FLORIDA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION
ADDENDUM*
COMMISSION CONFERENCE AGENDA
CONFERENCE DATE AND
TIME: Tuesday, October
30, 2018, 9:30 a.m.
LOCATION: Betty Easley Conference Center, Joseph P. Cresse Hearing Room 148
DATE ISSUED: October 26, 2018
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.
PAA A) Application for Certificate of Authority to Provide Telecommunications Service.
|
DOCKET NO. |
COMPANY NAME |
|
Vero Fiber Networks, LLC d/b/a Vero Networks |
B) Docket No. 20180162-EI – Application for authority to issue and sell securities and to receive common equity contributions during 12 months ending December 31, 2019, pursuant to Chapter 25-8, F.A.C., and Section 366.04, F.S., by Gulf Power Company.
Gulf Power Company (Gulf Power or Company) seeks authority to receive equity funds from and/or issue common equity securities to its parent company, Southern Company (Southern); issue and sell long-term debt and equity securities; and issue and sell short-term debt securities during 2019. The amount of common equity contributions received from and issued to Southern, the amount of other equity securities issued, and the maximum principal amount of long-term debt securities issued will total not more than $600 million. The maximum principal amount of short-term debt at any one time will total not more than $500 million.
In connection with this application, Gulf Power confirms that the capital raised pursuant to this application will be used in connection with the regulated electric operations of Gulf Power and not the unregulated activities of the Company or its affiliates.
Staff has reviewed Gulf Power’s projected capital expenditures. The amount requested by the Company ($1.1 billion) exceeds its expected capital expenditures ($262.8 million). The additional amount requested exceeding the projected capital expenditures allows for financial flexibility with regard to unexpected events such as hurricanes, financial market disruptions and other unforeseen circumstances. Staff believes the requested amounts are appropriate. Staff recommends Gulf Power’s petition to issue securities be approved.
C) Docket No. 20180165-EI - Application for authority to issue and sell securities during 12 months ending December 31, 2019, pursuant to Section 366.04, F.S., and Chapter 25-8, F.A.C., by Duke Energy Florida, LLC.
Duke Energy Florida, LLC (DEF or Company) seeks authority to issue, sell or otherwise incur during 2019 up to $1.5 billion of any combination of equity securities, long-term debt securities, and other long-term obligations. Additionally, the Company requests authority to issue, sell, or otherwise incur during 2019 and 2020, up to $1.5 billion outstanding at any time of short-term debt securities and other obligations.
In connection with this application, DEF confirms that the capital raised pursuant to this application will be used in connection with the regulated activities of the Company and not the unregulated activities of its unregulated affiliates.
Staff has reviewed the Company’s projected capital expenditures. The amount requested by the Company ($3.0 billion) exceeds its expected capital expenditures ($1.6 billion). The additional amount requested exceeding the projected capital expenditures allows for financial flexibility with regard to unexpected events such as hurricanes, financial market disruptions, and other unforeseen circumstances. Staff believes the requested amounts are appropriate. Staff recommends DEF’s petition to issue securities be approved.
D) Docket No. 20180167-EI – Application for authority to issue and sell securities for 12 months ending December 31, 2019, by Tampa Electric Company.
Tampa Electric Company (Tampa Electric or Company) seeks the authority to issue, sell and/or exchange equity securities and issue, sell, exchange and/or assume long-term or short-term debt securities and/or to assume liabilities or obligations as guarantor, endorser, or surety during calendar year 2019. The Company also seeks authority to enter into interest swaps or other derivatives instruments related to debt securities during calendar year 2019.
The amount of all equity and long-term debt securities issued, sold, exchanged, or assumed and liabilities and obligations assumed or guaranteed as guarantor, endorser, or surety will not exceed in the aggregate $1.75 billion during the year 2019, including any amounts issued to retire existing long-term debt securities. The maximum amount of short-term debt outstanding at any one time will be $0.9 billion during calendar year 2019. This application is for both Tampa Electric and its local gas distribution division, Peoples Gas System.
In connection with this application, the Company confirms that the capital raised pursuant to this application will be used in connection with the activities of the Company’s regulated electric and gas operations and not the unregulated activities of the utilities or their affiliates.
Staff has reviewed the Company’s projected capital expenditures. The amount requested by the Company ($2.65 billion) exceeds its expected capital expenditures ($1.352 billion). The additional amount requested exceeding the projected capital expenditures allows for financial flexibility with regard to unexpected events such as hurricanes, financial market disruptions, and other unforeseen circumstances. Staff believes the requested amounts are appropriate. Staff recommends Tampa Electric’s petition to issue securities be approved.
E) Docket No. 20180168-EI – Application for authority to issue and sell securities during calendar years 2019 and 2020 pursuant to Section 366.04, F.S., and Chapter 25-8, F.A.C., by Florida Power & Light Company.
Florida Power and Light Company (FPL or Company) seeks authority to issue and sell and/or exchange any combination of long-term debt and equity securities and/or to assume liabilities or obligations as guarantor, endorser or surety in an aggregate amount not to exceed $6.1 billion during calendar year 2019.
In addition, FPL seeks permission to issue and sell short-term securities during the calendar years 2019 and 2020 in an amount or amounts such that the aggregate principal amount of short-term securities outstanding at the time of and including any such sale shall not exceed $4.0 billion.
