Discussion
of Issues
Issue 1:
Is the quality of service provided by Sunny Shores
satisfactory?
Recommendation:
Yes. Sunny Shores is passing all Department of
Environmental Protection (DEP) primary and secondary standards and has been
responsive to its customer concerns. Therefore, the quality of service provided
by Sunny Shores should be considered satisfactory. (Phillips)
Staff Analysis:
Pursuant to Section 367.081(2)(a)1, F.S., and Rule
25-30.433(1), Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.), in water rate cases the
Commission shall determine the overall quality of service provided by the
utility. This determination is made from an evaluation of the quality of the
utility’s product and the utility’s attempt to address customer satisfaction.
The Rule further states that the most recent chemical analyses, outstanding
citations, violations, and consent orders on file with the DEP and the county
health department, and any DEP and county health department officials’
testimony concerning quality of service shall be considered. In addition, any
customer testimony, comments, or complaints received by the Commission are also
reviewed.
Quality of the Utility’s Product
Sunny Shores
is a consecutive system and purchases bulk water from Manatee County for
resale. Manatee County delivers treated water to a master meter which is then
channeled into Sunny Shores’ distribution system. As a consecutive water
system, the secondary standards of the Utility’s
water are not regulated by DEP. However, in November 2019, Sunny Shores’
water was tested and found to be in compliance with DEP’s primary and secondary
drinking water standards. The Utility also tested for disinfectant byproducts
in November 2020, and at that time the Utility met all standards.
The Utility’s Attempt to Address Customer
Satisfaction
Staff reviewed the complaints filed in the Commission’s
Consumer Activity Tracking System (CATS), filed with the DEP, and received by
the Utility from July 1, 2015, through June 31, 2020. Staff also performed a
supplemental review of the complaints filed in CATS after the test year through
June 30, 2021. Table 1-1 shows the number of complaints categorized by
complaint type and source. It should be noted that Sunny Shores Water Co. was
transferred to its current owner in 2020.
Table 1-1
Number of Complaints by Type
and Source
|
Subject of
Complaint
|
CATS
|
DEP
|
Utility
|
Correspondence
|
Total
|
|
Water Pressure
|
4
|
1
|
11
|
9
|
25
|
|
Customer Service
|
2
|
0
|
1
|
3
|
6
|
|
Rate Increase
|
2
|
0
|
0
|
3
|
5
|
|
Billing
|
0
|
0
|
2
|
1
|
3
|
|
Total *
|
4
|
1
|
14
|
9
|
28*
|
* A single customer complaint may be counted multiple
times if it was reported to multiple agencies.
The CATS includes four complaints during the years
reviewed, with one filed in 2020, and three filed in 2021. All four complaints
were related to low water pressure, while two also mentioned poor customer
service and the excessive rate increase. The DEP received one complaint, in
2015, regarding the water pressure. The Utility addressed the complaint to the
DEP’s satisfaction and the complaint was closed. The Utility received 14
complaints during the past five years. Eleven were related to water pressure,
two related to billing issues and one customer service complaint. All 14
complaints filed with Sunny Shores were closed by the Utility. Nine customers
filed correspondence in this docket. All nine discussed low water pressure,
three also addressed poor customer service and the excessive rate increase, and
one also noted a billing issue. A customer meeting was held on May 21, 2021, and
no customers attended the meeting.
It appears based on the complaints received that low water
pressure has been an ongoing issue. However, when the water pressure has been
tested by the Utility, it is above the DEP standard of 20 pounds per square
inch (PSI). As a reseller, Sunny Shores purchases water from Manatee County and
the low pressure occurs when Manatee County flushes its water lines. The low
pressure does not appear to be system wide, but most prevalent in the mobile
home park. Sunny Shores has asked Manatee County to notify it when scheduled
flushing will occur. Sunny Shores plans to then notify its customers of the
upcoming pressure drop. As of June 11, 2021, Sunny Shores had not received a
notice from Manatee County regarding flushing schedules. In response to staff’s
data request, the Utility stated it has contacted the Florida Rural Water
Association to assist with the water pressure issue. Options such as adding a
pump or storage tank on the Utility’s system were discussed; however, since the
Utility does not own any land, these options are not feasible. The Utility is
also working with Badger Meter Company to explore options to maintain stable
water pressure, such as replacing the back flow preventer with an inline check
valve and/or replacing the current mechanical meter with a sonar type meter.
The Utility is also considering installing various types of devices at
customers’ homes to record the variations in pressure. The goal would be to
find a device, or series of devices, that helps maintain water pressure. Staff
would again note that while the low water pressure may be an inconvenience for some
customers, the Utility is meeting the DEP’s 20 PSI standard and is exploring
alternatives that may resolve its customer concerns.
Conclusion
Sunny Shores is passing all DEP primary and secondary
standards and has been responsive to its customer concerns. Therefore, the
quality of service provided by Sunny Shores should be considered satisfactory.
