FLORIDA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION
ADDENDUM*
COMMISSION CONFERENCE AGENDA
CONFERENCE DATE AND
TIME: Tuesday, September
1, 2020, 9:30 a.m.
LOCATION: Betty Easley Conference Center, Joseph P. Cresse Hearing Room 148
DATE ISSUED: August 21, 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 August 31, 2020; or (2) file any written comments for a
particular item in the applicable Docket file by noon on August 31, 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).
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) Applications for Certificate of Authority to Provide Telecommunications Service.
|
DOCKET NO. |
COMPANY NAME |
|
Tel-Star Communications of Florida Inc. |
|
|
20200171‑TX |
Easton Telecom Services, L.L.C. |
Recommendation: The Commission should approve the action requested in the dockets referenced above and close these dockets.
2** Docket No. 20200186-EU – Proposed repeal of Rule 25-6.047, FAC, Constant Current Standards; Rule 25-6.081, FAC, Construction Practices; and Rule 25-6.082, FAC, Records and Reports, and amendment of Rule 25-6.054, FAC, Laboratory Standards; Rule 25-6.074, FAC, Applicability; and Rule 25-6.104, FAC, Unauthorized Use of Energy.
Critical Date(s): Proposal May Be Deferred
|
Rule Status: |
Proposed |
||
|
Commissioners Assigned: |
All Commissioners |
||
|
Prehearing Officer: |
Polmann |
||
|
Staff: |
GCL: Cowdery ECO: Coston, Draper, Guffey ENG: P. Buys |
||
Issue 1:
Should the Commission propose the repeal of Rules 25-6.047, F.A.C., Constant Current Standards; 25-6.081, F.A.C., Construction Practices; and 25-6.082, F.A.C., Records and Reports, and the amendment of Rules 25-6.054, F.A.C., Laboratory Standards; 25-6.074 F.A.C., Applicability; and 25-6.104, F.A.C., Unauthorized Use of Energy?
Yes, the Commission should propose the repeal of Rules 25-6.047, 25-6.081, and 25-6.082, F.A.C., and the amendment of Rules 25-6.054, 25-6.074, and 25-6.104, F.A.C., as set forth in Attachment A of staff’s memorandum dated August 20, 2020. The Commission should also certify Rules 25-6.054, 25-6.074, and 25-6.104, F.A.C., as minor violation rules.
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 rules should be filed with the Department of State, and the docket should be closed.
3**PAA Docket No. 20200155-WU – Application for certificate to operate water utility in Okaloosa County and application for pass through increase of regulatory assessment fees, by Okaloosa Waterworks, Inc.
|
Critical Date(s): |
10/12/2020 (90-Day Rule Waiver Statutory Deadline) |
||
|
Commissioners Assigned: |
All Commissioners |
||
|
Prehearing Officer: |
Brown |
||
|
Staff: |
ENG: Watts, Doehling, Ramos AFD: Blocker, Norris GCL: Schrader |
||
(Rule Waiver)
Issue 1:
Should the Commission approve Okaloosa’s request for waiver or variance of Rule 25-30.120, F.A.C.?
Yes, Okaloosa has demonstrated that the purpose of
the underlying statutes of Rule 25-30.120, F.A.C., will be, or has been,
achieved by other means, and that the strict application of the rule would
place a substantial hardship on Okaloosa. Therefore,
staff recommends that the Commission approve Okaloosa’s Waiver Petition, and
temporarily waive the requirements of Rule 25-30.120, F.A.C., until such time
as 1) the Commission establishes approved rates for Okaloosa and Commission
staff administratively approves a pass through of RAFs pursuant to Section
367.081(4)(b), F.S., or 2) within three months of the Commission’s vote
regarding Okaloosa’s Waiver Petition, whichever occurs first.
Issue 2:
Should this docket be closed?
This docket should remain open pending the Commission’s final decision regarding Okaloosa’s Certificate and Pass Through Application. If no person whose substantial interests are affected by the proposed agency action for the rule waiver files a protest within 21 days of the issuance of the order, a consummating order should be issued.
