Commission Conference Agenda

17 **PAA Docket No. 100330-WS – Application for increase in water/wastewater rates in Alachua, Brevard, DeSoto, Hardee, Highlands, Lake, Lee, Marion, Orange, Palm Beach, Pasco, Polk, Putnam, Seminole, Sumter, Volusia, and Washington Counties by Aqua Utilities Florida, Inc.
Docket No. 080121-WS – Application for increase in water and wastewater rates in Alachua, Brevard, DeSoto, Highlands, Lake, Lee, Marion, Orange, Palm Beach, Pasco, Polk, Putnam, Seminole, Sumter, Volusia, and Washington Counties by Aqua Utilities Florida, Inc.

Critical Date(s):		5-Month Effective Date Waived through 05/24/11
Commissioners Assigned:			All Commissioners
Prehearing Officer:			Graham (100330-WS) Edgar (080121-WS)
Staff:	ECR: Mouring, Cicchetti, Daniel, Deason, Fletcher, Golden, Hudson, Jones-Alexis, Lingo, Linn, Maurey, Rieger, Salnova, Simpson, Springer, Stallcup, Thompson, Walden, Williams GCL: Jaeger, Bennett, Klancke

(This item will be taken up at 1:30 p.m. Proposed Agency Action for all Issues Except 44, 46, and 48.)

Issue 1:

Is the quality of service provided by the Utility satisfactory, and, if not, what action should be taken by the Commission?

Recommendation:

Yes. Based on the results of the Phase II Monitoring Plan in Docket No. 080121-WS and staff’s evaluation in the instant rate case proceeding, the overall quality of service provided by AUF for all systems, including Chuluota, is satisfactory.

Issue 2:

Should the audit adjustments to rate base and operating expenses to which the Utility agrees, be made?

Recommendation:

Yes. Based on audit adjustments agreed to by the Utility, staff recommends that land and working capital be increased by $160,093 and $79,006, respectively, and operation & maintenance (O&M) expenses be decreased by $255,390.

Issue 3:

Should adjustments be made to the Utility's pro forma plant additions?

Recommendation:

Yes. The Utility’s pro-forma plant additions should be decreased by $410,693 for water and by $658,663 for wastewater. Accordingly, accumulated depreciation should be increased by $52,928 for water and decreased $190,360 for wastewater, and depreciation expense should be decreased by $29,982 for water and $56,929 for wastewater. Moreover, the Utility’s property taxes should be decreased by $33,837 for water and $40,974 for wastewater. The specific rate band and system adjustments are set forth in the analysis portion of staff’s memorandum dated May 12, 2011.

Issue 4:

Do any water systems have excessive unaccounted for water, and, if so, what adjustments are necessary?

Recommendation:

Yes. The percentages for excessive unaccounted for water (EUW) and the adjustments staff recommends be made to Purchased Power, Chemicals, and Purchased Water expenses for each water rate band and stand-alone system are shown in Table 4-1 of staff’s memorandum dated May 12, 2011.

Issue 5:

What are the appropriate used and useful percentages for the water treatment and related facilities of each water system?

Recommendation:

All of the AUF water treatment plants should be considered 100 percent used and useful (U&U), with the exception of Carlton Village (95 percent), Gibsonia Estates (61 percent), Hermits Cove/St. Johns Highland (31 percent), Lake Josephine/Sebring Lakes (86 percent), Picciola Island (75 percent), Silver Lake Estates/Western Shores (94 percent), Sunny Hills (91 percent), Venetian Village (74 percent), and Welaka (80 percent). Attachment 4A of staff’s memorandum dated May 12, 2011 contains the composite U&U percentages for the four rate bands, as well as the individual U&U percentages for Breeze Hill, Fairways, and Peace River. Further, the rate base adjustments are shown on Schedule 3-C, and the depreciation expense and property tax adjustments are shown on Schedule 4-C of staff’s memorandum dated May 12, 2011.

Issue 6:

What are the appropriate used and useful percentages for the storage tanks?

Recommendation:

All of the AUF storage tanks should be considered 100 percent U&U.

