COMMISSION CONFERENCE AGENDA
CONFERENCE DATE AND
TIME:
LOCATION: Room 148,
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,
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.
PAA A) Application for certificate to provide competitive local exchange telecommunications service.
|
DOCKET NO. |
COMPANY NAME |
|
Common Pointe Networks of |
PAA B) Application for certificate to provide pay telephone service.
|
DOCKET NO. |
COMPANY NAME |
|
060461‑TC |
A.C.T. Advanced Communication Technologies Inc. |
PAA C) Request for cancellation of an alternative access vendor certificate.
|
DOCKET NO. |
COMPANY NAME |
EFFECTIVE DATE |
|
050641‑TP |
KMC Telecom III LLC |
|
PAA D) Requests for cancellation of competitive local exchange telecommunications certificates.
|
DOCKET NO. |
COMPANY NAME |
EFFECTIVE DATE |
|
050641‑TP |
KMC Telecom III LLC |
|
|
060427‑TP |
Mpower Communications Corp. |
|
|
060432‑TP |
H C Phone Service, LLC |
|
|
060448‑TP |
Sail Telecom, Inc. |
|
|
DOCKET NO. |
COMPANY NAME |
|
060519‑TL |
Frontier Communications of the South, Inc. Frontier Communications of the South, LLC |
Recommendation: The Commission should approve the action requested in the dockets referenced above and close these dockets.
2**PAA Docket No. 060503-EU – Joint petition to reopen and extend term of previous territorial agreement in Orange County, by Orlando Utilities Commission and Progress Energy Florida, Inc.
|
Critical
Date(s): |
None |
||
|
Commissioners
Assigned: |
All Commissioners |
||
|
Prehearing
Officer: |
Arriaga |
||
|
Staff: |
GCL: Brown ECR: Redemann,
Rieger |
||
Issue 1:
Should the Commission
approve the stipulation between Orlando Utilities Commission and Progress
Energy Florida, Inc. that reopens their recently expired territorial agreement
and extends its expiration date through
Yes. The stipulation
reopening the Territorial Agreement between Orlando Utilities Commission and
Progress Energy Florida, Inc. and extending its expiration date through
Issue 2:
Should this docket be closed?
No. This docket should remain open pending receipt of the parties’ status report and conclusion of a new territorial agreement.
3 Docket No. 060455-TP – Complaint against AT&T Communications of the Southern States, LLC d/b/a AT&T d/b/a Lucky Dog Phone Co. d/b/a ACC Business d/b/a SmarTalk d/b/a Unispeaksm Service d/b/a www.prepaidserviceguide.com d/b/a CONQUEST for failure to pay intrastate access charges pursuant to Embarq's tariffs, by Embarq Florida, Inc., f/k/a Sprint-Florida, Incorporated.
|
Critical
Date(s): |
None |
||
|
Commissioners
Assigned: |
All Commissioners |
||
|
Prehearing
Officer: |
Tew |
||
|
Staff: |
GCL: Teitzman, Scott CMP: Pruitt |
||
(Decision on motion to
dismiss or stay the proceeding - oral argument requested.)
Issue 1: Should AT&T’s request for oral argument be granted?
Recommendation:
Yes. Staff recommends that AT&T’s request for oral argument be granted. If
the Commission grants oral argument, staff recommends that each party be
allowed ten minutes to present oral argument.
Issue 2: Should the Commission grant AT&T’s Motion to Dismiss or, in the alternative, Stay the Proceeding?
Recommendation: No.
The Commission should deny AT&T’s Motion to Dismiss or, in the
alternative, Stay the Proceeding because the Motion fails to raise arguments
sufficient to support dismissal of the Complaint and pursuant to Florida
Statutes, the Commission is charged with enforcing the statutes raised in
Embarq’s complaint.
Issue 3: Should this docket be closed?
Recommendation: No. If the Commission approves staff’s recommendation in Issue 2, this docket should remain open and be set for hearing.