Issue 2:
Are the infrastructure and operating conditions of
Sunny Shores' water system in compliance with the DEP regulations?
Recommendation:
Yes. The Utility’s water system is currently in
compliance with DEP regulations. (Phillips)
Staff Analysis:
Rule 25-30.225(2), F.A.C., requires each water
utility to maintain and operate its plant and facilities by employing qualified
operators in accordance with the rules of the DEP. Rule 25-30.433(2), F.A.C.,
requires consideration of whether the infrastructure and operating conditions
of the plant and facilities are in compliance with Rule 25- 30.225, F.A.C. In
making this determination, the Commission must consider testimony of the DEP
and county health department officials, sanitary surveys for water systems and
compliance evaluation inspections for wastewater systems, citations,
violations, and consent orders issued to the utility, customer testimony,
comments, and complaints, and utility testimony and responses to the
aforementioned items.
Water System Operating Conditions
Sunny Shores purchases water from Manatee County; as such,
it does not have any wells, water treatment facilities, or storage tanks. The
water is pumped directly from Manatee County into the Utility’s distribution
system. A review of the DEP records did not show any consent orders against the
Utility. DEP inspected the Utility’s system on May 16, 2021, and determined the
system is in compliance.
Conclusion
Based on
the above, Sunny Shores’ water system is currently in compliance with DEP
regulations.
Issue 3:
What are the used and useful (U&U) percentages
of Sunny Shores' water distribution system?
Recommendation:
Sunny Shores’ water distribution system should be
considered 100 percent U&U. Additionally, staff recommends no adjustment to
purchased water expense be made for excessive unaccounted for water (EUW).
(Phillips)
Staff Analysis:
The distribution system is composed of approximately
855 feet of 3-inch and 12,654 feet of 2-inch polyvinyl chloride (PVC) pipes.
Used and Useful Percentages
Sunny Shores has not had a previous rate case and as such
used and useful has not yet been established by the Commission. The water
distribution system is evaluated based on equivalent residential connection
(ERCs) consisting of growth, customer demand, and system capacity. During the
test year the Utility served a total of 270 ERCs (262 residential and 8 general
service). The Utility had no growth during the test year or prior four years.
The Utility’s system has a total capacity of 274 ERCs, resulting in a 98.5
percent U&U based on water usage. However, considering all of the water
mains are required to adequately serve the existing customers, staff recommends
the distribution system be considered 100 percent U&U.
Excessive Unaccounted for Water (EUW)
Rule 25-30.4325, F.A.C., provides factors to be considered
in determining whether adjustments to operating expenses are necessary for EUW.
EUW is defined as "unaccounted for water in excess of 10 percent of the
amount produced." Unaccounted for water is all water produced that is not
sold, metered, or accounted for in the records of the Utility.
Based on staff’s review, the Utility purchased 9,244,700
gallons, and used 12,000 gallons for line flushing purposes during the test
year. According to the staff audit report, the Utility sold 8,611,000 gallons
of water for the test year. The resulting calculation ([9,244,700 - 12,000 -
8,611,000] ÷ 9,244,700) for unaccounted for water is 6.2
percent; therefore, the Utility has no EUW. Staff recommends no adjustments
should be made to purchased water expense.
Conclusion
Sunny Shores’ water distribution system should be
considered 100 percent U&U. Additionally,
staff recommends no adjustment to purchased water be made for EUW.
Issue 4:
What is the appropriate average test year rate base
for Sunny Shores?
Recommendation:
The appropriate average test year rate base for
Sunny Shores is $46,813. (Richards, D. Brown, Casper, Phillips)
Staff Analysis:
The appropriate components of the Utility’s rate
base include utility plant in service (UPIS), accumulated depreciation, and
working capital. The Utility’s net book value was established as part of its
transfer proceeding in Docket No. 20190182-WU.
Staff selected the test year ended June 30, 2020, for the instant rate case.
Commission audit staff determined that the Utility’s books and records are in
compliance with the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners’
Uniform System of Accounts (NARUC USOA). A summary of each component and the
recommended adjustments are discussed below.
Utility Plant in Service (UPIS)
The Utility recorded $26,774 for UPIS. The Utility did not
record a balance in Account 341 – Transportation Equipment to reflect the
allocated portion of vehicles owned by FUS1 and used by the Utility. The
Utility submitted documentation supporting five vehicles with a cost of
$87,904, which are used by all utilities operating under FUS1.
Shared costs are allocated among all of the utilities in the FUS1 system based
on each utility’s number of customers relative to the total number of utility
customers. Based on Sunny Shores’ 8 percent allocation, staff increased UPIS by
$7,032 ($87,904 x 0.08). In addition to those five vehicles, a 2013 Haui
trailer with a cost of $4,200 is also owned by FUS1 and used by Sunny Shores
and Heather Hills. Staff applied a 43 percent allocation to the trailer based
on the number of customers for Sunny Shores.
