FLORIDA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION

COMMISSION CONFERENCE AGENDA

CONFERENCE DATE AND TIME: June 29, 2004, 9:30 a.m.

LOCATION: Room 148, Betty Easley Conference Center

DATE ISSUED: June 18, 2004

NOTICE

Persons affected by Commission action on certain items on this agenda for which a hearing has not been held (other than actions on interim rates in file and suspend rate cases) may be allowed to address the Commission when those items are taken up for discussion at this conference. These items are designated by double asterisks (**) next to the agenda item number.

Included in the above category are items brought before the Commission for tentative or proposed action which will be subject to requests for hearing before becoming final. These actions include all tariff filings, items identified as proposed agency action (PAA), show cause actions and certain others.

To obtain a copy of staff’s recommendation for any item on this agenda, contact the Division of the Commission Clerk and Administrative Services at (850) 413‑6770. There may be a charge for the copy. The agenda and recommendations are also accessible on the PSC Homepage, at http://www.psc.state.fl.us, at no charge.

Any person requiring some accommodation at this conference because of a physical impairment should call the Division of the Commission Clerk and Administrative Services at (850) 413‑6770 at least 48 hours before the conference. Any person who is hearing or speech impaired should contact the Commission by using the Florida Relay Service, which can be reached at 1‑800‑955‑8771 (TDD). Assistive Listening Devices are available in the Division of the Commission Clerk and Administrative Services, Betty Easley Conference Center, Room 110.

Video and audio versions of the conference are available and can be accessed live on the PSC Homepage on the day of the Conference. The audio version is available through archive storage for up to three months afterward.

1 Approval of Minutes
May 18, 2004 Regular Commission Conference
June 1, 2004 Regular Commission Conference

2 ** Consent Agenda

PAA A) Applications for certificates to provide competitive local exchange telecommunications service.

DOCKET NO.	COMPANY NAME
040461‑TX	Trinity Telecommunications, Inc. d/b/a Trinity Connect
040444‑TX	Nationwide Computer Systems, Inc. d/b/a Desoto.Net and d/b/a Greenwood.Net
040470‑TX	Ringsouth Telecom, Corp
040496‑TX	SkyWay Telecom, Inc.
040516‑TX	InterGlobe Communications, Inc.
040337‑TX	CommPartners, LLC
040460‑TX	Talk For Less, Inc.
040463‑TX	Skyway Communications Holding Corp.

PAA B) Applications for certificates to provide pay telephone service.

DOCKET NO.	COMPANY NAME
040468‑TC	Waterville Communications, Inc.
040433‑TC	Edward Rodtz
040459‑TC	Jose Benjamin Sanchez
040492‑TC	SeaCoast Communications, L.L.C.
040526‑TC	Milton J. Keifer

PAA C) Request for cancellation of a competitive local exchange telecommunications certificate.

DOCKET NO.	COMPANY NAME	EFFECTIVE DATE
040475‑TX	RCN Telecom Services, Inc.	4/14/2004

RECOMMENDATION: The Commission should approve the action requested in the dockets referenced above and close these dockets.

3** Docket No. 040493-TP – Proposed amendment of Rule 25-24.516, F.A.C., Pay Telephone Rate Caps, and Rule 25-24.630, F.A.C., Rate and Billing Requirements.

Critical Date(s):		None
Rule Status:		Proposed
Commissioners Assigned:			All Commissioners
Prehearing Officer:			Deason
Staff:	GCL: Cibula CMP: Kennedy ECR: Hewitt

Issue 1: Should the Commission propose the amendment of Rule 25-24.516, F.A.C., Pay Telephone Caps, and Rule 25-24.630, F.A.C., Rate and Billing Requirements?

Recommendation: Yes. The Commission should propose the amendment of the rules to repeal Rules 25-24.516(3) and 25-24.630(2), as set forth in Attachment A of staff’s June 17, 2004 memorandum.

