Case Background
Florida Public
Utilities Company (FPUC), Florida Public Utilities Company - Indiantown
Division (Indiantown), Florida Public Utilities Company - Fort Meade (Fort
Meade), Florida Division of Chesapeake Utilities Corporation (Chesapeake), and
Peninsula Pipeline Company (Peninsula) (jointly, Companies) proposed tariff
revisions related to the description of gas quality and character of service. FPUC,
Indiantown, Fort Meade, and Chesapeake are local distribution companies (LDCs)
which own and operate natural gas distribution facilities to serve retail
customers and are subject to the Commission’s regulatory jurisdiction under
Chapter 366, Florida Statutes (F.S.). Peninsula operates as an intrastate
natural gas transmission company as defined in Section 368.103, F.S., and only
transports natural gas. The Companies
are affiliates or subsidiaries of Chesapeake Utilities Corporation.
The purpose of
the proposed tariff revisions is to require the quality of natural gas entering
the system to be consistent with the standards used by interstate pipelines. The
Companies have stated that the revisions do not impact rates, rate structure,
or terms and conditions of service; nor do they preclude the receipt of
renewable natural gas.
When initially providing
the revised tariffs to staff, the Companies requested that they be approved
administratively by staff. After review, staff determined that some
tariffs did not appear to meet the requirements to be approved administratively
as outlined in Section 2.07C-5(a) of the Commission’s Administrative Procedures
Manual. Specifically, Section 2.07C-5(a) does not provide for administrative
approval of tariffs filed by intrastate natural gas transmission companies,
such as Peninsula. On February 3, 2020, staff established this docket for
Commission review of the modified tariffs.
During the
evaluation of the petition, staff issued one data request to the Companies on
February 10, 2020, to which responses were filed on February 24, 2020. The
Companies’ revised tariff sheets are in Attachments 1 through 5 to this
recommendation. The Commission has
jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to Sections 366.05, 366.06, and 368.05,
368.104, F.S.
Discussion
of Issues
Issue 1:
Should the Commission approve the Companies’
proposed tariff revisions?
Recommendation:
Yes, the Commission should approve the Companies’
proposed tariff revisions, effective March 31, 2020. (Hampson)
Staff Analysis:
Currently, the Companies accept natural gas that
conforms to the quality standards set by the specific pipeline companies which
deliver gas to the Companies’ system. Under these revisions, natural gas that
is delivered from an interconnected pipeline will continue to be accepted at
the standards set by that specific pipeline. In addition, the Companies have now
proposed to establish gas quality standards, in each of their own tariffs, for
any gas entering the Companies’ system that does not come from an
interconnected pipeline.
The primary purpose of this change is to allow for the
receipt of a broader range of natural gas, while maintaining the integrity of the
distribution system and acceptable standards for customers. The proposed
Quality of Gas section includes a list of standards for gas that is not
delivered by interconnected pipelines, allowing the Companies to diversify
their natural gas supply mix. Gas not delivered by interconnected pipelines can
come from various sources, such as compressed, liquid, or renewable natural
gas. The same standards have been proposed for each Company to ensure consistency.
The proposed Quality of Gas chart specifies the maximum
allowable amount of various containments that could possibly be found in
natural gas. The chart
also defines ranges for specific natural gas properties, such as heating value.
Finally, there is an additional requirement that gas should be commercially
free of hazardous waste, solid or liquid matter, dust, gums, or any other
substance that may impact the merchantability of the gas or impact any
facilities the gas flows through.
Staff believes that the proposed Quality of Gas section is
comparable to the standards set by interstate pipelines transporting gas to
Florida, such as Florida Gas Transmission and Southern Natural Gas Company.
Additionally, these standards are similar to what is currently contained in Peoples
Gas System’s tariff.
In addition to the revisions discussed above, the LDC’s have
also requested to revise certain Character of Service sections. These revisions
are designed to reference the newly proposed Quality of Gas tariffs and include
a definition for transportation service.
These revisions do not alter service, but seek to reorganize and clarify the
tariffs. As such, staff recommends that they be approved as well. Due to the
structure of the tariffs, this revision must be made on each rate schedule, for
each utility.
Conclusion
After review of the revisions requested by the Companies,
staff believes that all revisions are reasonable and do not impact customer rates
nor the terms and conditions of service. Staff believes that the quality of gas
standards requested by the Companies to be reasonable and comparable to
standards previously approved by the Commission. Therefore, staff recommends
approval of the proposed tariff revisions, effective March 31, 2020.
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. (Stiller)
Staff Analysis:
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.
Attachment 1: Florida Public Utilities Company
Fourth Revised Sheet No. 11
Original Sheet No. 22.4
Nineteenth Revised Sheet No. 24
Sixth Revised Sheet No. 24.1
Fourteenth Revised Sheet No. 25
Twenty-first Revised Sheet No. 26
Seventh Revised Sheet No. 26.1
Nineteenth Revised Sheet No. 28
Twenty-second Revised Sheet No. 29
Eighteenth Revised Sheet No. 31
First Revised Sheet No. 33.3
Attachment 2: Florida
Public Utilities Company- Fort Meade
First
Revised Sheet No. 9
First Revised
Sheet No. 31
First Revised
Sheet No. 34
First Revised
Sheet No. 35
First Revised
Sheet No. 39
Second Revised
Sheet No.45
Second Revised Sheet
No. 53
Attachment 3: Florida
Public Utilities- Indiantown Division
Third Revised
Sheet No. 21
Third Revised
Sheet No. 22
Third Revised
Sheet No. 23
Third Revised
Sheet No. 25
Second Revised
Sheet No. 37
Second Revised
Sheet No. 53
Original Sheet No.
53.1
Attachment 4: Florida
Division of Chesapeake Utilities Corporation
Second Revised
Sheet No. 15
Second Revised
Sheet No. 61
Original Sheet No.
61.1
Second Revised
Sheet No. 71
Second Revised
Sheet No. 72
Second Revised
Sheet No. 73
Second Revised
Sheet No. 74
Second Revised
Sheet No. 75
Second Revised
Sheet No. 76
First Revised
Sheet No. 77
Second Revised
Sheet No. 78
First Revised
Sheet No. 78.1
First Revised
Sheet No. 78.2
Second Revised
Sheet No. 79
Second Revised
Sheet No. 80
First Revised
Sheet No. 80.1
First Revised
Sheet No. 80.2
Second Revised
Sheet No. 81
Second Revised
Sheet No. 82
Second Revised
Sheet No. 83
Second Revised
Sheet No. 84
Third Revised
Sheet No. 85
Third Revised
Sheet No. 86
Third Revised
Sheet No. 87
Third Revised
Sheet No. 88
Third Revised
Sheet No. 89
Second Revised
Sheet No. 90.1
Attachment 5: Peninsula
Pipeline Company
First Revised
Sheet No. 9
First Revised
Sheet No. 18
Original Sheet No.
18.1
