FLORIDA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION
COMMISSION CONFERENCE AGENDA
CONFERENCE DATE AND
TIME: Tuesday, December
12, 2017, 9:30 a.m.
LOCATION: Betty Easley Conference Center, Joseph P.
Cresse Hearing Room 148
DATE ISSUED: December 1, 2017
NOTICE
Persons affected by Commission action on certain items on this agenda
may be allowed to address the Commission, either informally or by oral argument,
when those items are taken up for discussion at this conference. These items
are designated by double asterisks (**) next to the item number.
To participate informally, affected persons need only appear at the
conference and request the opportunity to address the Commission on an item
listed on the agenda. Informal participation is not permitted: (1) on
dispositive motions and motions for reconsideration; (2) when a recommended
order is taken up by the Commission; (3) in a rulemaking proceeding after the record
has been closed; or (4) when the Commission considers a post-hearing
recommendation on the merits of a case after the close of the record. The
Commission allows informal participation at its discretion in certain types of
cases (such as declaratory statements and interim rate orders) in which an
order is issued based on a given set of facts without hearing. See Florida
Administrative Code Rules 25-22.0021 (agenda conference participation) and
25-22.0022 (oral argument).
Conference agendas, staff recommendations, vote sheets, and
transcripts are available online at http://www.floridapsc.com,
by selecting Conferences
& Meeting Agendas and
Commission Conferences of the FPSC.
An official vote of "move staff" denotes that the Item's
recommendations were approved.
In accordance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, persons needing
a special accommodation to participate at this proceeding should contact the
Office of Commission Clerk no later than five days prior to the conference at
2540 Shumard Oak Boulevard, Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0850 or 850-413-6770
(Florida Relay Service, 1-800-955-8770 Voice or 1-800-955-8771 TDD). Assistive
Listening Devices are available upon request from the Office of Commission
Clerk, Gerald L. Gunter Building, Room 152.
The Commission Conference has a live video broadcast the day of the
conference, which is available from the FPSC website. Upon completion of the conference, the
archived video will be available from the website by selecting Conferences & Meeting Agendas, then Audio and Video Event Coverage.
EMERGENCY CANCELLATION OF CONFERENCE: If a named storm or other
disaster requires cancellation of the Conference, Commission staff will attempt
to give timely notice. Notice of cancellation will be provided on the
Commission’s website (http://www.floridapsc.com) under
the Hot Topics link on the home page. Cancellation can also be confirmed by
calling the Office of Commission Clerk at 850-413-6770.
If you have any questions, contact the Office of Commission Clerk at
850-413-6770 or Clerk@psc.state.fl.us.
1**................. Consent
Agenda. 1
2**................. Docket No.
20170222-WS – Proposed amendment of
Rules 25-30.130, Record of Complaints, and 25-30.355, Complaints, F.A.C. 5
3**................. Docket No.
20170098-EI – Complaint by Richard
Ralph Malcolm against Florida Power & Light Company. 6
4**PAA......... Docket No.
20170138-EI – Petition for initiation
of formal proceedings pursuant to Rule 25-22.036, F.A.C., by Devonson A.
Walker. 7
5..................... Docket No.
20170001-EI – Fuel and purchased
power cost recovery clause with generating performance incentive factor. 8
6**PAA......... Docket No.
20170247-WU – Joint motion requesting
Commission approval of settlement agreement by the Office of Public Counsel,
Black Bear Waterworks, Inc., Brendenwood Waterworks, Inc., Brevard Waterworks,
Inc., Country Walk Utilities, Inc., Harbor Waterworks, Inc., Lake Idlewild
Utility Company, Raintree Waterworks, Inc., and Sunny Hills Utility Company. 10
7**PAA......... Docket No.
20170005-WS – Annual reestablishment
of price increase or decrease index of major categories of operating costs
incurred by water and wastewater utilities pursuant to Section 367.081(4)(a),
F.S. 12
8..................... Docket No.
20170007-EI – Environmental cost
recovery clause. 13
9**PAA......... Docket No.
20170150-EI – Petition for limited
proceeding to include reliability and modernization projects in rate base, by
Florida Public Utilities Company. 15
10**PAA....... Docket No.
20170168-EI – Petition for approval
of the second phase of CCR program for cost recovery through the environmental
cost recovery clause, by Tampa Electric Company. 16
11**PAA....... Docket No.
20170227-EI – Petition for approval
of the waiver and scheduling agreement between Gulf Power Company and Morgan
Stanley Capital Group Inc. 17
12**............... Docket No.
20150010-WS – Application for
staff-assisted rate case in Brevard County by Aquarina Utilities, Inc. 18
13**............... Docket No.
20170212-EI – Petition for one-year
extension of voluntary solar partnership rider and program, by Florida Power
& Light Company. 19
14................... Docket No.
20170179-GU – Petition for rate
increase by Florida City Gas. 20
15**PAA....... Docket No.
