FLORIDA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION

COMMISSION CONFERENCE AGENDA

CONFERENCE DATE AND TIME:  Tuesday, July 21, 2015, 9:30 a.m.

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

DATE ISSUED:  July 9, 2015

 

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. 150143-OT – Proposed repeal of Rule 25-22.028, F.A.C., Filing, Number of Copies, and proposed amendment of Rule 25-40.001, F.A.C., Exceptions to the Uniform Rules of Procedure. 2

3**................. Docket No. 140107-PU – Petition for declaratory statement regarding discovery in dockets or proceedings affecting rates or cost of service processed with the Commission's proposed agency action procedure. 3

4**PAA......... Docket No. 140147-WS – Application for staff-assisted rate case in Sumter County by Jumper Creek Utility Company. 4

5**PAA......... Docket No. 150081-EG – Petition for approval of demand-side management plan of Tampa Electric Company. 8

6**PAA......... Docket No. 150083-EG – Petition for approval of demand-side management plan of Duke Energy Florida, Inc. 10

7**PAA......... Docket No. 150085-EG – Petition for approval of Florida Power & Light Company's demand-side management plan and request to cancel closed on call tariff sheets. 13

8**PAA......... Docket No. 150086-EG – Petition for approval of demand-side management plan of Gulf Power Company. 15

9**PAA......... Docket No. 150087-EG – Petition for approval of modifications to demand-side management plan by JEA. 17

10**PAA....... Docket No. 150088-EG – Petition for approval of modifications to demand-side management plan by Orlando Utilities Commission. 18

11**PAA....... Docket No. 150089-EG – Petition for approval of demand-side management plan by Florida Public Utilities Company. 20

12................... Docket No. 150043-EI – Petition for determination that the Osprey Plant acquisition or, alternatively, the Suwannee Simple Cycle Project is the most cost effective generation alternative to meet remaining need prior to 2018, by Duke Energy Florida, Inc. 22

13**PAA....... Docket No. 150101-EQ – Petition for approval of standard offer for purchase of firm capacity and energy from renewable energy facilities and approval of tariff schedule REF-1, by Gulf Power Company. 23

14**............... Docket No. 150104-EQ – Petition for approval of revisions to renewable energy tariffs REN-1 and REN-2, by Florida Public Utilities Company. 24

15**............... Docket No. 150105-EI – Petition for approval of revisions to standard offer contract and rate schedule COG-2, by Tampa Electric Company. 25

16**PAA....... Docket No. 150106-EQ – Petition for approval of amended standard offer contract (Schedule COG-2) and amended interconnection agreement, by Duke Energy Florida, Inc. 26

17**PAA....... Docket No. 150110-EI – Petition by Duke Energy Florida, Inc. for approval of modifications to approved as-available purchase tariff. 27

18**............... Docket No. 150115-WS – Joint application for approval of transfer of majority organizational control of Ni Florida, LLC, holder of Certificate Nos. 388-W in Lee County and 104-S in Pasco County, to Ni Pacolet Milliken Utilities, LLC. 28

19**PAA....... Docket No. 150094-GP – Petition for approval of amendment to special contract with Peninsula Pipeline Company, by Peoples Gas System. 29

20**PAA....... Docket No. 150117-GU – Joint petition for approval of modified cost allocation methodology and revised purchased gas adjustment calculation, by Florida Public Utilities Company, Florida Public Utilities Company - Indiantown Division, Florida Public Utilities Company - Fort Meade, and Florida Division of Chesapeake Utilities Corporation. 30

21**............... Docket No. 150139-GU – Joint petition of Florida Public Utilities Company, Florida Public Utilities Company-Fort Meade, Florida Public Utilities-Indiantown Division and the Florida Division of Chesapeake Utilities Corporation for approval of revisions to commercial natural gas vehicle service programs. 31

22**PAA....... Docket No. 140186-WU – Application for staff-assisted rate case in Brevard County by Brevard Waterworks, Inc. 32

23................... Docket No. 150102-SU – Application for increase in wastewater rates in Charlotte County by Utilities, Inc. of Sandalhaven. 37

24**............... Docket No. 150099-EI – Petition for approval of revised net metering tariff and agreement adopting terms of standard interconnection agreement for Tier 1, Tier 2, or Tier 3 renewable generator systems, by Tampa Electric Company. 39

 


   1**                           Consent Agenda

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

DOCKET NO.

COMPANY NAME

150122‑TX

HD Carrier, LLC

 

 

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

 


   2**                           Docket No. 150143-OT – Proposed repeal of Rule 25-22.028, F.A.C., Filing, Number of Copies, and proposed amendment of Rule 25-40.001, F.A.C., Exceptions to the Uniform Rules of Procedure.

Rule Status:

Proposed

Commissioners Assigned:

All Commissioners

Prehearing Officer:

Brisé

Staff:

GCL:   Gervasi

CLK:   Stauffer

ECO:   Rome

 

(Proposal May Be Deferred.)

Issue 1: 

 Should the Commission propose to repeal Rule 25-22.028, F.A.C., Filing, Number of Copies, thus causing Uniform Rule 28-106.104, F.A.C., to take its place, and to amend Rule 25-40.001, F.A.C., Exceptions to the Uniform Rules of Procedure, to remove Rule 25-22.028 from the list of the Commission’s exceptions to the Uniform Rules?

Recommendation: 

 Yes, the Commission should propose to repeal Rule 25-22.028, F.A.C., thus causing Uniform Rule 28-106.104, F.A.C., to take its place, and to amend Rule 25-40.001, F.A.C., to remove Rule 25-22.028 from the list of the Commission’s exceptions to the Uniform Rules, as shown on Attachment A of staff’s memorandum dated July 9, 2015. 

