Commission Conference Agenda

1 Approval of Minutes
September 21, 2004 Regular Commission Conference

2 ** Consent Agenda

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

DOCKET NO.	COMPANY NAME
041038‑TA	Conterra, LLC d/b/a Conterra Wireless Broadband

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

DOCKET NO.	COMPANY NAME
041089‑TX	Pelzer Communications Corporation
041002‑TX	Vertex Communications, Inc. d/b/a Zenith Communications of Florida, Inc.

PAA C) Application for certificate to provide pay telephone service.

DOCKET NO.	COMPANY NAME
041099‑TC	SAVAC, Inc.

PAA D) Requests for cancellation of competitive local exchange telecommunications certificates.

DOCKET NO.	COMPANY NAME	EFFECTIVE DATE
040599‑TX	Lightyear Communications, Inc.	03/31/2004
040657‑TX	Fair Financial LLC d/b/a Midstate Telecommunications	6/30/2004

E) Docket No. 041086-EI – Application by Florida Power & Light Company (“FPL”) for authority to issue and sell and/or exchange any combination of long-term debt and equity securities and/or to assume liabilities or obligations as guarantor, endorser or surety in an aggregate amount not to exceed $4.5 billion during calendar year 2005. In addition, FPL seeks permission to issue and sell short-term securities during the calendar years 2005 and 2006 in an amount or amounts such that the aggregate principal amount of short-term securities outstanding at the time of any such sale will not exceed 25% of FPL’s gross revenues during the preceding twelve months of operation.

In connection with this application, FPL confirms that the capital raised pursuant to this application will be used in connection with the activities of FPL and not the unregulated activities of its affiliates.

For monitoring purposes, this docket should remain open until April 14, 2006 to allow the company time to file the required consummation report.

F) Docket No. 041103-EI – Tampa Electric Company (“Company”) seeks the authority to issue, sell and/or exchange equity securities and to issue, sell, exchange and/or assume long-term or short-term debt securities and/or to assume liabilities or obligations as guarantor, endorser or surety during calendar year 2005. The Company also seeks authority to enter into interest rate swaps or other derivative instruments related to debt securities during calendar year 2005.

The amount of all equity and long-term debt securities issued, sold, exchanged or assumed and liabilities and obligations assumed or guaranteed as guarantor, endorser or surety will not exceed in the aggregate $400 million during calendar year 2005, including any amounts issued to retire existing long-term debt securities. The maximum amount of short-term debt outstanding at any one time including bank borrowings will be $400 million during calendar year 2005.

In connection with this application, the company confirms that the capital raised pursuant to this application will be used in connection with the activities of Tampa Electric and not the unregulated activities of its affiliates.

For monitoring purposes, this docket should remain open until April 14, 2006 to allow the Company time to file the required consummation report.

RECOMMENDATION: The Commission should approve the action requested in the dockets referenced above and close these dockets, with the exception of 041086-EI, and 041103-EI, which must remain open for monitoring purposes.

13**PAA Docket No. 040216–GU – Application for rate increase by Florida Public Utilities Company.

Critical Date(s):		10/26/04 (5-month effective date - PAA rate case)
Commissioners Assigned:			All Commissioners
Prehearing Officer:			Davidson
Staff:	ECR: Merta, Baxter, Draper, Gardner, Kenny, Lester, Rendell, Revell, Wheeler, Winters GCL: Jaeger RCA: Hicks, Witman

(All items proposed agency action except for Issue 60.)

Issue 1: Is FPUC’s projected test period of the 12 months ending December 31, 2005 appropriate?

Recommendation: Yes. With the adjustments recommended by staff in the following issues, the projected test year of 2005 is appropriate.

Issue 2: Is the quality of service provided by FPUC adequate?

Recommendation: Yes. FPUC’s quality of service is satisfactory.

Issue 3: Is it appropriate for the utility to include the South Florida Division’s anticipated property purchase for the relocation of the South Florida Operations Center in its projections for 2005?

Recommendation: No. Rate Base should be reduced by $2,500,000 for the proposed purchase of land for the operations center. Also Account 390, Structures and Improvements, and the associated accumulated depreciation and expense should be reduced by $26,340, $198 and $396, respectively.

Issue 4: Should an adjustment be made to Account 389, Land and Land Rights, and Account 390, Structures and Improvements, to account for the vacant Sanford office building?