In connection with this application, FPL confirms that the capital raised pursuant to this application will be used in connection with the activities of FPL and FPL’s regulated subsidiaries and not the unregulated activities of FPL or its unregulated subsidiaries or affiliates.
Staff has reviewed the Company’s projected capital expenditures. The amount requested by the Company ($10.1 billion) exceeds its expected capital expenditures ($8.684 billion). The additional amount requested exceeding the projected capital expenditures allows for financial flexibility with regard to unexpected events such as hurricanes, financial market disruptions and other unforeseen circumstances. Staff believes the requested amounts are appropriate. Staff recommends FPL’s petition to issue securities be approved.
F) Docket No. 20180166-GU – Application for authority to issue debt security during calendar year 2019, 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 working capital and capital expenditure requirements through short-term and long-term borrowings from Florida Power & Light Company (FPL). Florida City Gas is a division of Pivotal Utility Holdings, Inc., which is a wholly-owned subsidiary of FPL. The maximum aggregate short-term borrowings during 2019 will not exceed $50 million and long-term 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 ($300 million) exceeds its expected capital expenditures ($100 million). 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.
Recommendation: The Commission should approve the actions requested in the dockets referenced above and close Docket No. 20180156-TX. For monitoring purposes, Docket Nos. 20180162-EI, 20180165-EI, 20180167-EI, 20180168-EI and 20180166-GU should remain open until May 1, 2020, to allow the Companies time to file the required Consummation Reports.
2** Docket No. 20180141-WS – Proposed adoption of Rule 25-30.4575, F.A.C., Operating Ratio Methodology.
|
Rule Status: |
Proposed |
||
|
Commissioners Assigned: |
All Commissioners |
||
|
Prehearing Officer: |
Polmann |
||
|
Staff: |
GCL: Harper AFD: Galloway, Wilson ECO: Guffey |
||
(Proposal May Be Deferred)
Issue 1:
Should the Commission propose the adoption of Rule 25-30.4575, F.A.C., Operating Ratio Methodology?
Yes, the Commission should propose the adoption of Rule 25-30.4575, F.A.C., as set forth in Attachment A of staff’s memorandum dated September 28, 2018. The Commission should certify Rule 25-30.4575, F.A.C., as a minor violation rule.
Issue 2:
Should this docket be closed?
Yes. If no requests for hearing or comments are filed, the rule may be filed with the Department of State, and this docket should be closed.
3**PAA Docket No. 20180188-EI – Petition for a temporary waiver of application of Rule 25-6.100, F.A.C., by Duke Energy Florida, LLC.
|
Critical Date(s): |
Pursuant to Section 120.542, Florida Statutes, the Commission must grant or deny the petition by January 14, 2019. |
||
|
Commissioners Assigned: |
All Commissioners |
||
|
Prehearing Officer: |
Brown |
||
|
Staff: |
GCL: Cowdery ECO: Doherty, Draper |
||
Issue 1:
Should the Commission grant DEF’s petition for a temporary waiver of Rule 25-6.100, F.A.C., Customer Billings?
Yes, the Commission should grant DEF’s petition for a temporary waiver of the requirement in Rule 25-6.100, F.A.C., that DEF render monthly bills to its customers in Bay, Gulf, Franklin, and Wakulla Counties until DEF completes its restoration efforts in response to Hurricane Michael.
Issue 2:
Should this docket be closed?
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 and the docket should be closed.
3A**PAA Docket No. 20180195-EI – Petition for temporary waiver of Rule 25-6.100, F.A.C., by Florida Public Utilities Company.
|
Critical Date(s): |
1/21/19 (Date by which petition must be ruled upon pursuant to Section 120.542, F.S.) |
||
|
Commissioners Assigned: |
All Commissioners |
||
|
Prehearing Officer: |
Brown |
||
|
Staff: |
GCL: Gervasi ECO: Doherty, Draper |
||
Issue 1:
Should the Commission grant FPUC’s petition for a temporary waiver of Rule 25-6.100, F.A.C., Customer Billings?
Recommendation:
Yes, the Commission should grant FPUC’s petition for a temporary waiver of the requirement in Rule 25-6.100, F.A.C., that FPUC render monthly bills to its customers in Jackson, Calhoun, and Liberty Counties until FPUC completes its restoration efforts in response to Hurricane Michael.
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, a consummating order should be issued and the docket should be closed.
4** Docket No. 20180118-TL – Implementation of the 689 area code overlay in the existing 407/321 area code.
|
Critical Date(s): |
None |
||
|
Commissioners Assigned: |
All Commissioners |
||
|
Prehearing Officer: |
Brown |
||
|
Staff: |
IDM: Deas, Fogleman, Wendel APA: Casey GCL: Murphy |
||
Issue 1:
Should the Commission acknowledge the implementation date of the 689 area code overlay in the 407/321 NPA as June 4, 2019?
Yes, the Commission should acknowledge the implementation date of the 689 area code overlay in the 407/321 NPA as June 4, 2019.
Issue 2:
Should this docket be closed?
Yes. Staff recommends that this docket be
closed.