Staff increased UPIS by $1,806 ($4,200 x 0.43) for the allocation of the
trailer. In total, staff increased UPIS by $8,838 ($7,032 + $1,806) for the
vehicles. Additionally, staff made an averaging adjustment to decrease UPIS by
$903 to reflect the test year beginning and ending UPIS average balance. Staff’s
adjustments to UPIS are reflected in Table 4-2 on the next page.
Pro Forma Plant Additions
Sunny Shores is seeking to implement an annual meter replacement
program, due to the age of the existing meters. The Utility plans on replacing
35 meters during the first year of the program, and then 20 meters during each
following year. Staff recommends approving the cost of the first year of meter replacements
in this docket. The equipment cost per meter is $133, including the meter,
meter box, lid, and lock. Labor costs excluding transportation will total $27
per meter, which includes one hour for a technician and a quarter hour for a
customer service representative. The yearly equipment and labor costs therefore
total $5,571 (35 x [$133 + $27]). Transportation is a considerable expense due
to the location of the Utility relative to the company headquarters.
Transportation will cost $154 per trip, including the mileage ($0.56 per mile x
140 miles = $78) and labor (3.5 hours x $21 = $75).
The Utility is able to replace two meters per trip, meaning a total of 18 trips
are necessary. Transportation costs total $2,766 (18 x $154). Therefore, pro forma
for the replacement of 35 meters is $8,337 ($5,571 + $2,766); the retirement
will be $6,253 based on 75 percent of the pro-forma plant. In addition to the
meter replacement program, FUS1 purchased a vehicle on September 29, 2020,
which is outside the test year.
The vehicle cost was $31,142 and the 8 percent allocation to Sunny Shores is
$2,491 ($31,142 x 0.08). Total pro forma adjustments are outlined in Table 4-1
below, and staff’s adjustments to UPIS are summarized in Table 4-2.
Table 4-1
Pro Forma Plant Adjustments
|
Description
|
Amount
|
|
Meter replacement equipment and labor.
|
$5,571
|
|
Meter replacement transportation.
|
2,766
|
|
Seventy-five percent retirement on meter replacement.
|
(6,253)
|
|
Allocated portion of vehicle.
|
2,491
|
|
Total pro forma
adjustment.
|
$4,575
|
Source: Utility responses to staff data requests.
Table 4-2
Staff Adjustments to UPIS
|
Description
|
Amount
|
|
Allocated percentage of FUS1 vehicles.
|
$7,032
|
|
Allocated percentage of Haui trailer.
|
1,806
|
|
Averaging adjustment.
|
(903)
|
|
Pro forma adjustment.
|
4,575
|
|
Total adjustment
to UPIS.
|
$12,511
|
Source: Utility responses to staff data requests.
Based on the adjustments explained above and outlined in
Tables 4-1 and 4-2, staff recommends an average UPIS balance of $39,285
($26,774 + $12,511).
Land and Land Rights
The Utility did not record any land balance. As a reseller
of water, there is no land associated with Sunny Shores. Therefore, staff
recommends land and land rights balances remain $0.
Used and Useful (U&U)
As discussed in Issue 3, Sunny Shores’ distribution system
is considered 100 percent U&U. Therefore, no U&U adjustments are
necessary.
Accumulated Depreciation
The Utility recorded an accumulated depreciation balance
of $8,220. As a result of the staff audit, an adjustment was made to decrease
accumulated depreciation by $173. Additionally, staff increased accumulated
depreciation by $3,045 to reflect the Utility’s allocated portion of the
vehicles and trailer discussed previously. Staff decreased accumulated
depreciation by $1,414 to reflect an averaging adjustment, and further
decreased accumulated depreciation by $5,715 to reflect pro forma adjustments. Therefore,
staff recommends an accumulated depreciation balance of $3,963 ($8,220 - $173 +
$3,045 - $1,414 - $5,715).
Contributions in Aid of Construction (CIAC)
The Utility did not record any CIAC. Staff made no
adjustment to CIAC and therefore recommends CIAC balance remain $0.
Accumulated Amortization of CIAC
The Utility did not record any accumulated amortization of
CIAC. Staff made no adjustment, and therefore recommends accumulated
amortization of CIAC remain $0.
Acquisition Adjustment (Net)
The Utility did not record any acquisition adjustments.
Staff made no adjustment to this account and therefore recommends acquisition
adjustment balance remain $0.
Working Capital Allowance
Working capital is defined as the short-term
investor-supplied funds that are necessary to meet operating expenses.
Consistent with Rule 25-30.433(3), F.A.C., staff used the one-eighth operation
and maintenance (O&M) expense (less rate case expense) formula for
calculating the working capital allowance. Section 367.081(9), F.S., prohibits
a utility from earning a return on the unamortized balance of rate case expense.