4**PAA Docket No. 20200182-EI – Joint petition for declaratory statement regarding application of MFR requirements in Rule 25-6.043(1), F.A.C. or, in the alternative, petition for variance, by Florida Power & Light Company and Gulf Power Company.
|
Critical Date(s): |
10/07/20 (Final Order on Request for Declaratory Statement Must be Issued by this Date pursuant to Section 120.565(3), Florida Statutes, and Request for Variance Deemed Approved if Not Granted or Denied by this Date pursuant to Section 120.542(8), Florida Statutes) |
||
|
Commissioners Assigned: |
All Commissioners |
||
|
Prehearing Officer: |
Polmann |
||
|
Staff: |
GCL: DuVal AFD: Bulecza-Banks, Buys, Cicchetti, Fletcher, Mouring ECO: Coston, Draper, Galloway, McNulty ENG: Ellis, Ramos |
||
(Issue No 1: Decision on Declaratory
Statement - Participation is at the Discretion of the Commission. Issue No. 2: Proposed Agency Action -
Interested Persons May Participate.)
Issue 1:
Should the Commission grant FPL and Gulf’s Joint Petition for Declaratory Statement?
No, the Joint Petition for Declaratory Statement should be denied.
Issue 2:
Should the Commission grant FPL and Gulf’s alternative request for variance from Rule 25-6.043(1), F.A.C.?
Yes, FPL and Gulf’s alternative request for variance from Rule 25-6.043(1), F.A.C., should be granted to allow FPL to complete and file the Exhibit 1 MFRs (as modified to include Schedules F6 and F7) and Exhibit 2 MFRs as proposed in Paragraphs 8(a) and 8(b) of the Joint Petition for a 2021 rate case filing, subject to discovery and cross-examination procedures remaining intact.
Issue 3: 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, this docket should be closed upon the issuance of a consummating order.
4A Docket No. 20200001-EI – Fuel and purchased power cost recovery clause with generating performance incentive factor.
|
Critical Date(s): |
90 days from the date of delivery of Recommended Order. Section 120.569(1)(1)2, F.S. |
||
|
Commissioners Assigned: |
All Commissioners |
||
|
Prehearing Officer: |
Fay |
||
|
Staff: |
GCL: J. Crawford, Stiller AFD: Cicchetti ENG: Ballinger |
||
(Post-Hearing Decision - Participation is
Limited to Commissioners and Staff.)
Issue 1: Should the Commission accept any of the exceptions to conclusions of law filed by DEF?
Recommendation: No. DEF has not presented any legally sufficient basis for rejecting or modifying any portion of the Recommended Order. Therefore, staff recommends that the Commission should deny DEF's exceptions to Conclusions of Law 110-114 and 119-125.
lssue 2: Should the Commission approve the Recommended Order submitted by the
Administrative Law Judge?
Recommendation:
Yes. The Commission should approve the Recommended Order attached to staff’s
recommendation dated August 6, 2020, as the Final Order in this docket.
Issue 3: Should this docket be closed?
Recommendation: No. While the Fuel and Purchased Power Cost Recovery Clause with
Generating Performance Incentive Factor docket is assigned a separate docket number each year for administrative convenience, it is a continuing docket and should remain open.
5**PAA Docket No. 20180213-TL – Complaint by the Florida Inland Navigation District against BellSouth Telecommunications, LLC d/b/a AT&T Florida d/b/a AT&T Southeast for failure to relocate utility line.
|
Critical Date(s): |
None |
||
|
Commissioners Assigned: |
All Commissioners |
||
|
Prehearing Officer: |
Administrative |
||
|
Staff: |
IDM: Wendel, Fogleman GCL: Murphy |
||
Issue 1:
Should the Commission require AT&T to relocate its subaqueous utility lines, beneath the Intracoastal Waterway in Broward County, in a timely and effective manner?
No. The Commission does not have jurisdictional authority to require AT&T to relocate its subaqueous utility lines, beneath the Intracoastal Waterway in Broward County, in a timely and effective manner.
Issue 2:
Should
this docket be closed?
