Commission Conference Agenda

FLORIDA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION

COMMISSION CONFERENCE AGENDA

CONFERENCE DATE AND TIME: August 17, 2004, 9:30 a.m.

LOCATION: Room 148, Betty Easley Conference Center

DATE ISSUED: August 6, 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.floridapsc.com, 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
July 20, 2004 Regular Commission Conference

2 ** Consent Agenda

PAA A) Application for certificate to provide alternative access vendor service.

DOCKET NO.	COMPANY NAME
040707‑TA	NextG Networks of NY, Inc. d/b/a NextG Networks East

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

DOCKET NO.	COMPANY NAME
040706‑TX	NextG Networks of NY, Inc. d/b/a NextG Networks East
040739‑TX	Tennessee Telephone Service, LLC d/b/a Freedom Communications USA, LLC

PAA C) Aplications for certificates to provide pay telephone service.

DOCKET NO.	COMPANY NAME
040764‑TC	Lane Jones
040784‑TC	Medicom LLC

PAA D) Request for two-year exemption from requirement of Rule 25-24.515(13), F.A.C., that each pay telephone station shall allow incoming calls.

DOCKET NO.

COMPANY NAME

PHONE # & LOCATION

040772‑TC

Southeast Pay Telephone, Inc.

561-272-9071

561-272-9676

Linton Boulevard Shell

380 W. Linton Blvd.

Delray Beach, FL

561-272-9287

561-819-0622

Deb Petroleum

2100 W. Linton Blvd.

Delray Beach, FL

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

3 Docket No. 981834–TP – Petition of Competitive Carriers for Commission action to support local competition in BellSouth Telecommunications, Inc.'s service territory.
Docket No. 990321–TP – Petition of ACI Corp. d/b/a Accelerated Connections, Inc. for generic investigation to ensure that BellSouth Telecommunications, Inc., Sprint-Florida, Incorporated, and GTE Florida Incorporated comply with obligation to provide alternative local exchange carriers with flexible, timely, and cost-efficient physical collocation. (Deferred from August 3, 2004 conference.)

Critical Date(s):		None
Commissioners Assigned:			All Commissioners
Prehearing Officer:			Deason
Staff:	CMP: T. Brown, S. Brown, Cater, King, Marsh ECR: Brinkley, Gardner, Maurey GCL: Teitzman, Rojas

(Participation is limited to Commissioners and staff.)

Issue 9A: For which collocation elements should rates be set for each ILEC?

Recommendation: Staff recommends that AT&T’s single model approach should not be adopted. Therefore, rates should be set for the collocation elements identified in the individual collocation cost studies of BellSouth, Sprint, and Verizon, subject to incorporating staff’s recommended changes in all other applicable issues. The collocation elements (and associated rates) are listed in Appendices B-D of staff’s July 22, 2004 recommendation.

Issue 9B: For those collocation elements for which rates should be set, what is the proper rate and the appropriate application of those rates?

Recommendation: Due to the large number of inputs and elements contained within this issue, staff has provided the table shown in staff’s July 22, 2004 memorandum containing each input and element.

Issue 10: What are the appropriate definitions and associated terms and conditions for the collocation elements to be determined by the Commission?

Recommendation: The definitions and associated terms and conditions for the collocation elements identified in Issue 9A are those proposed by BellSouth, Sprint, and Verizon subject to incorporating staff’s recommended changes in all other applicable issues.

Issue 11: Should these dockets be closed?

Recommendation: If Verizon is ordered to make a compliance filing, these dockets should remain open until staff has the opportunity to evaluate the filing and bring its findings before the Commission. If a compliance filing is not required, the dockets may be closed. Recurring and non-recurring rates and charges should take effect when existing interconnection agreements are amended to incorporate the approved rates, and the amended agreements are deemed approved by the Commission. For new interconnection agreements, the rates shall become effective when the agreements are deemed approved by the Commission. Pursuant to Section 252(e)(4) of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, a negotiated agreement is deemed approved by operation of law after 90 days from the date of submission to the Commission.

4 Docket No. 001503–TP – Cost recovery and allocation issues for number pooling trials in Florida.

Critical Date(s):		None
Commissioners Assigned:			All Commissioners
Prehearing Officer:			Baez
Staff:	CMP: Casey, Bulecza-Banks GCL: Christensen

(Participation is limited to Commissioners and staff.)

Issue 1: May BellSouth and Sprint recover the cost for state-mandated number pooling via a mechanism separate and apart from, and in addition to, the rate and revenue increases to basic and non-basic service implemented since January 1, 2000?

Recommendation: Yes. Staff recommends that the Commission find that the extraordinary costs related to thousands-block number pooling, as defined by the FCC, are outside the scope of the price-cap scheme set forth in Section 364.051, Florida Statutes.