As such, for this calculation, staff removed the rate case expense balance of
$435, resulting in an adjusted O&M expense balance of $91,928 ($92,363 - $435).
Applying this formula, staff recommends a working capital allowance of $11,491
($91,928 ÷ 8).
Rate Base Summary
Based on the foregoing, staff recommends that the
appropriate average test year rate base is $46,813. Rate base is shown on
Schedule No. 1-A. The related adjustments are shown on Schedule No. 1-B.
Issue 5:
What is the appropriate return on equity (ROE) and
overall rate of return for Sunny Shores?
Recommendation:
The appropriate ROE is 10.55 percent with a range of
9.55 percent to 11.55 percent. The traditional rate of return does not apply in
this case due to rate base being less than 125 percent of O&M expenses. As
such, the Operating Ratio Methodology is being used in this case. (Richards, D.
Brown, Casper)
Staff Analysis:
As discussed in Issue 9, staff is recommending the
Operating Ratio Methodology be used in this case. Although the traditional rate
of return does not apply in this case due to rate base being less than 125
percent of O&M expenses, staff recommends that an ROE still be established
for this utility. The Utility’s capital structure is comprised entirely of
long-term debt.
The Utility’s capital structure has been reconciled with
staff’s recommended rate base. The appropriate ROE is 10.55 percent with a
range of 9.55 percent to 11.55 percent.
The ROE is shown on Schedule No. 2. The traditional rate of return does not
apply in this case due to rate base being less than 125 percent of O&M
expenses. As such, the Operating Ratio Methodology is being used in this case.
Issue 6:
Should the Commission approve an Allowance for Funds
Used During Construction (AFUDC) rate for Sunny Shores?
Recommendation:
Yes. The appropriate AFUDC rate for Sunny Shores is
7.83 percent. The appropriate monthly compounding rate to achieve an annual
rate of 7.83 percent is 0.630192 percent. (Richards)
Staff Analysis:
On November 13, 2020, Sunny Shores submitted a
request that the Commission establish an AFUDC rate in this proceeding. In its
request, the Utility stated “FUS1 plans to file a petition for approval of
Capital Project Improvement plans for a majority of its systems with the
Commission.”
According to the Utility, FUS1 has engaged the engineering services of the
Florida Rural Water Association (FRWA) to prepare an analysis report evaluating
each of its systems and to recommend corrective actions along with funding
sources. The Utility further stated that it believes “most, if not all, of the
proposed capital projects will qualify for AFUDC treatment as authorized by
Rule 25-30.116, F.A.C.”
Sunny Shores is not currently authorized to accrue AFUDC and does not have a
Commission-approved AFUDC cost rate. Staff believes it is appropriate to
establish an AFUDC rate for the Utility. The Commission recently established an
AFUDC rate for two sister utilities.
As discussed in Issue 5, the Utility’s capital structure
is comprised of long-term debt. Therefore, staff used the year-end long-term
debt to calculate the annual AFUDC rate and monthly compounding rate for Sunny
Shores. Based on its review, staff believes an AFUDC rate of 7.83 percent is
appropriate and recommends Commission approval. Staff also recommends a monthly
compounding rate of 0.630192 percent to achieve an annual AFUDC rate of 7.83
percent.
Issue 7:
What are the appropriate test year revenues for
Sunny Shores' water system?
Recommendation:
The appropriate test year revenues for Sunny Shores’
water system are $93,505. (Bruce)
Staff Analysis:
Sunny Shores recorded test
year revenues of $93,205. The water revenues included $89,371 of service
revenues and $3,834 of miscellaneous revenues. Subsequent to the test year, the
Utility was granted a price index rate increase. In order to determine the
appropriate test year service revenues, staff annualized service revenues by applying
the number of billing determinants to the rates in effect as of August 18,
2020. As a result, staff determined that service revenues should be $92,305,
which is an increase of $2,934.
Staff also made an adjustment to miscellaneous revenues. As
discussed in further detail in Issue 13, the Utility currently charges its
customers a quarterly backflow maintenance charge for an annual inspection of
backflow prevention devices. However, on a prospective basis, the Utility is
requiring customers to have their backflow prevention device inspected
independently. Therefore, staff is decreasing miscellaneous revenues by $2,634
to remove revenues associated with the backflow maintenance charge. This
adjustment results in miscellaneous revenues of $1,200 ($3,834 - $2,634) for
the test year. Based on the above, the appropriate test year revenues for Sunny
Shores’ water system are $93,505 ($92,305 + $1,200).
Issue 8:
What is the appropriate test year operating expense
for Sunny Shores?
Recommendation:
The appropriate amount of operating expense for
Sunny Shores is $102,210. (Richards, D. Brown, Casper)
Staff Analysis:
The Utility recorded operating expense of $103,031.