Issue 7:

What are the appropriate used and useful percentages for the water distribution systems?

Recommendation:

All of the AUF water distribution systems are 100 percent U&U, with the exception of 48 Estates (85 percent), Arredondo Farms (88 percent), Carlton Village (47 percent), Hermits Cove/St. Johns Highlands (80 percent), Holiday Haven (76 percent), Interlachen/Park Manor (83 percent), Lake Josephine/Sebring Lakes (55 percent), Leisure Lakes (84 percent), Palms Mobile Home Park (88 percent), Picciola Island (80 percent), Pomona Park (51 percent), Silver Lake Oaks (87 percent), Stone Mountain (54 percent), Sunny Hills (13 percent), Tangerine (60 percent), The Woods (76 percent), Venetian Village (85 percent), Welaka (52 percent), and Wootens (66 percent). Attachment 5 of staff’s memorandum dated May 12, 2011 contains the composite U&U percentages for the water rate bands, as well as the individual U&U percentages for Breeze Hill, Fairways, and Peace River. Further, the rate base adjustments are shown on Schedule 3-C, and the depreciation expense and property tax adjustments are shown on Schedule 4-C of staff’s memorandum dated May 12, 2011.

Issue 8:

Do any wastewater systems have excessive infiltration and inflow and, if so, what adjustments are necessary?

Recommendation:

Yes. The appropriate percentages for excessive Infiltration and Inflow (I&I) and the adjustments that should be made to Purchased Power, Chemicals, and Purchased Wastewater expenses are shown in Table 8-1 of staff’s memorandum dated May 12, 2011, for each wastewater rate band and stand-alone system.

Issue 9:

What are the appropriate used and useful percentages for the wastewater treatment and related facilities of each wastewater system?

Recommendation:

All of the AUF wastewater treatment plants should be considered 100 percent U&U, with the exception of Breeze Hill (56 percent), Holiday Haven (75 percent), Leisure Lakes (39 percent), Palm Port (58 percent), Silver Lake Oaks (42 percent), Sunny Hills (49 percent), and Village Water (79 percent). Attachment 7A of staff’s memorandum dated May 12, 2011, contains the composite U&U percentages for the wastewater rate bands, as well as the individual U&U percentages for Breeze Hill, Fairways, and Peace River. Further, the rate base adjustments are shown on Schedule 3-C, and the depreciation expense and property tax adjustments are shown on Schedule 4-C of staff’s memorandum dated May 12, 2011.

Issue 10:

What are the appropriate used and useful percentages for the wastewater collection systems?

Recommendation:

All of the AUF wastewater collection systems are 100 percent U&U, with the exception of Holiday Haven (75 percent), Leisure Lakes (85 percent), Palm Port (91 percent), Silver Lake Oaks (87 percent), Sunny Hills (55 percent), The Woods (71 percent), and Village Water (58 percent). Attachment 8 of staff’s memorandum dated May 12, 2011 contains the composite U&U percentages for the wastewater rate bands, as well as the individual U&U percentages for Breeze Hill, Fairways, and Peace River. Further, the rate base adjustments are shown on Schedule 3-C, and the depreciation expense and property tax adjustments are shown on Schedule 4-C of staff’s memorandum dated May 12, 2011.

Issue 11:

Should any further adjustment be made to Other Deferred Debits?

Recommendation:

Yes. Other Deferred Debits should be increased further by $14,042 for the jurisdictional systems to reflect the appropriate 13-month average balance.

Issue 12:

Should any adjustments be made to Accrued Taxes?

Recommendation:

Yes. Consistent with the Commission’s decision in the Utility’s last rate case, Accrued Taxes should be reduced by $1,917,134 on a total company basis to normalize the test year Accrued Tax balance for purposes of setting rates. The reduction of $1,917,134 represents the total for AUF. The Commission only has jurisdiction over 60.17 percent of the total AUF systems. This would be a reduction of $1,153,548 for the jurisdictional systems.

Issue 13:

Should any adjustments be made to Deferred Rate Case expense?