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. 20200157-TP – 2021 State certification under 47 C.F.R. §54.313 and §54.314, annual reporting requirements for high-cost recipients and certification of support for eligible telecommunications carriers.
|
Critical Date(s): |
10/01/20 (Filing deadline with the Federal Communications Commission and the Universal Service Administrative Company) |
||
|
Commissioners Assigned: |
All Commissioners |
||
|
Prehearing Officer: |
Brown |
||
|
Staff: |
IDM: Wooten, Eastmond, Long GCL: Dziechciarz |
||
Issue 1:
Should the Commission certify to USAC and the FCC that BellSouth Telecommunications, LLC d/b/a AT&T Florida d/b/a AT&T Southeast; Embarq Florida, Inc. d/b/a CenturyLink; Frontier Florida LLC; Frontier Communications of the South, LLC; Consolidated Communications of Florida Company; ITS Telecommunications Systems, Inc. d/b/a ITS Fiber; Knology of Florida, Inc. d/b/a WOW! Internet, Cable and Phone; Northeast Florida Telephone Company d/b/a NEFCOM; Quincy Telephone Company d/b/a TDS Telecom; Smart City Telecommunications LLC d/b/a Smart City Telecom; and Windstream Florida, LLC are eligible to receive federal high-cost support, that they have used the federal high-cost support in the preceding calendar year, and they will use the federal high-cost support they receive in the coming calendar year only for the provision, maintenance, and upgrading of facilities and services for which the support is intended?
Yes. The Commission should certify to USAC and the FCC that BellSouth Telecommunications, LLC d/b/a AT&T Florida d/b/a AT&T Southeast; Embarq Florida, Inc. d/b/a CenturyLink; Frontier Florida LLC; Frontier Communications of the South, LLC; Consolidated Communications of Florida Company; ITS Telecommunications Systems, Inc. d/b/a ITS Fiber; Knology of Florida, Inc. d/b/a WOW! Internet, Cable and Phone; Northeast Florida Telephone Company d/b/a NEFCOM; Quincy Telephone Company d/b/a TDS Telecom; Smart City Telecommunications LLC d/b/a Smart City Telecom; and Windstream Florida, LLC are eligible to receive federal high-cost support, that they have used the federal high-cost support in the preceding calendar year, and they will use the federal high-cost support they receive in the coming calendar year only for the provision, maintenance, and upgrading of facilities and services for which the support is intended.
Issue 2:
Should this docket be closed?
Yes. This docket should be closed upon issuance of a Final Order.
7 Docket No. 20200139-WS – Application for increase in water and wastewater rates in Charlotte, Highlands, Lake, Lee, Marion, Orange, Pasco, Pinellas, Polk, and Seminole Counties, by Utilities, Inc. of Florida.
|
Critical Date(s): |
09/11/20 (60-Day Suspension Date) |
||
|
Commissioners Assigned: |
All Commissioners |
||
|
Prehearing Officer: |
Fay |
||
|
Staff: |
AFD: Norris, Blocker, D. Buys, Thurmond ECO: Bethea, Bruce, Hudson, Sibley ENG: Doehling, Ellis, Johnson, King, Kistner, Knoblauch, Ramos, Thompson GCL: Trierweiler, Crawford |
||
(Decision on Suspension of Rates and
Interim Rates - Participation is at the Discretion of the Commission)
Issue 1:
Should the Utility's proposed final water and wastewater rates be suspended?
Yes. The Utility’s proposed final water and wastewater rates should be suspended.
Issue 2:
Should any interim revenue increase be approved?
Yes. UIF should be authorized to collect annual revenues as indicated below:
|
|
Adjusted Test Year Revenues |
$ Increase |
Revenue Requirement |
% Increase |
|
Water |
$16,298,944 |
$918,223 |
$17,217,167 |
5.63% |
|
Wastewater |
$19,936,921 |
$1,051,222 |
$20,988,143 |
5.27% |
Issue 3:
What are the appropriate interim water and wastewater rates?
The recommended interim rate increase of 5.76 percent for water and 5.46 percent for wastewater should be applied as an across-the-board increase to the service rates in effect as of December 31, 2019. The rates, as shown on Schedule Nos. 4-A and 4-B of staff’s memorandum dated August 20, 2020 , 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 Utility should file revised tariff sheets and a proposed customer notice to reflect the Commission-approved rates. In addition, the approved rates should not be implemented until the required security has been filed, staff has approved the proposed customer notice, and the notice has been received by the customers. The Utility should provide proof of the date notice was given within 10 days of the date of the notice.
Issue 4:
What is the appropriate security to guarantee the interim increase?