Recommendation: Yes. The Sanford office building was vacated in 2002 and is no longer used and useful. Therefore, Account 390 should be reduced by $97,768, $104,123, and $2,542 ~~$293,304, $6,355, and $7,626~~ for plant-in-service, accumulated depreciation, and depreciation expense, respectively. Also, Account 389 should be reduced by $8,436 ~~$25,308~~ for plant-in-service.

Issue 5: Should an adjustment be made to FPUC’s proposed level of plant additions for the projected test year?

Recommendation: Yes. Plant-in-service, accumulated depreciation, and depreciation expense should be reduced by a total of $1,076,150, $28,202, and $26,846 ~~$1,560,850, $38,915, $53,694~~, respectively, for the projected test year to reflect changes in the 2004 and 2005 plant additions.

Issue 6: Should an adjustment be made to plant retirements for the projected test year?

Recommendation: Yes. Adjustments should be made to plant retirements to correct miscalculations and overstated retirements for retired or sold vehicles by a reduction to plant-in-service, accumulated depreciation, and depreciation expense for the projected test year of $30,112, $32,557, and $2,445, respectively.

Issue 7: Should the projected test year rate base be reduced to remove inactive service lines that have been inactive for more than five years?

Recommendation: Yes. The projected test year plant-in-service, accumulated depreciation, and depreciation expense should be reduced by $113,998, $278,678, and $4,045, respectively, to reflect the 309 inactive service lines that have been inactive for five years or more.

Issue 8: Has FPUC accounted for its bare steel replacement program appropriately?

Recommendation: No. Accumulated amortization and amortization expense for this program should be increased for the projected test year by $94,385 and $188,770, respectively, and the amortization period should be decreased to 50 years.

Issue 9: Is the acquisition adjustment, accumulated amortization and related amortization expense of $3,300,000, $49,863, and $99,726, respectively, for the SFNG acquisition appropriate for the projected test year?

Recommendation: No. The proper totals for the acquisition adjustment, accumulated amortization of the acquisition adjustment, and the related amortization expense for the projected test year should be $960,376, $128,052, and $32,013, respectively. The proper amortization period should be 30 years; however, because the assets of South Florida Natural Gas (SFNG) were acquired on December 14, 2001, staff believes that the amortization period should have begun January 1, 2002, reducing the remaining amortization period at the end of the projected test year to 26 years. The resulting reductions to utility plant and amortization expense are $2,339,624 and $67,713, respectively. The resulting increase to accumulated amortization of acquisition adjustment is $78,189. Staff also recommends that the permanence of these cost savings be reviewed in FPUC’s next rate case. If it is determined at that time that the cost savings no longer exist, the acquisition adjustment should be partially or totally removed from rate base.

Issue 10: Is FPUC’s requested level of Construction Work in Progress (CWIP) in the amount of $194,004 for the projected test year appropriate?

Recommendation: No. The appropriate level of CWIP in the projected test year is $235,540.

Issue 11: Should an adjustment be made to allocate working capital to reflect nonutility operations and corporate allocations?

Recommendation: Yes. Working capital should be increased by $1,434,985.

Issue 12: Should an adjustment be made to the amount of cash in working capital?

Recommendation: Yes. Cash in working capital should be reduced by $155,648.

Issue 13: Should an adjustment be made to working capital to allocate Materials & Supplies to non-regulated operations?

Recommendation: Yes. An adjustment to reduce Account 154, Materials & Supplies, in working capital by $42,577 should be approved.

Issue 14: Are the balances for the medical self insurance reserve and accrued liability insurance appropriate?

Recommendation: The balances in these liability accounts should be decreased by $10,781, thereby increasing working capital by $10,781.

Issue 15: Is the Prepaid Pensions in working capital appropriate?

Recommendation: The balance in the Prepaid Pension account should be increased by $31,706, thereby increasing working capital by $31,706.

Issue 16: Is FPUC’s requested level of Working Capital Allowance in the amount of zero for the projected test year appropriate?

Recommendation: No. Working capital should be ($706,682).

Issue 17: Is FPUC’s requested level of Rate Base in the amount of $65,835,210 for the projected test year appropriate?

Recommendation: No. The appropriate rate base for the projected test year is $59,171,674 ~~$58,387,511~~, which includes the staff-recommended components shown in the analysis portion of staff’s October 7, 2004 memorandum.

Issue 18: Should an adjustment be made to Accumulated Deferred Income Taxes in the capital structure?