Issue 2: What is the basis of authority under which the Florida Public Service Commission allowed BellSouth and Sprint to recover the costs of number pooling, and to do so through a separate end-user charge?

Recommendation: Staff recommends that this Commission find that pursuant to Section 251(e) of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 and Order No. FCC 99-249, this Commission has been delegated authority under federal law regarding administrative telephone numbering issues. Specifically, this Commission has been granted authority to conduct mandatory thousands-block number pooling and has been obligated to provide a cost recovery mechanism as required under federal law. Further, staff recommends that this Commission find that by virtue of its state law authority over numbering policies and issues under Sections 364.01(4)(a), and Section 364.16(14), Florida Statutes, the Commission is authorized to fulfill the role contemplated by the FCC.

Issue 3: Is the manner by which the Florida Public Service Commission allowed BellSouth and Sprint to recover the costs of number pooling consistent with Federal Communications Commission (FCC) policy and decisions?

Recommendation: Yes. The manner by which the Florida Public Service Commission allowed BellSouth and Sprint to recover the costs of number pooling is consistent with FCC policy and decisions. Also, if the Commission approves Issues 1-3 of this recommendation, staff recommends that the parties proceed to recover the cost of number pooling in accordance with Order Nos. PSC-03-1096-PAA-TP, and PSC-03-1270-PAA-TP. Further, staff recommends that based on the record in this case, the Commission reaffirm the findings and decisions in Order Nos. PSC-03-1096-PAA-TP, and PSC-03-1270-PAA-TP, Attachment A and Attachment B to staff’s August 5, 2004 memorandum, and incorporated by reference.

Issue 4: Should this docket be closed?

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

5** Docket No. 040400–TC – Compliance investigation of Gary E. Akers d/b/a JB Telecom for apparent violation of Rule 25-4.0161, F.A.C., Regulatory Assessment Fees; Telecommunications Companies.

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

Issue 1: Should the Commission grant Gary E. Akers d/b/a JB Telecom a voluntary cancellation of its Pay Telephone Certificate No. 4264 with an effective date of March 2, 2004?

Recommendation: Yes.

Issue 2: Should this docket be closed?

Recommendation: Staff recommends that if the Commission approves staff=s recommendation in Issue 1, this docket should be closed upon cancellation of the certificate as no other issues need to be addressed by the Commission. If the company’s certificate is cancelled in accordance with the Commission’s Order from this recommendation, Gary E. Akers d/b/a JB Telecom should be required to immediately cease and desist providing pay telephone service in Florida, if it has not already done so.

6**PAA Docket No. 040633–TP – Bankruptcy cancellation by Florida Public Service Commission of IXC Registration No. TJ123 and CLEC Certificate No. 5314 issued to North American Telecommunications Corporation d/b/a Southeast Telephone Company, effective 6/29/04.

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

Issue 1: Should the Commission grant North American Telecommunications Corporation d/b/a Southeast Telephone Company cancellation of its CLEC certificate and IXC tariff and removal from the register with an effective date of June 29, 2004, due to bankruptcy; notify the Division of the Commission Clerk and Administrative Services that any unpaid Regulatory Assessment Fees, including statutory penalty and interest charges, should not be sent to the Florida Department of Financial Services and request permission to write off the uncollectible amounts; and require the company to immediately cease and desist providing competitive local exchange and interexchange telecommunications service in Florida?

Recommendation: Yes.

Issue 2: Should this docket be closed?

Recommendation: Yes. Staff recommends that the Order issued from this recommendation will become final 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 Order. The docket should then be closed upon issuance of a Consummating Order.

7 Docket No. 040270–GU – Application for rate increase by Sebring Gas System, Inc.

Critical Date(s):		8/29/04 (60-day suspension date) 11/30/04 (5-month effective date)
Commissioners Assigned:			All Commissioners
Prehearing Officer:			Bradley
Staff:	ECR: Kaproth, Romig, Brinkley, Kenny, Lester, Wheeler, Winters GCL: Jaeger

(Participation is at the Commissioners' discretion.)

Issue 1: Should the request for a permanent increase in rates and charges be suspended for Sebring?

Recommendation: Yes. Staff recommends that the requested permanent increase in rates and charges of $234,641 be suspended for Sebring.

Issue 2: Is Sebring’s proposed interim test year rate base of $782,836 appropriate?

Recommendation: No. Rate Base should be increased by $10,951 to $793,787 to reflect a $10,951 increase to Working Capital.

Issue 3: Is Sebring’s proposed interim test year net operating income of ($32,891) appropriate?

Recommendation: No. The appropriate interim test year net operating income for Sebring is ($29,999).

