Case Background
On June 3, 2020,
Florida Power & Light Company (FPL) and JEA, collectively the joint
petitioners or parties, filed a petition seeking Commission approval of a Third
Amendment to their existing territorial agreement in St. Johns County. The
existing service boundary line bifurcates a planned subdivision located in St.
Johns County. The proposed Third Amendment allows FPL and JEA to swap certain
parcels within their respective service territories in St. Johns County, which
will allow JEA to serve the entire planned subdivision. The proposed Third Amendment,
legal descriptions, and maps depicting the swapped land parcels and revised
service boundaries are provided in Attachment A to this recommendation.
The
Commission approved the parties’ first territorial agreement in St. Johns
County in 1965. Thereafter, the territorial boundary was
re-affirmed by the Commission in 1980. In
1996, as the result of a territorial dispute, FPL and JEA entered into a new
territorial agreement which replaced the prior agreement. After the discovery of an inconsistency
between the 1996 Agreement and a territorial agreement between JEA and Clay
Electric Cooperative, a new territorial agreement between FPL and JEA was
approved by the Commission in 1998. In
2012, the Commission approved an amendment that altered a segment of the
territorial boundaries between the parties so that a single utility could serve
the electric needs of a new private development planned for an undeveloped
area. In 2014, the parties entered into the
second amendment to the existing territorial agreement to alter the boundary to
align it with planned roadways and accommodate new expanding development.
This
recommendation addresses the proposed Third Amendment to the existing
territorial agreement. During the review of this joint petition, staff issued a
data request to the joint petitioners on June 30, 2020, for which responses
were received on July 14, 2020. The Commission has jurisdiction over this
matter pursuant to Section 366.04, Florida Statutes (F.S.).
Discussion
of Issues
Issue 1:
Should the Commission approve the proposed Third Amendment
to the existing territorial agreement between FPL and JEA in St. Johns County?
Recommendation:
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. (Guffey, Hampson)
Staff Analysis:
Pursuant to Section 366.04(2)(d), F.S., and Rule
25-6.0440, Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.), the Commission has the
jurisdiction to approve territorial agreements between and among rural electric
cooperatives, municipal electric utilities, and other electric utilities.
Unless the Commission determines that the agreement will cause a detriment to
the public interest, the agreement should be approved.
Proposed Third Amendment to Territorial
Agreement
On June 3, 2020, FPL and JEA entered into the Third Amendment
to their 1998 territorial agreement, which shall continue and remain in effect
until the Commission, by order, modifies or withdraws its approval of this Agreement
after proper notice and hearing. Other than the proposed parcel swaps, all
other parts of the territorial agreement remain in effect. The proposed Third Amendment
finalizes the territorial boundary adjustments between FPL and JEA that are
necessary to accommodate development and facilitate the provision of
electricity to the expanding development by one utility, and is also intended
to avoid duplication of services in the areas subject to the parcel swaps. Pursuant
to the agreed upon amendment, three parcels (5, 6, and 7) located within JEA’s
territory will be transferred to FPL and one parcel (parcel 4) located within
FPL’s territory will be transferred to JEA. Total acreage of the swapped
parcels is 22.30 acres located in St. Johns County.
Currently, the subject parcels are undeveloped; and
therefore, there are no customers or electric facilities in parcels 4, 5, 6,
and 7 pursuant to paragraph 2 of the proposed 2020 Amendment. With the parcel
swap, JEA will provide electricity to 342 residential customers in the planned
development for parcel 4 (13.43 acres), and FPL will provide electricity to
parcels 5, 6, and 7 (total of 8.87 acres) if developed in the future. With the
parcel swap, the parties will be better positioned to provide electric service
in the future to other development within this area.
Customer Notification
Paragraph 18 of the petition states that since the areas
subject to the parcel swap in this 2020 Amendment are currently undeveloped,
there are no infrastructure or customer accounts to be transferred; therefore,
no customers were notified pursuant to Rule 25-6.0440(1), F.A.C.
In paragraph 20 of the petition, the parties state that approval
of the proposed 2020 Amendment will not cause a decrease in reliability of
electric service to the existing or future customers.
Conclusion
After review of the petition and the petitioners’ joint
responses to staff’s data request, staff believes the proposed Third Amendment
will enable FPL and JEA to exchange four land parcels within their respective
retail service territories, achieve necessary changes to accommodate
development, and serve their current and future customers efficiently. It
appears that the proposed Third Amendment to the existing agreement eliminates
any potential uneconomic duplication of facilities and will not cause a
decrease in reliability of electric service. As such, staff believes that the proposed
Third Amendment dated June 3, 2020, to the exiting territorial agreement
between FPL and JEA in St. Johns County should be approved by the Commission.
The proposed Third Amendment to the territorial agreement should become
effective on the date the Commission Order approving it becomes final.
Issue 2:
Should this docket be closed?
Recommendation:
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. (Trierwiler)
Staff Analysis:
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.