Issue 2: Should this docket be closed?

Recommendation: Yes. If no request 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.

5 Docket No. 020896-WS – Petition by customers of Aloha Utilities, Inc. for deletion of portion of territory in Seven Springs area in Pasco County.
Docket No. 010503-WU – Application for increase in water rates for Seven Springs System in Pasco County by Aloha Utilities, Inc.

Critical Date(s):		None
Commissioners Assigned:			All Commissioners
Prehearing Officer:			Bradley (020896-WS) Baez (010503-WU)
Staff:	GCL: Gervasi, Jaeger ECR: Walden, Daniel, Kummer, Willis SCR: Lowery

(Proposed agency action on Issue 4 - oral argument requested on Issue 3 - interested persons may participate on Issues 4-7.)

Issue 1: Should the Commission grant Aloha’s Request for Oral Argument on its Motion to Dismiss (Issue 3)?

Recommendation: Yes. Because oral argument may aid the Commission in comprehending and evaluating Issue 3, staff recommends that oral argument be granted. Staff notes that interested persons are permitted to participate on Issues 4-7 in any event. Combined presentations on all issues should be limited to fifteen minutes per side.

Issue 2: Should the Commission grant Aloha’s Motion to Strike the supplemental response filed by Dr. Kurien to Aloha’s motion to dismiss?

Recommendation: Yes. The Commission should grant Aloha’s Motion to Strike.

Issue 3: What action should the Commission take on Aloha’s Motion to Dismiss the First Deletion Petition and its Supplemental Motion to Dismiss the Second Deletion Petition?

Recommendation: The Commission should dismiss for lack of jurisdiction the portion of the First Deletion Petition that requests that the Seven Springs territory be made part of the service area of the Pasco County water utility system. The Commission should deny the motions to dismiss the remaining portions of the two deletion petitions.

** Issue 4: Should the Commission grant Aloha’s motion to modify the rate case order, to change the 98% standard for removal of hydrogen sulfide contained therein to agree with the Tampa Bay Water Standard of 0.1 mg/L?

Recommendation: Aloha’s motion to modify the rate case order should be granted in part and denied in part. The fourth ordering paragraph of the rate case order should be modified to read that “Aloha shall make improvements to its wells 8 and 9 and then to all of its wells as needed to meet a goal of 0.1 mg/L of sulfides in its finished water at the point of delivery with the customers’ piping. Compliance with such requirement shall be determined based upon samples taken monthly at a minimum of two sites at domestic meters most distant from the multiple treatment facilities. Such sites shall be rotated to provide the greatest likelihood of detecting any departure from the maximum levels permitted. Aloha shall implement this standard no later than February 12, 2005.” The Commission should direct Aloha to use the treatment process that Aloha concludes will achieve this level of treatment in the most cost-effective manner. Finally, the Commission should require monthly progress reports, as set forth in the analysis portion of staff’s June 17, 2004 memorandum.

** Issue 5: What additional steps should Aloha take to address the black water problem occurring in customers’ homes?

Recommendation: To assist customers who have experienced damage due to the water’s high hydrogen sulfide content, staff recommends that Aloha should be strongly encouraged to implement a low interest loan or a rebate program to assist customers in the Seven Springs service territory who wish to replace their existing copper pipes. The details of two such program proposals are discussed in the staff analysis for the utility’s consideration.

** Issue 6: What further action should the Commission take at this time on the deletion petitions?

Recommendation: The Commission should decline to take further action on the customers’ requests to delete the Seven Springs area until after Aloha has had an opportunity to implement the new treatment process required by Issue 4. Staff will bring a recommendation for further action on the deletion petitions as soon as practicable after the February 12, 2005 implementation deadline.

** Issue 7: Should the dockets be closed?

Recommendation: No. Docket No. 010503-WU should remain open to further address the interim rate refund issue. Docket No. 020896-WS should remain open to monitor compliance with the applicable treatment and reporting requirements and to take further action on the request to delete the Seven Springs area from Aloha’s certificated territory.