Recommendation: Yes. An adjustment should be made to increase Accumulated Deferred Income Taxes in the capital structure by $2,992,338 ~~$2,397,521~~, to reflect a balance of $9,245,613 ~~$8,650,796~~.

Issue 19: What is the appropriate amount and cost rate of the unamortized investment tax credits to include in the capital structure?

Recommendation: The appropriate amount of unamortized investment tax credits (ITCs) is $276,563. The ITCs should be included in the capital structure at a 9.28% cost rate.

Issue 20: What is the appropriate cost rate for common equity for the projected test year?

Recommendation: The appropriate cost rate for common equity is 11.25% with a range of plus or minus 100 basis points.

Issue 21: What is the appropriate weighted average cost of capital including the proper components, amounts and cost rates associated with the capital structure?

Recommendation: The appropriate weighted average cost of capital is 7.62% ~~7.69%~~.

Issue 22: Is FPUC’s projected level of Total Operating Revenues in the amount of $22,568,224 for the projected test year appropriate?

Recommendation: No. Other Operating Revenues should be increased by $3,600. The appropriate amount of Total Operating Revenues for the projected test year is $22,571,824.

Issue 23: Is the level of overhead cost allocations for the projected test year appropriate?

Recommendation: No. The level of overhead cost allocations should be decreased by $155,692.

Issue 24: Should an adjustment be made to remove nonrecurring expenses?

Recommendation: Yes. Expenses should be decreased by $78,127 to remove nonrecurring expenses.

Issue 25: Should an adjustment be made for the new positions requested by the company?

Recommendation: Yes. Expenses should be increased by $21,624 and decreased by $91,557 for a net decrease of $69,932 for new positions requested by the company.

Issue 26: Are the expenses for the Fleet Image Improvement Program appropriately recovered through base rates?

Recommendation: Expenses of $31,980 are appropriate and should be allowed in rate base for the Fleet Improvement Program.

Issue 27: Should an adjustment be made to Account 878, Meter & House Regulator Expense, for periodic meter and regulator change-out expense?

Recommendation: Yes. Account 878 should be decreased by $47,531 to correct the projection of periodic meter and regulator change-out expense for 2005.

Issue 28: Should Accounts 903, Customer Records and Collection Expenses, and 905, Miscellaneous Customer Accounts Expenses, be adjusted for state sales tax on company-use gas?

Recommendation: Yes. Account 903 should be increased by $5,221 and Account 905 should be increased by $7,409 for a total of $12,630 to remove credits for state sales tax on company-use gas.

Issue 29: Should an adjustment be made to Account 904, Uncollectible Accounts, and Account 144, Allowance for Uncollectibles, for bad debt expense for the projected test year and what is the appropriate factor to include in the revenue expansion factor?

Recommendation: Account 904 should be decreased by $34,411 to reflect a five-year average of net write-offs to revenues. The Allowance for Uncollectibles should be decreased by $17,205, thereby increasing working capital. The appropriate factor to include in the revenue expansion factor is 0.3300.

Issue 30: Should an adjustment be made to remove nonutility advertising expense?

Recommendation: Yes. Account 912 should be reduced by $1,335.

Issue 31: Should an adjustment be made to Account 913 for the Advertising Expense-Safety Program and for cooperative advertising?

Recommendation: Yes. Account 913 should be reduced by $91,357.

Issue 32: Should an adjustment be made to Account 920, A&G Salaries, for a payroll increase?

Recommendation: Yes. Account 920 should be decreased by $10,400 to remove the payroll increase for an officer position which was eliminated.

Issue 33: Should an adjustment be made to Account 921, Office Supplies and Expenses for the projected test year?

Recommendation: Yes. Account 921 should be decreased by $17,828 for the projected test year.

Issue 34: Should an adjustment be made to Account 923, Outside Services, and Account 930, Miscellaneous General Expenses?

Recommendation: Yes. Account 923 should be decreased by $1,786 for duplicate legal fees and for $10,200 for an audit contingency, for a total of $11,986. In addition Account 930 should be decreased by $6,585 for duplicate annual report costs. The total adjustment is an $18,571 decrease to expenses.

Issue 35: Should an adjustment be made to Account 926, Employee Benefits, for the projected test year?

Recommendation: Yes. Account 926 should be decreased by $14,626 for the projected test year.

Issue 36: Should an adjustment be made to Other Post Employment Benefits Expense for the projected test year?