A cumulative corporate undertaking is acceptable contingent
upon receipt of the written guarantee of the parent company, Utilities, Inc.
(UI or Company), and written confirmation that the cumulative outstanding
guarantees on behalf of UI-owned utilities in other states will not exceed $4.6
million (inclusive of all Florida utilities). UI should be required to file a corporate
undertaking on behalf of its subsidiaries to guarantee any potential refunds
of revenues collected under interim conditions. UI’s guaranteed amount subject
to refund should be $1,810,655. Pursuant to Rule 25-30.360(6), F.A.C., the
Utility should provide a report by the 20th of each month indicating the
monthly and total revenue collected subject to refund. Should a refund be
required, the refund should be with interest and in accordance with Rule
25-30.360, F.A.C.
Issue 5:
Should this docket be closed?
The docket should remain open pending the Commission’s final action on the Utility’s requested rate increase.
8 Docket No. 20200168-WU – Application for staff-assisted rate case in Polk County, and request for interim rate increase, by McLeod Gardens Utilities, LLC
|
Critical Date(s): |
11/12/21 (15-Month Effective Date (Staff-assisted rate case)) |
||
|
Commissioners Assigned: |
All Commissioners |
||
|
Prehearing Officer: |
Brown |
||
|
Staff: |
ENG: Lewis, Ramos AFD: Richards, D. Brown ECO: Bethea GCL: Dziechciarz |
||
(Decision on Interim Rates - Participation
is at the Discretion of the Commission)
Issue 1:
Should an interim revenue increase be approved?
Yes. McLeod should be authorized to collect interim revenues as indicated below:
|
|
Test Year Revenues |
$ Increase |
Revenue Requirement |
% Increase |
|
Water |
$33,563 |
$2,608 |
$36,171 |
7.77% |
Issue 2:
What are the appropriate interim water rates?
The recommended interim rate increase of 8.20 percent for water should be applied as an across-the-board increase to the service rates in effect as of December 31, 2019. The rates, as shown on Schedule No. 1 of staff’s memorandum dated August 20, 2020, should be effective for service rendered on or after the stamped approval date on the tariff sheets pursuant to Rule 25-30.475(1), Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.). The Utility should file revised tariff sheets and a proposed customer notice to reflect the Commission-approved rates. In addition, the approved rates should not be implemented until the required security has been filed, staff has approved the proposed customer notice, and the notice has been received by the customers. The Utility should provide proof of the date notice was given within 10 days of the date of the notice.
Issue 3:
What is the appropriate security to guarantee the interim increase?
The Utility should be required to open an escrow account or secure a surety bond or letter of credit to guarantee any potential refund of revenues collected under interim conditions. If the security provided is an escrow account, the Utility should deposit $217 into the escrow account each month. Otherwise, the surety bond or letter of credit should be in the amount of $1,736. Pursuant to Rule 25-30.360(6), F.A.C., the Utility should provide a report by the 20th of each month indicating the monthly and total revenue collected subject to refund. Should a refund be required, the refund should be with interest and in accordance with Rule 25-30.360, F.A.C.
Issue 4:
Should this docket be closed?
No. Staff recommends that this docket should remain open to
address the merits of McLeod’s staff-assisted rate case.
9 Docket No. 20200169-WS – Application for staff-assisted rate case in Lake County, and request for interim rate increase, by Lake Yale Utilities, LLC.
|
Critical Date(s): |
11/12/21 (15-Month Effective Date (Staff-assisted rate case)) |
||
|
Commissioners Assigned: |
All Commissioners |
||
|
Prehearing Officer: |
Brown |
||
|
Staff: |
ENG: Wright, Kistner AFD: Richards, D. Brown ECO: Hudson, Sibley GCL: Murphy |
||
(Decision on Interim Rates - Participation
is at the Discretion of the Commission)
Issue 1:
Should an interim revenue increase be approved?
Yes. Lake Yale should be authorized to collect interim revenues as indicated below:
|
|
Test Year Revenues |
$ Increase |
Revenue Requirement |
% Increase |
|
Water |
$68,906 |
$0 |
$68,906 |
0.00% |
|
Wastewater |
$55,021 |
$9,966 |
$64,987 |
18.11% |
Test year revenues are sufficient to cover staff-adjusted operation and maintenance (O&M) expenses for the water system, but not the wastewater system. As such, an interim revenue increase is warranted for the wastewater system but not the water system.