Recommendation:

Yes. Consistent with the annual amortization amount approved in the Utility’s last rate case and Commission practice, Deferred Rate Case expense should be increased by $107,880.

Issue 14:

What is the appropriate Working Capital allowance?

Recommendation:

The appropriate jurisdictional Working Capital allowance is $2,512,609. As such, Working Capital should be decreased by $952,621. The specific rate band and system adjustments are set forth in the analysis portion of staff’s memorandum dated May 12, 2011.

Issue 15:

What is the appropriate rate base for the April 30, 2010, test year?

Recommendation:

Consistent with other recommended adjustments, the appropriate 13-month average rate base is $20,250,529 for water and $12,947,459 for wastewater.

Issue 16:

What is the appropriate capital structure to use for rate setting purposes?

Recommendation:

The appropriate capital structure to use for rate setting purposes is based on the capital structure of AUF.

Issue 17:

What is the appropriate amount of accumulated deferred taxes to include in the capital structure?

Recommendation:

The appropriate amount of accumulated deferred income taxes to include in the capital structure is $2,201,371. This represents an increase of $744,899 over the amount reflected in the Utility’s filing.

Issue 18:

What are the appropriate cost rates for short and long-term debt for the test year?

Recommendation:

There is no short-term debt in AUF’s capital structure. The appropriate cost rate for long-term debt for the test year is 5.10 percent.

Issue 19:

What is the appropriate return on equity (ROE) for the test year?

Recommendation:

The appropriate return on common equity is 9.67 percent based on the Commission leverage formula currently in effect. Staff recommends an allowed range of plus or minus 100 basis points be recognized for ratemaking purposes.

Issue 20:

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 for AUF is 7.37 percent.

Issue 21:

Should any adjustments be made to disallow fines and penalties assessed to the Utility?

Recommendation:

Yes. O&M expenses should be reduced by $12,767 to remove expenses related to fines and penalties. The specific adjustments to each rate band and system are set forth in the analysis portion of staff’s memorandum dated May 12, 2011.

Issue 22:

Should any adjustments be made related to charges from affiliates?

Recommendation:

Yes. Plant, Accumulated Depreciation, O&M expenses, and Depreciation expense should be reduced by $148,278, $61,819, $65,187, and $163,319, respectively. The specific adjustments to each rate band and system are set forth in the analysis portion of staff’s memorandum dated May 12, 2011.

Issue 23:

Should any adjustments be made to Sludge Hauling, Contractual Services – Accounting, and Contractual Services - Legal expenses?

Recommendation:

Yes. O&M expenses should be reduced by $29,949 to reflect the appropriate Sludge Hauling, Contractual Services – Accounting, and Contractual Services – Legal expenses. The specific adjustments to each rate band and system are set forth in the analysis portion of staff’s memorandum dated May 12, 2011.

Issue 24:

Should any adjustments be made to lobbying expenses?

Recommendation:

Yes. O&M expenses should be reduced by $34,375 to remove charges related to lobbying efforts. The specific adjustments to each rate band and system are set forth in staff’s analysis below.

Issue 25:

Should any adjustments be made for Director and Officers Liability insurance?

Recommendation:

Yes. Consistent with Commission practice, O&M expenses should be reduced by $5,289 for its jurisdictional systems to reflect a sharing of the cost of Director and Officers Liability (DOL) insurance between ratepayers and the Utility.

Issue 26:

Should any adjustments be made to Salaries and Wages - Employees expense?

Recommendation:

Yes. Salaries and Wages - Employees expense should be reduced by $51,579. Accordingly, a corresponding adjustment should be made to reduce Payroll Taxes by $3,946. The specific adjustments to each rate band and system are set forth in the analysis portion of staff’s memorandum dated May 12, 2011.

Issue 27:

Should any adjustments be made to Bad Debt expense?

Recommendation:

Yes. Bad Debt expense should be $386,221. Accordingly, AUF’s Bad Debt expense of $389,420 should be reduced by $3,199.

Issue 28:

What is the appropriate amount of rate case expense?

