Suspension Date Waived by the Companies Until the 12/18/14 Agenda Conference.

Commissioners Assigned:

All Commissioners

Prehearing Officer:

Administrative

Staff:

ECO:   Ollila

GCL:   Brownless

 

Issue 1: 

 Should the Companies' proposed FGS tariffs as corrected be approved?

Recommendation: 

 Yes.  The Commission should approve the Companies’ proposed FGS tariffs as corrected.  Staff recommends that when a Company executes an FGS service agreement, notice of such agreement be filed within 30 days with the Office of Commission Clerk. 

Issue 2: 

 Should this docket be closed?

Recommendation: 

 Yes.  If Issue 1 is approved, the tariffs should become effective on December 18, 2014.  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. 

 

 


   7**PAA                   Docket No. 140190-GU – Petition for approval of transportation service agreement for an extension in Palm Beach County with Florida Public Utilities Company, by Peninsula Pipeline Company, Inc.

Critical Date(s):

None

Commissioners Assigned:

All Commissioners

Prehearing Officer:

Brown

Staff:

ECO:   Draper, Rome

GCL:   Janjic

 

Issue 1: 

  Should the Commission approve the Transportation Service Agreement between Peninsula and FPUC dated September 26, 2014, for an extension in Palm Beach County?

Recommendation: 

 Yes.  The Commission should approve the Transportation Service Agreement between Peninsula and FPUC dated September 26, 2014, for an extension in Palm Beach County. 

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. 

 

 


   8**PAA                   Docket No. 140189-GU – Petition for approval of transportation service agreement for an extension in Nassau County with Florida Public Utilities Company, by Peninsula Pipeline Company, Inc.

Critical Date(s):

None

Commissioners Assigned:

All Commissioners

Prehearing Officer:

Brown

Staff:

ECO:   Draper, Rome

GCL:   Janjic

 

Issue 1: 

 Should the Commission approve the Transportation Service Agreement between Peninsula and FPUC dated September 26, 2014, for an extension in Nassau County?

Recommendation: 

 Yes.  The Commission should approve the Transportation Service Agreement between Peninsula and FPUC dated September 26, 2014, for an extension in Nassau County. 

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. 

 

 


   9**PAA                   Docket No. 140210-EU – Joint petition for approval of amendment to territorial agreement in Charlotte, Lee, and Collier Counties, by Florida Power & Light Company and Lee County Electric Cooperative.

Critical Date(s):

None

Commissioners Assigned:

All Commissioners

Prehearing Officer:

Balbis

Staff:

ECO:   Garl

GCL:   Corbari

 

Issue 1: 

 Should the Commission approve the proposed amendment to the territorial agreement between FPL and LCEC?

Recommendation: 

 Yes.  The amendment to the territorial agreement between FPL and LCEC eliminates existing or potential uneconomic duplication of facilities, does not cause a decrease in the reliability of electric service to existing or future ratepayers, and does not cause a detriment to the public interest; therefore, it should be approved. 

Issue 2: 

 Should this docket be closed?

Recommendation: 

 Yes.  This docket should be closed upon issuance of a Consummating Order unless a person whose substantial interests are affected by the Commission’s decision files a protest within 21 days of the issuance of the proposed agency action. 

 

 


10                               Docket No. 140007-EI – Environmental cost recovery clause.

Critical Date(s):

None

Commissioners Assigned:

All Commissioners

Prehearing Officer:

Brown

Staff:

ENG:   Graves, Buys, Mtenga

AFD:   Barrett, Holmes, Mouring, Springer, Vogel

ECO:   Draper, Rome, Wu

GCL:   Murphy

 

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

Issue 1: 

 Should the Commission approve FPL’s Waters of the United States Rulemaking Project such that the reasonable costs incurred by FPL in connection with the project may be recovered through the Environmental Cost Recovery Clause?

Recommendation: 

 No. The costs of the WOUS Project do not meet the threshold requirement of being incurred in complying with environmental laws or regulations as required by Section 366.8255, F.S.

Issue 2:  Should this docket be closed?

Recommendation: 

 No. At the appropriate time, this docket should be closed and a 2015 ECRC docket opened by separate order.

 

 


11**PAA                   Docket No. 140180-EQ – Petition for approval of amendment to extend term of negotiated renewable energy power purchase contract with Rayonier Performance Fibers, LLC, by Florida Public Utilities Company.

Critical Date(s):

None

Commissioners Assigned:

All Commissioners

Prehearing Officer:

Brisé

Staff:

ENG:   Matthews, Mtenga

ECO:   Garl

GCL:   Murphy

 

Issue 1

 Should FPUC's request to extend the term of its negotiated purchased power agreement with Rayonier be approved?

Recommendation: 

 Yes.  The terms and conditions of the approved original purchased power agreement will continue under the extension period.  Extending the term of the negotiated purchased power agreement is estimated to provide a net present value (NPV) savings of $8.2 million over the entire Amended Agreement’s term. 

Issue 2

 Should this docket be closed?

Recommendation: 

 Yes.  This docket should be closed upon issuance of a Consummating Order unless a person whose substantial interests are affected by the Commission’s decision files a protest within 21 days of the issuance of the proposed agency action. 


12**PAA                   Docket No. 140185-EQ – Petition for approval of negotiated power purchase contract with Eight Flags Energy, LLC, by Florida Public Utilities Company.

