DATE:	February 19, 2015
TO:	Office of Commission Clerk (Stauffer)
FROM:	Division of Economics (Garl) Office of the General Counsel (Villafrate)
RE:	Docket No. 150039-EU – Joint petition to reopen and extend the term of existing territorial agreement in Columbia, Lafayette, Madison, and Suwannee Counties, by Suwannee Valley Electric Cooperative, Inc. and Duke Energy Florida, Inc.
AGENDA:	03/03/15 – Regular Agenda – Proposed Agency Action – Interested Persons May Participate
COMMISSIONERS ASSIGNED:			All Commissioners
PREHEARING OFFICER:			Brown
CRITICAL DATES:			None
SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS:			None

 

 Case Background

On January 27, 2015, Suwannee Valley Electric Cooperative (SVEC) and Duke Energy Florida, Inc. (DEF) filed a joint petition for approval of a stipulation between the two parties that would reopen and extend the term of their existing territorial agreement until March 14, 2016.  The Commission approved the existing agreement in March 1995 for a term of 20 years expiring March 14, 2015, unless modified by the Commission.^[1]  The joint petitioners stated that they need additional time to negotiate a new territorial agreement.  The stipulation is shown in Attachment A.  The Commission has jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to Section 366.04, Florida Statutes (F.S.).

Discussion of Issues

Issue 1: 

 Should the Commission approve the stipulation to open and extend the territorial agreement between SVEC and DEF?

Recommendation: 

 Yes.  The Commission should approve the stipulation regarding the territorial agreement between SVEC and DEF.  (Garl)

Staff Analysis: 

 The stipulation regarding the territorial agreement, as shown in Attachment A, extends the term of the existing agreement until March 14, 2016, to allow the joint petitioners additional time to negotiate a new territorial agreement.  All other provisions of the existing territorial agreement remain in effect.

The existing territorial agreement provides that all customer transfers were to be completed within five years from the date of Commission approval (1995).  The existing agreement further details the treatment of customer account transfers, customer deposits, cost of facilities, and calculation of lost revenue.  In response to a staff inquiry, SVEC and DEF both stated that these actions have been completed to the satisfaction of both parties.

In approving the existing agreement, the Commission found that the agreement is “in the public's interest and that its adoption will further the Commission's policy of avoiding unnecessary and uneconomic duplication of facilities.”^[2]  Staff believes the requested extension of time is reasonable and does not appear to be detrimental to the parties or the public interest.  Any subsequent modification to the territorial agreement will be brought before the Commission for its consideration pursuant to Section 366.04, F.S.  Staff, therefore, recommends approval of the stipulation to open and extend the existing territorial agreement so SVEC and DEF will have additional time to negotiate a new territorial agreement.

Issue 2: 

 Should this docket be closed?

Recommendation: 

 Yes.  If no protest is filed by a person whose substantial interests are affected within 21 days of the issuance of the Order, this docket should be closed upon the issuance of a Consummating Order.  (Villafrate)

Staff Analysis: 

 If no protest is filed by a person whose substantial interests are affected within 21 days of the issuance of the Order, this docket should be closed upon the issuance of a Consummating Order.