5**PAA Docket No. 20180180-TX – Application for limited designation as an eligible telecommunications carrier (ETC) to receive Connect America Fund Phase II Auction (Auction 903) support for voice and broadband services with request for expedited consideration by Viasat Carrier Services, Inc.
|
Critical Date(s): |
February 25, 2019 (Date By Which ETC Designation Status Must Be Obtained) |
||
|
Commissioners Assigned: |
All Commissioners |
||
|
Prehearing Officer: |
Brown |
||
|
Staff: |
IDM: Deas, Fogleman, Wendel GCL: DuVal, Weisenfeld |
||
Issue 1:
Should Viasat be granted limited ETC status in Florida for the purpose of receiving Connect America Fund Phase II Auction (Auction 903) support for voice and broadband services?
No. Staff recommends that the Commission should not grant Viasat limited ETC status in Florida for the purpose of receiving Connect America Fund Phase II Auction (Auction 903) support for voice and broadband services. Staff further recommends that, as a facilities-based satellite provider, Viasat should directly apply for Florida ETC designation with the FCC.
Issue 2:
Should this docket be closed?
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 the issuance of a consummating order.
6**PAA Docket No. 20180021-WU – Application for staff-assisted rate case in Highlands County by Country Walk Utilities, Inc.
|
Critical Date(s): |
5/16/2019 (15-Month Effective Date (SARC)) |
||
|
Commissioners Assigned: |
All Commissioners |
||
|
Prehearing Officer: |
Brown |
||
|
Staff: |
AFD: Smith II, D. Buys, Cicchetti, Hightower ECO: Sibley ENG: Lewis, Salvador, Wright GCL: Murphy |
||
(Proposed Agency Action - Except for Issue
Nos. 12, 13, and 14)
Is the quality of service provided by Country Walk satisfactory?
Country Walk is currently working to incorporate Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) guidance into its operating methodology and is expected to return to compliance with disinfection byproduct standards following third quarter sampling results. Country Walk has worked, and continues to work closely with its customers to address complaints in a timely manner and to discuss potential operational solutions to its customers’ needs. Finally, Country Walk’s water treatment plant was found to be in sound operating condition during the recent site visit. However, because Country Walk is not currently in compliance with DEP standards, staff recommends that the overall quality of service should be considered marginal.
What is the used and useful percentage (U&U) of Country Walk’s water treatment plant, storage, and distribution system?
Country Walk’s water treatment plant, storage, and distribution system should be considered 100 percent U&U. There appears to be no excessive unaccounted for water; therefore, no adjustment should be made to operating expenses for chemicals and purchased power.
Should the Commission approve a year-end rate base for Country Walk, and if so, what is the appropriate water rate base for the year-end test year?
Yes, the Commission should approve a year-end rate base. The appropriate water rate base is $167,776 for the test year ended December 31, 2017.
What is the appropriate return on equity and overall rate of return for Country Walk?
The appropriate return on equity (ROE) is 8.11 percent with a range of 7.11 percent to 9.11 percent. The appropriate overall rate of return is 8.08 percent.
What are the appropriate test year revenues for Country Walk Utilities, Inc.?
The appropriate test year revenues are $29,364.
What are the appropriate test year operating expenses for Country Walk?
The appropriate amount of test year total operating expenses for the Utility is $43,405.
What is the appropriate revenue requirement?
The appropriate revenue requirement is $56,960, resulting in an annual increase of $27,596 or 93.98 percent.
What are the appropriate rate structure and rates for Country Walk?
The recommended rate structure and monthly water rates are shown on Schedule No. 4 of staff’s memorandum dated October 18, 2018. 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 this notice.
What are the appropriate initial customer deposits for Country Walk?
The appropriate initial customer deposits should be $120 for the residential 5/8 inch x 3/4 inch meter size. The initial customer deposits for all other residential meter sizes and all general service meter sizes should be two times the average estimated monthly bill. The approved initial customer deposits should be effective for connections made on or after the stamped approval date on the tariff sheets pursuant to Rule 25-30.475, F.A.C. The Utility should be required to collect the approved deposits until authorized to change them by the Commission in a subsequent proceeding.
Should Country Walk's request to implement a $6.50 late payment charge be approved?
Yes. The Utility's request to implement a $6.50 late payment
charge should be approved. Country Walk should be required to file a proposed customer
notice to reflect the Commission-approved charge. The approved charge should be
effective on or after the stamped approval date on the tariff sheet pursuant to
Rule 25-30.475(1), F.A.C. In addition, the approved charge should not be
implemented until staff has approved the proposed customer notice and the
notice has been received by customers. The Utility should provide proof of the
date notice was given no less than 10 days after the date of the notice.
What are the appropriate miscellaneous service charges for Country Walk?
The miscellaneous service charges identified in Table 11-5 of staff’s memorandum dated October 18, 2018, 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, 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 12: What is the appropriate
amount by which rates should be reduced in four years after the published
effective date to reflect the removal of the amortized rate case expense as
required by Section 367.0816, F.S.?
The water rates should be reduced, as shown on Schedule No. 4-A of staff’s memorandum dated October 18, 2018, to remove rate case expense grossed-up for RAFs 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 367.081, F.S. Country Walk 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 the Utility 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. (Final Agency Action)
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 other than the Utility?
