FLORIDA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION
COMMISSION CONFERENCE AGENDA
CONFERENCE DATE AND
TIME: Tuesday, July 7,
2020, 9:30 a.m.
LOCATION: Betty Easley Conference Center, Joseph P. Cresse Hearing Room 148
DATE ISSUED: June 26, 2020*
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.
Because the Commission is operating under a state of emergency due to
COVID-19, all public participation must be telephonic or by written
comment. To participate informally,
affected persons must either: (1)
request the opportunity to address the Commission telephonically on an
item listed on the agenda by contacting the Office of General Counsel at (850)
413-6199 by noon on July 6, 2020; or (2) file any written comments for a
particular item in the applicable Docket file by noon on July 6, 2020.
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 some other
state of emergency 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 |
|
Stanley Utility Contractor, Inc. |
|
DOCKET NO. |
COMPANY NAME |
|
20200023‑TS |
From: Accent Property Management, LLC d/b/a The Centers of Westshore To: Virtual Offices, Inc. d/b/a The Centers of Westshore |
Recommendation: The Commission should approve the action requested in the dockets referenced above and close these dockets.
2** Docket No. 20200119-WS – Proposed amendment of Rule 25-30.335, F.A.C., Customer Billing.
|
Rule Status: |
Proposed |
||
|
Commissioners Assigned: |
All Commissioners |
||
|
Prehearing Officer: |
Fay |
||
|
Staff: |
GCL: Cowdery ECO: Bruce, Guffey, Hudson, Sibley |
||
(Proposal May Be Deferred)
Issue 1:
Should the Commission propose the amendment of Rule 25-30.335, F.A.C., Customer Billing?
Yes, the Commission should propose the amendment of Rule 25-30.335, F.A.C., as set forth in Attachment A of staff’s memorandum dated June 24, 2020. The Commission should also certify Rule 25-30.335, F.A.C., as a minor violation rule.
Issue 2:
Should this docket be closed?
Yes. If no requests for hearing, information regarding the SERC, proposals for a lower cost regulatory alternative, or JAPC comments are filed, the rule should be filed with the Department of State, and the docket should be closed.
3** Docket No. 20190041-WS – Proposed adoption of Rule 25-30.0115, F.A.C., Definition of Landlord and Tenant.
|
Rule Status: |
Proposed |
||
|
Commissioners Assigned: |
All Commissioners |
||
|
Prehearing Officer: |
Administrative |
||
|
Staff: |
GCL: Cowdery ECO: Coston |
||
(Proposal May Be Deferred)
Issue 1:
Should this docket be closed?
Yes. Rulemaking to define “landlord” and “tenant” as used in Section 367.022(5), F.S., is unnecessary.
4** Docket No. 20180142-WS – Initiation of show cause proceedings against Palm Tree Acres Mobile Home Park, in Pasco County, for noncompliance with Section 367.031, F.S., and Rule 25-30.033, F.A.C.
|
Critical Date(s): |
None |
||
|
Commissioners Assigned: |
All Commissioners |
||
|
Prehearing Officer: |
Polmann |
||
|
Staff: |
GCL: DuVal, J. Crawford ENG: Knoblauch, Ramos |
||
Issue 1:
Should Palm Tree Acres be ordered to show cause in writing, within 21 days, as to why it should not be fined for providing water and wastewater service without first obtaining a certificate of authorization from the Commission, as required by Section 367.031, F.S., and Rule 25-30.033, F.A.C., and as to why it should not bring itself into compliance with the Commission’s statutes and rules?
No. A show cause proceeding should not be initiated because Palm Tree Acres is now exempt from the Commission’s jurisdiction pursuant to Section 367.022(14), F.S.
Issue 2:
Should this docket be closed?
This docket should be closed because no further action is required.
5**PAA Docket No. 20200147-TP – Petition for designation as eligible telecommunications carrier (ETC) in the State of Florida by TruConnect Communications, Inc.
|
Critical Date(s): |
None |
||
|
Commissioners Assigned: |
All Commissioners |
||
|
Prehearing Officer: |
Graham |
||
|
Staff: |
GCL: Weisenfeld, Tan IDM: Deas, Yglesias de Ayala |
||
Issue 1:
Should the Commission grant TruConnect Communications, Inc. ETC status in Florida?
No. Staff recommends that the Commission should not grant TruConnect Communications, Inc. ETC status in Florida.
Issue 2:
Should this docket be closed?
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 Proposed Agency Action Order, this docket should be closed upon the issuance of a consummating order.