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.

 

 


   3**                           Docket No. 140107-PU – Petition for declaratory statement regarding discovery in dockets or proceedings affecting rates or cost of service processed with the Commission's proposed agency action procedure.

Critical Date(s):

None

Commissioners Assigned:

All Commissioners

Prehearing Officer:

Brown

Staff:

GCL:   Cowdery

AFD:   Maurey

 

(Parties may participate at the Commission's discretion.)

Issue 1: 

 Should the Commission grant OPC’s Petition for Declaratory Statement?

Recommendation: 

 Yes, the Commission should grant the Petition for Declaratory Statement and declare that the Office of Public Counsel has the authority under Section 350.0611(1), F.S., to utilize discovery pursuant to Fla. R. Civ. Pro. 1.280 – 1.390 in any proceeding affecting rates or cost of service processed using the proposed agency action procedures of Sections 366.06(4) and 367.081(8), F.S. 

Issue 2: 

 Should this docket be closed?

Recommendation: 

 Yes, this docket should be closed. 

 

 


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

Critical Date(s):

01/05/16 (15-Month Effective Date (SARC))

Commissioners Assigned:

All Commissioners

Prehearing Officer:

Edgar

Staff:

AFD:   Vogel, T. Brown, Cicchetti, Mouring

ECO:   Hudson, Thompson

ENG:   King, Watts

GCL:   Tan

 

(Interested Persons May Participate (Except for Issues 11, 13 and 14).)

Issue 1: 

 Is the overall quality of service provided by Jumper Creek satisfactory?

Recommendation:  Yes. Staff recommends that the condition of the water and wastewater treatment facilities are satisfactory and the water provided by Jumper Creek is meeting applicable water quality standards, including primary and secondary standards, as prescribed in the Florida Department of Environmental Protection’s (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 Jumper Creek water and wastewater systems in Sumter County is satisfactory.

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

Recommendation:  Jumper Creek’s WTP should be considered 90.6 percent U&U, its WWTP should be considered 7.8 percent U&U, and its distribution and collection systems should each be considered 100 percent U&U. There is no indication of excessive unaccounted for water (EUW) or excessive inflow and infiltration (I&I).

Issue 3: 

What is the appropriate average test year water rate base and wastewater rate base for Jumper Creek?

Recommendation:

 The appropriate average test year water rate base for Jumper Creek is $53,253 and the average test year wastewater rate base is a negative $12,038.

Issue 4:

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

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 8.62 percent.

Issue 5: What are the appropriate test year revenues for the Utility’s water and wastewater systems?

Recommendation: 

 The appropriate test year revenues for Jumper Creek’s water and wastewater systems are $13,370 and $20,662, respectively.

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

Recommendation: 

The appropriate amount of total operating expense for the Utility is $20,095 for water and $27,024 for wastewater.

Issue 7: 

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

Recommendation: 

 Yes, the Commission should utilize the operating ratio methodology for calculating the wastewater revenue requirement for Jumper Creek. The margin should be 10.00 percent of O&M expense.

Issue 8: 

 What is the appropriate revenue requirement?

Recommendation: 

 The appropriate revenue requirement is $24,683 for water and $29,461 for wastewater, resulting in an annual increase of $11,313 for water (84.62 percent), and an annual increase of $8,799 for wastewater (42.59 percent).

Issue 9:  What are the appropriate rate structures and rates for Jumper Creek’s water and wastewater systems?

Recommendation:  The recommended rate structures and monthly water and wastewater rates are shown on Schedule Nos. 4-A and 4-B, respectively, of staff’s memorandum dated July 9, 2015. The Utility should file revised tariff sheets and a proposed customer notice to reflect the Commission-approved rates. The approved rates should be effective for service rendered on or after the stamped approval date on the tariff sheet, pursuant to Rule 25-30.475(1), F.A.C. In addition, the approved rates should not be implemented until staff has approved the proposed customer notice and the notice has been received by the customers. The Utility should provide proof of the date notice was given within 10 days of the date of the notice.

Issue 10:  

 In determining whether any portion of the interim increase granted should be refunded, how should the refund be calculated, and what is the amount of the refund, if any?

Recommendation: 

The proper refund amount should be calculated by using the same data used to establish final rates, excluding pro forma and other items not in effect during the interim period. This revised revenue requirement for the interim collection period should be compared to the amount of interim revenue requirement granted. Based on this calculation, no refunds are required. Further, upon issuance of the Consummating Order in this docket, the surety bond should be released.

Issue 11: 

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

Recommendation: 

The water and wastewater rates should be reduced as shown on Schedule Nos. 4-A and 4-B of staff’s memorandum dated July 9, 2015, to remove rate case expense grossed up for RAFs and amortized over a four-year period. The decrease in rates should become effective immediately following the expiration of the four-year rate case expense recovery period, pursuant to Section 367.0816, F.S. Jumper Creek 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 12: What are the appropriate initial customer deposits for Jumper Creek?

Recommendation: 

 The appropriate initial customer deposits should be $96 and $118 for the residential 5/8″ x 3/4″ meter size for water and wastewater, respectively. The initial customer deposits for all other residential meter sizes and all general service meter sizes should be two times the average estimated bill for water and wastewater. The approved customer deposits should be effective for services rendered or connections made on or after the stamped approval date on the tariff sheets, pursuant to Rule 25-30.475, F.A.C. The Utility should be required to charge the approved charges until authorized to change them by the Commission in a subsequent proceeding.