4 Docket No.
050119-TP –
Joint petition by TDS Telecom d/b/a TDS Telecom/Quincy Telephone; ALLTEL
Florida, Inc.; Northeast Florida Telephone Company d/b/a NEFCOM; GTC, Inc.
d/b/a GT Com; Smart City Telecommunications, LLC d/b/a Smart City Telecom; ITS
Telecommunications Systems, Inc.; and Frontier Communications of the South, LLC
["Joint Petitioners"] objecting to and requesting suspension and
cancellation of proposed transit traffic service tariff filed by BellSouth
Telecommunications, Inc.
Docket No. 050125-TP – Petition and complaint for suspension and
cancellation of Transit Traffic Service Tariff No. FL2004-284 filed by
BellSouth Telecommunications, Inc., by AT&T Communications of the Southern
States, LLC.
|
Critical
Date(s): |
None |
||
|
Commissioners
Assigned: |
All Commissioners |
||
|
Prehearing
Officer: |
Tew |
||
|
Staff: |
CMP: Barrett, Higgins, P. Lee, Trueblood, Vickery GCL: Scott |
||
(Participation is limited
to Commissioners and staff.)
Issue 1: Is BellSouth’s Transit
Service Tariff an appropriate mechanism to address transit service provided by
BellSouth?
No. Staff believes that
BellSouth’s Transit Service Tariff is not an appropriate mechanism to address
transit service in the absence of an interconnection agreement or transit
arrangement because it is invalid under
If an originating carrier
utilizes the services of BellSouth as a tandem provider to switch and transport
traffic to a third party not affiliated with BellSouth, what are the
responsibilities of the originating carrier?
Staff recommends that the originating carrier should enter into a transit arrangement with BellSouth, and should compensate BellSouth for providing the transit service. Additionally, the originating carrier is responsible for delivering its traffic to BellSouth in such a manner that it can be identified, routed, and billed. The originating carrier is also responsible for compensating the terminating carrier for terminating the traffic to the end user.
Which carrier should be
responsible for providing compensation to BellSouth for the provision of the
transit transport and switching services?
This issue is subsumed in the recommendation for Issue 2 and no vote is necessary.
Issue 4: What is BellSouth’s network arrangement for transit traffic and how is it typically routed from an originating party to a terminating third party?
Recommendation: No party disputed this issue; accordingly, BellSouth’s current network arrangement for transit traffic and its typical routing from an originating party to a terminating third party is appropriate.
Should the FPSC establish
the terms and conditions that govern the relationship between an originating
carrier and the terminating carrier, where BellSouth is providing transit
service and the originating carrier is not interconnected with, and has no
interconnection agreement with, the terminating carrier? If so, what are the appropriate terms and
conditions that should be established?
No. The FPSC should not establish the terms and conditions governing the relationship between the originating carrier and the terminating carrier where BellSouth is providing transit service. The relationship should continue to be defined within bilateral interconnection agreements. Additionally, those situations involving Small LECs as originators and terminators utilizing BellSouth’s transit service are best defined within bilateral transit arrangements.
Issue 6: Should the FPSC determine
whether and at what traffic threshold level an originating carrier should be
required to forego use of BellSouth’s transit service and obtain direct
interconnection with a terminating carrier?
If so, at what traffic level should an originating carrier be required
to obtain direct interconnection with a terminating carrier?
Recommendation: No. The FPSC should not set a traffic threshold level.
How should transit traffic
be delivered to the Small LEC’s networks?
Transit traffic should be delivered to the Small LECs’ networks utilizing efficient network engineering developed through mutual agreement between BellSouth and the Small LECs.
Should the FPSC establish the
terms and conditions that govern the relationship between BellSouth and a
terminating carrier, where BellSouth is providing transit service and the
originating carrier is not interconnected with, and has no interconnection
agreement with, the terminating carrier?
If so, what are the appropriate terms and conditions that should be
established?
This issue is subsumed in the recommendation for Issue 5 and no vote is necessary.
Should the FPSC establish
the terms and conditions of transit traffic between the transit service
provider and the Small LECs that originate and terminate transit traffic? If so, what are the terms and conditions?
This issue is subsumed in the recommendation for Issue 5 and no vote is necessary.