20170193-GU – Petition for approval
of transportation service agreement with Florida Public Utilities Company, by
Peninsula Pipeline Company, Inc. 22
16**............... Docket No.
20170206-GU – Petition for approval
of tariff modifications to accommodate receipt and transportation of renewable
natural gas from customers, by Peoples Gas System. 23
17**............... Docket No.
20160220-WS – Application for
original water and wastewater certificates in Sumter County, by South Sumter
Utility Company, LLC. 24
18**PAA....... Docket No.
20130265-WU – Application for staff-assisted
rate case in Charlotte County by Little Gasparilla Water Utility, Inc. 25
19................... Docket No.
20170223-SU – Application for
establishment of wastewater allowance for funds prudently invested (AFPI)
charges in Highlands, Lake, Marion, Pasco and Pinellas Counties, by Utilities,
Inc. of Florida. 28
20**............... Docket No.
20170244-WS – Request for approval of
amendment to tariff for miscellaneous service charges in Lake County by
Lakeside Waterworks, Inc. 29
1** Consent
Agenda
PAA A) Application
for Certificate of Authority to Provide Telecommunications Service.
|
|
|
|
20170211‑TX
|
Citadel
Design & Construction, LLC
|
B) Docket No. 20170241-GU – Application for
authority to issue debt security during calendar year 2018, pursuant to Section
366.04, F.S., and Chapter 25-8, F.A.C., by Florida City Gas.
Florida City
Gas (Company) seeks authority to finance its on-going cash requirements through
its participation and borrowings from, and investments in, Southern Gas
Company’s (formerly AGL Resources Inc.'s) Utility Money Pool during 2018.
Florida City Gas is a division of Pivotal Utility Holdings, Inc., which is a
wholly-owned subsidiary of Southern Gas Company. The maximum aggregate
short-term borrowings by Pivotal Utility Holdings, Inc.'s three utilities
(Elizabethtown Gas, Elkton Gas, and Florida City Gas) from the Utility Money
Pool during 2018 will not exceed $800 million. Florida City Gas states that its
share of these borrowings will not exceed $250 million.
In
connection with this application, Florida City Gas confirms that the capital
raised pursuant to this application will be used in connection with the
regulated natural gas operations of Florida City Gas and not the unregulated
activities of the Company or its affiliates.
Staff has
reviewed the Company’s projected capital expenditures. The amount requested by
the Company exceeds its expected capital expenditures. The additional amount
requested exceeding the projected capital expenditures allows for financial
flexibility for the purposes enumerated in the Company’s petition as well as
unexpected events such as hurricanes, financial market disruptions, and other
unforeseen circumstances. Staff believes the requested amounts are appropriate.
Staff recommends the Company’s petition to issue securities be approved.
C) Docket
No. 20170237-WU - Application of Section 367.0816, Florida Statutes, recovery
of rate case expense, to Peoples Water Service Company of Florida, Inc. in
Escambia County.
Pursuant to
Order No. PSC-13-0647-PAA-WU, issued December 5, 2013, Peoples Water Service
Company of Florida, Inc. (Peoples) was allowed to recover rate case expense of
$46,005 amortized over four years at $11,501 per year. Section 367.0816, F.S.,
required that the rates be reduced immediately following the expiration of the
four-year period by the amount of the rate case expense previously included in
rates. The four-year amortization period expires on December 31, 2017.
Inadvertently, the rate reduction to the respective base facility and gallonage
charges was not reflected in the order.
Attached is a schedule reflecting the rate reductions that should have
been reflected in the order. Peoples
agrees with the rate reductions.
Schedule 1
Recommendation:
The Commission should approve the actions requested in the dockets
referenced above. Docket No. 20170211-TX should be closed. For monitoring
purposes, Docket No. 20170241-GU should remain open until April 26, 2019, to
allow the Company time to file the required Consummation Report. Docket No.
20170237-WU 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.
2** Docket No. 20170222-WS – Proposed
amendment of Rules 25-30.130, Record of Complaints, and 25-30.355, Complaints,
F.A.C.
|
Rule Status:
|
Proposed
|
|
Commissioners Assigned:
|
All Commissioners
|
|
Prehearing Officer:
|
Graham
|
|
Staff:
|
GCL: Cowdery
CAO: Hicks
ECO: Guffey
ENG: Graves,
King
|
|
|
|
|
(Proposal May Be Deferred)
Issue 1:
Should the Commission
propose the amendment of Rules 25-30.130, Record of Complaints, and 25-30.355,
Complaints, F.A.C.?
Recommendation:
Yes, the Commission should propose the amendment of Rules
25-30.130 and 25-30.355, F.A.C., as set forth in Attachment A of staff’s
memorandum dated November 30, 2017. Staff recommends that the Commission
certify proposed amended Rules 25-30.130 and 25-30.355, F.A.C., as minor
violation rules.
Issue 2:
Should this docket be
closed?
Recommendation:
Yes. If no requests for hearing or comments are
filed, the rules should be filed with the Department of State, and the docket
should be closed.
