Discussion
of Issues
Issue 1:
Should the Utility's requested increase associated
with the Pasco County Interconnect Phase II be approved?
Recommendation:
Yes, as modified by staff.
·
The Commission should approve a water rate
increase of $46,944 (or 5.35 percent) for Pasco County Phase II.
·
In addition, the estimated $200,000 net cost to
retire the abandoned wells should be reviewed in the forthcoming consolidated rate
case in Docket No. 160161-WS.
·
Further, UIF should be directed to provide secondary
water quality results for portions of its Summertree distribution system at
least every six months. Samples should be taken from the same sites labeled
“nearby system site” shown in Appendix A of the CPH Engineering Report for
consistency purposes. Such results should be filed with the Commission for
informational purposes. The first
report should be filed no later than two months after the completion of the
interconnection with Pasco County.
·
Pursuant to Order No. PSC-14-0025-PAA-WS, the
100-basis point reduction in return on equity and water testing requirement should
remain in place until the water quality is deemed satisfactory by the
Commission. (Slemkewicz, Mtenga, Hudson)
Staff Analysis:
As a result of UIF’s withdrawal of its Pasco County
Phase I request, staff has modified the Utility’s original request for Pasco
County Phase II to recognize rate case expense in operating expense. Staff also
reduced the annualized revenues to reflect the effects of the loss of irrigation
customers. Accordingly, the requested rate increase is $52,547 (or 6.05
percent) as shown on Schedule No. 1. Staff’s analysis is based on the modified
amounts. However, with regard to UIF’s calculated rate increase of $52,547 (or
6.05 percent) for Pasco County Phase II, staff would note that the Utility made
one error in its calculation of the income subject to state and federal income
taxes. In calculating the taxable income amount, UIF multiplied the decreased
rate base amount by the total overall ROR of 8.03 percent. The proper
calculation would be to multiply the decreased rate base amount by only the
common equity weighted cost component of the ROR. In its calculation, staff
used a common equity weighted cost component of 4.41 percent rather than the
total overall ROR of 7.22 percent. Based on its adjustments, staff has
calculated a water rate increase of $46,994 (or 5.35 percent) for Pasco County
Phase II as shown in Schedule No. 1.
Rate Base
The Utility requested a rate base reduction of $356,579 to
reflect the abandonment of water wells in Pasco County Phase II. The rate base
components were Retirements and Cash Working Capital.
Retirements
In its filing, UIF reduced rate base by the net book value
of $363,697 for the retirement of the abandoned wells.
By Order No. PSC-14-0025-PAA-WS (2014 Order), the
Commission found the quality of water in the Summertree water system to be
unsatisfactory and ordered that the revenue requirement for the Summertree
water system be subject to a 100-basis point reduction in return on equity (or
approximately $23,115 annually) until the Utility demonstrated that the water
quality had been restored to the point where it is deemed satisfactory by this
Commission.[11] To
address the water quality issues, the Commission ordered several future actions
that would need to be taken by the Utility to satisfy the concerns of its
customers:
·
Coordinate with the OPC to develop a customer
engagement plan;
·
identify suitable treatment options to address
the secondary water quality issues including an estimated rate impact to
customers;
·
consider the cost and feasibility of connecting
to the Pasco County water system with the purchase of bulk water from the
County; and
·
present options to Summertree customers and
conduct a survey to determine customer preferences.
As directed by the 2014 Order, OPC, who was the
facilitator, coordinated community meetings between the Utility and Summertree
residents beginning in January 2014. A total of 30 meetings were held from 2014
through 2016 in a group consisting of representatives of the Summertree
residents, the Utility, OPC and in some instances Pasco County Commissioners
and/or Florida State Legislators. OPC compiled thorough minutes of the meetings
and provided periodic updates to Commission staff.
On April 28, 2014, a meeting was held to discuss the
treatment alternatives analysis report prepared by CPH Engineering (CPH Report)[12] that was
submitted by UIF to the group. The CPH Report outlined three possible solutions
to the water quality issues: construction of a centralized water treatment
plant with upgraded treatment; upgraded water treatment at each well site; or
interconnection with Pasco County. As noted on pages 8 and 10 of the CPH Report,
the elevated color concentrations in the distribution system were most likely
due to the buildup of biomass. Specifically, the CPH Report recommended that
prior to any treatment modifications, the Utility should “thoroughly flush the
distribution system to remove any [possible] biomass in the system and repeat
the flushing process at least annually.” The CPH Report also indicated that
interconnecting with Pasco County would require the Utility to decommission its
four production wells and each of their associated water treatment facilities
to conform to the rules and regulations of the Southwest Florida Water
Management District. The CPH Report concluded that the interconnection was the
lowest cost option that would provide improved water quality with respect to
iron, odor and color. The CPH Report ultimately recommended that “Utilities
Inc. of Florida pursue a potable water interconnection with Pasco County,
including a thorough cleaning of the distribution system.”