Issue 13: 

 Should the recommended rates be approved for the Utility on a temporary basis, subject to refund with interest, in the event of a protest 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. Jumper Creek 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 July 9, 2015. 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 Office of Commission Clerk no later than the 20th of each month indicating the monthly and total amount of money subject to refund at the end of the preceding month. The report filed should also indicate the status of the security being used to guarantee repayment of any potential refund.

Issue 14: 

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

Recommendation:

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

Issue 15: 

 Should this docket be closed?

Recommendation: 

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

 

 


   5**PAA                   Docket No. 150081-EG – Petition for approval of demand-side management plan of Tampa Electric Company.

Critical Date(s):

None

Commissioners Assigned:

All Commissioners

Prehearing Officer:

Administrative

Staff:

ENG:   Ellis, Graves

ECO:   S. Brown, Lingo

GCL:   Corbari

 

Issue 1: 

 Is TECO’s DSM Plan projected to meet the annual numeric conservation goals established by the Commission in Order No. PSC-14-0696-FOF-EU?

Recommendation: 

 Yes. TECO’s DSM Plan is cost-effective based upon the Rate Impact Measure (RIM) test and results in a net decrease in ratepayers’ monthly rates. Although the Commission has allowed savings from audit programs to be counted towards the achievement of DSM goals in previous proceedings, staff recommends that no behavioral savings associated with audit programs be counted towards goals in this proceeding because behavioral savings are not directly monitorable. Even with the removal of projected behavioral savings from audits, TECO’s DSM Plan is projected to meet or exceed the annual goals set by the Commission in Order No. PSC-14-0696-FOF-EU.

The Commission should approve the programs contained in TECO’s DSM Plan. In addition, the Commission should allow TECO to file for cost recovery of the programs in the Energy Conservation Cost Recovery (ECCR) clause proceeding. TECO, however, must demonstrate that its expenditures to implement these programs are reasonable and prudent in order to recover the expenditures through the ECCR clause. Staff recommends that DSM programs may not be discontinued or rebate levels changed without formal Commission approval. Staff recommends that TECO may not discontinue its DSM programs or change its programs’ rebate levels without seeking formal Commission approval.

Finally, staff recommends that TECO file its administrative program standards for all programs within 30 days of the Consummating Order being issued in this docket and that the Commission grant staff administrative authority to review and approve these standards.

Issue 2: 

 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 PAA Order, a Consummating Order should be issued. If the Commission approves any programs, the programs should become effective on the date of the Consummating Order. If a protest is filed within 21 days of the issuance of the PAA Order, the programs should not be implemented until after the resolution of the protest. However, the docket should remain open for staff’s verification that the program standards have been filed by the company and approved by staff. When the PAA issues become final and the program standards have been approved, this docket should be closed administratively.

 

 


   6**PAA                   Docket No. 150083-EG – Petition for approval of demand-side management plan of Duke Energy Florida, Inc.

Critical Date(s):

None

Commissioners Assigned:

All Commissioners

Prehearing Officer:

Administrative

Staff:

ENG:   Ellis, Matthews

ECO:   S. Brown, Margolis

GCL:   Murphy

 

Issue 1: 

 Is DEF’s Demand-Side Management (DSM) Plan projected to meet the annual numeric conservation goals established by the Commission in Order No. PSC-14-0696-FOF-EU?

Recommendation: 

 Yes. DEF’s DSM Plan is cost-effective based upon the Rate Impact Measure (RIM) test and results in a net decrease in ratepayers’ monthly rates. Although the Commission has allowed savings from audit programs to be counted towards the achievement of DSM goals in previous proceedings, staff recommends that no behavioral savings associated with audit programs be counted towards goals in this proceeding because behavioral savings are not directly monitorable.

DEF’s DSM Plan is projected to meet or exceed the goals established by the Commission in Order No. PSC-14-0696-EU on a cumulative 10 year basis. With the removal of projected behavioral savings from audits, however, DEF’s DSM Plan does not meet the annual residential winter peak demand goals in two of the 10 years. DEF may choose to modify its DSM Plan to include additional measures or programs that will make up the difference in this category. DEF will be responsible for monitoring actual participation rates and seeking Commission action if necessary to modify, add, or remove programs. If DEF is unable to meet the Commission’s goals, the company may be subject to appropriate action by the Commission, up to and including financial penalties.

Staff recommends that DEF should have no annual total incentive cap on Florida Custom Incentive Program projects that pass the RIM test because staff does not anticipate a participation rate high enough to cause negative effects. Staff recommends that if DEF has concerns regarding the rate impact of the uncapped program in the future, DEF may petition the Commission to request a limit at that time. Staff does not object to DEF’s proposal to cap the maximum incentive for a single project at $500,000.

Staff recommends that the Commission approve the programs contained in DEF’s DSM Plan. In addition, the Commission should allow DEF to file for cost recovery of the programs in the Energy Conservation Cost Recovery (ECCR) clause proceeding. DEF, however, must demonstrate that its expenditures to implement these programs are reasonable and prudent in order to recover the expenditures through the ECCR clause. Staff recommends that DEF may not discontinue its DSM programs or change its programs’ rebate levels without seeking formal Commission approval.

Finally, staff recommends that DEF file its administrative program standards for all programs within 30 days of the Consummating Order being issued in this docket and that the Commission grant staff administrative authority to review and approve these standards.

Issue 2: 

 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 PAA Order, a Consummating Order should be issued. If the Commission approves any programs, the programs should become effective on the date of the Consummating Order. If a protest is filed within 21 days of the issuance of the PAA Order, the programs should not be implemented until after the resolution of the protest. However, the docket should remain open for staff’s verification that the program standards have been filed by the utility and approved by staff. When the PAA issues become final and the program standards have been approved, this docket should be closed administratively.