6** Docket No. 040156-TP – Petition for arbitration of amendment to interconnection agreements with certain competitive local exchange carriers and commercial mobile radio service providers in Florida by Verizon Florida Inc.

Critical Date(s):		None
Commissioners Assigned:			All Commissioners
Prehearing Officer:			Davidson
Staff:	GCL: Fordham, Banks CMP: Lee, Dowds

Issue 1: Should the Commission grant Sprint’s Motions to Dismiss Verizon’s Petition based on its procedural deficiencies?

Recommendation: Yes. Verizon has not complied with the procedural requirements of Section 252(b), nor has it identified specific parties and provided the essential information on the agreements with each of those parties at a level sufficient to enable this Commission to proceed with an arbitration. Therefore, Verizon’s Petition is facially deficient. Accordingly, Verizon’s Petition should be dismissed, without prejudice, for failure to meet the requirements set forth in Section 252 of the Act. Staff recommends that Verizon be granted leave to refile its corrected Petition(s) within 20 days of the Commission’s vote. Additionally, if Verizon elects to refile, its petition(s) should contain, in addition to the requirements of Section 252(b), sufficient information to ease the logistical and administrative burdens of handling Verizon’s Petition. That additional information should include, at a minimum, the following:

1. The name of each company with which arbitration is being requested.

2. The present agreement expiration date for each company with which Verizon has a current agreement.

3. The unresolved issues with each specific company.

4. The position of each of the parties with respect to those issues.

5. Whether the present agreement contains a change of law provision.

6. The nature of the change of law provision.

7. Whether the present agreement contains an alternative dispute resolution provision.

8. The type of alternative dispute resolution required.

Though a specific format should not be required, staff recommends that, in the event a future Verizon petition contains multiple companies, a matrix would be valuable for the purpose of organizing and setting forth the required information. (See Attachment A of staff’s June 17, 2004 memorandum for example.)

Staff further recommends that if Verizon elects to refile within the 20-day time frame, responses to the corrected Petition should be due within 20 days of service of Verizon’s filing. If Verizon elects not to refile within the allotted time frame, and the time frame is not otherwise extended by the Commission, the Commission’s Order should thereafter be deemed final for purposes of appeal.

Issue 2: Should the Motions to Dismiss filed by the Competitive Carrier Coalition, Time Warner, Eagle/Myatel, Z-Tel, and AT&T be granted?

Recommendation: If the Commission approves staff’s recommendation on Issue 1, these Motions will technically be rendered moot. However, staff recommends that the Commission consider and vote on this issue so as to have these matters settled for purposes of future pleadings in this Docket. Staff recommends that the Commission make the following findings:

A. Dismissal should not be granted based on allegations of failure to negotiate in good faith, because this allegation does not demonstrate that Verizon has failed to state a cause of action upon which relief can be granted.

B. Dismissal should not be based on Verizon’s alleged failure to follow the Change in Law provisions in its interconnection agreements. This may serve as the basis for denial or summary final order at a later date, but there is insufficient information at this time for this to serve as the basis for dismissal of the Petition in its entirety.

C. Dismissal should not be based upon allegations that the Petition is premature and a “waste of time” because of the uncertain status of the TRO and the D.C. Circuit’s decision in United States Telecom Association v. Federal Communications Commission and United States of America, 359 F.3d 554 (D.C. Cir. 2004) (USTA II). Subject to the applicability of arguments regarding carriers’ Change of Law provisions in interconnection agreements, Verizon appears to have otherwise complied with the arbitration filing time frames set forth in Section 252 of the Act. Furthermore, this allegation does not show that Verizon has failed to state a cause of action upon which relief can be granted.