3** Docket No. 20170098-EI – Complaint by
Richard Ralph Malcolm against Florida Power & Light Company.
|
Critical Date(s):
|
None
|
|
Commissioners Assigned:
|
All
Commissioners
|
|
Prehearing Officer:
|
Brisé
|
|
Staff:
|
GCL: Page
CAO: Hicks,
Plescow
ECO: Ollila
|
|
|
|
|
Issue 1:
Should the Commission
dismiss on its own motion Mr. Malcolm’s petition for failure to comply with the
pleading requirements of Rule 28-106.201, F.A.C.?
Recommendation:
Yes, Mr. Malcolm’s petition for formal hearing on his
complaint against FPL should be dismissed for failure to comply with the
pleading requirements of Rule 28-106.201, F.A.C., without prejudice to file a
timely amended petition pursuant to Section 120.569(2)(c), F.S. Mr. Malcolm
should be given 10 days after the issuance of the Commission order dismissing
his petition to file an amended petition.
Issue 2:
Should this docket be
closed?
Recommendation:
Yes. This docket should be
closed if Mr. Malcolm does not file an amended petition within 10 days of the
issuance of the Commission’s order dismissing his petition.
4**PAA Docket No. 20170138-EI – Petition for
initiation of formal proceedings pursuant to Rule 25-22.036, F.A.C., by
Devonson A. Walker.
|
Critical Date(s):
|
None
|
|
Commissioners Assigned:
|
All
Commissioners
|
|
Prehearing Officer:
|
Graham
|
|
Staff:
|
GCL: Page
CAO: Hicks,
Plescow
ECO: Ollila
|
|
|
|
|
(Issue 2 is Proposed Agency Action)
Issue 1:
Should the Commission grant
FPL’s Motion to Dismiss the Complaint?
Recommendation:
The Commission should grant in part and deny in part
FPL’s Motion to Dismiss the Complaint.
Issue 2:
What is the appropriate
disposition of Mr. Walker’s complaint?
Recommendation:
Mr. Walker’s formal complaint should be denied. FPL
properly handled Mr. Walker’s account in compliance with Commission rules,
statutes, and orders and FPL’s tariffs.
Issue 3:
Should this docket be
closed?
Recommendation:
If no person whose
substantial interests are affected by the proposed agency action in Issue 2
files a protest within 21 days of the issuance of the order, this docket should
be closed upon the issuance of a consummating order.
5 Docket No. 20170001-EI – Fuel and
purchased power cost recovery clause with generating performance incentive
factor.
|
Critical Date(s):
|
None
|
|
Commissioners Assigned:
|
All
Commissioners
|
|
Prehearing Officer:
|
Brisé
|
|
Staff:
|
AFD: Barrett,
Vogel
ECO: Draper,
Guffey, Higgins, Stratis, Wu
ENG: Ellis,
O. Wooten
GCL: Brownless,
Janjic
|
|
|
|
|
(Post-Hearing Decision - Participation is
Limited to Commissioners and Staff)
Issue A: Should
FPL’s Unopposed Motion for Leave to File Response to New Issue Raised in
FIPUG’s Post Hearing Brief be granted?
Recommendation:
Yes, the Commission should grant FPL’s Unopposed Motion for
Leave to File Response to New Issue Raised in FIPUG’s Post Hearing Brief
(Motion).
Issue B: Does
the Commission have jurisdiction to approve the SoBRA projects in this docket?
Recommendation:
Yes. The Commission
has the authority to approve the recovery of FPL’s 2017 and 2018 solar projects
through base rates in this docket.
Issue 2L:
What is the appropriate base
rate percentage increase for the 2017 SOBRA projects to be effective when all
2017 projects are in service, currently projected to be January 1, 2018?
Recommendation:
The appropriate base rate percentage increase (SoBRA
Factor) for the 2017 SoBRA projects is 0.937 percent.
Issue 2M: Are the 2018 SoBRA
projects proposed by FPL (Hammock, Barefoot Bay, Blue Cypress and Loggerhead)
cost effective?
Recommendation:
Yes. Based on the evidence contained in the record, FPL’s
proposed solar projects are projected to produce savings under multiple
scenarios. FPL also has met the terms of 2016 Agreement in regards to keeping
construction cost under the $1,750 per kWac cost cap.
Issue 2N:
What are the revenue
requirements associated with the 2018 SoBRA projects?
Recommendation:
The jurisdictional annualized revenue requirements
associated with the 2018 SoBRA projects are $59.89 million.
Issue 2O:
What is the appropriate base
rate percentage increase for the 2018 SoBRA projects to be effective when all
2018 projects are in service, currently projected to be March 1, 2018?
Recommendation:
The appropriate base rate percentage increase (SoBRA
Factor) for the 2018 SoBRA projects is 0.919 percent.
Issue 2P:
Should the Commission
approve revised tariffs for FPL reflecting the base rate percentage increases
for the 2017 and 2018 SoBRA projects determined to be appropriate in this
proceeding?
