Case Background
On March 20, 2020, Gulf Power Company (Gulf
or utility) filed a petition with the Commission that
seeks to revise its budget billing tariff. This revision would affect
customers participating in the optional budget billing tariff that also have
outdoor lighting service. The proposed
revisions would remove the costs associated with Rate Schedule OS
(outdoor lighting tariff), from inclusion in the budget billing calculation. Rather,
the outdoor lighting tariff costs would be charged as a separate line item on
the customer’s bill. The utility states that this change is necessary as a
result of modifications to its account management system. This petition would
modify Tariff Sheet Nos. 6.32, 6.32.1, and 6.33, as
shown in legislative format in Attachment A to the recommendation.
During the review of this petition, staff
issued a data request to Gulf on March 31, 2020, for which responses were
received on April 14, 2020. The Commission has jurisdiction over this matter
pursuant to Sections 366.03, 366.04, 366.05, and 366.06, Florida Statutes
(F.S.).
Discussion
of Issues
Issue 1:
Should the Commission
approve Gulf's proposed modifications to its budget billing tariff?
Recommendation:
Yes, the Commission should
approve Gulf's proposed modifications to its budget billing tariff effective
June 9, 2020. (Forrest)
Staff Analysis:
The optional budget billing tariff provides
customers with stable electric bills by averaging and leveling out energy costs
over an annual cycle. This allows participating customers to pay approximately
the same amount each month. Currently, a customer participating in the
utility’s outdoor lighting tariff would have the lighting costs incorporated
into its budget billing calculation and billing amount. In February 2020, the
utility transitioned to a new customer management program called Customer
Account Management System (CAMS). Gulf states that the new system does not allow
the outdoor lighting tariff costs to be incorporated into the budget billing
calculation.
According to Gulf, the CAMS system requires
electric and multi-service accounts, like outdoor lighting, to be viewed and
treated as two separate contracts under one single account. This technical
limitation does not allow for budget billing to occur across multiple
contracts. Therefore, the utility must remove the outdoor lighting contract
from the budget bill calculation, while keeping the electric contract on budget
billing.
Gulf states that customers enrolled in the
outdoor lighting tariff incur an average monthly usage charge of $11.10 for
lighting services. Due to the limited fluctuations in outdoor lighting usage,
these customers would only see a small fluctuation in their bills as a result
of the lighting costs being a separate line item charge. Currently, Gulf states
that this change would affect approximately 5,000 of the 38,000 budget billing
customers. The affected outdoor lighting tariff customers will be notified of
the change pursuant to the terms of the budget billing tariff. Any over/under
billing will be charged or refunded in accordance with the terms of Gulf’s
budget billing tariff.
Conclusion
According to Gulf, the company’s recently installed
customer billing system will not allow for customer outdoor lighting tariff
costs to be incorporated into the budget billing calculation. In addition, due to the limited fluctuation
in outdoor lighting bills, removing the lighting billing from the budget
billing calculation would not adversely impact customers. For the reasons
stated above, staff believes that the proposed changes to Gulf’s budget billing
tariff are appropriate. Gulf stated that impacted customers would be notified
via a bill message on their next bill. Staff recommends that the
Commission should approve Gulf’s proposed modifications to its budget billing tariff
effective June 9, 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. (Trierweiler)
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.
