Discussion
of Issues
Issue 1:
Should the Commission approve Duke's proposed tariff
modifications?
Recommendation:
Yes, the Commission should approve Duke’s requested
modifications to Tariff Sheet Nos. 4.070 and 4.080, as reflected in Attachment
A, effective June 5, 2017. (Rome, Draper)
Staff Analysis:
Duke’s proposed tariff modifications are designed to
conform Duke’s tariff to the applicable statutes and Commission rules. The two
tariff modifications are discussed below.
Billing Period
Section 366.05(1)(b), F.S., provides that if the
Commission authorizes a public utility to charge tiered rates based upon levels
of usage and to vary its regular billing period, the utility may not charge a
customer a higher rate because of an increase in usage attributable to an
extension of the billing period; however, the regular meter reading date may
not be advanced or postponed more than five days for routine operating reasons
without prorating the billing for the period. The Commission amended Rule
25-6.100, F.A.C., to implement the statutory changes.
The prior rule specified that the regular meter reading date may be advanced or
postponed not more than 5 days without a proration of the billing for the
period, but did not address the application of tiered rates to extended billing
periods. Tiered rates, such as Duke’s residential energy charges, apply a
higher energy charge to usage above 1,000 kilowatt-hours.
Duke has proposed to add language to Tariff Sheet No. 4.080
to reflect the statutory requirements and to include the Company’s current
billing practices in its tariff. The revised tariff sheet addresses both the
proration of charges when billing periods are varied by more than five days, as
well as the prohibition against charging higher tiered rates if the extension
of a billing period of more than five days causes a customer’s energy
consumption to exceed the Company’s tier threshold of 1,000 kilowatt-hours.
Duke has represented to staff that its current business practices regarding
bill proration and administration of tiered rates are in compliance with
Section 366.05(1)(b), F.S.
Customer Deposits
Section 366.05(1)(c), F.S., provides that for an existing
account, the total deposit may not exceed two months of average actual charges.
For a new service request, the total deposit may not exceed two months of
projected charges. Once a new customer has had continuous service for a
12-month period, the amount of the deposit shall be recalculated using actual
data. Any difference between the projected and actual amounts must be resolved
by the customer paying the additional amount that may be billed by the utility
or the utility returning any overcharge.
The Commission amended Rule 25-6.097(1), F.A.C., to state
that the utility’s methodology for determining customer deposits for existing
and new accounts shall conform to Section 366.05(1)(c), F.S.
The prior rule language already required that the total amount of a deposit not
exceed twice the average monthly bill.
Duke’s proposed revisions to Tariff Sheet No. 4.070
conform to the language of Section 366.05(1)(c), F.S., by stating that deposits
for existing accounts and new service requests will be calculated in the manner
set forth in Sections 366.05(1)(c)1 and 2, F.S., respectively, and address the
new statutory provision for deposits to be recalculated on an annual basis.
Duke also included several minor administrative modifications to ensure that
the revised Tariff Sheet 4.070 comports with Rule 25-6.097, F.A.C., and
reflects the Company’s current operating practices.
Pursuant to Rule 25-6.097(3), F.A.C., utility customers
receive refunds of their deposits with interest after a period of 23 months of
continuous service, assuming their payment record is satisfactory. Therefore,
for the majority of utility customers, the deposit amount recalculation after a
12-month period of continuous service occurs only once.
Conclusion
Based on a review of the applicable statutes, Commission
rules, and proposed tariffs filed by Duke, staff believes that the tariff sheet
revisions conform to the applicable statutes and Commission rules. Therefore,
staff recommends that the Commission approve Duke’s requested modifications to
Tariff Sheet Nos. 4.070 and 4.080, as reflected in Attachment A, effective June
5, 2017.
Issue 2:
Should this docket be closed?
Recommendation:
If Issue 1 is approved and a protest is filed within
21 days of the issuance of the order, the tariffs should remain in effect, with
any revenues held subject to refund, pending resolution of the protest. If no
timely protest is filed, this docket should be closed upon the issuance of a
consummating order. (Brownless)
Staff Analysis:
If Issue 1 is approved and a protest is filed within
21 days of the issuance of the order, the tariffs should remain in effect, with
any revenues held subject to refund, pending resolution of the protest. If no
timely protest is filed, this docket should be closed upon the issuance of a
consummating order.