Recommendation:
Yes. The Commission should approve revised tariffs for FPL
reflecting the base rate percentage increases for the 2017 and 2018 SoBRA
projects determined to be appropriate in this proceeding.
Issue 36: Should this docket be
closed?
Recommendation:
No. While a separate docket
number is assigned each year for administrative convenience, this is a
continuing docket and should remain open.
6**PAA Docket No. 20170247-WU – Joint motion
requesting Commission approval of settlement agreement by the Office of Public
Counsel, Black Bear Waterworks, Inc., Brendenwood Waterworks, Inc., Brevard
Waterworks, Inc., Country Walk Utilities, Inc., Harbor Waterworks, Inc., Lake
Idlewild Utility Company, Raintree Waterworks, Inc., and Sunny Hills Utility
Company.
|
Critical Date(s):
|
None
|
|
Commissioners Assigned:
|
All
Commissioners
|
|
Prehearing Officer:
|
Clark
|
|
Staff:
|
AFD: Mouring
ECO: Hudson
GCL: Taylor,
Crawford
|
|
|
|
|
Issue 1:
Should the Commission
approve the Joint Motion and Settlement Agreement by the Parties?
Recommendation:
Yes. The proposed Settlement
Agreement adequately addresses the potential overearnings staff had previously
identified during its ongoing earnings surveillance activities.
As
applicable, the Utilities should make refunds, credit CIAC, and reduce rates as
outlined in the Settlement Agreement. Schedule No. 1 of staff’s memorandum
dated November 30, 2017, reflects staff’s recommended rates per the Settlement
Agreement. Brendenwood Waterworks, Inc. should file a proposed customer notice
reflecting the Commission's decision within 15 days of the Commission vote. The
approved rates should be effective for service rendered on or after the stamped
approval date of the tariff pursuant to Rule 25-30.475(1), Florida
Administrative Code (F.A.C.), after staff has verified that the proposed
customer notice is adequate and this notice has been provided to the customer.
The Settlement Agreement specifies that this rate reduction should be effective
the first billing cycle in January 2018. Brendenwood Waterworks, Inc. should
provide proof that the customers have received notice within 10 days after the
date of the notice.
Issue 2:
Should this docket be
closed?
Recommendation:
No. If no timely protest is
received from a substantially affected person upon expiration of the protest
period, the PAA Order will become final upon the issuance of a Consummating
Order. However, this docket should remain open to allow staff to verify completion
of the refunds discussed in Issue 1 and to verify that the revised tariff
sheets and customer notice have been filed by Brendenwood Waterworks, Inc. and
approved by staff. Once staff has verified that the notice has been provided
and refunds have been made in accordance with Rule 25-30.360, F.A.C., the
docket should be closed administratively.
7**PAA Docket No. 20170005-WS – Annual
reestablishment of price increase or decrease index of major categories of
operating costs incurred by water and wastewater utilities pursuant to Section
367.081(4)(a), F.S.
|
Critical Date(s):
|
3/31/18
(Statutory Reestablishment Deadline)
|
|
Commissioners Assigned:
|
All
Commissioners
|
|
Prehearing Officer:
|
Administrative
|
|
Staff:
|
AFD: Andrews,
Norris
GCL: Taylor
|
|
|
|
|
Issue 1:
Which index should be used
to determine price level adjustments?
Recommendation:
The Gross Domestic Product Implicit Price Deflator Index is
recommended for use in calculating price level adjustments. Staff recommends
calculating the 2018 price index by using a fiscal year, four quarter
comparison of the Implicit Price Deflator Index ending with the third quarter
of 2017.
Issue 2:
What rate should be used by
water and wastewater utilities for the 2018 Price Index?
Recommendation:
The 2018 Price Index for water and wastewater utilities
should be 1.76 percent.
Issue 3:
How should the utilities be
informed of the indexing requirements?
Recommendation:
Pursuant to Rule 25-30.420(1), F.A.C., the Office of
Commission Clerk, after the expiration of the Proposed Agency Action (PAA) protest
period, should mail each regulated water and wastewater utility a copy of the
PAA order establishing the index containing the information presented in Form
PSC/AFD 15 (4/99) and Appendix A (Attachment 1 of staff’s memorandum dated
November 30, 2017). Because Rule 25-30.420(1), F.A.C., references Form PSC/AFD
15 (4/99), staff would note that there will be rulemaking necessary. A cover
letter from the Director of the Division of Accounting and Finance should be
included with the mailing of the order (Attachment 2 of staff’s memorandum
dated November 30, 2017). The entire package will also be made available on the
Commission’s website.
Issue 4:
Should this docket be
closed?
Recommendation:
No. Upon expiration of the
14-day protest period, if a timely protest is not received, the decision should
become final and effective upon the issuance of a Consummating Order. Any party
filing a protest should be required to prefile testimony with the protest.
However, this docket should remain open through the end of the year and be
closed upon the establishment of the new docket on January 2, 2018.