D. Dismissal should not be based on allegations that the Act does not provide for amendments to arbitration petitions filed outside the arbitration “window” of the 135^th and 160^th day. While the Act does not provide for such amendments, it also does not preclude them. The Act does, however, limit consideration to issues in the Petition and the Response, which may arguably preclude any new issues raised subsequent to the initial pleading. This question need not be resolved at this time.

E. Dismissal should not be granted based on allegations that an arbitration can only be opened by a CLEC Petition. Section 252(b)(1) clearly states that “. . . the carrier or any other party to the negotiation may petition a State commission to arbitrate any open issues.” (emphasis added)

F. Dismissal should not be based solely on Verizon’s failure to identify the agreement status of each named CLEC. While this does appear to identify a flaw in Verizon’s Petition, it does not appear to be a requirement for filing an arbitration under Section 252 and as such, does not appear to be a fatal flaw in that it does not show Verizon has failed to state a cause of action upon which relief can be granted. As set forth in Issue 1, Verizon should, however, be directed to correct this flaw when and if it files an Amended Petition in order to ease the logistical and administrative burdens of handling Verizon’s Petition.

G. Dismissal should not be based on the BellAtlantic/GTE merger conditions. Those conditions do not appear to remain in effect. Furthermore, while this allegation could serve as a basis for a summary final order or as a basis for denial of the Petition after hearing, this allegation does not show that Verizon has failed to state a cause of action upon which relief can be granted.

Issue 3: Should this Docket be closed?

Recommendation: No.

7** Docket No. 031038-TL – Petition for approval to revise customer contact protocol by BellSouth Telecommunications, Inc.

Critical Date(s):		None
Commissioners Assigned:			All Commissioners
Prehearing Officer:			Administrative
Staff:	CMP: Pruitt GCL: Susac

Issue 1: Should the Commission grant BellSouth Telecommunications, Inc.’s Motion to Strike Americatel Corporation’s Reply to BellSouth’s Response to Americatel’s Petition protesting Order No. PSC-04-0115-PAA-TL?

Recommendation: Yes. The Commission should grant BellSouth Telecommunications, Inc.’s Motion to Strike Americatel Corporation’s Reply, because the Uniform Rules of Procedure do not expressly authorize replies.

Issue 2: Should the Commission dismiss Americatel Corporation’s Petition for the Initiation of Proceedings on its own motion for failure to state a cause of action upon which relief could be granted?

Recommendation: Yes. Taking all of the petitioner’s allegations as true, Americatel has failed to sufficiently state a cause of action upon which relief could be granted. The Petition should, therefore, be dismissed, and Order Nos. PSC-04-0115-PAA-TL and PSC-04-0115A-PAA-TL should be made final and effective as of the date of the Commission’s decision at the Agenda Conference.

Issue 3: Should this docket be closed?

Recommendation: Yes. If the Commission approves staff’s recommendation in Issue 2, then no other issues will remain for the Commission to address in this docket. This docket should, therefore, be closed.

8**PAA Docket No. 040427-TI – Compliance investigation of FoxTel, Inc. for apparent violation of Sections 364.02 and 364.336, Florida Statutes.

Critical Date(s):		None
Commissioners Assigned:			All Commissioners
Prehearing Officer:			Administrative
Staff:	CMP: Curry GCL: Rockette-Gray

Issue 1: Should the Commission impose a penalty in the amount of $10,000 against Foxtel, Inc. for its apparent violation of Section 364.02, Florida Statutes?

Recommendation: Yes.

Issue 2: Should the Commission impose a $500 penalty upon Foxtel for its apparent violation of Section 364.336, Florida Statutes, Regulatory Assessment Fees?

Recommendation: Yes.

Issue 3: Should this docket be closed?

Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Commission take action as set forth in the analysis portion of staff’s June 17, 2004 memorandum.

10**PAA                    Compliance investigation for apparent violation of Rule 25-4.0161, F.A.C., Regulatory Assessment Fees; Telecommunications Companies.

