FLORIDA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION
COMMISSION CONFERENCE AGENDA
CONFERENCE DATE AND TIME: Tuesday, May 19, 2009, 9:30 a.m.
LOCATION: Betty Easley Conference Center, Joseph P. Cresse Hearing Room 148
DATE ISSUED: May 8, 2009
NOTICE
Persons affected by Commission action on certain items on this agenda may be allowed to address the Commission, either informally or by oral argument, when those items are taken up for discussion at this conference. These items are designated by double asterisks (**) next to the agenda item number.
To participate informally, affected persons need only appear at the agenda conference and request the opportunity to address the Commission on an item listed on agenda. Informal participation is not permitted: (1) on dispositive motions and motions for reconsideration; (2) when a recommended order is taken up by the Commission; (3) in a rulemaking proceeding after the record has been closed; or (4) when the Commission considers a post-hearing recommendation on the merits of a case after the close of the record. The Commission allows informal participation at its discretion in certain types of cases (such as declaratory statements and interim rate orders) in which an order is issued based on a given set of facts without hearing.
See Rule 25-22.0021, F.A.C., concerning Agenda Conference participation and Rule 25-22.0022, F.A.C., concerning oral argument.
To obtain a copy of staff’s recommendation for any item on this agenda, contact the Office of Commission Clerk at (850) 413‑6770. There may be a charge for the copy. The agenda and recommendations are also accessible on the PSC Website, at http://www.floridapsc.com, at no charge.
Any person requiring some accommodation at this conference because of a physical impairment should call the Office of Commission Clerk 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 Office of Commission Clerk, Betty Easley Conference Center, Room 110.
Video and audio versions of the conference are available and can be accessed live on the PSC Website on the day of the Conference. The audio version is available through archive storage for up to three months after the conference.
1 Approval of Minutes
April 7, 2009 Regular Commission Conference
April 21, 2009 Regular Commission
Conference
2**PAA Docket No. 080724-EU – Joint petition for approval of territorial agreement in Marion County by Ocala Electric Utility and Progress Energy Florida, Inc.
|
Critical Date(s): |
None |
||
|
Commissioners Assigned: |
All Commissioners |
||
|
Prehearing Officer: |
McMurrian |
||
|
Staff: |
GCL: Bennett ECR: Redemann, Rieger, Simpson |
||
Recommendation: Yes. The proposed territorial agreement between Ocala Electric Utility and Progress Energy Florida, Inc. is in the public interest and should be approved. The effective date of the agreement should be the date the Commission’s order approving the agreement becomes final and is no longer subject to judicial review.
Issue 2: Should this docket be closed?
Recommendation: Yes. If no person whose substantial interests are affected files a protest to the Commission’s proposed agency action order within 21 days, the docket may be closed upon issuance of a consummating order.
3 Docket No. 090135-TP – Complaint against BellSouth Telecommunications, Inc. d/b/a AT&T Florida d/b/a AT&T Southeast for anticompetitive behavior in violation of Sections 364.01(4), 364.10(1), and 364.3381, F.S., violating terms of interconnection agreement, and engaging in cramming in violation of Sections 354.604(2), 364.10(1), F.S., and Rule 25-4.110(18), F.A.C., by Cbeyond Communications, LLC.
|
Critical Date(s): |
None |
||
|
Commissioners Assigned: |
All Commissioners |
||
|
Prehearing Officer: |
Administrative |
||
|
Staff: |
GCL: Murphy RCP: Bloom, King |
||
(Oral Argument Not Requested)
Issue 1:
Should AT&T’s Partial Motion to Dismiss be granted?
No. AT&T’s Partial Motion to Dismiss should be denied.
Issue 2:
Should this docket be closed?
No. This docket should remain open to address the Cbeyond Complaint against AT&T.
4**PAA Docket No. 090158-TC – Request for cancellation of PATS Certificate No. 2429 by Astro Skate Pinellas Park, LLC, effective March 24, 2009.
|
Critical Date(s): |
None |
||
|
Commissioners Assigned: |
All Commissioners |
||
|
Prehearing Officer: |
Administrative |
||
|
Staff: |
RCP: Isler GCL: Morrow |
||
Issue 1:
Should the Commission deny Astro Skate Pinellas Park, LLC, a voluntary cancellation of pay telephone service (PATS) Certificate No. 2429 and cancel the certificate on the Commission’s own motion with an effective date of March 24, 2009?