8 Docket No. 20170007-EI –
Environmental cost recovery clause.
|
Critical Date(s):
|
None
|
|
Commissioners Assigned:
|
All
Commissioners
|
|
Prehearing Officer:
|
Brisé
|
|
Staff:
|
ENG: Mtenga, Ellis
AFD: Smith II
ECO: Wu
GCL: Cuello, DuVal, Murphy
|
|
|
|
|
(Post-Hearing Decision - Participation is
Limited to Commissioners and Staff)
Issue 10A:
Should FPL be allowed to
recover, through the ECRC, prudently incurred costs, if any, associated with
the June 20, 2016 Consent Order between FPL and the Florida Department of
Environmental Protection and the October 2015 Consent Agreement between FPL and
the Miami-Dade County Department of Environmental Resources Management (as
amended by the August 15, 2016 Consent Agreement Addendum)?
Recommendation:
Yes. FPL should be allowed to recover the TPCCMP Disputed
Costs, if prudently incurred, through the ECRC. The TPCCMP Disputed Costs are
costs incurred after the inception of the ECRC and are not being recovered
through another clause mechanism or base rates. Staff recommends that FPL is
subject to new governmentally imposed environmental requirements enacted after
FPL’s last test year on the date of filing in the 2016 ECRC proceeding. The
prudency of the TPCCMP Disputed Cost activities is addressed in Issue 10B.
Issue 10B:
Which costs, if any,
associated with the June 20, 2016 Consent Order between FPL and the Florida
Department of Environmental Protection and the October 2015 Consent Agreement
between FPL and the Miami-Dade County Department of Environmental Resources
Management (as amended by the August 15, 2016 Consent Agreement Addendum) were
prudently incurred?
Recommendation:
Staff recommends that FPL has prudently incurred the 2015
and 2016 TPCCMP Disputed Costs, and that FPL’s request for 2017 and 2018 TPCCMP
Disputed Costs are reasonable. However, FPL has not met its burden of proof
that the $1.5 million escrow deposit component is associated with the operation
of the CCS for the direct benefit of FPL’s customers. Staff notes that the 2017
and 2018 TPCCMP Disputed Costs and removal of the escrow payment are subject to
true-up in future ECRC proceedings.
Issue 10C:
Should the costs FPL seeks
to recover in this docket be considered part of its Turkey Point Cooling Canal
Monitoring Plan project?
Recommendation:
Yes. Based on the TPCCMP Approval Order, the TPCCMP
Disputed Costs should be considered part of the existing TPCCMP project. The
costs FPL is requesting to recover are the result of the anticipated evolution
of the original TPCCMP program.
Issue 10D:
Is FPL’s proposed allocation
of costs associated with the June 20, 2016 Consent Order between FPL and the
Florida Department of Environmental Protection and the October 2015 Consent
Agreement between FPL and the Miami-Dade County Department of Environmental
Resources Management (as amended by the August 15, 2016 Consent Agreement
Addendum) between O&M and capital appropriate? If not, what is the correct allocation of
costs between O&M and capital?
Recommendation:
Yes. Staff recommends that the RWS and related activities
perform both remediation and containment functions. Consistent with accounting
principles, remediation expenses should be recovered as O&M, and
containment should be recovered as capital. Based on the record, staff
recommends that the Company’s proposed allocation of costs is appropriate, and
should be 74 percent containment (capital) and 26 percent remediation (O&M)
for the RWS and related activities.
Issue 10E:
How should the costs
associated with the June 20, 2016 Consent Order between FPL and the Florida
Department of Environmental Protection and the October 2015 Consent Agreement
between FPL and the Miami-Dade County Department of Environmental Resources
Management (as amended by the August 15, 2016 Consent Agreement Addendum) be
allocated to the rate classes?
Recommendation:
TPCCMP Disputed Costs should
be allocated pursuant to the Commission’s Order No. PSC-09-0759-FOF-EI.
9**PAA Docket No. 20170150-EI – Petition for
limited proceeding to include reliability and modernization projects in rate
base, by Florida Public Utilities Company.
|
Critical Date(s):
|
None
|
|
Commissioners Assigned:
|
All
Commissioners
|
|
Prehearing Officer:
|
Brown
|
|
Staff:
|
ENG: P.
Buys, Ellis, Graves, King, Thompson
AFD: Barrett,
Brown, Mouring, Vogel
ECO: Draper,
Higgins, Ollila, Stratis
GCL: Brownless
|
|
|
|
|
(Motion to Approve
Settlement and Stipulation Prior to Hearing)
10**PAA Docket No. 20170168-EI – Petition for
approval of the second phase of CCR program for cost recovery through the
environmental cost recovery clause, by Tampa Electric Company.
|
Critical Date(s):
|
None
|
|
Commissioners Assigned:
|
All
Commissioners
|
|
Prehearing Officer:
|
Brown
|
|
Staff:
|
ENG: Mtenga, Ellis
ECO: Wu
GCL: Murphy, Cuello
|
|
|
|
|
Issue 1:
Should the Commission
approve Tampa Electric Company’s petition for approval of the second phase of
its proposed CCR Compliance Program for cost recovery through the Environmental
Cost Recovery Clause?