6** Docket No. 20200151-EI – Petition for approval of a regulatory asset to record costs incurred due to COVID-19, by Gulf Power Company.
|
Critical Date(s): |
None |
||
|
Commissioners Assigned: |
All Commissioners |
||
|
Prehearing Officer: |
Brown |
||
|
Staff: |
AFD: Sewards, Mouring GCL: Stiller, J. Crawford |
||
Issue 1:
Should the Commission approve Gulf Power Company’s request for approval to establish a regulatory asset for recording costs attributable to COVID-19?
Yes. The Commission should approve Gulf’s request to establish a regulatory asset for recording costs incurred due to COVID-19. The approval to establish a regulatory asset, for accounting purposes, does not limit the Commission’s ability to review the amounts, recovery method, recovery period, and other related matters for reasonableness in a future proceeding in which the regulatory asset is included.
Gulf should be required to track any assistance or benefits received by the Company in connection with COVID-19, regardless of form, that would offset any COVID-19-related expenses. This would include, but is not limited to, any cost savings directly attributable to the suspension of disconnections or other activities during the emergency declaration. The regulatory asset costs and offsets should be recorded and maintained in a detailed manner that will allow incremental costs and any benefits and savings to be readily identifiable in a future proceeding. In addition, Gulf should be prepared to explain what actions and efforts it has undertaken to reduce or minimize these costs and to maximize the receipt of any available COVID-19 assistance or benefits. Finally, Gulf should be required to file quarterly reports identifying the amounts of the costs incurred, any assistance or benefits received, and any cost savings realized which have been recorded in the regulatory asset in conjunction with its earnings surveillance report (ESR). The first COVID-19 regulatory asset report should be filed on August 17 with Gulf’s June 2020 ESR and every three months thereafter until the Company presents the regulatory asset for Commission consideration.
Issue 2:
Should this docket be closed?
Yes. The docket should be closed upon the issuance of the procedural order.
7**PAA Docket No. 20200053-EG – Petition for
approval of demand-side management plan, by Tampa Electric Company.
Docket No. 20200054-EG – Petition for approval of proposed demand-side
management plan, by Duke Energy Florida, LLC.
Docket No. 20200055-EG – Petition for approval of proposed demand-side
management plan, by Gulf Power Company.
Docket No. 20200056-EG – Petition for approval of demand-side management
plan and request to modify residential and business on call tariff sheets, by
Florida Power & Light Company.
Docket No. 20200060-EG – Petition for approval of demand-side management
plan, by Florida Public Utilities Company.
|
Critical Date(s): |
None |
||
|
Commissioners Assigned: |
All Commissioners |
||
|
Prehearing Officer: |
Brown |
||
|
Staff: |
ENG: Ellis, Phillips, Thompson, Wooten, Wright GCL: Murphy, Passidomo, Weisenfeld |
||
Issue 1:
Should the Commission approve the proposed DSM Plans for the IOUs?
No. Staff recommends that the Commission continue the existing programs previously approved by the Commission as they are consistent with and adequate to meet the 2019 Goal Setting Order, and should have no incremental cost impact to customers. A brief description of each existing program is included as Attachment A to this recommendation. If an IOU desires to propose a new or modified DSM program, it should file a separate petition to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.
Consistent with the 2019 Goal Setting Order, staff also recommends that the Commission initiate rulemaking to explore possible rule revisions that would consolidate the FEECA Goal Setting and DSM Plan proceedings, in an effort to improve the overall Goal Setting and DSM plan approval process.
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 Commission’s Proposed Agency Action Order.
8**PAA Docket No. 20190182-WS – Application to transfer facilities and Certificate No. 578-W from Sunny Shores Water Co. to Sunny Shores Utilities, LLC, in Manatee County.
|
Critical Date(s): |
None |
||
|
Commissioners Assigned: |
All Commissioners |
||
|
Prehearing Officer: |
Brown |
||
|
Staff: |
ENG: M. Watts, K. Johnson, Ramos AFD: Norris, Thurmond ECO: Sibley GCL: Lherisson |
||
(Proposed Agency Action for Issue 2)
Issue 1:
Should the transfer of Certificate No. 578-W in Manatee County from Sunny Shores Water Co., to Sunny Shores Utilities, LLC be approved?
Recommendation: Yes. The transfer of the water system and Certificate No. 578-W is in the public interest and should be approved, effective the date of the Commission 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, Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.). The Buyer is current with respect to annual reports and Regulatory Assessment Fees (RAFs) through December 31, 2019, and will be responsible for all future years.
Issue 2:
What is the appropriate net book value for the Sunny Shores system for transfer purposes and should an acquisition adjustment be approved?