In accordance with the 2014 Order, OPC coordinated
subsequent meetings between the Utility and representatives of Summertree
residents to discuss the different options, with UIF ultimately proposing the
recommendation of the Pasco County Interconnection. To solicit customer input,
OPC organized a survey ballot, the language of which was finalized in January
2016. The ballot asked the residents whether Summertree should interconnect
with Pasco County and to rate the quality of water service provided by UIF. Ballots
were mailed to approximately 1,172 customers in March 2016. A total of 876 valid
survey responses were returned with 830 of the residents voting in favor of the
interconnection and 746 rating the quality of service as unsatisfactory. As
noted in the case background, 175 customers provided comments at the April 12,
2016 customer meetings. The majority of the comments focused on the
unsatisfactory quality of service provided by UIF.
While the interconnection with Pasco County should improve
water quality, the final impact on water quality can be determined only after
the completion of the interconnection and the implementation of a flushing
protocol. Therefore, the Utility should be directed to provide secondary water
quality results for portions of its Summertree distribution system at least
every six months until the Commission finds the water quality to be
satisfactory. Samples should be taken from the same sites labeled “nearby
system site” shown in Appendix A of the CPH Report for consistency purposes.
Such results should be filed with the Commission for informational purposes. The first report should be filed no later
than two months after the completion of the interconnection with Pasco County. Pursuant
to the 2014 Order, the 100-basis point reduction in return on equity should
remain in place until the Utility can demonstrate that the water quality is
deemed satisfactory by the Commission.
As previously discussed, the abandonment of the wells and
the interconnection with Pasco County was considered to be the lowest cost
option. Staff would note that the Bulk Water Agreement with Pasco County
provides that the $896,141 initial connection fee
will be paid for by Pasco County from a grant provided by the Florida Department
of Environmental Protection (FDEP). Staff
recommends that rate base be reduced by the $363,697 net book value of the
abandoned wells to reflect their removal from rate base.
Working Capital Allowance
UIF included a working capital allowance of $7,118 for
Pasco County Phase II. This amount represents 1/8th of the O&M
expense increase of $56,941. However, staff has made several adjustments to
O&M expense that increased the O&M expense to $62,484 as explained in
the “O&M Expense” section. As a result, staff recommends that the
appropriate amount of incremental working capital is $7,811 ($62,484÷8), or $693 higher than the
amount included by UIF.
After reviewing UIF’s requested rate base decrease of
$356,579, staff recommends that rate base be decreased by $355,886 for Pasco
County Phase II as shown on Schedule No. 1. The $693 difference reflects the
change in working capital.
Rate of Return
Per Schedule No. 11 of its filing, UIF calculated an 8.03
percent rate of return (ROR). This ROR was based on a capital structure ended
December 31, 2014, that only included long-term debt with a cost rate of 6.65
percent and common equity with a return on equity of 9.38 percent. The capital
structure used by UIF is inconsistent with the capital structure used in the
Utility’s last rate case for Pasco County.[15]
In addition, Rule 25-30.445(4)(e), F.A.C., requires that the weighted average
cost of capital be calculated based on the most recent 12-month period and
include all of the appropriate capital structure components. In this instance,
the most recent period available is the 12 months ended December 31, 2015. UIF
calculated a December 2015 ROR of 7.85 percent on Schedule F-5 of its 2015
Annual Report. However, UIF did not use the appropriate equity cost rate of 9.38
percent or the minimum 2.00 percent cost rate for customer deposits pursuant to
Rule 25-30.311(4)(a), F.A.C. Based on the foregoing, staff recalculated a
December 2015 ROR of 7.22 percent as shown in Schedule No. 2.
Operating Expense
UIF requested an increase to operating expense, excluding
income taxes, of $89,692 for Pasco County Phase II. The increase is based on increases
for the abandoned well amortization, purchased water expense, and rate case
expense that are partially offset by decreases in depreciation expense, O&M
expense, and taxes other than income.