Recommendation:
Yes. Staff recommends that the Commission approve TECO’s
second phase of its proposed CCR Compliance Program to comply with the EPA’s CCR
Rule. The Economizer Ash Closure Project is a compliance activity associated
with the Company’s previously approved CCR Compliance Program. Staff recommends
that the operations and maintenance (O&M) costs associated with this
project be allocated to rate classes on an energy basis and capital costs to
complete this project should be allocated to appropriate rate classes on a
demand basis.
Issue 2:
Should this docket be
closed?
Recommendation:
Yes. This docket should be
closed upon issuance of a Consummating Order unless a person whose substantial
interests are affected by the Commission’s decision files a protest within 21
days of the issuance of the proposed agency action.
11**PAA Docket No. 20170227-EI – Petition for
approval of the waiver and scheduling agreement between Gulf Power Company and
Morgan Stanley Capital Group Inc.
|
Critical Date(s):
|
Pursuant
to Section C(2) of the Waiver and Scheduling Agreement, either party may
terminate the agreement in the event that a final order is not rendered on or
before December 30, 2017.
|
|
Commissioners Assigned:
|
All
Commissioners
|
|
Prehearing Officer:
|
Administrative
|
|
Staff:
|
ENG: Thompson,
Ellis, King
GCL: Cuello
|
|
|
|
|
Issue 1:
Should the Commission approve
Gulf Power Company’s petition for approval of the Waiver and Scheduling
Agreement with Morgan Stanley Capital Group, Inc.?
Recommendation:
Yes. The Waiver Agreement will result in monthly credits to
Gulf from Morgan Stanley, which results in an estimated total net present value
(NPV) savings to ratepayers of approximately $17.2 million from 2019 through
2035. Through the Waiver Agreement, energy deliveries under the Kingfisher I
EPA will operate in the same manner as the Kingfisher II EPA, previously
approved by the Commission. In addition, the core provisions of the Kingfisher
I EPA, including total energy delivery amounts, pricing, reliability, security,
and risk allocation remain unchanged. Therefore, staff recommends that the
Commission approve Gulf’s petition for approval of the Waiver Agreement with
Morgan Stanley.
Issue 2:
Should this docket be
closed?
Recommendation:
Yes. If no person whose
substantial interests are affected by the proposed agency action (PAA) files a
protest within 21 days of the issuance of the PAA Order, a Consummating Order
should be issued and the docket should be closed.
12** Docket No. 20150010-WS – Application
for staff-assisted rate case in Brevard County by Aquarina Utilities, Inc.
|
Critical Date(s):
|
None
|
|
Commissioners Assigned:
|
All
Commissioners
|
|
Prehearing Officer:
|
Brisé
|
|
Staff:
|
ENG: Lewis,
King
AFD: Mouring,
Smith II
GCL: Murphy
|
|
|
|
|
Issue 1:
Should the Commission
approve Aquarina’s request for extension of time to complete its required Phase
II pro forma plant items pursuant to Order No. PSC-16-0583-PAA-WS?
Recommendation:
Yes. The Commission should approve Aquarina’s request for
an extension of time to complete its required Phase II pro forma plant items
before March 1, 2018.
Issue 2:
Should this docket be
closed?
Recommendation:
No. The docket should remain
open for a decision by the Commission on the appropriate Phase II revenue
requirement and rates.
13** Docket No. 20170212-EI – Petition for
one-year extension of voluntary solar partnership rider and program, by Florida
Power & Light Company.
|
Critical Date(s):
|
8-Month
Effective Date: 06/01/18 (60-day suspension date waived by the utility)
|
|
Commissioners Assigned:
|
All
Commissioners
|
|
Prehearing Officer:
|
Administrative
|
|
Staff:
|
ECO: Doherty
GCL: Mapp
|
|
|
|
|
Issue 1:
Should the Commission
approve the one-year extension of the VSP program?
Recommendation:
Yes. The Commission should approve the one-year extension
of the VSP program.
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 tariff 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.
14 Docket No. 20170179-GU – Petition for
rate increase by Florida City Gas.
|
Critical Date(s):
|
12/22/17
(60-Day Suspension Date)
06/23/18
(8-Month Effective Date)
|
|
Commissioners Assigned:
|
All
Commissioners
|
|
Prehearing Officer:
|
Polmann
|
|
Staff:
|
ECO: Draper,
Doherty, Guffey
AFD: Mouring,
D. Buys
GCL: Trierweiler,
Cuello, Janjic
|
|
|
|
|
(Decision on Interim Rates – Participation is
at the Discretion of the Commission)
Issue 1:
Should the request for a
permanent increase in rates and charges be suspended for FCG?