 

 


   7**PAA                   Docket No. 150085-EG – Petition for approval of Florida Power & Light Company's demand-side management plan and request to cancel closed on call tariff sheets.

Critical Date(s):

None

Commissioners Assigned:

All Commissioners

Prehearing Officer:

Administrative

Staff:

ENG:   Ellis

ECO:   S. Brown

GCL:   Tan

 

(Proposed Agency Action (Issue 1) - Tariff Filing (Issue 2).)

Issue 1: 

 Is FPL’s DSM Plan projected to meet the annual numeric conservation goals established by the Commission in Order No. PSC-14-0696-FOF-EU?

Recommendation: 

 Yes. FPL’s DSM Plan is cost-effective based upon the Rate Impact Measure (RIM) test and results in a net decrease in ratepayers’ monthly rates. FPL’s DSM Plan is projected to meet or exceed the annual numeric conservation goals set by the Commission in Order No. PSC-14-0696-FOF-EU.

The Commission should approve the programs contained in FPL’s DSM Plan. In addition, the Commission should allow FPL to file for cost recovery of the programs in the Energy Conservation Cost Recovery (ECCR) clause proceeding. FPL, however, must still demonstrate that its expenditures to implement these programs are reasonable and prudent in order to recover the expenditures through the ECCR clause. Staff recommends that FPL may not discontinue its DSM programs or change its programs’ rebate levels without seeking formal Commission approval.

Finally, staff recommends that FPL file its administrative program standards for all programs within 30 days of the Consummating Order in this docket and that the Commission grant staff administrative authority to review and approve these standards.

Issue 2: 

 Should the Commission approve FPL’s request to cancel its closed Residential On Call Tariff Sheets?

Recommendation: 

 Yes. FPL expects to save approximately $8.3 million in annual costs due to lower bill credits being provided to certain participants in the closed Residential On Call tariff that would be shifted to the similar Residential Load Control tariff. FPL also expects administrative savings from reduced system and reporting requirements associated with the closed tariff. These combined savings will ultimately result in a reduction of costs recovered through the Energy Conservation Cost Recovery clause. Staff further recommends that the Commission grant permission to administratively approve the notifications that FPL will submit to its customers affected by the change in tariffs.

Issue 3: 

 Should this docket be closed?

Recommendation: 

 No. If no person whose substantial interests are affected by the proposed agency action on Issue 1 files a protest within 21 days of the issuance of the PAA Order, a Consummating Order should be issued. If the Commission approves any programs, the programs should become effective on the date of the Consummating Order. If a protest is filed within 21 days of the issuance of the PAA Order, the programs should not be implemented until after the resolution of the protest.

If Issue 2 is approved, the tariff should be cancelled effective as of the date of the Commission’s vote. If a protest is filed within 21 days of the issuance of the PAA Order, the tariff should remain in effect subject to refund pending resolution of the protest. 

However, if there are no protests for Issues 1 and 2 the docket should remain open for staff’s verification that the program standards have been filed by the utility and approved by staff. When the PAA issues become final and the program standards have been approved, this docket should be closed administratively.

 

 


   8**PAA                   Docket No. 150086-EG – Petition for approval of demand-side management plan of Gulf Power Company.

Critical Date(s):

None

Commissioners Assigned:

All Commissioners

Prehearing Officer:

Administrative

Staff:

ENG:   Ellis, Graves

ECO:   S. Brown, Gilbert

GCL:   Tan

 

Issue 1: 

 Is Gulf Power Company’s DSM Plan projected to meet the annual numeric conservation goals established by the Commission in Order No. PSC-14-0696-FOF-EU?

Recommendation: 

 Yes. Gulf’s DSM Plan is cost-effective based upon the Rate Impact Measure (RIM) test and results in a net decrease in ratepayers’ monthly rates. Gulf’s DSM Plan is projected to meet or exceed the annual goals set by the Commission in Order No. PSC-14-0696-FOF-EU.

Staff additionally recommends that Gulf be allowed to recover expenditures, capped at $408,000, associated with its proposed residential time of use pilot program through the ECCR. Following December 31, 2017, the termination date, Gulf should provide the Commission with its evaluation of the pilot program.

The Commission should approve the programs contained in Gulf’s DSM Plan. In addition, the Commission should allow Gulf to file for cost recovery of the programs in the Energy Conservation Cost Recovery (ECCR) clause proceeding. Gulf, however, must demonstrate that its expenditures to implement these programs are reasonable and prudent in order to recover the expenditures through the ECCR clause. Staff recommends that Gulf may not discontinue its DSM programs or change its programs’ rebate levels without seeking formal Commission approval.

Finally, staff further recommends that Gulf file its administrative program standards for all programs within 30 days of the Consummating Order being issued in this docket and that the Commission grant staff administrative authority to review and approve these standards.

Issue 2: 

 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 PAA Order, a Consummating Order should be issued. If the Commission approves any programs, the programs should become effective on the date of the Consummating Order. If a protest is filed within 21 days of the issuance of the PAA Order, the programs should not be implemented until after the resolution of the protest. However, the docket should remain open for staff’s verification that the program standards have been filed by the company and approved by staff. When the PAA issues become final and the program standards have been approved, this docket should be closed administratively.

 

 


   9**PAA                   Docket No. 150087-EG – Petition for approval of modifications to demand-side management plan by JEA.