Recommendation:

The appropriate amount of rate case expense is $778,269. This expense should be recovered over four years for an annual expense of $194,567. Thus, AUF’s requested rate case expense of $670,268 should be increased by $27,000. The specific adjustments to each rate band and system are set forth in the analysis portion of staff’s memorandum dated May 12, 2011.

Issue 29:

Should an adjustment be made to the Utility's normalization adjustments?

Recommendation:

Yes. O&M expenses should be decreased by $33,748 for water and increased by $1,768 for wastewater. The specific adjustments for each rate band and stand-alone system are set forth in the analysis portion of staff’s memorandum dated May 12, 2011.

Issue 30:

Should an adjustment be made to the Utility's pro forma expense adjustments?

Recommendation:

Yes. O&M expenses should be increased by $83,790 for water and decreased by $431 for wastewater. In addition, staff recommends requiring AUF to file a report with the Commission detailing the outcome of the dispute with the City of Lake Worth Utilities, within 30 days of the resolution of the dispute.

Issue 31:

Should an adjustment be made to O&M expense to remove the additional cost of mailing multiple bills to the same customers who have more than one class of service?

Recommendation:

Yes. The costs of mailing 2,892 duplicate bills in the amount of $14,142 should be removed from O&M expense for the Fairways water system.

Issue 32:

What is the test year pre-repression water and wastewater operating income or loss before any revenue increase?

Recommendation:

The test year pre-repression water and wastewater operating incomes are $341,466 and $486,722, respectively.

Issue 33:

What is the appropriate pre-repression revenue requirement for the April 30, 2010, test year?

Recommendation:

The appropriate pre-repression revenue requirement for the April 30, 2010, test year is $10,253,458 for water and $5,835,689 for wastewater.

Issue 34: What, if any, limit should be imposed on the subsidies that could result if the Utility’s rate bands and stand-alone systems are partially or fully consolidated?

Recommendation:

Staff recommends that the appropriate subsidy limit for the water systems and the wastewater systems should be $12.50. This recommended subsidy limit is applicable only to the residential class, and is based upon usage levels of 7 kgals per month for the water systems and 6 kgals per month for the wastewater systems.

Issue 35:

If the Commission implements a capband rate consolidation method in Issues 37 or 38, what are the appropriate rate cap thresholds to be used to cap residential customer bills for the water and wastewater systems?
Recommendation: Staff recommends that the appropriate rate cap thresholds are $66.25 for the water systems and $90.00 for the wastewater systems. These rate cap thresholds are based upon residential customer bills with usage levels of 7 kgals per month for the water systems and 6 kgals per month for the wastewater systems.

Issue 36:

What are the appropriate rate structures for the Utility’s water and wastewater systems?

Recommendation:

Staff recommends that the appropriate rate structure for the Utility’s residential water customers is a three-tiered inclining block rate structure with usage blocks for monthly consumption of 0 to 6 kgals, 6.001 to 12 kgals, and all kgals in excess of 12 kgals. For those water systems for which no repression adjustment is made, the recommended usage block rate factors are 1.0, 1.5, and 2.0, respectively. For those water systems for which a repression adjustment is made, the appropriate rate factors are 1.000, 1.866, and 2.798, respectively. The appropriate rate structure for the general service water customers is a continuation of the BFC/uniform gallonage charge rate structure, with the general service gallonage charge rate based on the overall average rate per kgal. The BFC allocation for the water systems should be set at 40 percent. However, if the Commission decides not to consolidate the Breeze Hill water system with another water system, staff recommends that the appropriate BFC allocation for the Breeze Hill system is 50 percent.

The appropriate rate structure for the Utility’s wastewater systems is a continuation of the current BFC/gallonage charge rate structure. Residential billed consumption should be capped at 6 kgals, and the general service kgal charge should be 1.2 times the corresponding residential kgal charge. The BFC cost recovery allocation for the wastewater system should be set at 50 percent.

Issue 37:

What is the appropriate level of rate consolidation for the water systems in this case?