Recommendation:
Yes. Staff recommends that the requested permanent increase
in rates and charges be suspended for FCG.
Issue 2:
Is FCG's proposed interim
rate base of $209,312,678 appropriate?
Recommendation:
Yes. The appropriate interim rate base for FCG is
$209,312,678.
Issue 3:
Is FCG’s proposed interim
return on equity of 10.25 percent and overall cost of capital of 5.85 percent
reasonable for the purpose of determining interim rates?
Recommendation:
Yes. FCG’s proposed return on equity of 10.25 percent and
overall cost of capital of 5.85 percent are reasonable for purposes of
determining interim rates.
Issue 4:
Is FCG's proposed interim
test year net operating income of $9,221,584 appropriate?
Recommendation:
Yes. The appropriate historical base year ended December
31, 2016 net operating income for FCG is $9,221,584.
Issue 5:
Is FCG's proposed interim
net operating income multiplier of 1.6185 appropriate?
Recommendation:
Yes. FCG’s proposed interim net operating income multiplier
of 1.6185 is appropriate.
Issue 6:
Should FCG's requested
interim revenue increase of $4,893,061 be granted?
Recommendation:
Yes. FCG’s requested interim revenue increase of $4,893,061
should be granted.
Issue 7:
How should the interim
revenue increase for FCG be distributed among the rate classes?
Recommendation:
Any interim revenue increase authorized should be applied
evenly across the board to all rate classes based on their base rate revenues,
as required by Rule 25-7.040, Florida Administrative Code, (F.A.C.), and should
be collected on a cents-per-therm basis. The interim rates should be made
effective for all meter readings made on or after thirty days from the date of
the Commission vote and decision herein. The Company should provide pursuant to
Rule 25-22.0406(8), F.A.C., notice to customers of the revised rates with the
first bill containing the new rates. The Company should file tariff sheets
reflecting the Commission approved interim rates.
Issue 8:
What is the appropriate
security to guarantee the amount subject to refund?
Recommendation:
The appropriate security to guarantee the funds collected
subject to refund is a corporate undertaking.
Issue 9:
Should this docket be
closed?
Recommendation:
No. This docket should
remain open to process the revenue increase request of the Company.
15**PAA Docket No. 20170193-GU – Petition for
approval of transportation service agreement with Florida Public Utilities
Company, by Peninsula Pipeline Company, Inc.
|
Critical Date(s):
|
None
|
|
Commissioners Assigned:
|
All
Commissioners
|
|
Prehearing Officer:
|
Brisé
|
|
Staff:
|
ECO: Doherty,
Draper
GCL: Mapp
|
|
|
|
|
Issue 1:
Should the Commission
approve the Agreement between Peninsula and FPUC?
Recommendation:
Yes. The Commission should approve the proposed Agreement
between Peninsula and FPUC dated August 25, 2017.
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.
16** Docket No. 20170206-GU – Petition for
approval of tariff modifications to accommodate receipt and transportation of
renewable natural gas from customers, by Peoples Gas System.
|
Critical Date(s):
|
8-Month
Effective Date: 5/19/18 (60-day suspension date waived by the utility)
|
|
Commissioners Assigned:
|
All
Commissioners
|
|
Prehearing Officer:
|
Administrative
|
|
Staff:
|
ECO: Ollila
GCL: Trierweiler,
Dziechciarz
|
|
|
|
|
Issue 1:
Should the Commission
approve Peoples' proposed tariff modifications?
Recommendation:
Yes, the Commission should approve Peoples’ proposed tariff
modifications, as revised on October 20, 2017, effective December 12, 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.
17** Docket No. 20160220-WS – Application
for original water and wastewater certificates in Sumter County, by South
Sumter Utility Company, LLC.
|
Critical Date(s):
|
12/11/17
(60-Day Suspension Date Waived by the Utility to 12/12/17)
|
|
Commissioners Assigned:
|
All
Commissioners
|
|
Prehearing Officer:
|
Graham
|
|
Staff:
|
ECO: Friedrich,
Hudson
GCL: Taylor
|
|
|
|
|
Issue 1:
Should the utility's initial
water and wastewater rates and charges be suspended?
Recommendation:
Yes. The utility’s initial water and wastewater rates and
charges should be suspended.
Issue 2:
Should this docket be
closed?
Recommendation:
This docket should remain
open pending the Commission’s final action on the utility’s request to
establish its original water and wastewater rates.
18**PAA Docket No. 20130265-WU – Application
for staff-assisted rate case in Charlotte County by Little Gasparilla Water
Utility, Inc.
|
Critical Date(s):
|
None
|
|
Commissioners Assigned:
|
All
Commissioners
|
|
Prehearing Officer:
|
Polmann
|
|
Staff:
|
ECO: Bruce,
Hudson
AFD: Golden,
Galloway
ENG: P.
Buys
GCL: Murphy
|
|
|
|
|
(Proposed Agency Action Except Issues 3 and
4)
Issue 1:
What is the appropriate
Phase II revenue requirement, return on equity, and overall rate for Little Gasparilla?
