|
|
|
||
|
DATE: |
|||
|
TO: |
Office of Commission Clerk (Stauffer) |
||
|
FROM: |
Division of Accounting and Finance (T. Brown, Fletcher, Maurey) Office of the General Counsel (Barrera) |
||
|
RE: |
|||
|
AGENDA: |
12/17/13 – Regular Agenda – Final Agency Action – Interested Persons May Participate |
||
|
COMMISSIONERS ASSIGNED: |
|||
|
PREHEARING OFFICER: |
|||
|
SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS: |
|||
On May 24, 2012, Utilities, Inc. (UI), on behalf of its Florida subsidiaries,[1] requested that this Commission establish a generic docket to address the impact of divested systems on the recovery of the cost of UI's financial accounting and customer service computer system. This petition stemmed from an approved Joint Stipulation and Settlement Agreement between the Office of Public Counsel (OPC) and Eagle Ridge in Docket No. 110153-SU.[2] UI and OPC agreed to a 120-day investigatory period to meet informally with Commission staff in a good faith effort to resolve or narrow the disputed issues. OPC’s intervention was acknowledged by Order No. PSC-12-0319-PCO-WS, issued June 22, 2012.
On October 17, 2012, UI and OPC (collectively “Parties”) filed a joint motion to extend informal investigatory period through February 28, 2013. By Order No. PSC-12-0604-PCO-WS, issued November 6, 2012, the Commission approved that motion. On February 18, 2013, the Parties filed a second joint motion to extend informal investigatory period through April 30, 2013. By Order No. PSC-13-0097-PCO-WS, issued February 21, 2013, the Commission approved that motion. On April 19, 2013, the Parties filed a third joint motion to extend informal investigatory period through June 30, 2013. By Order No. PSC-13-0202-PCO-WS, issued May 17, 2013, the Commission approved that motion.
On June 27, 2013, the Parties filed a fourth joint motion to extend informal investigatory period through September 30, 2013. At the oral argument held on August 12, 2013, the Parties requested an oral amendment to their motion to allow for additional time through October 31, 2013, at which time the Parties assured the Prehearing Officer that they would be ready to proceed to the formal hearing process and would not request further extensions of time for the investigatory period. Based upon the Parties’ amended request and assurances, the fourth joint motion was granted and the informal investigatory period was extended through October 31, 2013. In order to ensure that the Parties would be ready to proceed to hearing on this matter, the Prehearing Officer ordered the Parties’ to file a list of issues no later than October 14, 2013. Further, the Parties were advised that an additional extension would be granted only upon a showing of extraordinary circumstances outside the control of the parties.
On October 15, 2013, UI and OPC filed their respective list of issues. However, on November 8, 2013, the Parties filed a Joint Motion Requesting Commission Approval of Stipulation and Settlement Agreement (Settlement Agreement) which resolves 9 of the 10 issues. This motion and the Settlement Agreement are incorporated in this recommendation as Attachment A.
This recommendation addresses the Parties’ Settlement Agreement. The Commission has jurisdiction pursuant to Section 367.121, F.S.
Issue 1:
Should the Joint Motion Requesting Commission Approval of Stipulation and Settlement Agreement be approved?
Recommendation: Yes. The joint motion, as well as the Settlement Agreement, should be approved.
(T. Brown)
Staff Analysis:
The Settlement Agreement resolves 9 issues between OPC and UI addressing how UI accounts for CIAC, common expenses, ERC allocations, deferred taxes and regulatory assets on its books, in its annual filing of an annual report, in any MFRs filed in a rate case and the timing of Commission-ordered adjustments to its books, records and reports. OPC conducted an extensive investigation regarding these issues involving numerous data requests to which UI responded. Staff is satisfied that the information gathered as a result of the investigation supports the parties’ stipulation and settlement agreement. The parties state, and staff agrees, that the Settlement Agreement clarifies the methodology used by the utility and brings consistency to the information UI files with the Commission.
In the Settlement Agreement, the Parties have agreed to stipulate or drop all issues, with the exception of the following: “Should any adjustment be made to the Utility's Project Phoenix Financial Customer Care Billing System (Phoenix Project)?” Staff believes that the Parties’ Settlement Agreement is a reasonable resolution because it addresses all but one of the issues. Further, staff believes that it is in the public interest for the Commission to approve the Settlement Agreement because it promotes administrative efficiency and should streamline the hearing process for the remaining issue. In keeping with the Commission’s long-standing practice of encouraging parties to settle contested proceedings whenever possible,[3] staff recommends that the Commission approve the Parties’ Settlement Agreement.
Issue 2:
Should this docket be closed?
Recommendation:
No. This docket should remain open to complete the hearing process. (Barrera, T. Brown)
Staff Analysis:
As discussed in Issue 1, there remains one disputed issue. Thus, the docket should remain open to complete the hearing process.
Attachment A, Page 1 of 7
Attachment A, Page 2 of 7
Attachment A, Page 3 of 7
Attachment A, Page 4 of 7
Attachment A, Page 5 of 7
Attachment A, Page 6 of 7
Attachment A, Page 7 of 7