The test year O&M expenses have been reviewed by staff, including invoices
and other supporting documentation. Staff has made several adjustments to the
Utility’s operating expenses as described below.
Operation and Maintenance Expenses
Previously, the Commission approved common O&M
expenses be shared by all utilities operating under the parent company, FUS1.
As mentioned earlier, O&M common costs are allocated among all of the
utilities in the FUS1 system based on each utility’s number of customers
relative to the total number of utility customers. Based on the number of
customers for Sunny Shores, the allocation of FUS1 common costs for this
utility is 8 percent.
Salaries and Wages – Employees (601)
The Utility recorded salaries and wages expense for
employees of $19,937. Staff increased this amount by $5,924 to reflect the
Utility’s allocated portion of a $74,046 increase approved in Docket No.
20200152-WS. This
amount included salary increases for eight positions and the addition of one
new Compliance Technician position. Therefore, staff recommends salary and
wages expense for employees of $25,861 ($19,937 + $5,924).
Salaries and Wages – Officers and Directors
(603)
The Utility recorded salaries and wages expense for
officers and directors of $6,252. Staff made no adjustment to this account and
therefore recommends salaries and wages expense for officers and directors of
$6,252.
Employee Pensions and Benefits (604)
The Utility recorded employee pensions and benefits of
$485. Staff made no adjustment to this account and therefore recommends
employee pensions and benefits of $485.
Purchased Water (610)
The Utility recorded purchased water expense of $34,041.
The Utility purchases water from Manatee County. As a result of the staff
audit, an adjustment to remove a late fee was made decreasing purchased water
by $58. Therefore, staff recommends purchased water expense of $33,983 ($34,041
- $58).
Materials and Supplies (620)
The Utility recorded materials and supplies expense of
$978. This expense included allocated costs to the Utility, PVC repair tools,
and miscellaneous tools. Staff made no adjustment to this account and therefore
recommends materials and supplies expense of $978.
Contractual Services – Professional (631)
The Utility
recorded contractual services – professional expense of $868. This amount
reflects legal and accounting expenses incurred by the Utility. As a result of
the staff audit, an adjustment was made decreasing this amount by $618 for
expenses incurred outside of the test year. Therefore, staff recommends a
contractual services – professional expense of $250 ($868 - $618).
Contractual Services – Testing (635)
The Utility recorded contractual services – testing expense
of $6,564. Staff made no adjustment to this account and therefore recommends a
contractual services – testing expense of $6,564.
Contractual Services – Other (636)
The Utility recorded contractual services – other expense
of $1,385. Staff increased this amount by $106 to reflect the allocated portion
of replacing an air conditioning system at FUS1’s New Port Richey office. The
total cost of the system was $6,650. The Commission approved the expense of the
air conditioning system in Docket No. 20200152-WS, and determined that the cost
should be amortized over five years.
As such, staff increased contractual services – other expense for all FUS1
systems by $1,330 ($6,650 ÷ 5 years) in that docket. The allocated portion
attributable to Sunny Shores is $106. Therefore, staff recommends contractual
services – other expense of $1,491 ($1,385 + $106).
Rents (640)
The Utility recorded rent expense of $3,482, which
included $533 as the allocated portion of the HVAC system discussed above. The
$533 represents the full, unamortized amount allocated at 8 percent to the
Utility ($6,650 x 0.08). Staff removed $533 from rent expense and applied the
amortized portion to account 636. Additionally, the Utility included an
insurance premium of $128 in account 640. Staff removed the premium from
account 640 and reassigned it to account 655. Therefore, staff recommends rent
expense of $2,821 ($3,482 - $533 - $128).
Transportation Expense (650)
The Utility recorded transportation expense of $3,304.
Staff made no adjustment to this account, and therefore recommends a
transportation expense of $3,304.
Insurance Expense (655)
The Utility recorded insurance expense of $2,482. Staff
increased this amount by $570 to reflect the allocated portion of an increase
of $7,130 approved by the Commission in Docket No. 20200152-WS.
This increase, covers auto insurance based on the premium for the policy period
November 2019 through November 2020, as reflected in support documentation in
that docket. The amount also includes a $200 increase for workman’s
compensation insurance for the period November 2019 to November 2020.
Additionally, staff increased insurance expense by $128 to reflect the amount
reassigned from account 640. Therefore, staff recommends insurance expense of
$3,180 ($2,482 + $570 + $128).
Regulatory Commission Expense (665)
The Utility did not record any regulatory commission
expense. In response to Staff’s Second Data Request, the Utility provided
details of fees associated with its transfer docket.
Staff increased this account by $594 to reflect the four-year amortization of
regulatory commission expense related to legal, consulting, and filing fees
associated with the transfer docket.
Staff believes that the amount should be included in the instant docket because
it has not been recovered in rates to date.