Docket No. 040399-TC          –          Gene McDonald d/b/a McDonald Communications
Docket No. 040400-TC          –          Gary E. Akers d/b/a JB Telecom
Docket No. 040402-TC          –          Keith R. Zinke & Michael Singletary d/b/a Communication Partners
Docket No. 040403-TC          –          Daytona Telephone Company
Docket No. 040404-TC          –          Payphone Partners, Inc.
Docket No. 040405-TC          –          Roberta Rich d/b/a Street Phones Co
Docket No. 040406-TC          –          Ocean Palms Beach Club, Inc.

Critical Date(s):		None
Commissioners Assigned:			All Commissioners
Prehearing Officer:			Administrative
Staff:	CMP: Isler GCL: Rojas, Rockette-Gray, Scott

Issue 1: Should the Commission deny granting the companies listed on Attachment A of staff’s June 17, 2004 memorandum voluntary cancellation of their respective certificates and cancel the companies’ respective certificates on the Commission’s own motion?

Recommendation: Yes.

Issue 2: Should these dockets be closed?

Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Commission take action as set forth in the analysis portion of staff’s June 17, 2004 memorandum.

13**PAA Docket No. 020645-TI – Compliance investigation of UKI Communications, Inc. for apparent violation of Rule 25-4.118, F.A.C., Local, Local Toll, and Toll Provider Selection. (Deferred from May 18, 2004 conference; revised recommendation filed.)

Critical Date(s):		None
Commissioners Assigned:			All Commissioners
Prehearing Officer:			Davidson
Staff:	CMP: Watts GCL: Fordham, Rojas, Teitzman SCR: Lowery

Issue 1: Should the Commission penalize UKI Communications, Inc. $250,000 for apparent violation of Proposed Agency Action Order No. PSC-03-0990-PAA-TI, issued on September 3, 2003, made final and effective by Consummating Order No. PSC-03-1078-CO-TI, issued on September 30, 2003?

Recommendation: Yes.

Issue 2: Should the Commission order companies that provide billing services or underlying carrier services for UKI Communications, Inc. to stop providing service for it in Florida?

Recommendation: Yes.

Issue 3: Should this docket be closed?

Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Commission take action as set forth in the analysis portion of staff’s June 17, 2004 memorandum.

14**PAA Docket No. 031031-TI – Compliance investigation of Miko Telephone Communications, Inc. for apparent violation of Rule 25-4.118, F.A.C., Local, Local Toll, or Toll Provider Selection. (Deferred from May 18, 2004 conference; revised recommendation filed.)

Critical Date(s):		None
Commissioners Assigned:			All Commissioners
Prehearing Officer:			Bradley
Staff:	CMP: Buys GCL: Fordham, Rojas, Teitzman SCR: Lowery

Issue 1: Should the Commission penalize Miko Telephone Communications, Inc. $10,000 per apparent violation, for a total of $1,540,000 for 154 apparent violations of Rule 25-4.118, Florida Administrative Code, Local, Local Toll, or Toll Provider Selection?

Recommendation: Yes.

Issue 2: If, as a result of failing to pay the penalty or contest the Commission’s Order resulting from this recommendation, Miko Telephone Communications, Inc. is ordered to cease and desist providing intrastate interexchange telecommunications service in Florida, should the Commission also order any company that is providing billing services or underlying carrier services for Miko Telephone Communications, Inc. to stop providing service for it in Florida?

Recommendation: Yes.

Issue 3: Should this docket be closed?

Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Commission take action as set forth in the analysis portion of staff’s June 17, 2004 memorandum.

15**PAA Docket No. 040062-TI – Compliance investigation of New Century Telecom, Inc. for apparent violation of Rule 25-4.118, F.A.C., Local, Local Toll, or Toll Provider Selection. (Deferred from May 18, 2004 conference; revised recommendation filed.)