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 with interest, in the event of a protest filed by a party other than the Utility. Country Walk 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 October 18, 2018. 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’s Office of Commission Clerk 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. The report filed should also indicate the status of the security being used to guarantee repayment of any potential refund. (Final Agency Action)
Should the Utility be required to notify the Commission within 90 days of an effective order finalizing this docket, that it has adjusted its books consistent with the applicable National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners (NARUC) Uniform System of Accounts (USOA) for all Commission-approved adjustments?
Yes. The Utility should be required to notify the Commission, in writing, that it has adjusted its books in accordance with the Commission's decision. Country Walk should submit a letter within 90 days of the final order in this docket, confirming that the adjustments to all the applicable NARUC USOA accounts have been made to the Utility’s books and records. In the event the Utility needs additional time to complete the adjustments, notice should be provided within seven days prior to deadline. Upon providing good cause, staff should be given administrative authority to grant an extension of up to 60 days. (Final Agency Action)
Should this docket be closed?
No. 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, and the Utility has submitted a letter to staff confirming that
the adjustments to all the applicable NARUC USOA primary accounts as shown on
Attachment A of staff’s memorandum dated October 18, 2018, have been made to
the Utility’s books and records. Once these actions are complete, this
docket should be closed administratively.
7** Docket No. 20180149-EI – Petition for a limited proceeding to approve first solar base rate adjustment, by Duke Energy Florida, LLC.
|
Critical Date(s): |
60-Day clock waived by Utility until 10/30/2018 |
||
|
Commissioners Assigned: |
All Commissioners |
||
|
Prehearing Officer: |
Fay |
||
|
Staff: |
ENG: Mtenga, Ellis, King ECO: Guffey, Draper GCL: J. Crawford, Davis, Nieves |
||
Issue 1:
Should the Commission approve DEF’s tariffs filed on August 24, 2018?
Yes. The Commission should approve DEF’s tariffs filed on August 24, 2018, appended as Attachment A of staff’s memorandum dated October 18, 2018. The tariffs should go into effect with the first billing cycle in January 2019. The base rate increase associated with the Hamilton Project should be subject to refund, pending the Commission’s final determination regarding the Hamilton and Columbia Projects following the April administrative hearing. If the in-service date of the Hamilton Project is delayed, then the tariffs reflecting the Hamilton Project should become effective, subject to refund, with the first billing cycle after the Hamilton Project is placed in commercial service and the Commission should provide staff authority to administratively approve the tariffs at the appropriate time. If the in-service date of the Hamilton Project and/or Citrus Unit 2 is delayed, DEF should notify staff of the delay(s) and file revised tariffs, for administrative approval by staff, effective with the first billing cycle of January 2019 to remove the portion of the base rate increase associated with those units.
Issue 2:
Should this docket be closed?
No. The docket should remain open pending the Commission’s final decision on DEF’s petition.
8**PAA Docket No. 20180152-EQ – Petition for approval to terminate qualifying facility power purchase agreement with Ridge Generating Station, L.P., by Duke Energy Florida, LLC.
|
Critical Date(s): |
December 31, 2018 (Termination Agreement Closing Date) |
||
|
Commissioners Assigned: |
All Commissioners |
||
|
Prehearing Officer: |
Clark |
||
|
Staff: |
ENG: Lee AFD: Andrews ECO: Higgins GCL: DuVal |
||
Issue 1:
Should the Commission approve the Termination Agreement and the requested regulatory treatment of the termination payment?
Yes. Based on staff’s review, the Termination Agreement is expected to save DEF and its customers between $30 and $35 million in net present value (NPV) and should be approved. Recovery of the termination payment as a regulatory asset through the Capacity Clause should also be approved.
Issue 2:
Should this docket be closed?
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.
9** Docket No. 20180134-WU – Application for quick-take amendment of Certificate No. 450-W in Lake County by Pine Harbour Waterworks, Inc.
|
Critical Date(s): |
None |
||
|
Commissioners Assigned: |
All Commissioners |
||
|
Prehearing Officer: |
Polmann |
||
|
Staff: |
ENG: Salvador, Watts GCL: Schrader |
||
Issue 1:
Should Pine Harbour be required to show cause why it should not be fined for an apparent violation of Section 367.045(2), F.S., for serving customers outside of its Commission approved territory?
No. A show cause proceeding for Pine Harbour’s potential violation of Section 367.045, F.S., should not be initiated as it appears that the Utility unknowingly serviced customers outside of its certificated territory. Such conduct would not be a willful violation of Chapter 367, F.S., or a lawful rule or order of the Commission, and thus, would not be subject to penalties pursuant to Section 367.161, F.S.
Issue 2:
Should the Commission acknowledge Pine Harbour Waterworks, Inc.’s quick-take application to amend Certificate No. 450-W to extend its service territory in Lake County?
Yes. The Commission should acknowledge Pine Harbour’s application to extend its service territory. The rates and charges approved by the Commission for Pine Harbour’s service area should be applied to the customers in the new service territory. The resultant order should serve as Pine Harbour’s amended certificate and it should be retained by the Utility.
Issue 3:
Should this docket be closed?
Yes. No further action is necessary in this docket; it should be closed upon issuance of a Final Order.