Issue 4: Is Sebring’s proposed return on equity of 10.00% and its overall cost of capital of 7.13% appropriate for purposes of determining interim rates?

Recommendation: No. Though Sebring’s appropriate return on equity is 10.00%, staff believes the Commission should reduce the balance of common equity in the capital structure. This results in an overall cost of capital for interim purposes of 6.07%.

Issue 5: Is Sebring’s proposed revenue expansion factor of 79.9234% and its interim net operating income multiplier of 1.2512 appropriate?

Recommendation: Yes. The proposed interim revenue expansion factor of 79.9234% and the proposed interim net operating income multiplier of 1.2512 are appropriate.

Issue 6: Should Sebring’s requested interim revenue increase of $110,957 be granted?

Recommendation: No. After making the previous adjustments, the interim revenue increase for Sebring should be $97,821.

Issue 7: How should the interim revenue increase for Sebring be distributed among the rate classes?

Recommendation: Any interim revenue increase approved should be applied evenly across the board to all rate classes based on their base rate revenues, as required by Rule 25-7.040, F.A.C., and should be recovered on a cents-per-therm basis. The interim rates should be made effective for all meter readings made on or after thirty days from the date of the vote approving any interim increase. Sebring should file revised tariff sheets reflecting the interim rates prior to sending the first bill that reflects the increase, and should give notice to customers of the interim increase commencing with the first bill for service that reflects the increase.

Issue 8: What is the appropriate security to guarantee the amount collected subject to refund?

Recommendation: The appropriate security to guarantee the funds collected subject to refund is an irrevocable letter of credit, a surety bond, or an escrow agreement. Staff recommends that Sebring pursue the least expensive method. If necessary, the refund should be with interest and undertaken according to Rule 25-7.040(3), F.A.C.

Issue 9: Should this docket be closed?

Recommendation: No. This docket should remain open to process the revenue increase request of the Company.

8**PAA Docket No. 040525–EU – Petition for variance from or waiver of metering requirement of Rule 25-6.049(5)(a), F.A.C., by Jetty East Condominium Association, Inc.

Critical Date(s):		8/31/04
Commissioners Assigned:			All Commissioners
Prehearing Officer:			Jaber
Staff:	ECR: Baxter GCL: Fleming

Issue 1: Should the Commission grant JECA’s request for waiver of the requirements of Rule 25-6.049(5)(a), Florida Administrative Code?

Recommendation: Yes. Staff recommends that the requested rule waiver be granted, provided that: (1) JECA allocates the cost of electricity to the individual condominium unit owners using a reasonable apportionment method, as required by Rule 25-6.049 (6) (a), Florida Administrative Code; (2) JECA is responsible for all of the costs associated with the conversion from individual metering to master metering; (3) the waiver is effective only so long as the condominium is operated and licensed as a transient occupancy facility; and (4) all or substantially all of the units are operated on a transient basis. At such time the condominium is no longer so operated and licensed, JECA must immediately inform Gulf Power Company (Gulf), at which time Gulf will install individual meters on the occupancy units. In the event such a conversion to individual metering is required, JECA will be solely responsible for the cost of such conversion.

Issue 2: Should this docket be closed?

Recommendation: Yes. If no person whose substantial interests are affected by the proposed agency action files a protest within 21 days of the issuance of the order, this docket should be closed upon the issuance of a consummating order.

9 Docket No. 031033–EI – Review of Tampa Electric Company's 2004-2008 waterborne transportation contract with TECO Transport and associated benchmark.

Critical Date(s):		None
Commissioners Assigned:			All Commissioners
Prehearing Officer:			Baez
Staff:	ECR: Bohrmann, Matlock, Trapp, VonFossen GCL: C. Keating, Rodan

(Motions for reconsideration and clarification of non-final order - oral argument not requested; participation at the Commission's discretion.)

Issue 1: Should the Commission grant Tampa Electric Company’s motion for reconsideration of Order No. PSC-04-0543-CFO-EI?

Recommendation: No. Tampa Electric’s motion for reconsideration fails to identify any point of fact or law that the Prehearing Officer overlooked or failed to consider in rendering the Order.

Issue 2: Should the Commission grant Tampa Electric’s motion for reconsideration of Order No. PSC-04-0544-CFO-EI?

Recommendation: Yes. The Order, based on a mistake of fact, erroneously denies confidential classification to information which, if made public, would allow one to calculate the confidential contractual rate for transportation services provided by TECO Transport to Tampa Electric.

Issue 3: Should the Commission grant Tampa Electric’s motion for clarification of Order No. PSC-04-0544-CFO-EI?

Recommendation: Yes. The Commission should clarify Order No. PSC-04-0544-CFO-EI as requested in Tampa Electric’s motion.

Issue 4: Should this docket be closed?