What effect does transit
service have on
Transiting
How should charges for BellSouth’s
transit service be determined?
(a) What is the appropriate rate
for transit service?
(b) What type of traffic do the
rates identified in (a) apply?
Recommendation: BellSouth’s transit charges should be calculated by applying the transit rate to the local usage transited between the carriers.
(a) Staff recommends that an appropriate rate for transit service is no higher than $0.0023 per MOU.
(b) The
transit rate is applicable to local traffic and local
Consistent with Order Nos.
Yes. All parties
have paid, and continue to pay, BellSouth for transit service provided on or
after
Have parties paid BellSouth
for transit service provided before
All parties except the Small LECs paid BellSouth for the
provision of transit service prior to
Issue 14: What action, if any, should the FPSC undertake at this time to allow the Small LECs to recover the costs incurred or associated with BellSouth’s provision of transit service?
None. Staff recommends that the Commission refrain from making a determination as to whether the imposition of a transit rate on the Small LECs constitutes a substantial change in circumstances under Section 364.051(4), Florida Statutes. Staff believes that this issue is not ripe and a determination at this time would be premature.
Should BellSouth issue an
invoice for transit services and if so, in what detail and to whom?
No. BellSouth’s current settlements system for transit service is appropriate. If applicable, carriers should follow the terms and conditions of current interconnection agreements to address invoicing for transit services.
Should BellSouth provide to
the terminating carrier sufficiently detailed call records to accurately bill
the originating carrier for call termination?
If so, what information should be provided by BellSouth?
Yes. BellSouth should continue to provide to terminating carriers sufficiently detailed call records with as much information as it has available to it from originating carriers. Such call records should be delivered unaltered in the EMI Category 11 format. Nothing precludes individual parties from agreeing to other arrangements, and if applicable, carriers should follow the terms and conditions of current interconnection agreements that address the provision of call records.
How should billing disputes
concerning transit service be addressed?
Billing disputes concerning transit service should be addressed in one of two ways, based on how transit service was purchased: 1) for carriers that have IAs or contractual arrangements with BellSouth that contain billing dispute provisions, such provisions should be followed to resolve transit service billing disputes; and 2) for carriers that have purchased transit services from BellSouth pursuant to the Transit Tariff, the billing dispute provisions therein should govern the resolution of billing disputes. BellSouth’s role in billing disputes between OCs and TCs should be to provide to such carriers the support material for traffic or records-related data it supplied.
Issue 18: Should these dockets be closed?
If the Commission approves staff’s recommendation in Issue 1, then:
(1) These dockets should remain open to allow parties in this proceeding who do not have rates, terms and conditions in place for BellSouth’s transit service additional time to establish a transit arrangement prior to cancellation of the Tariff. Staff recommends that the Commission require BellSouth and any party without a transit arrangement to establish such an arrangement within 70 days of the issuance of the Final Order from this recommendation.
(2) The Tariff should be cancelled on the 71st day after the issuance of the Final Order from this recommendation.
(3) Staff
recommends that BellSouth be required to issue a partial refund, including
interest, to those parties who paid under BellSouth’s Tariff during the period
beginning
(4) If the Commission does not approve staff’s recommendation in Issue 1, then these dockets should be closed.
5**PAA Docket No. 060530-TP – Joint petition for transfer of CLEC Certificate 4861 and PATS Certificate 5922 from Supra Telecommunications and Information Systems, Inc. to Supra Telecommunications and Information Systems Acquisition Corp.; for acknowledgment of registration of Supra Telecommunications and Information Systems Acquisition Corp. as an interexchange telecommunications company effective 8/1/06; for name change on CLEC Certificate 4861, PATS Certificate 5922, and IXC Registration TK091 from Supra Telecommunications and Information Systems Acquisition Corp. to Supra Telecommunications and Information Systems, Inc.; and request for waiver of carrier selection requirements of Rule 25-4.118, F.A.C., due to acquisition of assets, including operations and local exchange and interexchange customers, of Supra Telecommunications and Information Systems, Inc. by Supra Telecommunications and Information Systems Acquisition Corp., a newly created, wholly owned subsidiary of Cleartel Communications, Inc.
|
Critical
Date(s): |
None |
||
|
Commissioners
Assigned: |
All Commissioners |
||
|
Prehearing
Officer: |
Administrative |
||
|
Staff: |
CMP: GCL: Tan,
McKay |
||
Issue 1:
Should the Commission
approve the name change and transfer of
Yes. The Commission should approve the proposed certificate transfers and name changes.