10**PAA Docket No. 20180022-WU – Application for staff-assisted rate case in Lake County by Pine Harbour Waterworks, Inc.
|
Critical Date(s): |
06/19/19 (15-Month Effective Date (SARC)) |
||
|
Commissioners Assigned: |
All Commissioners |
||
|
Prehearing Officer: |
Clark |
||
|
Staff: |
AFD: Golden, Wilson ECO: Friedrich ENG: Lewis, Salvador GCL: DuVal |
||
(Proposed Agency Action - Except for Issue
Nos. 10, 11, and 12)
Is the quality of service provided by Pine Harbour satisfactory?
Yes. Pine Harbour is in compliance with the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) rules and regulations. Additionally, the Utility appears to be responding adequately to the water quality concerns of its customers. Therefore, staff recommends that the overall quality of service provided by Pine Harbour be considered satisfactory.
What is the used and useful (U&U) percentage of Pine Harbour’s water treatment plant, storage, and distribution system?
Pine Harbour’s water treatment plant, storage and water distribution system should be considered 100 percent U&U. Staff recommends that a 10.1 percent adjustment to operating expenses for chemicals and purchased power should be made for excessive unaccounted for water (EUW).
What is the appropriate average test year rate base for Pine Harbour?
The appropriate average test year rate base for Pine Harbour is $36,616.
What is the appropriate rate of return on equity and overall rate of return for Pine Harbour?
The appropriate return on equity (ROE) is 8.11 percent with a range of 7.11 percent to 9.11 percent. The appropriate overall rate of return is 8.10 percent.
What are the appropriate test year revenues for Pine Harbour?
The appropriate test year revenues for Pine Harbour are $23,887.
What is the appropriate amount of operating expense?
The appropriate amount of operating expense for the Utility is $31,327.
What is the appropriate revenue requirement?
The appropriate revenue requirement is $34,292, resulting in an annual increase of $10,405 (43.56 percent).
What are the appropriate rate structure and rates for Pine Harbour?
The recommended rate structure and monthly water rates are shown on Schedule No. 4 of staff’s memorandum dated September 28, 2018. 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.
What are the appropriate initial customer deposits for Pine Harbour?
The appropriate initial customer deposit is $80 for the residential 5/8” x 3/4" meter size. The initial customer deposit for all other residential meter sizes and all general service meter sizes should be two times the average estimated bill. The approved initial customer deposits should be effective for service rendered or connections made on or after the stamped approval date on the tariff sheets pursuant to Rule 25-30.475, F.A.C. The Utility should be required to collect the approved initial customer deposits until authorized to change them by the Commission in a subsequent proceeding.
What is the appropriate amount by which rates should be reduced four years after the published effective date to reflect the removal of the amortized rate case expense?
The water rates should be reduced as shown on Schedule No. 4 of staff’s memorandum dated September 28, 2018, 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 Pine Harbour 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. (Final Agency Action)
Should the recommended rates be approved for Pine Harbour on a temporary basis, subject to refund, in the event of a protest filed by a party other than the Utility?
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 September 28, 2018. 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 Office of Commission Clerk 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. (Final Agency Action)
Should Pine Harbour be required to notify the Commission, in writing, that it has adjusted its books in accordance with the Commission’s decision?
Yes. The Utility should be required to notify the Commission, in writing, that it has adjusted its books in accordance with the Commission's decision. Pine Harbour should submit a letter within 90 days of the final order in this docket, confirming that the adjustments to all the applicable National Association of Regulatory Commissioners (NARUC) Uniform System of Accounts (USOA) primary accounts as shown on Schedule No. 5 of staff’s memorandum dated September 28, 2018, have been made to the Utility’s books and records. In the event the Utility needs additional time to complete the adjustments, notice should be provided within seven days prior to the deadline. Upon providing good cause, staff should be given administrative authority to grant an extension of up to 60 days. (Final Agency Action)
Should this docket be closed?
No. 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, and the Utility has submitted a letter to staff confirming that
the adjustments to all the applicable NARUC USOA primary accounts as shown on
Schedule No. 5 of staff’s memorandum dated September 28, 2018, have been made
to the Utility’s books and records. Once these actions are complete, this
docket should be closed administratively.
11**PAA Docket No. 20170151-WS – Application for authority to transfer water and wastewater Certificate Nos. 577-W and 498-S in Manatee County, from Heather Hills Estates Utilities, LLC to Heather Hills Utilities, LLC.
|
Critical Date(s): |
None |
||
|
Commissioners Assigned: |
All Commissioners |
||
|
Prehearing Officer: |
Brown |
||
|
Staff: |
ENG: Watts, O. Wooten AFD: Sewards ECO: Sibley GCL: Trierweiler |
||
(Proposed Agency Action for Issues 2 and 3)
Issue 1:
Should the application for transfer of Certificate Nos. 577-W and 498-S in Manatee County, from Heather Hills Estate Utilities, LLC to Heather Hills Utilities, LLC be approved?
Yes. The transfer of the water and wastewater systems and Certificate Nos. 577-W and 498-S is in the public interest and should be approved effective the date of the Commission’s vote. The resultant order should serve as the Buyer’s certificate and should be retained by the Buyer. The existing rates and charges should remain in effect until a change is authorized by the Commission in a subsequent proceeding. The tariffs reflecting the transfer should be effective for services rendered or connections made on or after the stamped approval date on the tariffs, pursuant to Rule 25-30.475, F.A.C. The Seller paid all Regulatory Assessment Fees (RAFs) through December 31, 2017. The Buyer should be responsible for paying RAFs after December 31, 2017, and all future years. The Buyer has filed the 2017 Annual Report, and should be responsible for filing all future annual reports.