Critical Date(s):

None

Commissioners Assigned:

All Commissioners

Prehearing Officer:

Administrative

Staff:

ENG:   Ellis, Mtenga

ECO:   S. Brown, Margolis

GCL:   Ames

 

Issue 1: 

 Is JEA’s DSM Plan projected to meet the annual numeric conservation goals established by the Commission in Order No. PSC-14-0696-FOF-EU?

Recommendation: 

 Yes. JEA’s DSM Plan is projected to meet or exceed the annual numeric conservation goals set by the Commission in Order No. PSC-14-0696-FOF-EU. However, JEA’s DSM Plan is projected not to be cost-effective based upon the Rate Impact Measure (RIM) test. The Commission should allow JEA to continue programs giving consideration to JEA’s status as a municipal utility, where the local governing body is given the latitude to make local decisions regarding the community investment in energy efficiency. JEA’s governing body will make its own determination as to whether expenditures are reasonable and prudent and will decide if it is necessary to modify and or remove programs.

Finally, staff recommends that JEA file its administrative program standards for all programs within 30 days of the Consummating Order being issued in this docket and that the Commission grant staff administrative authority to review and approve these standards.

Issue 2: 

 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 PAA Order, a Consummating Order should be issued. If the Commission approves any programs, the programs should become effective on the date of the Consummating Order. If a protest is filed within 21 days of the issuance of the PAA Order, the programs should not be implemented until after the resolution of the protest. However, the docket should remain open for staff’s verification that the program standards have been filed by the utility and approved by staff. When the PAA issues become final and the program standards have been approved, this docket should be closed administratively.

 

 


10**PAA                   Docket No. 150088-EG – Petition for approval of modifications to demand-side management plan by Orlando Utilities Commission.

Critical Date(s):

None

Commissioners Assigned:

All Commissioners

Prehearing Officer:

Administrative

Staff:

ENG:   Ellis, Mtenga

ECO:   S. Brown, Gilbert

GCL:   Ames

 

Issue 1: 

 Is OUC’s DSM Plan projected to meet the Commission’s annual numeric conservation goals established by the Commission in Order No. PSC-13-0645-PAA-EU?

Recommendation: 

  OUC’s DSM Plan is projected to meet or exceed the annual goals set by the Commission in all categories except winter peak demand for the commercial/industrial sector. However, OUC has not yet quantified savings from three existing commercial/industrial programs which may contribute towards meeting this goal. OUC is considering potential new programs to address this issue.

OUC’s DSM Plan represents a continuation of existing programs and results in a small net increase in ratepayers’ monthly rates. Although the Commission has allowed savings from audit programs to be counted towards achievement of DSM goals in previous proceedings, staff recommends that no behavioral savings be counted towards goals in this proceeding because behavioral savings are not directly monitorable. Even with the removal of projected savings from audits, OUC’s DSM Plan meets or exceeds the annual goals set by the Commission, except as noted above. The Commission should approve the programs contained in OUC’s DSM Plan. OUC’s governing body will make its own determination as to whether expenditures are reasonable and prudent and will decide if it is necessary to modify, add, or remove programs.

Staff recommends that OUC file its administrative program standards for all programs within 30 days of the Consummating Order being issued in this docket and that the Commission grant staff administrative authority to review and approve these standards.

Issue 2: 

 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 PAA Order, a Consummating Order should be issued. If the Commission approves any programs, the programs should become effective on the date of the Consummating Order. If a protest is filed within 21 days of the issuance of the PAA Order, the programs should not be implemented until after the resolution of the protest. However, the docket should remain open for staff’s verification that the program standards have been filed by the utility and approved by staff. When the PAA issues become final and the program standards have been approved, this docket should be closed administratively.

 

 


11**PAA                   Docket No. 150089-EG – Petition for approval of demand-side management plan by Florida Public Utilities Company.

Critical Date(s):

None

Commissioners Assigned:

All Commissioners

Prehearing Officer:

Administrative

Staff:

ENG:   Ellis

ECO:   S. Brown, Lingo

GCL:   Ames

 

Issue 1: 

 Is FPUC’s Demand-Side Management Plan projected to meet the annual numeric conservation goals established by the Commission in Order No. PSC-13-0645-PAA-EU?

Recommendation: 

 Yes. FPUC’s DSM Plan is cost-effective based upon the Rate Impact Measure (RIM) test and results in a net decrease in ratepayers’ monthly rates. Although the Commission has allowed savings from audit programs to be counted towards the achievement of DSM goals in previous proceedings, staff recommends that no behavioral savings associated with audit programs be counted towards goals in this proceeding because behavioral savings are not directly monitorable. Even with the removal of projected behavioral savings from audits, FPUC’s DSM Plan is projected to meet or exceed the annual goals set by the Commission in Order No. PSC-13-0645-PAA-EU.

The Commission should approve the programs contained in FPUC’s DSM Plan. In addition, the Commission should allow FPUC to file for cost recovery of the programs in the Energy Conservation Cost Recovery (ECCR) clause proceeding. FPUC, however, must demonstrate that its expenditures to implement these programs are reasonable and prudent in order to recover the expenditures through the ECCR clause. Staff recommends that FPUC may not discontinue its DSM programs or change its programs’ rebate levels without seeking formal Commission approval.

Finally, staff recommends that FPUC file its administrative program standards for all programs within 30 days of the Consummating Order being issued in this docket and that the Commission grant staff administrative authority to review and approve these standards.

Issue 2: 

 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 PAA Order, a Consummating Order should be issued. If the Commission approves any programs, the programs should become effective on the date of the Consummating Order. If a protest is filed within 21 days of the issuance of the PAA Order, the programs should not be implemented until after the resolution of the protest. However, the docket should remain open for staff’s verification that the program standards have been filed by the utility and approved by staff. When the PAA issues become final and the program standards have been approved, this docket should be closed administratively.