Depreciation Expense
UIF decreased its depreciation expense by $22,778 as a
result of the abandonment of the water wells. In staff’s review of the
Utility’s filing, it was noted that an $804 contributions in aid of
construction component of the depreciation expense was not included in the
total amount. Otherwise, the calculation of the depreciation expense reduction
is in accordance with Rule 25-30.140, F.A.C. The inclusion of the $804 CIAC
component lowers the total depreciation expense reduction to $21,974.
Abandoned Wells Amortization Expense
UIF calculated an annual amortization expense of $65,022
for the recovery of the $563,697 related to the retirement of the abandoned
wells. This represents an 8.67 year amortization period. The $563,697 is the
sum of the $363,697 net book value and the $200,000 net cost to retire the
abandoned wells. On Schedule No. 16 of its filing, UIF estimated that the gross
cost to retire the abandoned wells was $220,000. The Utility reduced the gross
amount by $20,000 for anticipated SWFWMD funding resulting in a net retirement
cost of $200,000. These amounts have been reviewed by staff and appear to be
appropriate. Because the $220,000 gross retirement cost and the $20,000 of anticipated
State funding are only estimates, staff believes that these amounts should be
reviewed in the upcoming consolidated rate case and be adjusted if needed.
Rule 25-30.433(9), F.A.C., prescribes the calculation for
determining the appropriate amortization period for forced abandonment or the
prudent retirement of plant assets prior to the end of their depreciable life.
Based on the amounts in its filing, UIF followed the specified calculation
except for the return on net book value amount. The Utility applied the 8.03
percent rate of return to the total cost of $563,697 rather than just the net
book value of $363,697. Rule 25-30.433(9), F.A.C., specifically states that the
amount should be “equal to the rate of return that would have been allowed on
the net invested plant that would have been included in rate base before the
abandonment or retirement.”
In its calculation, staff used its recommended 7.22
percent rate of return and applied it against the net book value of $363,697. This
results in an annual amortization expense of $45,994 and an amortization period
of 12.26 years. UIF and staff’s calculations are summarized in Table 1-1 below.
Table 1-1
Abandoned Wells Amortization
Expense Increase
|
|
UIF
|
STAFF
|
|
Net Book Value
|
$363,697
|
$363,697
|
|
Net Cost to Retire
|
200,000
|
200,000
|
|
Total Cost
|
$563,697
|
$563,697
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rate of Return
|
8.03%
|
7.22%
|
|
|
|
|
|
Return on Net Book Value
|
$45,287
|
$26,259
|
|
Depreciation Expense
|
19,735
|
19,735
|
|
Annual Amortization Expense
|
$65,022
|
$45,994
|
|
|
|
|
|
Amortization Period
|
8.67 Years
|
12.26 Years
|
O&M Expense
UIF requested an increase of $56,941 to O&M expense.
The increase is based on increases for purchased water expense and rate case
expense that are partially offset by a decrease in O&M expense related to
the abandoned wells.
Well Abandonment O&M Expense
UIF included an O&M expense decrease of $46,245
related to the well abandonments.
This was an annualized amount based on actual O&M expenses for the 11
months ended November 30, 2015. In response to a staff data request, the
Utility updated the amounts to include the actual amounts for the 12 months
ended December 31, 2015. This resulted in a $48,609 decrease in O&M
expenses. Staff
has reviewed the items included in the O&M expense reduction and they
appear to be appropriate. The calculation of the $48,609 O&M expense
reduction is shown in Table 1-2 below.
Table 1-2
Well Abandonment O&M
Expense
|
Expense
Category
|
Amount
|
|
Electric Power – Water System
|
$10,453
|
|
Chemicals
|
11,769
|
|
Outside Service Expense
|
1,260
|
|
Salaries and Wages
|
3,000
|
|
Fleet Transportation Expense
|
1,000
|
|
Maintenance Testing
|
6,000
|
|
Maintenance – Water Plant
|
15,127
|
|
Total O&M Decrease
|
$48,609
|
|
|
|
Purchased Water Expense
UIF sold 55.5 million gallons of water in the Summertree
subdivision during 2014. In calculating the purchased water expense necessary
to replace the water previously produced by its abandoned wells, the Utility reduced
the gallons sold by 32.4 million gallons to reflect the reduction in
irrigation-related sales. In determining the total gallons of water to be
purchased, UIF added 2.3 million gallons (10 percent) for flushing and another
2.3 million gallons (10 percent) for other losses. Per Rule 25-30.4325(1)(e),
F.A.C., excessive unaccounted for water (EUW) is unaccounted water in excess of
10 percent of the amount of water produced. In rate cases, it is Commission
practice to only make EUW adjustments if the 10 percent threshold is exceeded.