Issue 2:
What is the appropriate net book value for the Heather Hills Utilities, LLC water and wastewater systems for transfer purposes and should an acquisition adjustment be approved?
For transfer purposes, the net book value (NBV) of the water system is $40,553, and for the wastewater system is $389, as of April 7, 2017. An acquisition adjustment should not be included in rate base. Within 90 days of the date of the final order, Heather Hills should be required to notify the Commission in writing, that it has adjusted its books in accordance with the Commission’s decision. The adjustments should be reflected in the 2018 Annual Report when filed.
Issue 3:
Should the requested initial customer deposits for Heather Hills Utilities, LLC be approved?
Yes. The appropriate initial customer deposits for the residential 5/8 inch x 3/4 inch meter size are approximately $78 for water and $124 for wastewater. The initial customer deposit for all other residential meter sizes and all general service meter sizes should be two times the average estimated quarterly bill for water and wastewater. The approved initial customer deposits should be effective for connections made on or after the stamped approval date on the tariff sheets pursuant to Rule 25-30.475, F.A.C. The Utility should be required to collect the approved initial customer deposits until authorized to change them by the Commission in a subsequent proceeding.
Issue 4:
Should the corrected legal description of the original Heather Hills water and wastewater service territory shown in Attachment A of staff’s memorandum dated September 28, 2018, be approved?
Yes. The corrected legal description of the original Heather Hills water and wastewater service territory shown in Attachment A of staff’s memorandum dated September 28, 2018, which removes the golf course clubhouse/restaurant, should be approved. The resulting order should serve as Certificate Nos. 577-W and 498-S and should be retained by Heather Hills Utilities, LLC.
Issue 5:
Should this docket be closed?
If no protest to the proposed agency action is filed by a substantially affected person within 21 days of the date of the issuance of the order, a consummating order should be issued and the docket should be closed administratively upon Commission staff’s verification that the revised tariff sheets have been filed and the Buyer has notified the Commission in writing that it has adjusted its books in accordance with the Commission’s decision.
12**PAA Docket No. 20170220-WS – Application for approval of transfer of Lake Yale Treatments Associates, Inc. water and wastewater systems and Certificate Nos. 560-W and 488-S in Lake County to Lake Yale Utilities, LLC.
|
Critical Date(s): |
None |
||
|
Commissioners Assigned: |
All Commissioners |
||
|
Prehearing Officer: |
Clark |
||
|
Staff: |
ENG: Watts, Salvador AFD: Johnson, Norris ECO: Sibley GCL: Brownless |
||
(Proposed Agency Action for Issues 2 and 3)
Issue 1:
Should the application for transfer of Certificate Nos. 560-W and 488-S in Lake County, from Lake Yale Treatments Associates, Inc. to Lake Yale Utilities, LLC be approved?
Yes, the transfer of Certificate Nos. 560-W and 488-S in Lake County is in the public interest and should be approved effective the date of the Commission’s vote. The resultant order should serve as the Buyer’s certificates and should be retained by the Buyer. The existing rates and charges should remain in effect until a change is authorized by the Commission in a subsequent proceeding. The tariffs reflecting the transfer should be effective for services rendered or connections made on or after the stamped approval date on the tariffs pursuant to Rule 25-30.475, Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.). The Regulatory Assessment Fees (RAFs) have been paid through December 31, 2017. The Buyer should be responsible for filing the 2018 Annual Report and all future Annual Reports, and RAFs.
Issue 2: What is the appropriate net book value for Lake Yale Utilities, LLC’s water and wastewater system for transfer purposes and should an acquisition adjustment be approved?
The net book value of the water and wastewater systems for transfer purposes are $103,961 and $19,287, respectively, as of June 30, 2017. An acquisition adjustment should not be included in rate base. Within 90 days of the date of the final order, Lake Yale should be required to notify the Commission in writing that it has adjusted its books in accordance with the Commission’s decision. The adjustments should be reflected in the 2018 Annual Report when filed.
Issue 3:
Should the requested initial customer deposits for Lake Yale Utilities, LLC be approved?
Yes. The appropriate initial customer deposits for the residential 5/8 inch x 3/4 inch meter size are $28 for water and $33 for wastewater. The initial customer deposit for all other residential meter sizes and all general service meter sizes should be two times the average estimated bill for water and wastewater. The approved initial customer deposits should be effective for connections made on or after the stamped approval date on the tariff sheets pursuant to Rule 25-30.475, F.A.C. The Utility should be required to collect the approved initial customer deposits until authorized to change them by the Commission in a subsequent proceeding.
Issue 4:
Should this docket be closed?
If no protest to the proposed agency action is filed by a substantially affected person within 21 days of the date of the issuance of the order, a consummating order should be issued and the docket should be closed administratively upon Commission staff’s verification that the revised tariff sheets have been filed and the Buyer has notified the Commission in writing that it has adjusted its books in accordance with the Commission’s decision.