Yes, the company should be denied a voluntary cancellation as listed on Attachment A of staff’s memorandum dated May 7, 2009.
Issue 2:
Should this docket be closed?
Staff recommends that the Order issued from this recommendation will become final and effective upon issuance of a Consummating Order, unless a person whose substantial interests are affected by the Commission’s decision files a protest that identifies with specificity the issues in dispute, in the form provided by Rule 28-106.201, Florida Administrative Code, within 21 days of the issuance of the Proposed Agency Action Order. As provided by Section 120.80(13)(b), Florida Statutes, any issues not in dispute should be deemed stipulated. If the company fails to timely file a protest and to request a Section 120.57, Florida Statutes, hearing, the facts should be deemed admitted and the right to a hearing waived. If the company pays the Regulatory Assessment Fees prior to the expiration of the Proposed Agency Action Order, then the cancellation of the company’s PATS certificate will be voluntary. If the company fails to pay the Regulatory Assessment Fees prior to the expiration of the Proposed Agency Action Order, then the company’s PATS certificate should be cancelled administratively, and the collection of the past due Regulatory Assessment Fees should be referred to the Florida Department of Financial Services for further collection efforts. If the company’s PATS certificate is cancelled in accordance with the Commission’s Order from this recommendation, the company should be required to immediately cease and desist providing telecommunications service in Florida. This docket should be closed administratively either upon receipt of the payment of the Regulatory Assessment Fees or upon cancellation of the company’s PATS certificate.
5**PAA Docket No. 090108-EI – Request for approval of change in rate used to capitalize allowance for funds used during construction (AFUDC) from 7.65% to 7.41%, effective January 1, 2009, by Florida Power & Light Company.
|
Critical Date(s): |
None |
||
|
Commissioners Assigned: |
All Commissioners |
||
|
Prehearing Officer: |
McMurrian |
||
|
Staff: |
ECR: Slemkewicz, Livingston, Springer GCL: Brown |
||
Issue 1:
Should the Commission approve FPL’s request to decrease its AFUDC rate from 7.65 percent to 7.41 percent?
Yes. The appropriate AFUDC rate for FPL is 7.41 percent based on a 13-month average capital structure for the period ending December 31, 2008.
Issue 2:
What is the appropriate monthly compounding rate to achieve the requested 7.41 percent annual rate?
The appropriate monthly compounding rate to maintain an annual rate of 7.41 percent is 0.597470 percent.
Issue 3:
Should the Commission approve FPL’s requested effective date of January 1, 2009, for implementing the revised AFUDC rate?
Yes. The revised AFUDC rate should be effective as of January 1, 2009, for all purposes except for Rule 25-6.0423, F.A.C., Nuclear or Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle Power Plant Cost Recovery. For the purposes of Rule 25-6.0423, F.A.C., 7.42 percent is the appropriate AFUDC rate to be utilized for computing carrying costs for power plant need petitions submitted on or before December 31, 2010.
Issue 4:
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.
6** Docket No. 080712-SU – Application for approval of new class of service for reuse water service in Martin County by Indiantown Company, Inc.
|
Critical Date(s): |
08/17/09 (8-Month Effective Date) |
||
|
Commissioners Assigned: |
All Commissioners |
||
|
Prehearing Officer: |
Administrative |
||
|
Staff: |
ECR: Mouring, Bulecza-Banks, Fletcher GCL: Williams |
||
Issue 1:
Should Indiantown’s proposed tariff sheets to establish a reuse water rate be approved as filed?
Yes. Indiantown’s proposed tariff sheets to establish a reuse water rate should be approved as filed.
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.
7** Docket No. 090164-EI – Petition for approval of revised tariff sheets for underground residential distribution service, by Tampa Electric Company.
|
Critical Date(s): |
06/01/09 (60-Day Suspension Date) |
||
|
Commissioners Assigned: |
All Commissioners |
||
|
Prehearing Officer: |
Administrative |
||
|
Staff: |
ECR: Piper, Draper, Kummer GCL: Sayler |
||
Issue 1:
Should the Commission suspend TECO's proposed Tariff Sheet Nos. 5.510, 5.515, and 5.516 regarding conversion of and construction of underground residential facilities?
Yes.
Issue 2:
Should this docket be closed?