Recommendation: No. This docket should remain open.

10** Docket No. 030443–WS – Application for rate increase in Pasco County by Labrador Utilities, Inc.

Critical Date(s):		8/30/04 (60-day suspension date)
Commissioners Assigned:			All Commissioners
Prehearing Officer:			Deason
Staff:	ECR: Merchant, Greene, Willis GCL: C. Keating

Issue 1: Should the utility’s proposed final water and wastewater rates be suspended?

Recommendation: Yes. Labrador’s proposed final water and wastewater rates should be suspended.

Issue 2: Should the docket be closed?

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

11** Docket No. 040484–WU – Application for "quick take" amendment of Certificate No. 587-W in Polk County by Florida Water Services Corporation.

Critical Date(s):		None
Commissioners Assigned:			All Commissioners
Prehearing Officer:			Jaber
Staff:	ECR: Rieger GCL: Brown

Issue 1: Should the Commission acknowledge Florida Water's “Quick Take” application to amend Certificate No. 587-W?

Recommendation: Yes. The Commission should acknowledge Florida Water’s amendment application to expand its Gibsonia Estates territory. Florida Water should charge the customers in the added territory, as reflected in Attachment A of staff’s August 5, 2004 memorandum, the rates and charges contained in its tariff until authorized to change by this Commission in a subsequent proceeding.

Issue 2: Should this docket be closed?

Recommendation: Yes. No further action is required and the docket should be closed.

12** Docket No. 980876–WS – Application for certificates to operate a water and wastewater utility in Marion County by Ocala Springs Utilities Inc.

Critical Date(s):		None
Commissioners Assigned:			Baez, Deason, Davidson
Prehearing Officer:			Deason
Staff:	GCL: Fleming ECR: Brady, Rieger

Issue 1: Should the Commission grant Ocala Springs Utilities, Inc.’s Motion for Extension of Time?

Recommendation: Yes. The Commission should grant Ocala Springs Utilities, Inc.’s Motion for Extension of Time. As requested in its motion, the utility should be allowed until April 7, 2005, to file an application to establish initial rates and charges for the utility, along with other supporting information required by Order Nos. PSC-98-1644-FOF-WS and PSC-98-1374-PCO-WS.

Issue 2: Should this docket be closed?

Recommendation: No. This docket should remain open pending completion of the filing requirements by Ocala Springs Utilities, Inc. and the establishment of initial rates and charges for the utility.

13 Docket No. 031125–TP – Complaint against BellSouth Telecommunications, Inc. for alleged overbilling and discontinuance of service, and petition for emergency order restoring service, by IDS Telecom LLC.

Critical Date(s):		None
Commissioners Assigned:			Deason, Jaber, Davidson
Prehearing Officer:			Deason
Staff:	GCL: Christensen CMP: Barrett, Lee

(Motion for reconsideration of Prehearing Officer's order - oral argument not requested; oral argument may, however, be entertained at the Commission's discretion pursuant to Rule 25-22.0376, F.A.C.)

Issue 1: Should the Commission grant BellSouth Telecommunications, Inc.’s Motion for Reconsideration of Order No. PSC-04-0635-PCO-TP?

Recommendation: No. Staff recommends that the Commission deny BellSouth’s Motion for Reconsideration of Order No. PSC-04-0635-PCO-TP, issued July 1, 2004.

Issue 2: Should this docket be closed?

Recommendation: No. This docket should remain open pending further proceedings.

14 Docket No. 030623–EI – Complaints by Southeastern Utility Services, Inc., on behalf of various customers, against Florida Power & Light Company concerning thermal demand meter error.

Critical Date(s):		None
Commissioners Assigned:			Jaber, Bradley, Davidson
Prehearing Officer:			Davidson
Staff:	GCL: C. Keating ECR: Floyd, Kummer, Matlock, Wheeler RCA: Mills, Ruehl

(Motions for reconsideration and clarification of non-final order - oral argument not requested; participation at the Commission's discretion.)

Issue 1: Should the Commission grant SUSI’s motion for reconsideration of that portion of Order No. PSC-04-0591-PCO-EI dismissing SUSI as a party to this proceeding?

Recommendation: No. SUSI’s motion for reconsideration fails to identify any point of fact or law that the Prehearing Officer overlooked or failed to consider in rendering the order dismissing SUSI as a party.

Issue 2: Should the Commission grant FPL’s motion for clarification of Order No. PSC-04-0591-PCO-EI?

Recommendation: Yes. The Commission should clarify Order No. PSC-04-0591-PCO-EI to properly reflect the background of this case with respect to the degree of dispute concerning the accuracy of the meters at issue.

Issue 3: Should this docket be closed?

Recommendation: No. This docket should remain open.