Regarding the instant case, the Utility is required by
Rule 25-22.0407, F.A.C., to mail notices of the rate case overview, final
rates, and four-year rate reduction. Staff calculated noticing costs to be
$739. Additionally, the Utility paid a $1,000 filling fee. Staff
did not include any travel expense, as the customer meeting was held remotely,
and the Utility owner is planning to participate in the Commission Conference
telephonically. Staff
recommends noticing costs and filing fee of $1,739 ($739 + $1,000), which
amortized over four years is $435 ($1,739 ÷ 4 years) per year. Therefore, staff
recommends a regulatory commission expense of $1,029 ($594 + $435).
Bad Debt Expense (670)
The Utility recorded $7 in bad debt expense in the test
year. However, in the 2020 Annual Report, the Utility recorded bad debt expense
of $5,339. The current owner acquired the Utility in 2019, and the $7 bad debt
expense is due to the fact that the previous owner did not maintain records of
bad debt, nor did the previous owner write off any of the old accounts. The
amount recorded in the 2020 Annual Report is reflective, in part, of the
Utility’s current ownership writing off old accounts from years prior.
Additionally, staff acknowledges that some portion of this increase is due to
the financial difficulties experienced as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic. The
general practice for determining an appropriate allowance for bad debt expense is
to rely upon a three-year average of actual experience. However, in the instant
case, three years of records are not available for the current owner, and the
information that is available has been influenced by extraordinary
circumstances that are not expected to continue indefinitely. Despite these
challenges, it is incumbent that the amount of bad debt expense included in the
revenue requirement is representative of the bad debt expense to be incurred by
the Utility when rates go into effect.
Staff notes that while it is Commission practice to
calculate bad debt expense using a three-year average, three years of records
are not yet available. Staff believes in this instance, it is more appropriate
to use 1.5 percent of the Utility’s revenues. Doing so recognizes a portion of
the pandemic-related increase to bad debt expense while reflecting an amount
that is more likely to be representative of the Utility’s expected bad debt
expense going forward. As such, staff recommends bad debt expense of $1,403.
Miscellaneous Expense (675)
The Utility recorded $17,485 as miscellaneous expense. As
a result of the staff audit, an adjustment was made decreasing this amount by $392
for removal of expenses outside of the test year. In response to Staff’s Second
Data Request, the Utility advised there was an erroneous amount of $12,331
included in miscellaneous expense.
As such, staff further decreased this amount by $12,331. Therefore, staff
recommends miscellaneous expense of $4,762 ($17,485 - $392 - $12,331).
Operation and Maintenance Expense Summary
The Utility recorded O&M expenses of $97,270 for the
test year. Based on the above adjustments, staff recommends the O&M expense
balance be decreased by $4,907, resulting in a total O&M expense of $92,363
($97,270 - $4,907). Staff’s recommended adjustments to O&M expenses are
shown on Schedule No. 3-C.
Depreciation Expense
The Utility did not record any depreciation expense. As a
result of the staff audit, an adjustment was made to increase depreciation
expense by $1,418. Using the depreciation rates prescribed in Rule 25-30.140,
F.A.C., staff increased depreciation expense by $1,410 to reflect the
depreciation on the allocated portion of vehicles owned by FUS1 and used by the
Utility. Staff further increased depreciation expense by $538 to reflect pro
forma additions. Therefore, staff recommends depreciation expense of $3,366
($1,418 + $1,410 + $538).
Taxes Other Than Income (TOTI)
The Utility recorded TOTI of $5,761. As a result of the
staff audit, an adjustment was made increasing TOTI by $94. Additionally, staff
decreased TOTI by $80 to reflect the appropriate RAFs based on corrected test
year revenues. As discussed in Issue 7, revenues have been increased by $15,711
to reflect the change in revenue required to cover expenses and allow an
opportunity to earn the recommended operating margin. As a result, TOTI should
be increased by $707 to reflect RAFs of 4.5 percent of the change in revenues.
Therefore, staff recommends TOTI of $6,482 ($5,761 + $94 - $80 + $707).
Operating Expenses Summary
The Utility recorded operating expenses of $103,031. The
application of staff’s recommended adjustments to the Utility’s operating
expenses result in a total operating expense of $102,210. Operating expenses
are shown on Schedule No. 3-A, and the related adjustments are shown on
Schedule No. 3-B.
Issue 9:
Does Sunny Shores meet the criteria for the
application of the Operating Ratio Methodology?
Recommendation:
Yes. Sunny Shores meets the requirement for
application of the Operating Ratio Methodology for calculating revenue
requirement. The margin should be 12 percent of O&M expenses less the
amount for purchased water expense. (Richards, D. Brown, Casper)
Staff Analysis:
Rule 25-30.4575(2), F.A.C., provides that, in rate
cases processed under Rule 25-30.455, F.A.C., the Commission will use the Operating
Ratio Methodology to establish the utility’s revenue requirement when a utility’s
rate base is no greater than 125 percent of O&M expenses and the use of the
Operating Ratio Methodology does not change the Utility’s qualification for a
SARC.