Critical Date(s):		None
Commissioners Assigned:			All Commissioners
Prehearing Officer:			Administrative
Staff:	CMP: Buys GCL: Fordham, Rojas, Teitzman SCR: Lowery

Issue 1: Should the Commission accept New Century Telecom, Inc.’s settlement offer to resolve forty-two (42) apparent violations of Rule 25-4.118, Florida Administrative Code, Local, Local Toll, or Toll Provider Selection?

Recommendation: No. The Commission should reject New Century Telecom, Inc.’s settlement offer. Instead, the Commission should penalize the company $10,000 per apparent violation, for a total of $420,000, for 42 apparent violations of Rule 25-4.118, Florida Administrative Code, Local, Local Toll, or Toll Provider Selection. If New Century Telecom, Inc. fails to request a hearing pursuant to Section 120.57, Florida Statutes, within the 21-day response period, the facts should be deemed admitted, the right to a hearing waived, and the penalty should be deemed assessed. If the company fails to pay the amount of the penalty within fourteen calendar days after issuance of the Consummating Order, registration number TI427 should be removed from the register, the company’s tariff should be cancelled, and the company should also be required to immediately cease and desist providing intrastate interexchange telecommunications service within Florida.

Issue 2: If, as a result of the Commission’s Order resulting from this recommendation, New Century Telecom, Inc. is ordered to cease and desist providing intrastate interexchange telecommunications service in Florida, should the Commission also order any company that is providing billing services or underlying carrier services for New Century Telecom, Inc. to stop providing service for it in Florida?

Recommendation: Yes.

Issue 3: Should this docket be closed?

Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Commission take action as set forth in the analysis portion of staff’s June 17, 2004 memorandum.

16** Docket No. 031057-EI – Review of Progress Energy Florida, Inc.'s benchmark for waterborne transportation transactions with Progress Fuels.

Critical Date(s):		None
Commissioners Assigned:			All Commissioners
Prehearing Officer:			Davidson
Staff:	ECR: Floyd, Matlock, Windham, Maurey, McNulty, VonFossen GCL: C. Keating, Rodan RCA: Vandiver

Issue 1: Should the Commission approve the Stipulation and Settlement?

Recommendation: Yes. The Stipulation and Settlement, as clarified by the parties’ joint response to staff’s questions, represents a fair and reasonable resolution of all issues in this docket.

Issue 2: Should Docket No. 031057-EI be closed?

Recommendation: Yes. If there is no appeal of the Commission’s order on this matter, this docket should be closed after the time for filing an appeal of the Commission’s order has run.

17** Docket No. 040085-EI – Petition for approval of new curtailable service rate Schedules CS-3 and CST-3 by Progress Energy Florida, Inc.

Critical Date(s):		7/18/04 (60-day suspension date)
Commissioners Assigned:			All Commissioners
Prehearing Officer:			Administrative
Staff:	ECR: Wheeler GCL: Brown

Issue 1: Should the Commission approve Progress Energy Florida, Inc.’s (PEF’S) proposed changes to its Curtailable General Service – Fixed Curtailable Demand Rate Schedule CS-3 and Curtailable General Service – Fixed Curtailable Demand Rate Schedule CST-3 - Optional Time of Use rate schedules?

Recommendation: Yes.

Issue 2: Should this docket be closed?

Recommendation: Yes. If Issue 1 is approved, this tariff should become effective on June 29, 2004. If a protest is filed within 21 days of the issuance of the order, this 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. 040252-EI – Petition for approval of revisions to Tariff Sheet No. 9.930, application form for Medically Essential Service, by Florida Power & Light Company.

Critical Date(s):		11/21/04 (8-month effective date)
Commissioners Assigned:			All Commissioners
Prehearing Officer:			Administrative
Staff:	ECR: Wheeler, Kummer GCL: Brown

Issue 1: Should the Commission approve FPL’s proposed changes to its Application Form for Medically Essential Service Tariff?

Recommendation: Yes.