For transfer purposes, the net book value (NBV) of the water system is $20,188 as of June 19, 2019. An acquisition adjustment should not be included in rate base. Within 90 days of the date of the final order, the Buyer 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 Buyer’s 2020 Annual Report when filed.
Issue 3:
Should this docket be closed?
Yes.
If no protest to the proposed agency action issue is filed by a substantially
affected person within 21 days of the date of the order, a consummating order
should be issued and the docket closed.
9**PAA Docket No. 20190185-WS – Application for authority to transfer assets of exempt entity in Sumter County by the City of Wildwood to South Sumter Utility Company, LLC.
|
Critical Date(s): |
None |
||
|
Commissioners Assigned: |
All Commissioners |
||
|
Prehearing Officer: |
Administrative |
||
|
Staff: |
ENG: M. Watts, K. Johnson, Ramos AFD: Norris, Sewards ECO: Bethea, Hudson GCL: Lherisson |
||
(Proposed Agency Action for Issues 2, 3 and
4)
Issue 1:
Should the Commission approve the transfer of the water and wastewater facilities from the City of Wildwood, an exempt entity in Sumter County, to South Sumter Utility Company, LLC, and the amendment of South Sumter Utility Company, LLC’s Certificate Nos. 571-S and 669-W?
Yes. The transfer of the water and wastewater service facilities from the City and the amendment of Certificate Nos. 571-S and 669-W, to include the territory as described in Attachment A of staff’s memorandum dated June 24, 2020, are in the public interest and should be approved, effective the date of the Commission’s vote. The resultant order should serve as SSU’s amended certificate and should be retained by the Buyer. SSU should be responsible for filing all future annual reports and Regulatory Assessment Fees (RAFs) subsequent to the date of closing.
Issue 2:
What is the appropriate net book value for the assets acquired by South Sumter for transfer purposes, and should an acquisition adjustment be approved?
The net book value (NBV) of the assets for transfer purposes is $0 for the water system and $0 for the wastewater system as of September 19, 2020. An acquisition adjustment should not be included in rate base. Within 90 days of the date of the final order, SSU 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 SSU’s 2020 Annual Report when filed.
Issue 3:
What are the appropriate rates and charges for the Village of Fenney and the Village of DeSoto?
The appropriate rates and charges for the Village of Fenney and the Village of DeSoto are the existing service rates of the City and the existing charges of SSU, as shown on Schedule Nos. 2-A and 2-B of staff’s memorandum dated June 24, 2020, which are appended to this recommendation. These rates and charges should remain in effect until a change is authorized by the Commission in a subsequent proceeding. The approved rates and charges should be effective for services rendered after the order becomes final, the closing on the agreement, and the customers of Village of Feeney and the Village of DeSoto have received notice pursuant to Rule 25-30.475, F.A.C. The Utility should provide proof of noticing within 10 days of rendering its approved notice.
Issue 4:
Should this docket be closed?
Yes.
If no protest to the proposed agency action issue is filed by a substantially
affected person within 21 days of the date of the order, a consummating order
should be issued and the docket closed administratively upon Commission staff’s
verification that the revised tariff sheets have been filed, the Buyer has
provided proof of noticing, and the Buyer has notified the Commission in
writing that it has adjusted its books and records in accordance with the
Commission’s decision.
10** Docket No. 20190194-WS – Application for original water and wastewater certificates and approval of initial rates, charges and standard service agreements in Lee County, by CPI Citrus Park Utility TRS, L.L.C.
|
Critical Date(s): |
The Utility waived the 90 day statutory deadline pursuant to Section 367.031, F.S., through July 7, 2020. |
||
|
Commissioners Assigned: |
All Commissioners |
||
|
Prehearing Officer: |
Brown |
||
|
Staff: |
ENG: M. Watts, Doehling, Ramos AFD: D. Andrews, Norris ECO: Sibley GCL: Lherisson, J. Crawford |
||
Issue 1:
Should the application for water and wastewater certificates by CPI Citrus be approved?
Yes. CPI Citrus should be granted Certificate Nos. 675-W and 576-S to serve the territory described in Attachment A of staff’s memorandum dated June 24, 2020, which is appended to this recommendation, effective the date of the Commission’s vote. The resultant order should serve as CPI Citrus’s water and wastewater certificates and it should be retained by the Utility.
Issue 2:
What are the appropriate water and wastewater rates and return on equity for CPI Citrus?
Recommendation: The
recommended monthly water and wastewater rates shown on Schedule Nos. 4-A and
4-B of staff’s memorandum dated June 24, 2020, which are appended to this
recommendation, are reasonable and should be approved. 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. The approved rates 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 within 10 days of the date of the notice. A return on equity of 7.85
percent, with a range of plus or minus 100 basis points, should also be
approved.