Issue 2:
What are the appropriate interim wastewater rates?
The interim rate increase of 18.11 percent should be applied as an across-the-board increase to the wastewater service rates in effect as of December 31, 2019. The rates, as shown on Schedule No. 1 of staff’s memorandum dated August 20, 2020, should be effective for service rendered on or after the stamped approval date on the tariff sheets pursuant to Rule 25-30.475(1), Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.). The Utility should file revised tariff sheets and a proposed customer notice to reflect the Commission-approved rates. In addition, the approved rates should not be implemented until the required security has been filed, staff has approved the proposed customer notice, and the notice has been received by the customers. The Utility should provide proof of the date the notice was given within 10 days of the date of the notice.
Issue 3:
What is the appropriate security to guarantee the interim increase?
The Utility should be required to open an escrow account or secure a surety bond or letter of credit to guarantee any potential refund of revenues collected under interim conditions. If the security provided is an escrow account, the Utility should deposit $831 into the escrow account each month. Otherwise, the surety bond or letter of credit should be in the amount of $6,648. Pursuant to Rule 25-30.360(6), F.A.C., the Utility should provide a report by the 20th of each month indicating the monthly and total revenue collected subject to refund. Should a refund be required, the refund should be with interest and in accordance with Rule 25-30.360, F.A.C.
Issue 4:
Should this docket be closed?
No.
Staff recommends that this docket should remain open to address the merits of
Lake Yale’s staff-assisted rate case.
10**PAA Docket No. 20200162-EU – Joint petition for approval of amendment to territorial agreement in St. Johns County, by Florida Power & Light Company and JEA.
|
Critical Date(s): |
None |
||
|
Commissioners Assigned: |
All Commissioners |
||
|
Prehearing Officer: |
Brown |
||
|
Staff: |
ECO: Guffey, Hampson GCL: Trierweiler |
||
Issue 1:
Should the Commission approve the proposed Third Amendment to the existing territorial agreement between FPL and JEA in St. Johns County?
Yes, the Commission should approve the proposed Third Amendment, dated June 3, 2020, to the existing territorial agreement between FPL and JEA in St. Johns County. The proposed Third Amendment to the territorial agreement will allow JEA to serve an entire planned residential development and it will enable FPL and JEA to serve their other customers in the county 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 a Consummating Order.
11**PAA Docket No. 20200164-EU – Joint petition for approval of amendment to territorial agreement in Lee County, by Florida Power & Light Company and Lee County Electric Cooperative.
|
Critical Date(s): |
None |
||
|
Commissioners Assigned: |
All Commissioners |
||
|
Prehearing Officer: |
Brown |
||
|
Staff: |
ECO: Hampson, Guffey GCL: Trierweiler |
||
Issue 1:
Should the Commission approve the proposed 2020 Amendment to the territorial agreement between FPL and LCEC?
Yes, the Commission should approve the proposed 2020 Amendment to the territorial agreement between FPL and LCEC, dated June 3, 2020. The 2020 Amendment is 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.
12** Docket No. 20200093-GU – Petition for approval of tariff modifications for liquified natural gas service by Peoples Gas System.
|
Critical Date(s): |
11/16/20 (8-Month Effective Date) |
||
|
Commissioners Assigned: |
All Commissioners |
||
|
Prehearing Officer: |
Fay |
||
|
Staff: |
ECO: Ward, Coston GCL: Schrader |
||
(Tariff Filing)
Issue 1:
Should the Commission approve Peoples’ proposed LNG tariff?
Yes. Staff recommends that the Commission should approve Peoples’ proposed LNG tariff, as shown in Attachment A of staff’s memorandum dated August 20, 2020, effective with the issuance of the final Order in this docket. The LNG tariff would provide Peoples with an opportunity to provide LNG services to interested customers. A participating customer would enter into a contract with Peoples and all capital and operating costs associated with the LNG facility should be borne by the customer.
Issue 2:
Should this docket be closed?
If no protest is filed by a substantially affected person within 21 days of the issuance of the order, a consummating order should be issued and the docket should be closed.