 

 


12                               Docket No. 150043-EI – Petition for determination that the Osprey Plant acquisition or, alternatively, the Suwannee Simple Cycle Project is the most cost effective generation alternative to meet remaining need prior to 2018, by Duke Energy Florida, Inc.

Critical Date(s):

None

Commissioners Assigned:

All Commissioners

Prehearing Officer:

Brown

Staff:

ENG:   Matthews, King, Mtenga

AFD:   Barrett, T. Brown, Bulecza-Banks, D. Buys, Cicchetti

ECO:   Higgins, McNulty, Wu

GCL:   Murphy

 

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

Issue 1: 

 Should the Commission approve the Hearing Officer’s Recommended Order?

Recommendation: 

 Yes. Staff recommends that the Commission approve the Hearing Officer’s Recommended Order.

Issue 2: 

 Should this docket be closed?

Recommendation: 

 With the approval of the Recommended Order and issuance of a final order in this docket, nothing remains to be done and this docket should be closed.

 

 


13**PAA                   Docket No. 150101-EQ – Petition for approval of standard offer for purchase of firm capacity and energy from renewable energy facilities and approval of tariff schedule REF-1, by Gulf Power Company.

Critical Date(s):

None

Commissioners Assigned:

All Commissioners

Prehearing Officer:

Administrative

Staff:

ENG:   Matthews

GCL:   Corbari

 

Issue 1: 

 Should the Commission approve the revised standard offer contract filed by Gulf Power Company?

Recommendation: 

 Yes. The provisions of the revised standard offer contract and related rate schedule conform to all requirements of Rules 25-17.200 through 25-17.310, F.A.C. The revised standard offer contract provides flexibility in the arrangements for payments so that a developer of renewable generation may select the payment stream best suited to its financial needs. Staff recommends that the revised standard offer contract and related rate schedule REF-1 submitted by Gulf be approved as filed.

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 Commission’s Proposed Agency Action Order. Potential signatories should be aware that, if a timely protest is filed, Gulf’s standard offer contract may subsequently be revised.

 

 


14**                           Docket No. 150104-EQ – Petition for approval of revisions to renewable energy tariffs REN-1 and REN-2, by Florida Public Utilities Company.

Critical Date(s):

None

Commissioners Assigned:

All Commissioners

Prehearing Officer:

Administrative

Staff:

ENG:   Mtenga

GCL:   Murphy

 

Issue 1: 

 Should the Commission approve the revised standard offer contract filed by Florida Public Utilities Company?

Recommendation: 

 Yes. The revised standard offer contracts and related rate schedules conform to all the requirements of Rules 25-17.200 through 25-17.310, F.A.C., and reflect the avoidable costs associated with FPUC’s power purchase agreements. Staff recommends that the revised standard offer contracts and related rate schedules filed by FPUC be approved as filed.

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 Commission’s Proposed Agency Action Order. Potential signatories should be aware that, if a timely protest is filed, FPUC’s standard offer contract may subsequently be revised.

 

 


15**                           Docket No. 150105-EI – Petition for approval of revisions to standard offer contract and rate schedule COG-2, by Tampa Electric Company.

Critical Date(s):

None

Commissioners Assigned:

All Commissioners

Prehearing Officer:

Administrative

Staff:

ENG:   Mtenga

GCL:   Corbari

 

Issue 1: 

 Should the Commission approve the revised standard offer contract filed by Tampa Electric Company?

Recommendation: 

 Yes. The provisions of the revised standard offer contract and related rate schedule COG-2 conform to all requirements of Rules 25-17.200 through 25-17.310, F.A.C. The revised standard offer contract provides flexibility in the arrangements for payments so that a developer of renewable generation may select the payment stream best suited to its financial needs. Staff recommends that the revised standard offer contract and related rate schedule COG-2 submitted by TECO be approved as filed.

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 Commission’s Proposed Agency Action Order. Potential signatories should be aware that, if a timely protest is filed, TECO’s standard offer contract may subsequently be revised.

 

 


16**PAA                   Docket No. 150106-EQ – Petition for approval of amended standard offer contract (Schedule COG-2) and amended interconnection agreement, by Duke Energy Florida, Inc.

Critical Date(s):

None

Commissioners Assigned:

All Commissioners

Prehearing Officer:

Administrative

Staff:

ENG:   Matthews

GCL:   Corbari

 

Issue 1: 

 Should the Commission approve the revised standard offer contract and amended interconnection agreement filed by Duke Energy Florida?

Recommendation: 

 Yes. The provisions of the revised standard offer contract and associated rate schedule, along with the updated interconnection agreement, conform to all requirements of Rules 25-17.200 through 25-17.310, F.A.C. The revised standard offer contract provides flexibility in the arrangements for payments so that a developer of renewable generation may select the payment stream best suited to its financial needs. Staff recommends that the revised standard offer contract and associated rate schedule, along with the updated interconnection agreement, submitted by DEF be approved as filed.

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 Commission’s Proposed Agency Action Order. Potential signatories should be aware that, if a timely protest is filed, DEF’s standard offer contract may subsequently be revised.

 

 


17**PAA                   Docket No. 150110-EI – Petition by Duke Energy Florida, Inc. for approval of modifications to approved as-available purchase tariff.

Critical Date(s):

None

Commissioners Assigned:

All Commissioners

Prehearing Officer:

Administrative

Staff:

ENG:   Lee

GCL:   Corbari

 

Issue 1: 

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

Recommendation: 

 Yes. DEF's proposed modifications to its as-available purchase tariff are reasonable and consistent with Commission rules.