Issue 2:
Should the Commission approve the request for waiver of the carrier selection requirements of Rule 25-4.118, Florida Administrative Code, in the transfer of customers from Supra Telecommunications and Information Systems, Inc. to Supra Telecommunications and Information Systems Acquisition Corp.?
Yes. The Commission should approve the request for waiver of the carrier selection requirements of Rule 25-4.118, Florida Administrative Code.
Issue 3:
Should this docket be closed?
If no person whose substantial interests are
affected by the Proposed Agency Action files a protest within 21 days of the
issuance of the Proposed Agency Action order, this docket should be closed upon
the issuance of the Consummating Order.
If Old Supra fails to pay its 2006 regulatory assessment fees for its
6**PAA Docket No. 041272-EI – Petition for approval of storm cost recovery clause for recovery of extraordinary expenditures related to Hurricanes Charley, Frances, Jeanne, and Ivan, by Progress Energy Florida, Inc.
|
Critical
Date(s): |
None |
||
|
Commissioners
Assigned: |
All Commissioners |
||
|
Prehearing
Officer: |
Deason |
||
|
Staff: |
ECR: Slemkewicz, Maurey, Draper, Kummer GCL: Brubaker |
||
Issue 1:
Should the Commission approve the implementation of the proposed Stipulation and Settlement Agreement?
The Commission should approve the implementation of the proposed Stipulation and Settlement Agreement with Paragraph 3 modified to include a streamlined formal interim request procedure, an interim surcharge cap, a defined interim surcharge period, and a Paragraph 3 termination date.
Issue 2:
If the Commission approves
the extension of the Storm Cost Recovery Surcharge, should PEF file a revision
to Tariff Sheet No. 6.106?
Yes.
Issue 3:
Should this docket be closed?
No.
This docket should remain open to address the true-up of the actual
storm restoration costs previously approved for recovery in this docket by
Order No.
7**PAA Docket No. 060198-EI – Requirement for investor-owned electric utilities to file ongoing storm preparedness plans and implementation cost estimates.
|
Critical
Date(s): |
None |
||
|
Commissioners
Assigned: |
All Commissioners |
||
|
Prehearing
Officer: |
Administrative |
||
|
Staff: |
ECR: Breman, Daniel, Jopling, Kummer, Lee, Matlock, McNulty, Redemann, Rieger, Swearingen, Trapp GCL: Gervasi,
Helton |
||
(All issues proposed
agency action except Issue 10.)
Issue 1:
Are each of the investor-owned electric utility plans for vegetation management for distribution equivalent to or better than a three-year trim cycle in terms of cost and reliability for purposes of preparing for future storms?
The plans filed by Tampa Electric Company and Florida
Public Utilities Company comply with the three-year trim cycle requirement of
Order No.
Issue 2:
Does each investor-owned electric utility’s plans for auditing its joint-use attachment agreements include pole strength assessments and attachment verification?
Yes. Each utility’s plan for auditing its joint-use attachment agreements includes pole strength assessments, but plans should be re-evaluated annually to assess the need for any adjustment. This annual assessment should be conducted consistent with the discussion in Issue 9.
Issue 3:
Is each investor-owned electric utility’s plan for a transmission structure inspection program equivalent to a six-year inspection cycle methodology in terms of cost and reliability?
Yes. Each utility’s transmission structure inspection plan is consistent with the intent of the Order. Staff recommends continued monitoring of each utility’s transmission structure inspection program. This annual assessment should be conducted consistent with the discussion in Issue 9.