Issue 3:
What are the appropriate miscellaneous service charges for CPI Citrus?
The Utility’s requested miscellaneous service charges of $30 and wastewater violation reconnection charge of actual cost should be approved. The Utility should file revised tariff sheets and a proposed customer notice to reflect the Commission-approved charges. The approved charges should be effective for services rendered on or after the stamped approval date on the tariff sheet provided customers have received notice pursuant to Rule 25-30.475(1), F.A.C. The Utility should provide proof of noticing within 10 days of rendering the approved notice.
Issue 4:
What is the appropriate late payment charge for CPI Citrus?
The appropriate late payment charge for CPI Citrus is $7.50. The Utility should file revised tariff sheets and a proposed customer notice to reflect the Commission-approved charge. The approved charge should be effective for services rendered on or after the stamped approval date on the tariff sheet provided customers have received notice pursuant to Rule 25-30.475(1), F.A.C. The Utility should provide proof of noticing within 10 days of rendering the approved notice.
Issue 5:
Should CPI Citrus be authorized to collect Non-Sufficient Funds (NSF) charges?
Yes. CPI Citrus should be authorized to collect NSF charges. The Utility should file revised tariff sheets and a proposed customer notice to reflect the Commission-approved NSF charges. The approved charges should be effective for service rendered on or after the stamped approval date on the tariff sheets provided customers have received notice pursuant to Rule 25-30.475, F.A.C. The Utility should provide proof of noticing within 10 days of rendering its approved notice.
Issue 6:
Should this docket be closed?
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. 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. Once these actions are complete, this
docket should be closed administratively.
11**PAA Docket No. 20190195-WS – Application for transfer of water and wastewater systems of Regency Utilities, Inc., and transfer of Certificate Nos. 641-W and 551-S to Duval Waterworks, Inc., in Duval County.
|
Critical Date(s): |
None |
||
|
Commissioners Assigned: |
All Commissioners |
||
|
Prehearing Officer: |
Polmann |
||
|
Staff: |
ENG: Doehling, M. Watts AFD: Bennett, Norris ECO: Bruce, Hudson GCL: Schrader |
||
(Proposed Agency Action Except for Issue 1)
Issue 1:
Should the transfer of Certificate Nos. 641-W and 551-S in Duval County from Regency to DWI, be approved?
Yes. The transfer of the water and wastewater systems and Certificate Nos. 641-W and 551-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 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.). DWI should be responsible for filing annual reports and paying Regulatory Assessment Fees (RAFs) for 2020 and all future years.
Issue 2:
What is the appropriate net book value for DWI‘s water and wastewater system for transfer purposes?
For transfer purposes, the net book value (NBV) is $125,116 for the water system and $20,577 for the wastewater system as of September 30, 2019. Within 90 days of the date of the final order, DWI 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 DWI’s 2020 Annual Report when filed.
Issue 3:
Should an acquisition adjustment be recognized for ratemaking purposes?
Yes. Pursuant to Rule 25-30.0371, F.A.C., a negative acquisition adjustment of $48,567 for the water system and $7,987 for the wastewater system should be recognized for ratemaking purposes. Beginning with the date of the issuance of the order approving the transfer, 50 percent of the negative acquisition adjustment, which is $24,283 for the water system and $3,994 for the wastewater system, should be amortized over a seven-year period and the remaining 50 percent should be amortized over the remaining life of the assets.
Issue 4:
Should DWI’s request to revise the existing late payment charge to $6.50 be approved?
Yes. DWI’s request to revise the existing late payment charge to $6.50 should be approved. DWI 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. DWI should provide proof of the date notice was given no less than 10 days after the date of the notice.
Issue 5:
Should DWI be authorized to collect Non-Sufficient Funds Charges?
Yes. DWI should be authorized to collect NSF charges. DWI should file
revised tariff sheets and a proposed customer notice to reflect the
Commission-approved NSF charges. The approved charges should be effective for
service rendered on or after the stamped approval date on the tariff sheets
provided customers have received notice pursuant to Rule 25-30.475, F.A.C. DWI
should provide proof of noticing within 10 days of rendering its approved
notice.
Issue 6:
Should this docket be closed?
Yes. 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, the Buyer has notified the Commission in writing that it has adjusted its books in accordance with the Commission’s decision, and proof that appropriate noticing has been done pursuant to Rule 25-30.4345, F.A.C.