Issue 2: 

 Should this docket be closed?

Recommendation: 

 Yes. If Issue 1 is approved, DEF’s tariff becomes effective the date of the Commission vote. If a protest is filed within 21 days of the issuance of the order, the tariff 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.

 

 


18**                           Docket No. 150115-WS – Joint application for approval of transfer of majority organizational control of Ni Florida, LLC, holder of Certificate Nos. 388-W in Lee County and 104-S in Pasco County, to Ni Pacolet Milliken Utilities, LLC.

Critical Date(s):

None

Commissioners Assigned:

All Commissioners

Prehearing Officer:

Edgar

Staff:

ENG:   Lee

AFD:   Bulecza-Banks, Fletcher, Frank, Norris

ECO:   Bruce

GCL:   Villafrate

 

Issue 1: 

 Should the application for transfer of majority organizational control of Ni Florida, LLC., holder of Certificate Nos. 388-W in Lee County, and 104-S in Pasco County, to Ni Pacolet Milliken Utilities, LLC. be approved?

Recommendation: 

 Yes. The transfer of majority organizational control to Ni Pacolet Milliken Utilities, LLC. is in the public interest and should be approved effective the date of the Commission vote. The resultant order should serve as the water and wastewater certificates, with the territory described in Attachments A (388-W) and B (104-S) of staff’s memorandum dated July 9, 2015. 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 should be effective 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.

 

 


19**PAA                   Docket No. 150094-GP – Petition for approval of amendment to special contract with Peninsula Pipeline Company, by Peoples Gas System.

Critical Date(s):

None

Commissioners Assigned:

All Commissioners

Prehearing Officer:

Patronis

Staff:

ECO:   Rome

GCL:   Barrera

 

Issue 1: 

 Should the Commission approve the Amendment to the transportation service agreement between Peoples and Peninsula?

Recommendation: 

 Yes, the Commission should approve the Amendment because it establishes rates that cover the cost of service and therefore benefits Peoples’ general body of ratepayers.

Issue 2: 

 Should this docket be closed?

Recommendation: 

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

 

 


20**PAA                   Docket No. 150117-GU – Joint petition for approval of modified cost allocation methodology and revised purchased gas adjustment calculation, by Florida Public Utilities Company, Florida Public Utilities Company - Indiantown Division, Florida Public Utilities Company - Fort Meade, and Florida Division of Chesapeake Utilities Corporation.

Critical Date(s):

None

Commissioners Assigned:

All Commissioners

Prehearing Officer:

Administrative

Staff:

ECO:   Rome, Draper, Ollila

GCL:   Mapp

 

Issue 1: 

 Should the Commission approve the Companies' joint petition for approval of a modified cost allocation methodology and revised PGA calculation?

Recommendation: 

 Yes. The modified cost allocation methodology and resulting revisions to the PGA factor calculation would enable the Companies to have the ability to better balance the costs of individual projects across the entire Chesapeake Florida system, rather than on a system-by-system basis.

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.

 

 


21**                           Docket No. 150139-GU – Joint petition of Florida Public Utilities Company, Florida Public Utilities Company-Fort Meade, Florida Public Utilities-Indiantown Division and the Florida Division of Chesapeake Utilities Corporation for approval of revisions to commercial natural gas vehicle service programs.

Critical Date(s):

12/30/15 (8-Month Effective Date)

Commissioners Assigned:

All Commissioners

Prehearing Officer:

Administrative

Staff:

ECO:   Draper

GCL:   Barrera

 

Issue 1: 

 Should the Commission approve the companies' proposed tariff revision?

Recommendation: 

 Yes. The proposed tariff revisions should be approved with an effective date of July 21, 2015.

Issue 2: 

 Should this docket be closed?

Recommendation: 

 Yes. 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.

 

 


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

Critical Date(s):

02/29/16 (15-Month Effective Date (SARC))

Commissioners Assigned:

All Commissioners

Prehearing Officer:

Brown

Staff:

ECO:   Thompson, Hudson, Daniel

AFD:   Frank, Monroe, Norris, Fletcher

APA:   Small

ENG:   P. Buys, King

GCL:   Murphy

 

(Interested Persons May Participate (Except for Issues 10, 12, and 13).)

Issue 1: 

 Is the overall quality of service provided by Brevard Waterworks satisfactory?

Recommendation: 

 No. Staff recommends that the water provided by Brevard Waterworks is satisfactory as it 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 customers’ concerns. However, staff recommends the operating condition of the water facilities is marginal because of the excessive unaccounted for water addressed in Issue 6. Therefore, staff recommends that the overall quality of service for Brevard Waterworks is marginal.

Issue 2: 

 What is the used and useful percentage (U&U) of Brevard Waterworks’ water distribution system?

Recommendation: 

 Consistent with Order No. PSC-12-0102-FOF-WS[1], Brevard Waterworks’ water distribution system should be considered 100 percent U&U.

Issue 3: 

 What is the appropriate average test year rate base for Brevard Waterworks?

Recommendation: 

 The appropriate average test year rate base for Brevard Waterworks is $81,694.

Issue 4: 

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

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 8.19 percent.

Issue 5: 

 What are the appropriate test year revenues for the utility’s water system?

Recommendation: 

 The appropriate test year revenues for Brevard Waterworks’ water system are $127,847.

Issue 6: 

 What is the appropriate amount of total operating expense?

Recommendation: 

 The appropriate amount of operating expense for the utility is $156,936.

Issue 7: 

 What is the appropriate revenue requirement?

