Case Background
On May 5, 2017,
Gulf Power Company (Gulf or Company) filed a petition requesting Commission
approval of amendments to Tariff Sheet Nos. 4.12 and 6.23 regarding customer
deposits. During the 2015 session, the Florida Legislature enacted House Bill
7109 which was incorporated into Chapter 2015-129, Laws of Florida. Among other
things, the legislation created Section 366.05(1)(b) and (c), Florida Statutes
(F.S.). Paragraph (1)(b) addresses billing periods and Paragraph (1)(c)
addresses customer deposits. These laws became effective on July 1, 2015. The
Commission adopted amendments to Rules 25-6.100 (Customer Billings) and
25-6.097 (Customer Deposits), Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.),
respectively, to implement the laws enacted in July 2015.
Gulf is requesting
tariff modifications at this time to ensure that the Company’s tariff language
continues to conform to the applicable statutes and Commission rules. The
Commission has jurisdiction in this matter pursuant to Sections 366.03, 366.05,
and 366.06, F.S.
Discussion
of Issues
Issue 1:
Should the Commission approve Gulf's proposed tariff
modifications?
Recommendation:
Yes, the Commission should approve Gulf’s requested
modifications to Tariff Sheet Nos. 4.12 and 6.23, as reflected in Attachment A,
effective June 5, 2017. (Rome, Draper)
Staff Analysis:
Gulf’s proposed tariff modifications are designed to
conform Gulf’s tariff to the applicable statutes and Commission rules. The
Company’s proposed tariff modifications address customer deposits. At this
time, Gulf does not have tiered rate schedules; therefore, the Company is not
proposing any changes to its tariff as a result of the changes to Section
366.05(1)(b), F.S., and Rule 25-6.100, F.A.C.
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.
Gulf’s proposed amendments to Tariff Sheet No. 4.12
conform to the new statutory language regarding the recalculation of the
deposit after 12-months. Gulf’s proposed amendments to Tariff Sheet No. 4.12
comport with this language by providing that: (a) if the recalculated deposit
amount based on the previous 12-months billing history is less than the
customer’s current deposit amount, the difference between the deposit amounts
will be refunded or applied as a credit to the customer account; and (b) if the
recalculated deposit amount exceeds the customer’s current deposit amount, the
Company may request an additional deposit amount. Gulf also proposed revisions
to Tariff Sheet No. 6.23 to conform to Rule 25-6.097, F.A.C.
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 Gulf, staff believes that the tariff sheet
revisions conform to the applicable statutes and Commission rules. Therefore,
staff recommends that the Commission approve Gulf’s requested modifications to
Tariff Sheet Nos. 4.12 and 6.23, 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.
