Case Background
FIMC Hideaway,
Inc. (FIMC or Utility) is a Class C utility that was granted water and
wastewater certificates in 1984 to serve the Hideaway development when Levy
County transferred jurisdiction to the Florida Public Service Commission
(Commission) in 1983.[1] The Hideaway systems were transferred to
Florida Investors Mortgage Corporation Hideaway, Inc. in 1992 following its foreclosure
on the Utility.[2] Subsequently, the Commission approved a
transfer of majority organizational control in 2005.[3] In 2009, the Commission approved the
transfer of the Springside water and wastewater systems from Par Utilities,
Inc. to FIMC.[4] The Hideaway and Springside water and
wastewater systems were interconnected in April 2013.
On June 22,
2017, FIMC filed an application for a staff-assisted rate case. Pursuant to
Order No. PSC-2018-0389-PAA-WS, the Commission approved
rates and charges for FIMC. Order No. PSC-2018-0389-PAA-WS additionally
ordered:
[T]he
overall quality of service provided by FIMC Hideaway, Inc. shall be considered
marginal until the utility can sufficiently demonstrate that it meets the
Department of Environmental Protection’s [DEP] secondary water standards. The
[U]tility shall file the results of its next primary and secondary water
standards tests with this Commission in this docket by November 1, 2018. If the
results are unfavorable, our staff will bring this item to this Commission by
March 1, 2019, for further action.
By email, on October 8, 2018,
FIMC provided Commission staff with the results of its 2018 DEP primary and
secondary water tests. The test results indicated that the water service provided
by the Utility continued to exceed certain DEP secondary standards for sulfates
and total dissolved solids.
Pursuant to Order No. PSC-2019-0074-PAA-WS, issued February
25, 2019, the Commission directed FIMC to create an estimate of costs and
benefits of a plausible solution to reduce sulfates and total dissolved solids
to a level that is within DEP standards. That Order additionally stated:
We further direct
FIMC to meet with its customers within 60-90 days of the issuance of this Order. The Utility shall provide the Office of
Public Counsel and our staff with notification of the customer meeting date. In
its meeting with customers, the Utility shall discuss the estimated costs and
benefits of and time necessary for implementing a plausible solution to reduce
sulfates and total dissolved solids to a level that is within acceptable DEP
standards. The Utility shall report the results of the customer meeting to us within
30 days after the meeting is held. This
item shall be brought back before us by the August 6, 2019 Commission
Conference.
This recommendation addresses
the Utility’s actions, as directed by Order No. PSC-2019-0074-PAA-WS. The
Commission has jurisdiction pursuant to Sections 367.011, 367.081, 367.0812,
367.0814, and 367.091, Florida Statutes (F.S.).
Discussion
of Issues
Issue 1:
Has FIMC Hideaway, Inc., complied with the
requirements of Order No. PSC-2019-0074-PAA-WS?
Recommendation:
Yes. FIMC, with the assistance of the Florida Rural
Water Association (FRWA), has complied with the requirements of Order No.
PSC-2019-0074-PAA-WS. Furthermore, based on the results of the customer
meeting, staff recommends no additional action at this time with respect to
FIMC’s water quality. (Lewis)
Staff Analysis:
The
Commission’s directives in Order No. PSC-2019-0074-PAA-WS, are consistent with
the requirements found in Section 367.0812(2), F.S., which states:
(2)(a) In
determining the quality of water service, the commission shall consider a
finding by the Department of Environmental Protection as to whether the utility
has failed to provide water service that meets the secondary water quality
standards of the department.
(b) The utility
shall create an estimate of the costs and benefits of a plausible solution to
each issue identified by the commission.
(c) The utility
shall meet with its customers within a time prescribed by the commission to
discuss the estimated costs and benefits of and time necessary for implementing
a plausible solution for each quality of water service issue identified, and
the utility shall report the results of such meetings to the commission.
(d) The utility
shall inform the commission, if:
1. The customers and
the utility agree on a solution for each quality of water service issue
identified, of each agreed-on solution and the cost of each solution; or
2. The customers and
the utility prefer a different solution to at least one of the quality of water
service issues identified, of the preferred solutions by each and the cost of
each solution.
By email communication dated April 18, 2019, the Utility
provided staff a copy of its customer meeting notice and indicated that it
provided the notice to its customers by email on April 10, 2019, and by hand
delivery between April 14, 2019, and April 17, 2019. The notice stated, in
part, that the goal of the meeting was to discuss viable options to enhance the
water quality that are amenable to the customers.
The FRWA assisted FIMC by identifying plausible solutions
for the Utility’s water service issues and developing cost and benefit estimates
for each solution. On April 24, 2019, the FRWA provided a draft presentation,
which included a summary of the plausible solutions, to staff. The FRWA’s draft
presentation was also shared with the Office of Public Counsel (OPC).
The plausible solutions, including estimated monetary costs,
identified by the FRWA are summarized below.
1.
Connect to another water system such as Fowlers Bluff
($25,000 per
connection or $121 per month per connection)
2.
Find another source, surface water or ground water
supply ($24,050 per connection or $116 per month per connection)
3.
Install additional treatment on the existing water
($10,000 per connection or $48 per month per connection)
4.
Accept current water quality, but do something for your
own home ($125 to $3,000 per connection)
The customer meeting was held on
May 1, 2019, at the same location that the customer meeting for the staff
assisted rate case was held. Approximately 35 customers attended the meeting as
well as representatives from Commission staff and the OPC. At the meeting, the
FRWA presented the plausible solutions and estimated costs and benefits. On May
28, 2019, the FRWA provided staff with a summary of the customer meeting. The
FRWA’s summary states the following:
During that meeting, options and costs for improving
water quality were presented. We described and discuss[ed] in detail the water
quality issues, possible solutions, costs, benefits, etc. We received customer
input. We asked if the customers and the [U]tility agreed on a solution or preferred
a different solution...[b]y a show of hands customers were in favor of option 4
and not in favor of options 1 through 3.
As previously stated, option 4 involved the customers
accepting the current water quality and doing something at their home.
Attachment A, which is appended to this recommendation, includes a copy of the FRWA’s
summary and presentation.
At the
conclusion of the meeting, Commission staff provided contact information to the
customers to allow further input if desired. Copies of the FRWA’s presentation
were also provided for attendees to take to any customers that were not able to
participate at the meeting. As of the date of the filing of this
recommendation, Commission staff has not been contacted by a customer of FIMC
regarding the Utility’s water quality.
Summary
Staff recommends that FIMC, with the assistance of the
FRWA, has complied with the requirements of Order No. PSC-2019-0074-PAA-WS.
Furthermore, based on the results of the customer meeting, staff recommends no
additional action at this time with respect to FIMC’s water quality.
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 this docket
should be closed administratively. (DuVal)
Staff Analysis:
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 this docket
should be closed administratively.