In staff’s opinion, UIF’s estimated 10 percent factor for “other losses”
appears to be reasonable. UIF then calculated an estimated purchased water
expense of $99,101 based on the purchase of 27.8 million gallons from Pasco County
at a bulk water rate of $3.57/Kgal. Staff has reviewed the Utility’s
calculation methodology and agrees that it is appropriate.
In response to a staff data request concerning the
possible inclusion of duplicate bills in its calculation on Schedule No. 15 of
its filing, UIF updated the amount of the reduced irrigation gallons to 30.7
million. Using
UIF’s methodology and the updated amount of reduced irrigation gallons, staff
has calculated a purchased water expense of $106,398. A comparison of the Utility’s
calculation and staff’s calculation is presented in Table 1-3 below.
Table 1-3
Pasco County Phase II
Purchased Water Expense Calculation
|
|
UIF
|
|
Staff
|
|
Total Gallons Sold – Summertree
(2014)
|
55,541,000
|
|
55,541,000
|
|
Irrigation Gallons Reduction
|
(32,408,260)
|
|
(30,704,830)
|
|
Gallons Difference
|
23,132,740
|
|
24,836,170
|
|
Water Gallons Needed for Flushing
(10%)
|
2,313,274
|
|
2,483,617
|
|
Other Losses (10%)
|
2,313,274
|
|
2,483,617
|
|
Total Water Needed From Pasco
County
|
27,759,288
|
|
29,803,404
|
|
Bulk Water Rate ($/Kgal)
|
$3.57
|
|
$3.57
|
|
Total Cost of Purchased Water
|
$99,101
|
|
$106,398
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rate Case Expense
UIF estimated that rate case expense would be $16,338,
resulting in a 4-year amortization of $4,085. In its petition, UIF included all
of the rate case expense associated with the Pasco County portion of the filing
in the Phase I portion of its filing. Staff has included the rate case expense related
to Pasco County in Phase II because the primary focus of Phase I was to
calculate the gallonage reduction related to the loss of irrigation customers.
This information is required to calculate the appropriate purchased water
expense for Phase II. Based on the decision in Order No. PSC-16-0296-PAA-WS, which
addressed the amount of rate case expense related to Marion and Seminole
Counties, and updated amounts for Pasco County from the Utility,
staff has calculated a rate case expense for Pasco County of $18,780, resulting
in a 4-year amortization of $4,695 as shown on Schedule No. 3. The 4-year rate
reduction for rate case expense is $4,906.
Based on staff’s adjustments, the recommended net increase
in O&M expense is $62,484.
Taxes Other Than Income
The Utility included decreased taxes other than income
(TOTI) of $9,493. The reduction was due to a decrease in property taxes as a
result of the retirement of the wells. Staff has made an adjustment to
recognize the effect on payroll taxes from the $3,000 reduction in O&M
salary expense. The FICA,
FUTA
and SUTA
composite rate is 14.67 percent. The resulting adjustment is a reduction of
$440 ($3,000 x 14.67 percent). The adjusted total TOTI reduction is $9,933.
Based on staff’s review, the appropriate operating expense
increase, excluding income taxes, is $76,571 as shown in Schedule No. 1
attached to this recommendation.
Calculation of Water Rate Increase
UIF calculated a rate increase of $52,547 (or 6.05
percent) for Pasco County Phase II. Based on the adjustments discussed above,
staff has calculated a water rate increase of $46,994 (or 5.35 percent) for
Pasco County Phase II as shown in Schedule No. 1.
Issue 2:
What is the appropriate application of the
recommended rate increase and the effective date and implementation date?
Recommendation:
·
Staff’s recommended rate increase of 5.35
percent for Pasco County should be applied as an across-the-board increase to
existing service rates for the Orangewood and Summertree systems.
·
The rates, as shown on Schedule No. 4, should be
effective for service rendered on or after the stamped approval date on the
tariff sheets pursuant to Rule 25-30.475(1), F.A.C. The Utility should file
revised tariff sheets and a proposed customer notice to reflect the
Commission-approved rates.