No. This docket should remain open pending the Commission vote on the proposed tariff revision.
8** Docket No. 090173-EI – Request to revise underground residential differential rates by Gulf Power Company.
|
Critical Date(s): |
06/01/09 (60-Day Suspension Date) |
||
|
Commissioners Assigned: |
All Commissioners |
||
|
Prehearing Officer: |
Administrative |
||
|
Staff: |
ECR: Roberts, Draper, Kummer GCL: Jaeger |
||
Issue 1:
Should the Commission suspend Gulf’s proposed tariff sheets Nos. 4.25, 4.26, 4.26.1, and 4.26.2 regarding construction of underground residential facilities?
Yes.
Issue 2:
Should this docket be closed?
No. This docket should remain open pending the Commission’s final decision on the proposed tariff revision.
9 Docket No. 090079-EI – Petition for increase in rates by Progress Energy Florida, Inc.
|
Critical Date(s): |
05/19/09 (60-Day Suspension Date) |
||
|
Commissioners Assigned: |
All Commissioners |
||
|
Prehearing Officer: |
Skop |
||
|
Staff: |
ECR: Slemkewicz, Maurey, Draper GCL: Fleming, Klancke, Sayler, Young |
||
(Decision on Interim Rates - Participation is at the discretion of the Commission)
Issue 1:
Should the $499,997,000 million permanent base rate increase and its associated tariff revisions requested by Progress Energy Florida, Inc. be suspended pending a final decision in this docket?
Yes. The $499,997,000 permanent base rate increase and its associated tariff revisions requested by Progress Energy Florida, Inc. should be suspended pending a final decision in this docket.
Issue 2:
Does the Stipulation approved by Order No. PSC-05-0945-S-EI, allow PEF to request an interim rate increase?
Yes. Staff believes that the Stipulation contemplates PEF’s request for an interim rate increase and that such a request is not prohibited by the Stipulation.
Issue 3:
Has PEF established a prima facie entitlement for interim relief, pursuant to Section 366.071(1), F.S.?
Yes. Staff believes that the 10 percent threshold adopted by the parties in the Stipulation represents a level below which rates are no longer fair, just, and reasonable, thereby entitling PEF to petition the Commission to amend its base rates. PEF has presented prefiled testimony and documentation supporting that it is earning below the 10 percent threshold. Accordingly, staff recommends that PEF has established a prima facie entitlement for interim relief and is entitled to the proposed interim increase, pursuant to Section 366.071, F.S., as discussed in Issue 4.
Issue 4:
Is Progress Energy Florida, Inc.’s proposed 2008 interim test year rate base of $5,098,765,000 appropriate?
Yes. The appropriate 2008 interim test year rate base for PEF is $5,098,765,000.
Issue 5:
Are Progress Energy Florida, Inc.’s proposed return on equity of 10.00 percent and its overall cost of capital of 7.84 percent reasonable for the purpose of determining interim rates?
Yes. PEF’s proposed return on equity of 10.00 percent and overall cost of capital of 7.84 percent are reasonable for purposes of determining interim rates.
Issue 6:
Is Progress Energy Florida, Inc.’s proposed 2008 interim test year net operating income of $391,486,000 appropriate?
Yes. The appropriate 2008 interim test year net operating income for PEF is $391,486,000.
Issue 7:
Is Progress Energy Florida, Inc.’s proposed interim net operating income multiplier of 1.6343 appropriate?
Yes. PEF’s proposed interim net operating income multiplier of 1.6343 is appropriate.
Issue 8:
Should Progress Energy Florida, Inc.’s requested interim revenue increase of $13,078,000 be granted?
If it is determined that interim relief should be granted to PEF in this case, the appropriate interim revenue increase for PEF should be $13,078,000.
Issue 9:
Should Progress Energy Florida, Inc.’s requested percentage increase factor of 1.70 percent be approved?
No. If it is determined that relief should be granted to PEF in this case, the appropriate percentage increase factor is 0.91 percent. If approved, PEF should file revised tariff sheets reflecting the 0.91 percent increase factor.
Issue 10:
How should the interim revenue increase for Progress Energy Florida, Inc. be distributed among the rate classes?