Critical Date(s):

None

Commissioners Assigned:

All Commissioners

Prehearing Officer:

Brown

Staff:

ENG:   Matthews, Mtenga

ECO:   Garl

GCL:   Corbari

 

Issue 1:  Should the Commission approve Florida Public Utilities Company’s (FPUC’s) request for cost recovery of the negotiated purchased power agreement (Agreement) with Eight Flags Energy, LLC (Eight Flags)?

Recommendation:  Yes.  The Eight Flags facility will have the capability to serve a significant portion of FPUC’s base load needs on Amelia Island and should reduce the potential impact of severe weather on critical services.  Payments for capacity and energy pursuant to the Agreement are expected to yield $28 million in net present value (NPV) savings to FPUC’s ratepayers over the 20 year term of the Agreement.  The performance security requirements of the Agreement sufficiently protect ratepayers in the event of default.

Issue 2: 

 Should this docket be closed?

Recommendation: 

 Yes.  This docket should be closed upon issuance of a Consummating Order unless a person whose substantial interests are affected by the Commission’s decision files a protest within 21 days of the issuance of the proposed agency action. 

 

 


13**PAA                   Docket No. 140113-EI – Petition for approval to construct an independent spent fuel storage installation and an accounting order to defer amortization pending recovery from the Department of Energy, by Duke Energy Florida, Inc.

Critical Date(s):

None

Commissioners Assigned:

All Commissioners

Prehearing Officer:

Brisé

Staff:

ENG:   Matthews, Vickery

AFD:   Polk, Fletcher

ECO:   Higgins

GCL:   Young

 

Issue 1: 

 Should Duke Energy Florida, Inc.'s request for approval to construct an Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation be approved?

Recommendation: 

 Yes.  DEF has demonstrated that the Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation (ISFSI) is the most efficient and most cost-effective means to provide temporary storage capability of spent nuclear fuel, and staff recommends that DEF’s request be approved. 

Issue 2: Should the Commission approve DEF's request for an accounting order to defer amortization of the ISFSI portion of the CR3 regulatory asset until litigation with the DOE has concluded?

Recommendation: 

 Yes, it is appropriate to defer the amortization effective January 2014 because it will benefit customers by lessening the impact on base rates.  As such, the Commission should approve DEF’s request for an accounting order to defer amortization of the ISFSI portion of the CR3 regulatory asset, which was created when the Commission approved the RRSSA in 2013, until litigation with the DOE has concluded.  Once all recoveries have been received, base rates should be adjusted going forward at that time. 

Issue 3: 

 Should this docket be closed?

Recommendation: 

 Yes.  This docket should be closed upon issuance of a Consummating Order unless a person whose substantial interests are affected by the Commission’s decision files a protest within 21 days of the issuance of the proposed agency action. 

 

 


14**                           Docket No. 140038-SU – Application for transfer of majority organizational control of Crooked Lake Park Sewerage Co. in Polk County, and for name change on Certificate No. 517-S to Glenbrook Properties, LLC, a Florida limited liability company.

Critical Date(s):

None

Commissioners Assigned:

All Commissioners

Prehearing Officer:

Administrative

Staff:

ENG:   Lee

AFD:   Frank

ECO:   Bruce

GCL:   Crawford, Mapp

 

Issue 1: 

 Should the application for transfer of majority organizational control of Crooked Lake Park Sewerage Company in Polk County and name change on Certificate No. 517-S to Glenbrook Properties, LLC be approved?

Recommendation: 

 Yes.  The transfer and name change on Certificate No. 517-S to Glenbrook Properties, LLC, is in the public interest and should be approved effective the date of the Commission vote.  The resultant order should serve as the wastewater certificate, with the territory described in Attachment A of staff’s memorandum dated December 4, 2014, for Glenbrook Properties, LLC, a Florida limited liability company.  The existing rates and charges should remain in effect until a change is authorized by the Commission in a subsequent proceeding.  The tariffs reflecting the transfer and name change should be effective for services rendered or connections made on or after the stamped approval date on the tariffs, pursuant to Rule 25-30.475, Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.). 

Issue 2: 

 Should this docket be closed?

Recommendation:  Yes. If the Commission approves staff's recommendation in Issue 1, this docket should be closed. 

 

 


15**                           Docket No. 140205-WS – Proposed adoption of Rule 25-30.091, F.A.C., Petition to Revoke Water Certificate of Authorization, and proposed amendment of Rule 25-30.440, F.A.C., Additional Engineering Information Required of Class A and B Water and Wastewater Utilities in an Application for Rate Increase.

Rule Status:

Proposed

Commissioners Assigned:

All Commissioners

Prehearing Officer:

Brown

Staff:

GCL:   Gervasi

ECO:   Rome

ENG:   King, Rieger, Hill

IDM:   Bloom, Dowds

 

(Proposal Should Not Be Deferred.)

Issue 1: 

 Should the Commission propose to adopt Rule 25-30.091, F.A.C., Petition to Revoke Water Certificate of Authorization, and amend Rule 25-30.440, F.A.C., Additional Engineering Information Required of Class A and B Water and Wastewater Utilities in an Application for Rate Increase?

Recommendation: 

 Yes, the Commission should propose to adopt Rule 25-30.091, F.A.C., and amend Rule 25-30.440, F.A.C., as set forth in Attachment A of staff’s memorandum dated December 4, 2014.

Issue 2: 

 Should this docket be closed?

Recommendation: 

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