Issue 2: Should this docket be closed?

Recommendation: Yes. If Issue 1 is approved, this tariff should become effective on June 29, 2004. If a protest is filed within 21 days of the issuance of the order, this tariff should remain in effect pending resolution of the protest. If no timely protest is filed, this docket should be closed upon the issuance of a consummating order.

19 ** Docket No. 040313-EI – Request for approval of 2004 underground differential cost report (Form PSC/EAG 13) and revised tariff sheets, by Gulf Power Company.

Critical Date(s):		12/1/04 (8-month effective date)
Commissioners Assigned:			All Commissioners
Prehearing Officer:			Administrative
Staff:	ECR: Draper, Breman GCL: Rodan

Issue 1: Should the Commission approve Gulf’s revised Underground Residential Distribution tariffs and their associated charges?

Recommendation: Yes.

Issue 2: Should this docket be closed?

20**PAA Docket No. 040320-EI – Request for exclusion under Rule 25-6.0455(3), F.A.C., for an outage event on March 17, 2004, by Gulf Power Company.

Critical Date(s):		None
Commissioners Assigned:			All Commissioners
Prehearing Officer:			Bradley
Staff:	ECR: Breman, Lee GCL: C. Keating

Issue 1: Should the Commission approve Gulf’s petition to exclude from its 2004 Annual Distribution Service Reliability Report service interruptions that occurred in Pensacola on March 17, 2004, when a marine vessel contacted feeder wires at Bayou Chico?

Recommendation: Yes. Gulf has demonstrated that the contact to their feeder wires was not within the utility’s control and that it took reasonable steps to construct the feeder in a manner to avoid contact with the feeder wires.

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.

21** Docket No. 981079-SU – Application for amendment of Certificate No. 104-S to extend service territory in Pasco County by Hudson Utilities, Inc., and request for limited proceeding.
Docket No. 020254-SU – Application for increase in service availability charges for wastewater customers in Pasco County by Hudson Utilities, Inc.

Critical Date(s):		None
Commissioners Assigned:			All Commissioners
Prehearing Officer:			Baez (981079-SU) Davidson (020254-SU)
Staff:	ECR: Clapp, Redemann, Revell, Merchant GCL: Gervasi

Issue 1: Should Hudson’s Notice of Completion of Signal Cove Service Territory and Proof of the Transfer of Territory from Pasco County to Hudson Utilities, Inc. be acknowledged?

Recommendation: Yes. The Notice should be acknowledged.

Issue 2: Should Dockets Nos. 981079-SU and 020254-SU be closed?

Recommendation: Yes. Because no further action is necessary in these dockets, the dockets should be closed.

23** Docket No. 030301-TP – Petition by Mpower Communications Corp. and Florida Digital Network, Inc. for expedited temporary and permanent relief against BellSouth Telecommunications, Inc. for alleged anticompetitive conduct regarding Florida Digital Network Inc.'s proposed acquisition of assets and customer base of Mpower Communications Corp.

Critical Date(s):		None
Commissioners Assigned:			Deason, Bradley, Davidson
Prehearing Officer:			Bradley
Staff:	GCL: Banks, Fordham CMP: Harvey, Bulecza-Banks, Fisher

Issue 1: Should the Commission acknowledge Mpower and FDN’s Notice of Voluntary Withdrawal of their petition and close this docket?

Recommendation: Yes. The Commission should acknowledge Mpower and FDN’s Notice of Voluntary Withdrawal of their Petition and close this docket. In addition, the Commission should find that the voluntary withdrawal renders any and all outstanding motions moot, and all confidential materials in this Docket should be returned to the filing party. Since no further Commission action is necessary, staff recommends that this docket be closed.

Critical Date(s):		6/29/04 (30-day statutory deadline waived until this date)
Commissioners Assigned:			All Commissioners
Prehearing Officer:			Deason
Staff:	GCL: Cibula CMP: C. Williams