·
In addition, the approved rates should not be
implemented until the interconnection is in-service and staff has approved the
proposed customer notice and the notice has been received by the customers. The
Utility should provide proof of the date notice was given within 10 days of the
date of the notice.
The rates should be reduced as shown on Schedule No. 4, to
remove rate case expense grossed up for regulatory assessment fees and
amortized over a 4-year period. 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. (Johnson)
Staff Analysis:
Staff recommends that service rates for UIF be
designed to allow the Utility the opportunity to generate annual service
revenues of $924,616 for Pasco County. The annualized service revenues before
the rate increase are $877,622, resulting
in a $46,994 increase to services revenues. The corresponding percentage
increase of 5.35 percent should be applied as an across-the-board increase to
existing service rates.
Staff recommends that the rate increase of 5.35 percent
for Pasco County be applied as an across-the-board increase to existing service
rates for the Orangewood and Summertree systems. The rates, as shown on
Schedule No. 4, should be effective for service rendered on or after the
stamped approval date on the tariff sheets pursuant to Rule 25-30.475(1),
F.A.C. The Utility should file revised tariff sheets and a proposed customer
notice to reflect the Commission-approved rates. In addition, the approved
rates should not be implemented until the interconnection is in-service and staff
has approved the proposed customer notice and the notice has been received by
the customers. The Utility should provide proof of the date notice was given
within 10 days of the date of the notice. The rates should be reduced as shown
on Schedule Nos. 5 & 6, to remove rate case expense grossed up for
regulatory assessment fees and amortized over a 4-year period. 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.
Issue 3:
Should the recommended rates be approved for the Utility
on a temporary basis, subject to refund with interest, in the event of a
protest filed by a party whose interests are substantially affected other than
the Utility?
Recommendation:
Yes. The recommended rates should be approved for
the Utility on a temporary basis, subject to refund, in the event of a protest
filed by a party whose interests are substantially affected other than the Utility.
UIF should file revised tariff sheets and a proposed customer notice to reflect
the Commission-approved rates. The approved rates should be effective for
service rendered on or after the stamped approval date on the tariff sheet,
pursuant to Rule 25-30.475(1), F.A.C. In addition, the temporary rates should
not be implemented until after the interconnection is in-service, staff has
approved the proposed notice, the notice has been received by the customers,
and only after the Utility has provided written guarantee of its corporate
undertaking in a cumulative amount of $72,846. If the recommended rates are
approved on a temporary basis, the rates collected by the Utility should be
subject to the refund provisions discussed in the staff analysis. In addition,
after the increased rates are in effect, pursuant to Rule 25-30.360(6), F.A.C.,
the Utility should file reports with the Commission Clerk’s office no later
than the 20th of each month indicating the monthly and total amount of money
subject to refund at the end of the preceding month. (Mouring, Slemkewicz, D.
Buys, Mapp)
Staff Analysis:
This recommendation proposes an increase in rates. A
timely protest might delay what may be a justified rate increase resulting in
an unrecoverable loss of revenue to the Utility. As a result, staff recommends
that the recommended rates be approved as temporary rates.
Section 367.0822(1), F.S., provides
Upon petition or by its own motion, the commission may
conduct limited proceedings to consider, and action upon, any matter within its
jurisdiction, including any matter the resolution of which requires a utility
to adjust its rates. The commission shall determine the issues to be considered
during such a proceeding and may grant or deny any request to expand the scope
of the proceeding to include other related matters. However, unless the issue
of rate of return is specifically address in the limited proceeding, the
commission shall not adjust rates if the effect of the adjustment would be to
change the last authorized rate of return.
While Section 367.0822(1), F.S. does not expressly provide
for the granting of temporary rates, it is well settled Commission precedent
that temporary rates in the event of a protest may be approved on a
case-by-case basis.
Further, Section 367.081(2), F.S., provides that this
Commission must fix rates that are just, reasonable, compensatory, and not unfairly
discriminatory. Pursuant to its authority to grant just and reasonable rates,
the Commission has granted emergency and temporary rates in limited proceedings
where a timely protest might delay what may be a justified rate increase
resulting in an unrecoverable loss of revenue to the Utility. Similarly, in the
instant case, staff believes that the granting of temporary rates is warranted
because a timely protest of the PAA Order may delay a justified rate increase
for several months while the matter is adjudicated at hearing. Moreover, staff
believes that the ratepayers are adequately protected because all rates
collected by the Utility will be subject to the corporate undertaking as
discussed below.