Recommendation: Yes. The other post employment benefits (OPEB) expense for the projected test year ending December 31, 2005 should be reduced by $11,886 to reflect a balance of $103,400.

Issue 37: Should an adjustment be made to pension expense for the projected test year?

Recommendation: Yes. The pension expense for the projected test year ending December 31, 2005 should be reduced by $26,645 to reflect a balance of $585,902.

Issue 38: Should an adjustment be made to Account 928, Regulatory Commission Expense, for rate case expense for the projected test year and what is the appropriate amortization period?

Recommendation: Yes. Rate case expense should be reduced by $41,646 and the expense should be amortized over four years. Additionally, one-half of the unamortized portion of the allowed expense or $184,064 should be included in the projected test year working capital, reducing working capital by $329,826.

Issue 39: Should an adjustment be made to Account 930, General Advertising and Miscellaneous General Expenses, projected test year?

Recommendation: Yes, Account 930 should be reduced by $3,213 for membership dues.

Issue 40: What adjustments, if any, should be made to accumulated depreciation and depreciation expense to reflect the Commission’s decision in Docket No. 040352-GU In re: 2004 Depreciation Study for Florida Public Utilities Company to be implemented January 1, 2005?

Recommendation: The Commission approved the staff recommendation in Docket No. 040352-GU at the October 5, 2004 agenda conference. The impacts of the new depreciation rates on the projected test year are to increase depreciation expense by $154,289 and to increase accumulated depreciation by $77,145. These values have been incorporated into the current staff recommendation and no further adjustments are necessary.

Issue 41: Is FPUC’s Taxes Other Than Income of $4,464,719 for the projected test year appropriate?

Recommendation: No. The appropriate amount of Taxes Other Than Income (TOTI) is $4,324,539 ~~$4,310,816~~, a decrease of $140,180 ~~$153,903~~.

Issue 42: Is FPUC’s Income Tax Expense of ($1,093,873), which includes current and deferred income taxes, investment tax credit (ITC) amortization, and interest reconciliation for the projected test year, appropriate?

Recommendation: No. The appropriate income tax expense, including current taxes, deferred income taxes, ITC amortization, and interest reconciliation is ($811,143) ~~($791,055)~~.

Issue 43: Is FPUC’s Net Operating Income of $641,221 for the projected test year appropriate?

Recommendation: No. For the projected test year, the appropriate Net Operating Income is $880,787 ~~$906,355~~, which includes the staff-recommended components shown in the staff analysis.

Issue 44: What is the appropriate projected test year revenue expansion factor and the appropriate net operating income multiplier, including the appropriate elements and rates for FPUC?

Recommendation: The appropriate projected test year revenue expansion factor is 0.618523 and the appropriate net operating income multiplier is 1.6168.

Issue 45: Is FPUC’s requested annual operating revenue increase of $8,186,989 for the projected test year appropriate?

Recommendation: No. The appropriate annual operating revenue increase for the projected test year is $5,865,903 ~~$5,794,037~~.

Issue 46: What is the appropriate cost of service methodology to be used to allocate costs to the rate classes?

Recommendation: The appropriate methodology is contained in Attachment 6 to staff’s memorandum.

Issue 47: If the Commission grants a revenue increase to FPUC, how should the increase be allocated to the rate classes?

Recommendation: Staff’s recommended allocation of the revenue increase to the rate classes is contained in Attachment 6 to staff’s memorandum, page 16 of 16.

Issue 48: What are the appropriate Customer Charges?

Recommendation: Staff’s recommended customer charges are as follows:

Rate Class	Staff Recommended Customer Charge
Residential Service (RS)	$8.00
General Service (GS)	$15.00
General Service Transportation Service (GSTS)	$15.00
Large Volume Service (LVS) >500 therms/mo.	$45.00
Large Volume Transportation Service (LVTS) >500 therms/mo.	$45.00
Interruptible Service (IS)	$240.00
Interruptible Transportation Service (ITS)	$240.00

Issue 49: What are the appropriate per therm Energy Charges?

Recommendation: Staff’s recommended per therm Energy Charges are contained in Attachment 7 to staff’s memorandum, page 1.

Issue 50: Are FPUC’s Miscellaneous Service Charges appropriate?

Recommendation: Yes.

Issue 51: Is FPUC’s proposal to eliminate the separate base rate schedules applicable to its New Smyrna Beach District customers and charge all customers under uniform base rate schedules appropriate?

Recommendation: Yes.