13** Docket No. 20180158-GU – Joint petition for approval of swing service rider, by Florida Public Utilities Company, Florida Public Utilities Company-Indiantown Division, Florida Public Utilities Company-Fort Meade, and Florida Division of Chesapeake Utilities Corporation.
|
Critical Date(s): |
10/30/18 (60-Day Suspension Date) |
||
|
Commissioners Assigned: |
All Commissioners |
||
|
Prehearing Officer: |
Administrative |
||
|
Staff: |
ECO: Doherty GCL: Nieves |
||
Issue 1:
Should the Commission approve FPUC's and Chesapeake’s revised swing service rider rates for the period January through December 2019?
Yes. The Commission should approve FPUC's and Chesapeake’s swing service rider rates for the period January through December 2019. The costs included are appropriate and the methodology for calculating the swing service rider rates is consistent with the swing service order.
Issue 2: Should this docket be closed?
Yes. 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. 20180163-GU – Joint petition for approval of GRIP cost recovery factors, by Florida Public Utilities Company, Florida Public Utilities Company-Fort Meade, and Florida Division of Chesapeake Utilities Corporation.
|
Critical Date(s): |
11/5/2018 (60-Day Suspension Date) |
||
|
Commissioners Assigned: |
All Commissioners |
||
|
Prehearing Officer: |
Administrative |
||
|
Staff: |
ECO: Merryday AFD: D. Buys, Cicchetti GCL: Davis |
||
Issue 1:
Should the Commission approve FPUC’s, Chesapeake’s, and Fort Meade’s proposed GRIP surcharges for the period January through December 2019?
Yes, the Commission should approve FPUC’s, Chesapeake’s, and Fort Meade’s proposed GRIP surcharges for the period January through December 2019.
Issue 2:
Should this docket be closed?
Yes. 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.
15** Docket No. 20180173-GU – Petition for approval of 2017 true-up, projected 2018 true-up, and 2019 revenue requirements and surcharges associated with cast iron/bare steel pipe replacement rider, by Peoples Gas System.
|
Critical Date(s): |
11/13/2018 (60-Day Suspension Date) |
||
|
Commissioners Assigned: |
All Commissioners |
||
|
Prehearing Officer: |
Administrative |
||
|
Staff: |
ECO: Merryday AFD: D. Buys, Cicchetti, Hightower GCL: Trierweiler |
||
Issue 1:
Should the Commission approve Peoples’ proposed rider surcharges for 2019?
Yes, the Commission should approve Peoples’ proposed 2019 rider surcharges as revised on October 17, 2018, for the period January through December 2019.
Issue 2:
Should this docket be closed?
Yes. 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.
16** Docket No. 20180164-GU – Petition for approval of safety, access, and facility enhancement program true-up and 2019 cost recovery factors, by Florida City Gas.
|
Critical Date(s): |
11/05/18 (60-day Suspension Date) |
||
|
Commissioners Assigned: |
All Commissioners |
||
|
Prehearing Officer: |
Administrative |
||
|
Staff: |
ECO: Guffey AFD: D. Buys, Cicchetti, Hightower GCL: Davis |
||
Issue 1:
Should the Commission approve City Gas's proposed SAFE factors for the period January through December 2019?
Yes. The Commission should approve City Gas’s proposed SAFE factors for the period January through December 2019.
Issue 2:
Should this docket be closed?
Recommendation: Yes.
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**PAA Docket No. 20170219-WS – Application for staff-assisted rate case in Polk County by River Ranch Water Management, L.L.C.
|
Critical Date(s): |
03/11/19 (15-Month Effective Date (SARC)) |
||
|
Commissioners Assigned: |
All Commissioners |
||
|
Prehearing Officer: |
Clark |
||
|
Staff: |
ECO: Bruce AFD: Galloway ENG: Mtenga GCL: DuVal, Dziechciarz |
||
(Proposed Agency Action - Except Issue Nos.
13, 14, and 15)
Is the quality of service provided by River Ranch satisfactory?
Yes. Staff recommends that the overall quality of service provided by River Ranch is satisfactory.
What are the used and useful (U&U) percentages of River Ranch’s water treatment plant (WTP), water distribution system, water storage, WWTP, and wastewater collection system?
Staff recommends that River Ranch’s WTP, water distribution system, water storage, WWTP, and wastewater collection system should be considered 100 percent U&U. Staff does not recommend an adjustment to chemicals and purchased power for excessive unaccounted for water (EUW) or excessive inflow and infiltration (I&I).
What is the appropriate average test year water rate base and wastewater rate base for River Ranch?
The appropriate average test year water rate base for River Ranch is $639,343 and the appropriate average test year wastewater rate base is $375,275.
What is the appropriate return on equity and overall rate of return for River Ranch?
The appropriate return on equity (ROE) is 8.11 percent with a range of 7.11 percent to 9.11 percent. The appropriate overall rate of return is 8.11 percent.
What are the appropriate amounts of test year revenues for the water and wastewater systems?
The appropriate test year revenues are $137,305 for the water system and $167,826 for the wastewater system.
What is the appropriate amount of operating expenses for River Ranch?
The appropriate amounts of operating expenses are $119,229 for water and $197,694 for wastewater.