Recommendation:

Staff recommends that the appropriate level of rate consolidation for the water systems is to combine the current water Rate Band 1 and the Fairways water system into a single rate band (new Rate Band 1), and the current water Rate Bands 2, 3, and 4, and the Breeze Hill and Peace River water systems into a second single rate band (new Rate Band 2). The appropriate rate consolidation methodology is the capband rate consolidation methodology wherein the new Rate Band 1 is uncapped and the new Rate Band 2 is capped.

Issue 38:

What is the appropriate level of rate consolidation for the wastewater systems in this case?

Recommendation: Staff recommends that the appropriate level of rate consolidation for the wastewater systems is to keep current wastewater Rate Band 1 unchanged (new Rate Band 1), and combine current wastewater Rate Bands 2 and 3, plus the Breeze Hill, Fairway, and Peace River wastewater systems into a second single rate band (new Rate Band 2). Current Rate Band 4, consisting of two systems that serve general service customers only, should continue to have its own rate band (new Rate Band 3). The appropriate rate consolidation methodology is the capband rate consolidation methodology wherein the new Rate Band 1 is uncapped, the new Rate Band 2 is capped, and the new Rate Band 3 is treated as a separate stand-alone system.

Issue 39:

Is a repression adjustment appropriate for this Utility, and, if so, what is the appropriate methodology to calculate a repression adjustment, and what are the appropriate resulting repression adjustments for this Utility?

Recommendation:

Yes, a repression adjustment is appropriate for the uncapped water Rate Band 1. The appropriate methodology to calculate a repression adjustment is to apply a price elasticity factor of -0.4 to the uncapped system's residential discretionary water consumption (e.g., consumption greater than 6 kgals per month). The appropriate repression adjustments are shown below in Table 39-1.

Table 39-1 TABLE 46-1 TABLE 46-1
Recommended Repression Adjustments
Uncapped Water Systems (Rate Band 1)

		Uncapped
Water
	Number of Kgals Repressed	47,913
		608
	Pre-repression Revenue Requirement	$3,593,796
	Purchased Power Adjustment	($2,125)
	Chemicals Adjustment	($5,652)
	Purchased Water Adjustment	($22,617)
	Regulatory Assessment Fees Adjustment	($1,368)
	Post-repression Revenue Requirement (1)	$3,561,531

(1)	May not sum to total due to rounding of individual expense adjustments.

In order to monitor the effect of the rate structure and rate changes, the Utility should be ordered to file reports detailing the number of bills rendered, the consumption billed and the revenues billed on a monthly basis. In addition, the reports should be prepared by rate band, customer class, usage block, and meter size. The reports should be filed with staff, on a semi-annual basis, for a period of two years beginning with the first billing period after the approved rates go into effect. To the extent the Utility makes adjustments to consumption in any month during the reporting period, the Utility should be ordered to file a revised monthly report for that month within 30 days of any revision.

Issue 40:

What are the appropriate monthly rates for the water and wastewater systems for the Utility?

Recommendation:

The appropriate monthly water rates are shown on Schedule 4-A and the appropriate monthly wastewater rates are shown on Schedule 4-B of staff’s memorandum dated May 12, 2011. Excluding miscellaneous service charges, the recommended water rates produce revenues of $9,981,498, and the recommended wastewater rates produce revenues of $5,835,689. The Utility should file revised water and wastewater tariff sheets and a proposed customer notice to reflect the Commission-approved rates for the water and wastewater systems. 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), F.A.C. In addition, the approved 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 ten days after the date of the notice.

Issue 41:

Should the Utility be authorized to revise its miscellaneous service charges, and, if so, what are the appropriate charges?

Recommendation:

Yes, AUF should be authorized to revise the Miscellaneous Service Charges for its Breeze Hill and Fairway systems. The Utility should file a proposed customer notice to reflect the Commission-approved charges. The approved charges should be effective for service rendered on or after the stamped approval date of the tariff, pursuant to Rule 25-30.475(1), F.A.C., provided the notice has been approved by staff. Within 10 days of the date the order is final, AUF should be required to provide notice of the tariff changes to all customers. The Utility should provide proof the customers have received notice within 10 days after the date the notice was sent. The appropriate charges are reflected below.