Issue 4:
Is each investor-owned electric utility’s plan for hardening existing transmission structures adequate for purposes of preparing for future storms?
Yes. Based on the available information, the Commission should find that each utility’s transmission plan for hardening existing transmission structures is consistent with the intent of Order No. PSC-06-0351-PAA-EI. As utilities implement their forensic data collection procedures, each utility will become better able to address the adequacy of its efforts to prepare for future storms. Staff recommends continued monitoring of each utility’s plans for hardening existing transmission structures consistent with the discussion in Issue 9.
Issue 5:
Are each investor-owned electric utility’s plans for a transmission and distribution geographic information system (Initiative 5), post-storm data collection, and forensic reviews (Initiative 6), and assessing performance of overhead and underground systems (Initiative 7) adequate for purposes of improving its storm restoration activities and evaluation of its storm hardening options?
Yes. The Commission should find that each utility’s plans are consistent with the Order. Each utility’s implementation of its plan should be monitored consistent with the discussion in Issue 9.
Issue 6:
Are the utility plans for increased coordination with local governments adequate to foster better communication between the utilities and the cities and counties they serve, not only prior to and immediately after a storm, but year-round to identify and address issues of common concern?
Yes. While no objective metrics exist to quantify community coordination, the investor-owned electric utilities have filed draft plans which appear to inform and encourage joint participation with cities and counties and resolve common issues. Staff recommends continued monitoring of the implementation of the plans as discussed in Issue 9.
Issue 7:
Is each investor-owned electric utility’s plan for collaborative research on effects of hurricane winds and storm surge adequate to further the development of storm resilient electric utility infrastructure and technologies that reduce storm restoration costs and outages to customers reasonable?
While efforts are underway, the collaborative research plans of the investor-owned electric utilities are incomplete at this time. The plans do not establish a sufficiently detailed schedule for selecting collaborative research activities and establishing funding levels. Staff will keep the Commission informed on the progress of these activities.
Issue 8:
Is each of the investor-owned electric utilities’ natural disaster preparedness and recovery plan adequate?
The Commission should find that each utility natural disaster preparedness and recovery plan is consistent with the intent of Order No. PSC-06-0351-PAA-EI. The plans are “living documents” and subject to constant revision as new lessons are learned. They will be reviewed and updated annually with lessons learned from storms and forensics data that is collected and analyzed. The plans will be relied on by EOC and PSC staff during training and actual emergencies.
Issue 9:
Should the Commission authorize staff to monitor and report on the investor-owned electric utility storm hardening plans?
Yes. The storm hardening initiatives should be monitored and reported in the following manner:
Initiatives 1 through 7 – These initiatives should be monitored through the Commission’s annual review of distribution service reliability performance because the storm hardening initiatives involve reliability performance activities.
Initiative 8 – This initiative for increased coordination with local governments should be monitored through Commission’s review of electric utilities’ dialogue with local governments and selected review of utility activities in this area.
Initiative 9 – This initiative for collaborative research on effects of hurricane winds and storm surge should be monitored by the Commission by reviewing the electric utilities’ participation in studies and projects undertaken by the collaborative research efforts.
Initiative 10 – This initiative regarding the electric utilities’ natural disaster preparedness and recovery plans should be monitored by the Commission by reviewing and maintaining current copies of the plans.
Each utility should file updates of
its storm hardening plans by
Issue 10:
What information has been provided to the Commission regarding each municipal electric utility’s and each rural electric cooperative utility’s ongoing storm hardening plans?
INFORMATIONAL ISSUE ONLY – NO DECISION REQUIRED.
Issue 11:
Should this docket be closed?
No. If no timely protest is filed by a person whose substantial interests are affected by the proposed agency action portions of the order arising from this recommendation, a consummating order will be issued. If the Commission approves staff’s recommendation in Issue 1, the docket should remain open for PEF and GULF to file an updated vegetation management plan which includes appropriate means of evaluating the effectiveness of their programs.
