Case Background
On October 2,
2018, Tampa Electric Company (TECO or utility) filed a petition for approval of
a tariff modification relating to refusal or discontinuation of service. The
proposed tariff modification is designed to protect TECO’s field employees from
dangerous situations resulting from customer threats, as numerous incidents
have occurred recently. The Commission approved a similar tariff for Florida
Power & Light Company (FPL) in 1996. Peoples Gas System, a division of TECO,
filed a similar petition in Docket No. 20180183-GU. The utility’s proposed
tariff modification is shown in Attachment A to the recommendation. On October
3, 2018, TECO provided a letter waiving the 60-day file and suspend provision
of Section 366.06(3), Florida Statutes (F.S.), until the December 11, 2018
Agenda Conference. TECO responded to staff’s data requests on October 26, 2018,
and November 6, 2018. The Commission has jurisdiction pursuant to Sections
366.04, 366.05, and 366.06, F.S.
Discussion
of Issues
Issue 1:
Should the Commission approve TECO's proposed tariff
modification as shown in Attachment A to the recommendation?
Recommendation:
Yes, the Commission should approve TECO’s proposed tariff
modification as shown in Attachment A to the recommendation. The proposed
tariff modification is consistent with the tariff provision the Commission
approved for FPL and is consistent with Rule 25-6.105, Florida Administrative
Code (F.A.C.). The proposed tariff modification should become effective on
December 11, 2018. (Merryday)
Staff Analysis:
The utility states that
its field employees have experienced a number of threats, assaults, and
harassments made by customers. In response to staff’s first data request, the
utility detailed some of these threats, which ranged from threats against
utility property to physical harm of employees.
Utilities currently have the ability to disconnect or
refuse service for conditions specified in Rule 25-6.105, F.A.C. Specifically, Rule
25-6.105(5)(f), F.A.C., allows electric utilities to refuse or discontinue
service for neglect or refusal to provide safe and reasonable access to the
utility provided that written notice be given to the customer. Rule 25-6.105(5)(h),
F.A.C., allows the utility to disconnect service without notice in the event of
a condition known to the utility to be hazardous.
TECO’s current tariff provides the conditions under which
TECO may refuse or discontinue service. As shown in Attachment A to the
recommendation, the proposed tariff modification adds subsection (12) to tariff
sheet No. 5.150. Subsection (12) states that the utility may refuse or discontinue
service:
[f]or actions or threats made by a customer, or anyone
on the customer’s premises, which are reasonably perceived by a Company
employee as violent or unsafe, after affording the customer reasonable
opportunity to cease from any further act of violence or unsafe condition.
As stated in the case background, the Commission approved
a similar tariff for FPL in 1996. Like TECO’s proposed tariff, FPL’s approved
tariff allows FPL to discontinue service as a result of threats made against
employees.
To assure that unwarranted disconnections do not occur,
the utility explained that the Corporate Security Department will investigate
threat incidents and verify whether the actions or threats made by the customer
have created a dangerous condition warranting disconnection. TECO’s head of
corporate security will notify the utility’s Customer Service Department of
valid incidents and will decide whether or not a disconnection notice will be
issued to the customer.
In the instances where a customer’s service is being
refused pursuant to the proposed tariff modification, the utility stated it
will notify the customer as soon as practicable of the reason for refusal of
service. The utility states that in most cases, a disconnection will have
already taken place, and the restoration of service is what is being denied. TECO
notes that it does not take disconnection of its customers or refusal of
service lightly and that disconnecting or refusing service will be considered
an extreme event that will follow other efforts to remedy the situation, up to
and including law enforcement or security escorts. Once the threatening
condition is resolved to the utility’s satisfaction, the utility will reconnect
the customer.
Staff has
reviewed TECO’s petition and responses to data requests and believes TECO’s
proposed tariff modification is warranted. Additionally, the proposed tariff
modification is consistent with the tariff provision the Commission approved
for FPL and is consistent with Rule 25-6.105, F.A.C. Therefore, staff
recommends approval of TECO’s proposed tariff modification. The proposed tariff
modification should become effective on December 11, 2018.
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 tariff should be suspended
pending resolution of the protest. If no timely protest is filed, this docket
should be closed upon the issuance of a consummating order. (Brownless)
Staff Analysis:
If Issue 1 is approved and a protest is filed within
21 days of the issuance of the order, the tariff should be suspended pending
resolution of the protest. If no timely protest is filed, this docket should be
closed upon the issuance of a consummating order.
