Case Background
Section 366.03,
Florida Statutes (F.S.), states that each public utility shall furnish to each
person applying for service, reasonably sufficient, adequate, and efficient
service. The Commission has jurisdiction
as set forth in Section 366.04, F.S., to regulate and supervise each public
utility with respect to its rates and service.
Rule
25-22.032, Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.), implements Chapter 366, F.S.,
and establishes informal customer complaint procedures that are designed to
address disputes, subject to the Commission’s jurisdiction, that occur between
regulated companies and individual customers.
Pursuant to this rule, any customer of a Commission regulated company
may file a complaint with the Commission’s Office of Consumer Assistance &
Outreach whenever the customer has an unresolved dispute with the company
regarding electric, gas, water and wastewater service.
On
September 7, 2017, Manuel Blanco filed an informal complaint with the
Commission against Florida Power & Light Company (FPL). In his complaint, Mr. Blanco states that he
has concerns regarding the clearance distance and the safety of FPL’s pad-mounted
transformers in South Winds Condominium community, in particular, the transformer
located near his unit.
On
March 21, 2018, staff advised Mr. Blanco that his informal complaint had been
reviewed. He was informed that based on
this review, it did not appear that FPL had violated applicable statute, rule,
company tariff or order of the Commission.
Mr.
Blanco was also notified by Commission staff that he had an opportunity to file
a petition for formal proceedings. On
April 3, 2018, Mr. Blanco filed a petition for initiation of formal
proceedings. In the formal complaint,
Mr. Blanco claims that the transformer located near his unit and other transformers
in the condominium community that are owned and operated by FPL do not meet FPL
and Commission clearance and safety standards.
This
recommendation addresses the appropriate disposition of Mr. Blanco’s complaint
against FPL. The Commission has
jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to Section 366.04, F.S.
Discussion
of Issues
Issue 1:
What is the appropriate disposition of Mr. Blanco’s
formal complaint?
Recommendation:
Mr. Blanco’s formal complaint should be denied. FPL
did not violate any applicable statute, rule, standard, company tariff or order
of the Commission in maintaining the transformers at issue in Mr. Blanco’s
complaint, including the transformer next to Mr. Blanco’s unit at South Winds
Condominium. (Page, Plescow, Moses)
Staff Analysis:
Mr. Blanco’s complaint concerns transformers by
which FPL supplies electrical power to residential buildings at South Winds
Condominium. FPL
supplies this energy to South Winds residents through one or two liquid-filled
pad-mounted transformers for each building. Mr. Blanco alleges safety violations
that FPL failed to meet the requirements of the 2012 edition of the National
Electrical Safety Code for outdoor installations of liquid-filled transformers
and failed to comply with its own 2017 Electric Service Standards. Mr. Blanco also alleges unsafe conditions, claiming
that the transformers in South Winds Condominium may explode or ignite in standing
water.
Transformer Clearances
Staff believes that the regulations and guidelines cited
by Mr. Blanco concern mandatory access clearances to be maintained by FPL
customers who have transformers situated near their property. In this regard, Mr. Blanco cites FPL’s
Electric Service Standards (ESS). The
ESS is intended to furnish information often required by customers to receive
FPL’s electric service. The ESS requires that FPL customers:
[M]aintain access to FPL to pad
mounted equipment located on the Customer’s property (eight feet of clearance
from the door side and three feet of clearance from the other sides from items
such as fences, shrubs and other obstructions are to be maintained by the
Customer as shown in Fig. V-1. FPL will
help plan the Customer’s installation of fences, shrubs, etc., near FPL
facilities such that they will not obstruct access or cause damage to FPL’s
facilities. Where adequate access to FPL
facilities is maintained, faster service restoration is made possible in the
event of a power interruption.)
The purpose of
the clearances surrounding the transformer is for the performance of maintenance,
repair, or replacement. FPL states that the
clearances are there for ease of installation and operation by their crews and to
have a safe area in which to work. FPL
further indicates that pad-mounted transformers do not explode or electrify in
water.
On September 26, 2017, Ms. Katrine
Negrin Hernandez, FPL Engineering Lead, informed Mr. Blanco by e-mail that a
field investigation determined that the clearance in front of his transformer
met the required clearance distance even though the clearance in the rear of
the transformer was short of the required distance by only a few inches. Staff has also determined that the clearances
for Mr. Blanco’s transformer in South Winds Condominium meet mandatory clearance
allowances.
Ms. Hernandez also explained:
(1) Published
clearances are mainly for restoration and installation purposes and do not
affect the operation of the transformer;
(2) FPL
does not provide manufacturer information; however, all transformers are
manufactured to comply with company specific standards and are inspected every
5 years; and
(3) Pad-mounted
transformer locations are fully negotiated and agreed upon. Prior to the development
of new buildings and homes; customers requesting relocation of FPL’s facilities
will be responsible for the cost of relocation.
On November 8, 2017, Ms. Hernandez
contacted Mr. Blanco and explained to him that in an effort to resolve his
complaint, FPL agreed to replace the transformer and install a second concrete pad
to raise the transformer level, if possible.
On November 13, 2017, an FPL inspection showed that there was not enough
extra service cable length to accommodate a second concrete transformer pad. For this reason, FPL could not add a second
concrete pad. On December 15, 2017, FPL
replaced the pad-mounted transformer next to Mr. Blanco’s condominium unit with
a new transformer. Staff recommends that
the Commission find that FPL has not violated any applicable statute, rule,
company tariff, or order of the Commission in maintaining its transformers.
Safety Standards
Mr. Blanco also alleges in his complaint that FPL is in
violation of safety standards. Without
specific allegations, Mr. Blanco cites Section 366.04, F.S., which states that
the Commission shall have exclusive jurisdiction to prescribe and enforce
safety standards for transmission and distribution facilities of all public
electric utilities. Section 366.04,
F.S., provides that in adopting safety standards, the Commission shall, at a
minimum:
(a)
Adopt the 1984 edition of the National Electrical
Safety Code (ANSI C2) as initial standards; and
(b)
Adopt, after review, any new edition of the National
Electrical Safety Code (ANSI C2).
On November 7, 2017, FPL and
Commission staff met with Mr. Blanco and condominium management at South Winds
Condominium. Commission technical staff
performed a complete safety inspection of all transformers in the condominium
community and reported that there were satisfactory conditions. The allegations
made by Mr. Blanco that are based on a violation of safety standards have been
fully addressed by FPL. On September 7,
2017, FPL explained to Mr. Blanco that a transformer that is flooded should
cause the fuse to open and de-energize the facility. As stated above, FPL
inspects all transformers every 5 years. Therefore, staff recommends that the
Commission find that no safety standards specified in the National Electrical
Safety Code have been violated.
Conclusion
Staff recommends that the Commission find that FPL did not
violate any applicable statute, rule, standard, company tariff or order of the
Commission in maintaining the transformers at issue in Mr. Blanco’s complaint,
including the transformer next to Mr. Blanco’s unit at South Winds Condominium.
Staff recommends that Mr. Blanco’s formal complaint be denied.
Issue 2:
Should this docket be closed?
Recommendation:
Yes, 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, this docket should be closed upon issuance of a
consummating order. (Page)
Staff Analysis:
Yes, 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, this docket should be closed upon issuance of a
consummating order.