Issue 52: What is the appropriate monthly Pool Manager Service Charge?

Recommendation: The appropriate monthly Pool Manager Service Charge is $100.

Issue 53: Should FPUC’s proposal to eliminate the Large Volume Interruptible Service (LVIS) and the Large Volume Interruptible Transportation Service (LVITS) rate schedules be approved?

Recommendation: Yes.

Issue 54: What is the appropriate fee for transportation customers who change their pool managers?

Recommendation: The appropriate fee for transportation customers who change their pool manager is $19.

Issue 55: Is FPUC’s proposed new Gas Lighting Service (GLS) rate schedule appropriate?

Recommendation: Yes.

Issue 56: Are FPUC’s proposed charges for transportation service customers appropriate?

Recommendation: Yes. FPUC’s proposed charges for transportation service customers are appropriate. FPUC should discontinue billing its customers the Transportation Cost Recovery and Non-monitored Transportation Administration Charge cost recovery factors at the time the revised rates in this case become effective. In addition, staff recommends that FPUC file a petition for the final true-up of the Transportation Cost Recovery Clause and the Non-monitored Transportation Administration Charge within 30 days of the effective date of the revised rates.

Issue 57: Is FPUC’s proposal to eliminate the charge for historical consumption information appropriate?

Recommendation: Yes.

Issue 58: What is the appropriate effective date for FPUC’s revised rates and charges?

Recommendation: The revised rates and charges should become effective for meter readings on or after 30 days following the date of the Commission vote approving the rates and charges.

Issue 59: Should any portion of the $1,236,108 interim increase granted by Order No. PSC-04-0721-PCO-GU, issued July 26, 2004, be refunded to the customers?

Recommendation: No portion of the $1,236,108 interim revenue increase should be refunded.

Issue 60: Should FPUC be required to file, within 90 days after the date of the final order in this docket, a description of all entries or adjustments to its annual report, rate of return reports, and books and records that will be required as a result of the Commission’s findings in this rate case?

Recommendation: Yes. To ensure that the utility adjusts its books in accordance with the Commission’s decision, FPUC should provide proof, within 90 days of the consummating order finalizing this docket, that the adjustments for all the applicable NARUC USOA primary accounts have been made to its annual report, rate of return reports, and its books and records.

Issue 61: 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.

15**PAA Docket No. 030445–SU – Application for rate increase in Lee County by Utilities, Inc. of Eagle Ridge.

Critical Date(s):		10/19/04 (5-month effective date – PAA rate case extended)
Commissioners Assigned:			All Commissioners
Prehearing Officer:			Deason
Staff:	ECR: Joyce, Kyle, Merchant, Redemann, Willis GCL: Gervasi

(All items proposed agency action except for Issues 13 and 14.)

Issue 1: Is the quality of service provided by Eagle Ridge considered satisfactory?

Recommendation: Yes. The utility’s overall quality of service is satisfactory.

Issue 2: Are any rate base adjustments appropriate?

Recommendation: Yes. The following adjustments should be made:

		Accumulated	Depreciation
	Plant	Depreciation	Expense
Organization Cost (A/E 2)	($14,483)	$543	($362)
Miscellaneous Plant (A/E 3 & 4)	($27,081)	4,439	($1,415)
Retirements (A/D 3)	($306,117)	306,117	($16,789)
Pro Forma Plant (A/D 1)	(45,285)	1,906	(1,906)
Retirement on Pro Forma	(25,399)	25,399	(1,412)
WSC Common Plant (A/E5)	25,263	0	0
Total:	($393,102)	$338,404	($22,268)

An adjustment is also recommended to reflect a post-test year customer, as follows:

		Accum. Amort.	Test Year	Test Year
	CIAC	of CIAC	Amortization	Revenues
Post-Test Year Customer	($7,008)	$304	($304)	$1,563

Issue 3: What are the used and useful percentages of the utility’s wastewater treatment plant, wastewater collection system, and reuse water system?

Recommendation: The Eagle Ridge wastewater treatment plant is 90.25% used and useful. The Cross Creek wastewater treatment plant is 100% used and useful. The wastewater collection and reuse systems should be considered 100% used and useful. While no change to the utility’s percentage is recommended, staff has made adjustments addressed in Issue 2 and reclassifications to correct the amount of reuse related plant. This results in corresponding changes in the non-used and useful plant adjustments.

Issue 4: What is the appropriate working capital allowance?

Recommendation: The appropriate working capital allowance is $68,800 using the balance sheet method.