Under the Operating Ratio Methodology, instead of
calculating the utility’s revenue requirement based on a rate of return on the utility’s
rate base, the revenue requirement is calculated using a margin of 12 percent
of O&M expenses, not to exceed $15,000. Purchased water and wastewater
expenses, if any, must be removed from O&M expense prior to calculating the
margin of 12 percent.
With respect to Sunny Shores, staff has recommended a rate
base of $46,813, and O&M expense of $92,363 (Issues 4 and 8, respectively).
Based on the recommended amounts, Sunny Shores’ rate base is only 51 percent of
its O&M expense. Pursuant to Rule 25-30.4575(2), F.A.C., staff removed the
purchased water expense of $33,983 from the total O&M expense of $92,363.
Therefore, staff used an adjusted O&M expense of $58,380 ($92,363 -
$33,983). In addition, the application of the Operating Ratio Methodology does
not change the Utility’s qualification for a SARC. As such, Sunny Shores meets
the criteria for the Operating Ratio Methodology established in Rule
25-30.4575(2), F.A.C. Therefore, staff recommends the application of the
Operating Ratio Methodology at a margin of 12 percent of the adjusted O&M
expense of $58,380 for determining revenue requirement.
Issue 10:
What is the appropriate revenue requirement for
Sunny Shores?
Recommendation:
The appropriate revenue requirement for Sunny Shores
is $109,216, resulting in an annual increase of $15,711 (16.80 percent).
(Richards, D. Brown, Casper)
Staff Analysis:
Sunny Shores should be allowed an annual increase of
$15,711 (16.80 percent). This should allow the Utility the opportunity to
recover its expenses and a 12 percent operating margin on its adjusted O&M
expenses. The calculations are shown in Table 10-1.
Table 10-1
Water Revenue Requirement
|
|
|
|
Adjusted O&M Expense
|
$58,380
|
|
|
|
|
Operating Margin (%)
|
x 12.00%
|
|
|
|
|
Operating Margin ($)
|
$7,006
|
|
|
|
|
Water O&M Expense
|
$92,363
|
|
|
|
|
Depreciation Expense
|
$3,366
|
|
|
|
|
Taxes Other Than Income
|
$6,482
|
|
|
|
|
Revenue Requirement
|
$109,216
|
|
|
|
|
Less Test Year Revenues
|
$93,505
|
|
|
|
|
Annual Increase
|
$15,711
|
|
|
|
|
Percent Increase
|
16.80%
|
|
|
|
Source: Staff
calculations.
Issue 11:
What is the appropriate rate structure and rates for
Sunny Shores' water system?
Recommendation:
The recommended rate structure and quarterly water
rates are shown on Schedule No. 4. 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 sheet pursuant to Rule 25-30.475(1), F.A.C.
In addition, the approved rates should not be implemented until 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 this notice. (Bruce)
Staff Analysis:
Sunny Shores is a reseller
located in Manatee County and purchases bulk water from the County. The Utility
provides water service to 262 residential customers and two general service
customers. Seasonality is typically determined based on the percentage of bills
at zero gallons shown on the billing analysis, which is 13 percent in this
case. However, the Utility bills on a quarterly basis, so an average was used
to determine the approximate monthly usage. Averaging the quarterly bill on a
monthly basis may allocate usage to a month in the quarter where there could
have been no usage. For this reason, staff believes it is appropriate to
evaluate the seasonality based on the percentage of bills at the 1,000 gallon
level, which is approximately 34 percent. This is an indication that the
customer base is seasonal. The average residential water demand is 2,664
gallons per month. The average water demand excluding zero gallon bills is
3,055 gallons per month. The Utility’s current rate structure consists of a
quarterly base facility charge (BFC), which includes a 10,800 gallon allotment,
and a uniform gallonage charge for usage over 10,800 gallons.
Staff performed an analysis of
the Utility’s billing in order to evaluate the appropriate rate structure for
the residential water customers. The goal of the evaluation was to select the
rate design parameters that: 1) produce the recommended revenue requirement; 2)
equitably distribute cost recovery among the Utility’s customers; 3) establish
the appropriate non-discretionary usage threshold for restricting repression;
and 4) implement, where appropriate, water conserving rate structures
consistent with Commission practice.
Due to the customers’ low average
monthly consumption coupled with a seasonal customer base, staff recommends
that 75 percent of the revenue requirement be recovered through the BFC in an
effort to maintain revenue stability. In addition, the Utility’s current rate
structure with the 10,800 gallon allotment is considered a non-conservation
oriented rate structure. Therefore, in order to promote the goal of eliminating
water rate structures that discourage conservation, the allotment of 10,800
gallons should be eliminated in this case. Further, monthly billing is the
preferred method for the purposes of conservation, which allows the customers
to monitor their usage in an effort to minimize the impact on their bill.