What is the appropriate revenue requirement?
The appropriate revenue requirements are $171,080 for water and $228,129 for wastewater, resulting in an annual increase of $33,775 for water (24.60 percent) and $60,303 for wastewater (35.93 percent).
What are the appropriate rate structures and rates for River Ranch's water and wastewater systems?
The recommended rate structures and monthly water and wastewater rates are shown on Schedule Nos. 4-A and 4-B of staff’s memorandum dated September 28, 2018. 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. Furthermore, the utility should provide the additional monthly usage reporting and notification requirements.
What are the appropriate initial customer deposits for River Ranch's water and wastewater systems?
The appropriate initial customer deposits should be $37 for the single family residential 5/8 inch x 3/4 inch meter size for water and $45 for the single family residential 5/8 inch x 3/4 inch meter size for wastewater. The initial customer deposits for all other residential meter sizes and all general service meter sizes should be two times the average estimated bill for water and wastewater. The approved initial customer deposits should be effective for connections made on or after the stamped approval date on the tariff sheets pursuant to Rule 25-30.475, F.A.C. The utility should be required to collect the approved deposits until authorized to change them by the Commission in a subsequent proceeding.
Should River Ranch be authorized to collect Non-Sufficient Funds (NSF) charges?
Yes. However, River Ranch’s request to implement a $26 NSF charge should be denied. River Ranch should be authorized to collect NSF charges set forth in Section 68.065, F.S. The NSF charges should be effective on or after the stamped approval date on the tariff sheets pursuant to Rule 25-30.475(1), F.A.C. Furthermore, the charges should not be implemented until staff has approved the proposed customer notice. The utility should provide proof of the date the notice was given within 10 days of the date of the notice.
Should River Ranch's request to implement a $6.00 late payment charge be approved?
Yes. River Ranch’s request to implement a $6.00 late payment charge should be approved. The utility should be required to file a proposed customer notice to reflect the Commission-approved charge. The approved charge should be effective 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 charge should not be implemented until staff has approved the proposed customer notice. The utility should provide proof of the date notice was given within 10 days after the date of the notice.
What are the appropriate miscellaneous service charges for River Ranch?
The miscellaneous service charges identified in Table 12-5 of staff’s memorandum dated September 28, 2018, are appropriate and should be approved. The charges should be effective on or after the stamped approval date on the tariffs pursuant to Rule 25-30.475, 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.
What is the appropriate amount by which the rates should be reduced four years after the published effective date to reflect the removal of the amortized rate case expense as required by Section 367.081(8), F.S.?
The water and wastewater rates for River Ranch should be reduced, as shown on Schedule Nos. 4-A and 4-B of staff’s memorandum dated September 28, 2018, 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, pursuant to Section 367.081(8), F.S. The utility should be required to file revised tariff sheets 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 River Ranch 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. (Final Agency Action)
Should the recommended rates be approved for River Ranch on a temporary basis, subject to refund, in the event of a protest filed by a party other than the utility?
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 September 28, 2018. 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. (Final Agency Action)
Should the utility be required to notify the Commission, in writing, that it has adjusted its books in accordance with the Commission’s decision?
Yes. River Ranch should be required to notify the Commission, in writing, that it has adjusted its books in accordance with the Commission’s decision. River Ranch should submit a letter within 90 days of the final order in this docket, confirming that the adjustments to all applicable National Association of Regulatory Commissioners (NARUC) Uniform System of Accounts (USOA) primary accounts have been made to the utility’s books and records. In the event the utility needs additional time to complete the adjustments, notice should be provided not less than seven days prior to the deadline. Upon providing good cause, staff should be given administrative authority to grant an extension of up to 60 days. (Final Agency Action)
Should this docket be closed?
No. 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, and the utility has provided staff with proof that the adjustments for all the applicable NARUC USOA primary accounts have been made. Also, this docket should remain open to allow the utility to provide the recommended reporting information and to allow staff to bring this item back to the Commission for further action upon evaluation of the 12 months of monthly usage data.
18** Docket No. 20180161-WS – Application for approval of tariff for the gross-up of CIAC for water and wastewater rates in Polk County, by Gold Coast Utility Corp.
|
Critical Date(s): |
10/30/18 (60-Day Suspension Date) |
||
|
Commissioners Assigned: |
All Commissioners |
||
|
Prehearing Officer: |
Administrative |
||
|
Staff: |
ECO: Bethea, Hudson AFD: Cicchetti GCL: J. Crawford |
||
Issue 1:
Should GCUC’s request for approval of a tariff to allow the gross-up of CIAC be approved?
Yes, the tariffs filed on August 31, 2018, should be approved. The utility should provide notice to all persons in the service areas included in the application who have filed a written request for service or who have been provided a written estimate for service within the 12 calendar months prior to the month the application was filed. The approved gross-up charges should be effective for connections made on or after the stamped approval date on the tariff sheets. The utility should provide proof of noticing within 10 days of rendering its approved notice.
Issue 2:
Should this docket be closed?
If a protest is filed by a substantially affected person within 21 days of 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, the order should become final upon the issuance of a consummating order. However, the docket should remain open to allow staff to verify that the appropriate notice has been filed by the utility and approved by staff. Once the utility has provided proof of noticing, the docket should be closed administratively.