For the foregoing reasons, staff believes that the
recommended rates should be approved for the Utility on a temporary basis,
subject to the corporate undertaking discussed below. In order to ensure that
the Utility may not unfairly benefit from the issuance of temporary rates and
in order to comport with the granting of temporary rates in proceedings filed
pursuant to Sections 367.081 and 367.0814, F.S., staff further recommends that
temporary rates only be allowed in the event of a protest filed by an entity or
individual other than the Utility
Corporate Undertaking Memorandum
UIF is a wholly-owned subsidiary of UI, which provides all
investor capital to its subsidiaries. Based on the amount subject to refund for
Pasco County, the incremental increase in UI’s corporate undertaking is $30,925.
In Order No. PSC-16-0296-PAA-WS, the Commission approved UI’s request for a
corporate undertaking for Marion and Seminole Counties of $30,961 and $10,960,
respectively. The total corporate undertaking amount currently outstanding is
$41,921. Based on the amount subject to refund for Pasco County, the total cumulative
outstanding guarantee would increase to $72,846.
The criteria for a corporate undertaking include
sufficient liquidity, ownership equity, profitability, and interest coverage to
guarantee any potential refund. Staff reviewed UI’s 2013, 2014, and 2015
financial statements to determine if the company can support a corporate
undertaking on behalf of its subsidiary. In its 2013 financial statements, UI
reported an insufficient working capital amount and an inadequate current ratio
and interest coverage ratio. In 2014, UI reported insufficient working capital
and an inadequate current ratio; however, the interest coverage ratio improved
to adequate. In 2015, UI had sufficient working capital, and both the current
ratio and interest coverage ratio were adequate. In addition, UI achieved
sufficient profitability and reported adequate ownership equity over the entire
3-year review period.
Based on staff’s review of the financial reports submitted
by UI, staff believes UI has adequate resources to support a corporate
undertaking in the amount requested. Based on this analysis, staff recommends
that a cumulative corporate undertaking of $72,846 is acceptable contingent
upon receipt of the written guarantee of UI and written confirmation that the
cumulative outstanding guarantees on behalf of UI-owned utilities in other
states will not exceed $1.2 million (inclusive of all Florida utilities).
The brief financial analysis above is only appropriate for
deciding if UI can support a corporate undertaking in the amount proposed and
should not be considered a finding regarding staff’s position on other issues
in this proceeding.
The Utility should maintain a record of the amount of the
corporate undertaking memorandum, and the amount of revenues that are subject
to refund. In addition, after the increased rates are in effect, pursuant to
Rule 25-30.360(6), F.A.C., the Utility should file reports with the Commission
Clerk’s office no later than the 20th of each month indicating the monthly and
total amount of money subject to refund at the end of the preceding month.
Further, in no instance should the maintenance and
administrative costs associated with the refund be borne by the customers.
These costs are the responsibility of, and should be borne by, the Utility.
Irrespective of the form of security chosen by the Utility, an account of all
monies received as a result of the rate increase should be maintained by the
Utility. If a refund is ultimately required, it should be paid with interest
calculated pursuant to Rule 25-30.360(4), F.A.C.
Conclusion
The recommended rates should be approved for the Utility
on a temporary basis, subject to refund, in the event of a protest filed by a
party other than the Utility. UIF should file revised tariff sheets and a
proposed customer notice to reflect the Commission-approved rates. The approved
rates should be effective for service rendered on or after the stamped approval
date on the tariff sheet, pursuant to Rule 25-30.475(1), F.A.C. In addition,
the temporary rates should not be implemented until after the interconnection
is in-service and staff has approved the proposed notice, and the notice has
been received by the customers. The temporary rates should only be implemented
after the Utility has provided written guarantee of its corporate undertaking in
a cumulative amount of $72,846. If the recommended rates are approved on a
temporary basis, the rates collected by the Utility should be subject to the
refund provisions discussed in staff’s analysis. In addition, after the
increased rates are in effect, pursuant to Rule 25-30.360(6), F.A.C., the
Utility should file reports with the Commission Clerk’s office no later than
the 20th of each month indicating the monthly and total amount of money subject
to refund at the end of the preceding month.
Issue 4:
Should this docket be closed?
Recommendation:
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 should be issued. The docket 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. Once
these actions are complete, this docket should be closed administratively.
(Mapp)
Staff Analysis:
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 should be issued. The docket 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. Once
these actions are complete, this docket should be closed administratively.