Water and Wastewater Miscellaneous Service Charges
	Water		Wastewater
	Normal Hrs	After Hrs	Normal Hrs	After Hrs
Initial Connection	$22	$33	$22	$33
Normal Reconnection	$22	$33	$22	$33
Violation Reconnection	$35	$55	Actual Cost	Actual Cost
Premises Visit	$22	$33	$22	$33
Late Payment Fees	$5	N/A	$5	N/A

Issue 42:

What are the appropriate service availability charges and allowance for funds prudently invested charges for the Utility?

Recommendation:

The Utility’s previously-approved uniform meter installation, service installation, main extension, and plant capacity charges are appropriate for AUF’s Breeze Hill, Fairways, and Peace River stand-alone systems. AUF’s proposed uniform engineering fees are cost-based and appropriate. However, the Utility’s proposed uniform field inspection fees should be denied for lack of support documentation in accordance with Section 367.091(6), F.S. In addition, consistent with the recommended non-used and useful plant, depreciation expense and property taxes, as well as the return on equity and overall cost of capital, the appropriate AFPI charges for Breeze Hills’ wastewater treatment plant are set forth in Table 42-6 of the analysis portion of staff’s memorandum dated May 12, 2011.

Issue 43:

What are the appropriate customer deposits for the Utility?

Recommendation:

The appropriate customer deposits should be the actual average two months bills of the Commission-approved rate structure and rates in this case. The Utility should submit revised tariff sheets to include a provision for customer deposits. Staff should be given authority to administratively approve these tariff sheets upon verification they are consistent with the Commission’s decision. The revised tariff sheets should be implemented on or after the stamped approval date on the revised tariff sheet, pursuant to Rule 25-30.475(2), F.A.C., if no protest is filed and once the proposed customer notice has been approved by staff as adequate, and the customers have received the approved notice. The notice may be combined with the notice for the approved service rates.

Issue 44:

What is the appropriate four-year rate case expense reduction for Docket No. 080121-WS?

Recommendation:

The appropriate reductions for rate case expense approved in Docket No. 080121-WS are shown in the tables in the analysis portion of staff’s memorandum dated May 12, 2011. 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 proposed customer notices for each system 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. The rates should not be implemented until staff has approved the proposed customer notice, and the notice has been received by the customers. The Utility should provide proof of the date notices were given within ten days of the date the notices were sent. If the Utility files this reduction in conjunction with a price index or pass-through rate adjustment, separate data should be filed for the price index and/or pass-through increase or decrease, and for the reduction in the rates due to the amortized rate case expense.

Issue 45: 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 rate case expense not in effect during the interim period. The revised revenue requirements for the interim collection period should be compared to the amount of interim revenue requirement granted. Based on this calculation, the required interim refunds are set forth in the analysis portion of staff’s memorandum dated May 12, 2011.

Issue 46:

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 for the instant case as required by Section 367.0816, F.S.?

Recommendation:

The rates should be reduced as shown on Schedules 5-A and 5-B of staff’s memorandum dated May 12, 2011, to remove the revenue impact of rate case expense for water and wastewater, respectively. This amount was calculated by taking the annual amount of rate case expense and the return on the provision included in working capital allowance by system, as well as the gross-up for regulatory assessment fees, which is $167,285 for water and $66,497 for wastewater.

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 proposed customer notices 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. The rates should not be implemented until staff has approved the proposed customer notice, and the notice has been received by the customers. The Utility should provide proof of the date notices were given within ten days of the date the notices were sent. If the Utility files this reduction in conjunction with a price index or pass-through rate adjustment, separate data should be filed for the price index and/or pass-through increase or decrease, and for the reduction in the rates due to the amortized rate case expense.

Issue 47:

In accordance with Order No. PSC-10-0707-FOF-WS, what is the amount and who would have to pay the regulatory asset (or deferred interim revenues), if it is ultimately determined by the Commission that the Utility was entitled to those revenues when it first applied for interim rates?