12** Docket No. 20200110-EI – Petition for approval of revised underground residential distribution tariffs, by Duke Energy Florida, Inc.
|
Critical Date(s): |
12/01/20 (8-Month Effective Date) |
||
|
Commissioners Assigned: |
All Commissioners |
||
|
Prehearing Officer: |
Administrative |
||
|
Staff: |
ECO: Forrest, Coston GCL: Trierweiler |
||
Issue 1:
Should the Commission approve Duke's proposed URD tariffs and associated charges?
Yes, the Commission should approve Duke’s proposed URD tariffs and associated charges as shown in Attachment A of staff’s memorandum dated June 24, 2020, effective July 7, 2020.
Issue 2:
Should this docket be closed?
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.
13** Docket No. 20200113-EI – Petition for approval of 2020 revisions to underground residential tariffs and for approval of initial commercial differential tariffs, by Gulf Power Company.
|
Critical Date(s): |
12/01/20 (8-Month Effective Date) |
||
|
Commissioners Assigned: |
All Commissioners |
||
|
Prehearing Officer: |
Administrative |
||
|
Staff: |
ECO: Ward, Coston GCL: Stiller |
||
Issue 1:
Should the Commission approve Gulf's proposed underground differential tariff revisions and proposed commercial differential tariffs?
Yes, the Commission should approve Gulf’s proposed URD and UCD tariffs and associated charges, as shown in Attachments A and B of staff’s memorandum dated June 24, 2020 , effective August 6, 2020.
Issue 2:
Should this docket be closed?
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.
14**PAA Docket No. 20200106-EU – Joint petition to approve territorial agreement in Sumter, Lake, Marion, Levy, and Citrus Counties, by Sumter Electric Cooperative, Inc. and Duke Energy Florida, LLC.
|
Critical Date(s): |
None |
||
|
Commissioners Assigned: |
All Commissioners |
||
|
Prehearing Officer: |
Fay |
||
|
Staff: |
ECO: Hampson, Guffey GCL: Trierweiler |
||
Issue 1:
Should the Commission approve the proposed Territorial Agreement between SECO and DEF in Sumter, Lake, Marion, Levy, and Citrus counties?
Yes, the Commission should approve the proposed Territorial Agreement between SECO and DEF in Sumter, Lake, Marion, Levy, and Citrus counties. The proposed Territorial Agreement will not cause a detriment to the public interest and will enable SECO and DEF to avoid duplication of facilities and to serve their customers in an efficient manner.
Issue 2:
Should this docket be closed?
If no protest is filed by a person whose substantial interests are affected within 21 days of the issuance of the Order, this docket should be closed upon the issuance of the Consummating Order.
15**PAA Docket No. 20200116-EU – Joint petition for approval of extension of territorial agreement and first amendment to territorial agreement, by Tampa Electric Company and Sumter Electric Cooperative, Inc.
|
Critical Date(s): |
None |
||
|
Commissioners Assigned: |
All Commissioners |
||
|
Prehearing Officer: |
Fay |
||
|
Staff: |
ECO: Hampson, Guffey GCL: Brownless |
||
Issue 1:
Should the Commission approve the extension of the Territorial Agreement between TECO and SECO and approve the proposed First Amendment to the Territorial Agreement?
Yes, the Commission should approve the 15-year extension of the Territorial Agreement between TECO and SECO and approve the proposed First Amendment to the Territorial Agreement. The proposed extension and First Amendment to the Territorial Agreement are in the public interest and will avoid uneconomic duplication of facilities.
Issue 2:
Should this docket be closed?
If no protest is filed by a person whose substantial interests are affected within 21 days of the issuance of the Order, this docket should be closed upon the issuance of the Consummating Order.
16**PAA Docket No. 20200138-EU – Joint petition for approval of territorial agreement in Sumter County, by Sumter Electric Cooperative, Inc. and City of Bushnell.
|
Critical Date(s): |
None |
||
|
Commissioners Assigned: |
All Commissioners |
||
|
Prehearing Officer: |
Fay |
||
|
Staff: |
ECO: Guffey GCL: Stiller |
||
Issue 1:
Should the Commission approve the 2020 Territorial Agreement between SECO and Bushnell?
Yes, the Commission should approve the 2020 Territorial Agreement between SECO and Bushnell. The approval of the 2020 Territorial Agreement will not be a detriment to the public interest and it will enable SECO and Bushnell to avoid duplication of facilities and serve their customers in an efficient manner. SECO and Bushnell should be put on notice that any modification or termination of SECO and Bushnell’s territorial boundaries must first be made by the Commission.
Issue 2:
Should this docket be closed?
If no protest is filed by a person whose substantial interests are affected within 21 days of the issuance of the Order, this docket should be closed upon the issuance of a Consummating Order.