8**PAA Docket No. 060531-EU – Review of all electric utility wooden pole inspection programs.
|
Critical
Date(s): |
None |
||
|
Commissioners
Assigned: |
All Commissioners |
||
|
Prehearing
Officer: |
Administrative |
||
|
Staff: |
ECR: Swearingen, Breman, Matlock, McNulty GCL: Gervasi,
Helton |
||
Issue 1:
Are each of the electric IOUs’ plans for an eight-year wood pole inspection program in compliance with the requirements of Order No. PSC-06-0144-PAA-EI?
Recommendation: Each electric IOU has filed wood pole inspection plans which are compliant with the requirements of Order No. PSC-06-0144-PAA-EI for most of its wooden poles. However, each electric IOU’s proposed wood pole inspection plan includes one or more deviations from the requirements of the Order for some of their wood poles. Each electric IOU should be required to file in this docket additional data that supports their deviation(s) from Order No. PSC-06-0144-PAA-EI within 30 days after the Final Order. Staff will review the filings and issue a recommendation to the Commission at a subsequent Agenda Conference addressing unresolved compliance matters.
Issue 2:
What additional information
does the Commission need to be able to assess each municipal and cooperative
electric utility’s wood pole inspection plan?
Each municipal electric utility and each cooperative
electric utility has provided information regarding their respective wood pole
inspection plans similar to the information required of the electric IOUs’
plans filed in response to Order No. PSC-PSC-06-0144-PAA-EI. Many of the municipal and cooperative
electric utilities’ plans appear to deviate from the inspection requirements
imposed on the electric IOUs. The
Commission should direct staff to solicit a report from each municipal and
cooperative electric utility justifying apparent deviations to the Commission
by
Issue 3:
Should this docket be closed?
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 will be issued. If the Commission approves staff's recommendation in Issues 1 and 2, the docket should remain open for the electric IOUs, municipals and cooperatives to submit additional data to support the deviations.
9**PAA Docket No. 060426-EI – Petition for exemption under Rule 25-22.082(18), F.A.C., from issuing request for proposals (RFPs), by Florida Power & Light Company.
|
Critical
Date(s): |
None |
||
|
Commissioners
Assigned: |
All Commissioners |
||
|
Prehearing
Officer: |
Tew |
||
|
Staff: |
ECR: GCL: Keating |
||
Issue 1:
Should the Commission grant Florida Power & Light Company's (FPL) petition for exemption from the request for proposal (RFP) requirement of Rule 25-22.082, Florida Administrative Code, for its next planned advanced technology coal generating units, which are currently scheduled to be placed in service in 2012 and 2013?
Yes. An exemption
from the RFP requirement will provide FPL with the opportunity to stay on
schedule for the first unit’s planned 2012 in-service date. Construction of the
first unit allows cost-saving measures to be gained from building a second
unit, in 2013, at the same site. FPL has
estimated that an exemption will save between $400 to $600 million and that FPL
could file a need determination for both units by
Issue 2:
Should this docket be closed?
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.
10**PAA Docket No. 060162-EI – Petition by Progress Energy Florida, Inc. for approval to recover modular cooling tower costs through fuel cost recovery clause.
|
Critical
Date(s): |
None |
||
|
Commissioners
Assigned: |
All Commissioners |
||
|
Prehearing
Officer: |
Arriaga |
||
|
Staff: |
ECR: Von Fossen, Colson GCL: Brown |
||
Issue 1:
Should the Commission approve Progress’s request for recovery of the reasonably and prudently incurred costs of its modular cooling tower project through the Environmental Cost Recovery Clause?
Yes. The Commission should approve PEF’s modular cooling tower project as eligible for ECRC cost recovery. However, cost recovery should be reviewed annually subject to a prudence evaluation as part of the Commission’s ongoing proceedings in the ECRC. To effectively monitor the cost effectiveness of this project, within its annual projection testimony filed in the ECRC docket beginning in 2006, PEF should be required to provide an evaluation of the continued need and prudence of leasing the modular cooling towers. This evaluation should include the following: 1) the frequency and megawatt hour level of both actual and avoided summer de-rates for Crystal River Units 1 and 2; 2) an analysis of the operation of the modular towers in meeting its expected 1.8-degree Fahrenheit thermal decrease; 3) actual inlet water temperatures and, if available, third-party projections of future Gulf water temperatures; 4) the annual and cumulative project costs, fuel cost savings and net fuel cost savings attributable to the project; and 5) an updated cost/benefit analysis of other additional cooling capacity options, including the purchase option within the lease, compared to continuing the modular cooling tower project. Also, PEF should be required to include in its 2008 true-up testimony a detailed analysis determining whether additional cooling capacity is still needed and the utility’s timeframe, plan, and projected costs for a permanent solution.