Recommendation:

Consistent with the recommended interim refunds discussed in Issue 45, the recommended rate bands and stand alone systems addressed in previous issues, and an estimated cessation date for the interim collection period of three weeks after the final order in this case, the total regulatory assets for water and wastewater are $400,679 and $218,140, respectively. Accordingly, the total annual amortization amount is $200,339 and $109,070 for water and wastewater, respectively. Staff recommends that each rate band or stand-alone system that generated the regulatory assets receive the reduction in annual amortization of their respective regulatory assets. Upon the expiration of the two-year amortization period, the respective band or systems’ rates should be reduced across-the-board to remove the respective grossed up annual amortization of the regulatory assets. 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 30 days prior to the actual date of the required rate reduction. The approved rates should be effective for service rendered on or after the stamped approval date of the revised tariff sheets, pursuant to Rule 25-40.475(1), F.A.C. The rates should not be implemented until staff has approved the proposed customer notice. AUF should provide proof of the date notice was given within 10 days of the date the notice were sent. If the Utility files this reduction in conjunction with a price index or pass-through rate adjustment, separate data should be filed for the price index and/or pass-through increase or decrease, and for the reduction in the rates due to the amortized regulatory asset.

Issue 48:

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, AUF should provide proof, within 90 days of the final order in this docket, that the adjustments for all the applicable National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners Uniform System of Accounts primary accounts have been made.

Issue 49:

Should these dockets be closed?

Recommendation:

No. If no person whose substantial interests are affected by the proposed agency action (PAA) files a protest within 21 days of the issuance of the PAA Order, a consummating order will be issued. Docket No. 100330-WS should remain open for staff’s verification that the revised tariff sheets and customer notice have been filed by the Utility and approved by staff, that the interim refund has been completed and verified by staff, and that the Utility has provided proof that it has adjusted its books for all the applicable NARUC USOA primary accounts associated with the Commission-approved adjustments. Once these actions are complete, these dockets should be closed administratively. If there is a protest of the PAA Order, Docket No. 080121-WS should be closed and any issues concerning quality of service should be addressed in Docket No. 100330-WS.

DOCKET NO.	COMPANY NAME
110044‑ TA	Network Innovations, Inc.

DOCKET NO.	COMPANY NAME
110084‑TX	AireWire, Inc.
110081‑TX	Advanced Communications Southeast, Inc.
110124‑TX	Access Media 3, Inc.
110055-TX	Network Billing Systems, L.L.C.

Critical Date(s):		July 1, 2011 - Effective date of FTRI budget. Notification of any change in the TASA surcharge must be made to carriers prior to July 1, 2011.
Commissioners Assigned:			All Commissioners
Prehearing Officer:			Edgar
Staff:	RAD: Casey, Kennedy GCL: Miller

Critical Date(s):		None
Commissioners Assigned:			All Commissioners
Prehearing Officer:			Graham
Staff:	GCL: Williams, Brown ECR: Kummer, Bulecza-Banks, Cicchetti, Draper, Gardner, Maurey, McNulty, Ollila, Roberts, Salnova, Slemkewicz, Thompson

Critical Date(s):		09/14/11 (8-Month Effective Date)
Commissioners Assigned:			All Commissioners
Prehearing Officer:			Administrative
Staff:	ECR: A. Roberts, Draper GCL: Young RAD: Garl

Critical Date(s):		06/20/11 - 90-day Rule Waiver Deadline
Commissioners Assigned:			All Commissioners
Prehearing Officer:			Balbis
Staff:	ECR: Draper, A. Roberts GCL: Gervasi

Critical Date(s):		05/30/11 (60-Day Suspension Date)
Commissioners Assigned:			All Commissioners
Prehearing Officer:			Administrative
Staff:	ECR: A. Roberts, Draper GCL: Jaeger

Critical Date(s):		06/06/11 (60-Day Suspension Date)
Commissioners Assigned:			All Commissioners
Prehearing Officer:			Administrative
Staff:	ECR: Draper GCL: Klancke

Critical Date(s):		04/16/11 (Complete Pro Forma Plant)
Commissioners Assigned:			All Commissioners
Prehearing Officer:			Graham
Staff:	ECR: Roberts, Fletcher, Hudson, Maurey, Simpson GCL: Williams, Crawford