The percentage increase factor approved in Issue 9 should be applied uniformly to all existing base rates and charges to derive the interim base rates and charges, as required by Rule 25-6.0435, F.A.C. The interim rates should go into effect with the first billing cycle in July 2009. The Company should give notice to customers of the interim increase commencing with the June 2009 bills to coincide with the notice staff is recommending PEF provide for the Bartow Repowering project in Docket No. 090144-EI.
Issue 11:
What is the appropriate security to guarantee the amount collected subject to refund?
The appropriate security to guarantee the funds collected subject to refund is a corporate undertaking.
Issue 12:
Should this docket be closed?
No. This docket should remain pending the Commission’s final resolution of the Company’s requested rate increase.
10** Docket No. 090144-EI – Petition for limited proceeding to include Bartow repowering project in base rates, by Progress Energy Florida, Inc.
|
Critical Date(s): |
05/19/09 (60-Day Suspension Date) |
||
|
Commissioners Assigned: |
All Commissioners |
||
|
Prehearing Officer: |
McMurrian |
||
|
Staff: |
ECR: Slemkewicz, Maurey, Draper GCL: Fleming, Klancke, Sayler, Young SGA: Ellis |
||
Issue 1:
Does the stipulation approved by Order No. PSC-05-0945-S-EI allow PEF to request a limited proceeding to implement a base rate increase?
Yes. Staff believes that the Stipulation clearly contemplates PEF’s request for a limited proceeding for the Bartow Repowering Project and that such a proceeding is not prohibited by the Stipulation. Moreover, staff believes that by filing the revised tariff sheet with its petition, PEF has triggered the application of the “file and suspend” provisions of Section 366.06, F.S.
Issue 2:
Is PEF’s calculation of the $126,212,000 annual base rate increase and the 9.12 percent increase factor to recover the revenue requirements associated with the Bartow Repowering Project reasonable?
Yes. Staff recommends that the $126,212,000 annual base rate increase and 9.12 percent increase factor for the Bartow Repowering Project are reasonable for the purposes of this limited proceeding.
Issue 3:
Should the $126,212,000 annual base rate increase to recover the revenue requirements associated with the Bartow Repowering Project be held subject to refund?
Yes. The $126,212,000 annual base rate increase should be held subject to refund pending a review and final determination of the appropriate calculation of the Bartow Repowering Project revenue requirements in PEF’s base rate proceeding in Docket No. 090079-EI.
Issue 4:
Should the Commission approve PEF's revised tariff sheets?
The tariff sheets as filed reflect both the Project increase and the interim increase requested in Docket No. 090079-EI. If the Commission denies or modifies the interim increase request, PEF should file revised tariff sheets reflecting the Commission’s decision in Docket No. 090079-EI, and the Project increase approved in this docket. The appropriate tariff sheets reflecting the Project increase should be approved and the resulting increase in revenues held subject to refund pending the outcome of the hearing in Docket No. 090079-EI. If the Commission denies the Project increase, this issue is moot.
Issue 5:
What is the appropriate effective date for implementing the $126,212,000 annual base rate increase?
If the Commission approves PEF’s request to increase base rates by $126,212,000 annually, the effective date for implementing the base rate increase is the first billing cycle in July 2009. Starting with the first billing cycle in June 2009, PEF should include bill inserts to notify its customers of the base rate increase. If the commercial operation of the Bartow Repowering Project is delayed from the projected June 1, 2009, date, the effective date should be moved to the first billing cycle 30 days following the commercial operation in-service date.
Issue 6:
What is the appropriate security to guarantee the amount collected subject to refund?
The appropriate security to guarantee the funds collected subject to refund is a corporate undertaking.
Issue 7:
Should this docket be closed?
Yes.
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. Staff also recommends that if the order is protested, this docket should be consolidated with Docket No. 090079-EI, PEF’s rate base proceeding, in the interest of administrative efficiency, and given the congruence between the issues and parties in the two dockets. If no timely protest is filed, this docket should be closed upon the issuance of a consummating order.
11 Docket No. 080318-GU – Petition for rate increase by Peoples Gas System.
|
Critical Date(s): |
8-Month Effective Date Waived through 05/19/09 |
||
|
Commissioners Assigned: |
All Commissioners |
||
|
Prehearing Officer: |
Skop |
||
|
Staff: |
ECR: Draper GCL: Klancke, Brubaker, Fleming |
||
(Post Hearing Decision - Participation is Limited to Commissioners and Staff)
Recommendation will be filed on Monday, May 11, 2009, by 3:00 p.m.