Issue 2:
Should this docket be closed?
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.
11** Docket No.
060139-WU –
Application for certificate to operate water utility in
|
Critical
Date(s): |
|
||
|
Commissioners
Assigned: |
All Commissioners |
||
|
Prehearing
Officer: |
Tew |
||
|
Staff: |
ECR: Clapp, Redemann GCL: Jaeger |
||
Issue 1:
Should the Colina Bay Water Company, LLC application for a water certificate be granted?
Yes. Colina Bay Water Company, LLC should be granted Certificate No. 632-W to serve the territory described in Attachment A of staff’s August 17, 2006 memorandum effective the date of the Commission’s vote. The resultant order should serve as Colina’s water certificate and it should be retained by the utility. The utility should file an executed and recorded copy of the warranty deed for the land for the water facilities within 30 days of the issuance date of the Order granting the certificate.
PAA Issue 2:
What are the appropriate initial water rates and return on investment for this utility?
The staff recommended water rates,
miscellaneous service charges, and late payment charge, shown on Schedule No. 4
of staff’s
PAA Issue
3:
What are the appropriate service availability charges for Colina Bay Water Company, LLC?
The service availability policy and charges set forth within the staff analysis are appropriate and should be approved effective for connections made on or after the stamped approval date on the tariff sheets.
PAA Issue
4:
Should the utility's proposed Allowance for Funds Used During Construction (AFUDC) rate be approved?
Yes. The utility's proposed Allowance for Funds Used During Construction rate should be approved. An annual AFUDC rate of 9.32% should be approved with a discounted monthly rate of 0.7453404%. The approved rate should be applicable for eligible construction projects beginning on or after the effective date of the certificate of authorization.
Issue 5:
Should this docket be closed?
Yes. If no protest to the proposed agency action issues is filed by a substantially affected person within 21 days of the date of the order, a consummating order should be issued and the docket should be closed administratively upon receipt of the executed and recorded copy of the warranty deed.
12** Docket No. 060166-WS – Application for amendment of Certificates 590-W and 508-S to extend water and wastewater service areas to include certain land in Polk County by Gold Coast Utility Corp.
|
Critical
Date(s): |
None |
||
|
Commissioners
Assigned: |
All Commissioners |
||
|
Prehearing
Officer: |
Arriaga |
||
|
Staff: |
ECR: Walden GCL: Fleming |
||
Issue 1: Should the utility’s request to amend its certificates be granted?
Recommendation: Yes.
Water Certificate No. 590-W and Wastewater Certificate No. 508-S held by
Gold Coast Utility Corp. should be amended to include the territory listed on
Attachment A of staff’s
Issue 2: Should the docket be closed?
Recommendation: Yes. This docket should be closed because no further action is needed.
13** Docket No. 060397-WU – Application for revised tariff sheets, new service availability policy, and new refundable advance agreement, by Placid Lakes Utilities, Inc.
|
Critical
Date(s): |
|
||
|
Commissioners
Assigned: |
All Commissioners |
||
|
Prehearing
Officer: |
Administrative |
||
|
Staff: |
ECR: Joyce, Rendell GCL: Gervasi |
||
Issue 1:
Should
Yes.
Issue 2:
Should this docket be closed?
If no protest is filed by a person whose interests are substantially affected within 21 days of the issuance of the Order, the Tariff Order will become final upon the issuance of a Consummating Order and the docket should be closed. If a protest is filed within 21 days of the issuance of the Order, the tariff should remain in effect pending the resolution of the protest, and the docket should remain open.