Issue 5: What is the appropriate rate base?

Recommendation: The appropriate rate base for the test year ending December 31, 2002, is $1,413,897.

Issue 6: Are any adjustments necessary to the capital structure and what is the appropriate return on equity and weighted cost of capital for the test year ending December 31, 2002?

Recommendation: Deferred taxes should be increased by $47,014 to reflect the special tax depreciation allowance claim by the utility. The appropriate cost of equity should be 11.21%, with a range of 10.21% to 12.21%, and the overall cost of capital should be 8.25%, with a range of 7.86% to 8.63%.

Issue 7: Are there any O&M expense adjustments that should be made related to employee salaries and benefits as a result of staff’s audit?

Recommendation: Yes. Employee salaries and health cost should be decreased by $4,696 and $4,491, respectively. Employee insurance cost should be increased by $711. A corresponding reduction of $397 should also be made to payroll taxes.

Issue 8: What is the appropriate amount of rate case expense?

Recommendation: The appropriate rate case expense for this docket is $62,646. This expense should be recovered over four years for an annual expense of $15,661.

Issue 9: What is the test year wastewater operating income before any revenue increase?

Recommendation: Based on the adjustments discussed in previous issues, staff recommends that the test year wastewater operating income before any provision for increased revenues should be $57,642.

Issue 10: What is the appropriate revenue requirement?

Recommendation: The following revenue requirement should be approved.

Test Year Revenues	$ Increase	Revenue Requirement	% Increase
$713,889	$98,955	$812,854	13.86%

Issue 11: What are the appropriate wastewater rates for this utility?

Recommendation: The appropriate monthly rates are shown on Schedule No. 4 of staff’s October 7, 2004 memorandum. Staff’s recommended rates are designed to produce revenues of $811,299, excluding miscellaneous service charge revenues. 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 of the revised tariff sheets pursuant to Rule 25-30.475(1), Florida Administrative Code. The rates should not be implemented until staff has approved the proposed customer notice. The utility should provide proof of the date notice was given no less than 10 days after the date of the notice.

Issue 12: 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 the pro forma adjustments for a plant filter and rate case expense. This revised revenue requirement for the interim collection period should be compared to the amount of interim revenues granted. Using these principles, staff recommends that no interim refund should be required.

Issue 13: What is the appropriate amount by which rates should be reduced four years after the established effective date to reflect the removal of the amortized rate case expense?

Recommendation: The rates should be reduced as shown on Schedule No. 4 of staff’s memorandum to remove $16,339 for rate case expense, grossed up for regulatory assessment fees (RAFs), which are being 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. The utility 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.

Issue 14: Should the utility be required to provide proof that it has adjusted its books for all Commission-approved adjustments?

Recommendation: Yes. To ensure that the utility adjusts its books in accordance with the Commission’s decision, Eagle Ridge should provide proof, within 90 days of the issuance date of a final order in this docket, that the adjustments for all the applicable primary accounts have been made.

Issue 15: Should the docket be closed?

Recommendation: Yes. If no person whose substantial interests are affected by the proposed agency action issues files a protest within twenty-one days of the issuance of the order, a consummating order will be issued and this docket should be closed upon staff’s verification that the revised tariff sheets and customer notice have been filed in accordance with the Commission’s decision. Once the tariff sheets and customer notice have been approved by staff, the corporate undertaking may be released. When the PAA issues are final and the tariff and notice actions are complete, this docket may be closed administratively.

Critical Date(s):		None
Rule Status:		Proposed
Commissioners Assigned:			All Commissioners
Prehearing Officer:			Deason
Staff:	GCL: Stern CMP: McDonald, Moses ECR: Hewitt

Critical Date(s):		10/29/04 (60-day suspension date)
Commissioners Assigned:			All Commissioners
Prehearing Officer:			Deason
Staff:	ECR: Merta GCL: Vining, McAuliffe

Critical Date(s):		11/8/04 (Statutory deadline for original certificate pursuant to Section 367.031, Florida Statutes.)
Commissioners Assigned:			All Commissioners
Prehearing Officer:			Jaber
Staff:	ECR: Johnson, Rieger GCL: Brown

Critical Date(s):		5/13/05 (8-month effective date)
Commissioners Assigned:			Deason, Jaber, Davidson
Prehearing Officer:			Deason
Staff:	ECR: Fletcher, Maurey, Merchant, Willis GCL: Jaeger