Recommendation: 

 The appropriate revenue requirement is $163,627, resulting in an annual increase of $35,780 (27.99 percent).

Issue 8: 

 What is the appropriate rate structure and rates for Brevard Waterworks’ water system?

Recommendation: 

 The recommended rate structure and monthly water rates are shown on Schedule Nos. 4-A and 4B of staff’s memorandum dated July 9, 2015. The utility should file revised tariff sheets and a proposed customer notice to reflect the Commission-approved rates. The approved rates should be effective for service rendered on or after the stamped approval date on the tariff sheet, pursuant to Rule 25-30.475(1), F.A.C. In addition, the approved rates should not be implemented until staff has approved the proposed customer notice and the notice has been received by the customers. The utility should provide proof of the date notice was given within 10 days of the date of the notice.

Issue 9: 

 In determining whether any portion of the interim increase granted should be refunded, how should the refund be calculated, and what is the amount of the refund, if any?

Recommendation: 

 The proper refund amount should be calculated by using the same data used to establish final rates, excluding pro forma and other items not in effect during the interim period. This revised revenue requirement for the interim collection period should be compared to the amount of interim revenue requirement granted. Based on this calculation, no refunds are required. Further, upon issuance of the Consummating Order in this docket, the escrow account should be released with all funds including interest returned to the utility.

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 water rates should be reduced as shown on Schedule No. 4 of staff’s memorandum dated July 9, 2015, 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. Brevard Waterworks 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 is the appropriate customer deposit for Brevard Waterworks’ water system?

Recommendation: 

 The appropriate initial customer deposit should be $105 for the residential 5/8 inch x 3/4 inch meter size for water. The initial customer deposits for all other residential meter sizes and all general service meter sizes should be two times the average estimated bill for water. The approved initial customer deposits should be effective for 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 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. Brevard Waterworks 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 July 9, 2015. 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 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 13: 

 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, Brevard Waterworks should provide proof, within 90 days of the final order in this docket, that the adjustments to all the applicable NARUC USOA accounts have been made to the utility’s books and records. The utility’s support documentation should include a list, by issue, of all Commission ordered adjustments and a reference to where the corresponding bookkeeping entries can be found in the general ledger that is provided.

Issue 14: 

 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.

 

 


23                               Docket No. 150102-SU – Application for increase in wastewater rates in Charlotte County by Utilities, Inc. of Sandalhaven.

Critical Date(s):

08/03/15 (60-Day Suspension Date)

Commissioners Assigned:

All Commissioners

Prehearing Officer:

Edgar

Staff:

ECO:   Bruce, Daniel, Hudson

AFD:   Archer, Bulecza-Banks, D. Buys, Cicchetti

ENG:   Watts

GCL:   Brownless

 

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

Issue 1: 

 Should the utility’s proposed final wastewater rates be suspended?

Recommendation: 

 Yes. Sandalhaven’s proposed final wastewater rates should be suspended.

Issue 2: 

 Should any interim increase be approved?

Recommendation: 

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

 

Adjusted Test Year Revenues

$ Increase

Revenue Requirement

% Increase

Wastewater

$669,037

$611,174

$1,280,211

91.35

Issue 3: 

 What are the appropriate interim wastewater rates?

Recommendation: 

 The interim rate increase of 91.6 percent for wastewater should be applied as an across-the-board increase to the utility’s existing service rates. The rates, as shown on Schedule No. 4 of staff’s memorandum dated July 9, 2015, should be effective for service rendered on or after the stamped approval date on the tariff sheets, pursuant to Rule 25-30.475(1), F.A.C. The utility should file revised tariff sheets and a proposed customer notice to reflect the Commission-approved rates. In addition, the approved rates should not be implemented until the required security has been filed, staff has approved the proposed customer notice, and the notice has been received by the customers. The utility should provide proof of the date notice was given within 10 days of the date of the notice. 

Issue 4: 

 What is the appropriate security to guarantee the interim increase?

Recommendation: 

 A cumulative corporate undertaking is acceptable contingent upon receipt of the written guarantee of the parent company, Utilities, Inc. (UI 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 guaranteed amount subject to refund should be $356,608. 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. 

 

 


24**                           Docket No. 150099-EI – Petition for approval of revised net metering tariff and agreement adopting terms of standard interconnection agreement for Tier 1, Tier 2, or Tier 3 renewable generator systems, by Tampa Electric Company.

Critical Date(s):

11/27/15 (8-Month Effective Date)

Commissioners Assigned:

All Commissioners

Prehearing Officer:

Administrative

Staff:

IDM:   B. Crawford

GCL:   Ames

 

Issue 1: 

 Should the Commission approve TECO's new interconnection agreement and revisions to its existing net metering tariff?

Recommendation: 

 Yes. The Commission should approve TECO’s new interconnection agreement and revisions to its existing net metering tariff. Since the proposed renter’s agreement contains references to the original SIA with the property owner, TECO should provide a renter with a physical copy of the original SIA. The changes to the existing net metering tariff incorporate references to the new agreement within net metering tariff NM-1. 

Issue 2: 

 Should this docket be closed?

Recommendation: 

 Yes.  If the Commission approves staff’s recommendation and no protest is filed within 21 days, then Docket No. 150099-EI should be closed upon issuance of a Consummating Order, and the tariff revision should become effective as of the date of the Commission’s vote.  If a protest is filed within 21 days of the issuance of the Commission’s order, the tariff should remain in effect pending resolution of the protest.  Potential signatories to the tariff should be aware that TECO’s tariff may be subject to a request for hearing, and if a hearing is held, may subsequently be revised. 

 

 


 



[1]Id.