Recommendation:
The appropriate revenue requirement is $413,652, resulting
in an annual increase of $69,252 for water (20.11 percent). The appropriate
return on equity (ROE) is 11.16 percent with a range of 10.16 percent to 12.16
percent. The appropriate overall rate of
return is 6.55 percent.
Issue 2:
What are the appropriate
water rates for Phase II?
Recommendation:
The Phase II rate increase of 20.16 percent for water
should be applied to the existing rates as shown on Schedule No. 4 of staff’s
memorandum dated November 30, 2017. The utility 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 sheets pursuant to Rule 25-30.475(1),
F.A.C. In addition, the approved rates should not be implemented until 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.
Issue 3:
What is the appropriate
amount by which rates should be reduced four years after the established
effective date to reflect the removal of the amortized rate case expense as
required by Section 367.0816?
Recommendation:
The water rates should be reduced as shown on Schedule No.
4 of staff’s memorandum dated November 30, 2017, to remove rate case expense
grossed-up for RAFs and amortized over a four-year period. The decrease in
rates should become effective immediately following the expiration of the
four-year rate case expense recovery period. The Utility should be required to
file revised tariffs and a proposed customer notice setting forth the lower
rates and the reason for the reduction no later than one month prior to the
actual date of the required rate reduction. If Little Gasparilla files this
reduction in conjunction with a price index or pass-through rate adjustment,
separate data should be filed for the price index and/or pass-through increase
or decrease and the reduction in the rates due to the amortized rate case
expense.
Issue 4:
Should the recommended rates
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?
Recommendation:
Yes. Pursuant to Section 367.0814(7), F.S., 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. The
Utility 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 staff has approved the proposed notice, and the notice
has been received by the customers. Prior to implementation of any temporary
rates, the Utility should provide appropriate security. 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 analysis portion of staff’s
memorandum dated November 30, 2017. 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 every
month indicating the monthly and total amount of money subject to refund at the
end of the preceding month. The report filed should also indicate the status of
the security being used to guarantee repayment of any potential refund.
Issue 5:
Should this docket be
closed?
Recommendation:
No. If no person whose
substantial interests are affected by the proposed agency action files a
protest within twenty-one days of the issuance of the order, a consummating
order will be issued. The docket should remain open for staff’s verification
that the revised tariff sheets and the customer notice have been filed by the
utility and approved by staff. When the tariff and notice actions are complete,
this docket may be closed administratively.
19 Docket No. 20170223-SU – Application
for establishment of wastewater allowance for funds prudently invested (AFPI)
charges in Highlands, Lake, Marion, Pasco and Pinellas Counties, by Utilities,
Inc. of Florida.
|
Critical Date(s):
|
12/15/17
(60-Day Suspension Date)
|
|
Commissioners Assigned:
|
All
Commissioners
|
|
Prehearing Officer:
|
Administrative
|
|
Staff:
|
ECO: Bruce
GCL: Trierweiler
|
|
|
|
|
(Participation is at the Discretion of the
Commission)
Issue 1:
Should the Commission
suspend UIF's proposed tariff to establish AFPI charges for LUSI, Labrador,
Lake Placid, Mid County, and UIF-Marion wastewater systems?
Recommendation:
Yes. UIF’s proposed tariff to establish AFPI charges for
LUSI, Labrador, Lake Placid, Mid County, and UIF-Marion wastewater systems
should be suspended.
Issue 2:
Should this docket be
closed?
Recommendation:
No. The docket should remain
open pending the Commission’s final action on the UIF’s requested approval to
establish AFPI wastewater charges.
20** Docket No. 20170244-WS – Request for
approval of amendment to tariff for miscellaneous service charges in Lake
County by Lakeside Waterworks, Inc.
|
Critical Date(s):
|
1/14/18
(60-Day Suspension Date)
|
|
Commissioners Assigned:
|
All
Commissioners
|
|
Prehearing Officer:
|
Administrative
|
|
Staff:
|
ECO: Bruce
GCL: Janjic
|
|
|
|
|
Issue 1:
Should the Commission
approve Lakeside’s proposed tariff to increase miscellaneous service charges in
Lake County?
Recommendation:
Yes. The miscellaneous service charges identified in Table
1-5 of staff’s memorandum dated November 30, 2017 are appropriate and should be
approved. The charges should be
effective on or after the stamped approval date on the tariff pursuant to Rule
25-30.475, Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.). In addition, the approved
charges should not be implemented until 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.
Issue 2:
Should this docket be
closed?
Recommendation:
The docket should remain
open pending staff’s verification that the revised tariff sheets and customer
notice have been filed by the utility and approved by staff. If a protest is
filed within 21 days of the issuance date of the Order, the tariff should
remain in effect with the charge held subject to refund pending resolution of
the protest. If no timely protest is filed, a consummating order should be
issued and, once staff verifies that the notice of the charge has been given to
customers, the docket should be administratively closed.