However, the Utility requested that the quarterly billing remain unchanged.
Staff believes the Utility’s request is appropriate because the cost of
implementing monthly billing outweighs any benefits and there are no issues
with excessive usage in this case. Although the quarterly billing is
non-conservation oriented, removing the allotment is a step in the right
direction in terms of conservation. Staff recommends a rate structure with a
quarterly BFC for all meter sizes and uniform gallonage charge for all gallons.
Based on staff’s recommended
revenue increase of 17.0 percent, which excludes miscellaneous revenues, the
residential consumption can be expected to decline by 1,225,000 gallons
resulting in anticipated average residential demand of 2,273 gallons per month.
Staff recommends a 14.7 percent reduction in test year residential gallons for
rate setting purposes and corresponding reductions of $4,834 for purchased
water and $228 for RAFs to reflect the anticipated repression. This results in
a post-repression revenue requirement of $102,954.
Staff’s recommended rate structure and quarterly water
rates are shown on Schedule No. 4. 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 sheet pursuant to Rule 25-30.475(1), F.A.C.
In addition, the approved rates should not be implemented until 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 this notice.
Issue 12:
Should the requested initial customer deposits for
Sunny Shores be approved?
Recommendation:
The appropriate initial customer deposits should be $194
for the single family residential 5/8 inch x 3/4 inch meter size for water. The
initial customer deposits for all other residential meter sizes and all general
service meter sizes should be two times the average estimated bill for water.
The approved initial customer deposits should be effective for connections made
on or after the stamped approval date on the tariff sheets pursuant to Rule
25-30.475, F.A.C. The Utility should be required to collect the approved
deposits until authorized to change them by the Commission in a subsequent
proceeding. (Bruce)
Staff Analysis:
Rule 25-30.311, F.A.C.,
provides the criteria for collecting, administering, and refunding customer
deposits. Customer deposits are designed to minimize the exposure of bad debt
expense for the Utility and, ultimately, the general body of ratepayers. An
initial customer deposit ensures that the cost of providing service is
recovered from the cost causer. Historically, the Commission has set initial
customer deposits equal to two times the average estimated bill.[24]
The Utility currently does not have customer deposits for its residential and
general service customers.
Commission practice has been to
set initial customer deposits equal to two billing periods based on the average
consumption for a 12-month period for each class of customers.[25] The
Utility’s average monthly residential usage is 2,664 gallons per customer. The
Utility’s average monthly residential water usage after repression is 2,273
gallons per customer. Sunny Shores bills on a quarterly basis; however, an
average residential monthly bill based on staff’s recommended rates is
approximately $32.33 for water, which results in $96.99 quarterly.
Based on the above, the appropriate initial customer
deposit for the residential 5/8 inch x 3/4 inch meter size is $194 for water.
The initial customer deposit for all other residential meter sizes and all
general service meter sizes should be two times the average estimated quarterly
bill for water. The approved initial customer deposits should be effective for
connections made on or after the stamped approval date on the tariff sheets
pursuant to Rule 25-30.475, F.A.C. The Utility should be required to collect
the approved initial customer deposits until authorized to change them by the
Commission in a subsequent proceeding.
Issue 13:
Should the Commission approve the Utility's request
to remove the tariff charge for maintenance of the customers' backflow
prevention devices?
Recommendation:
Yes. The Utility’s request to remove the tariff
charge for maintenance of customers’ backflow prevention devices should be
approved. The Utility should require customers to provide documentation of the
annual inspection by a date specified by the Utility. (Bruce)
Staff Analysis:
The
Utility currently has a backflow maintenance charge of $5.46, which was
approved in 2010 when the Utility was under previous ownership.
The backflow maintenance charge was billed quarterly and allowed the Utility to
pay a contracted state certified plumber the costs of annual inspections of
backflow prevention devices. Annual inspections are mandated by the DEP. In its
application, the Utility is requesting to remove the backflow maintenance
charge from its tariff or reclassify the charge. The backflow prevention
devices are the property of customers and the Utility believes the customers
should be responsible for having their backflow prevention devices inspected independently.
In prior decisions, the Commission has recognized that ensuring backflow
prevention devices are functioning properly is the customer’s responsibility.
Once customers have their backflow prevention device inspected, staff
recommends that the Utility require the customers to provide documentation of
the inspection by a date certain. A backflow prevention device that is not
working properly is hazardous to the entire water system. Failing to comply
with the annual inspection of the backflow prevention device to determine it is
functioning properly is a deficiency. If a customer fails to provide proof the
backflow prevention device has been inspected by the date certain, the Utility
can discontinue service pursuant to Rule 25-30.320(2)(b), F.A.C., for failure
to correct deficiencies.
Based on the above, staff recommends that the Utility’s
request to remove the tariff charge for maintenance of customers’ backflow
prevention devices be approved. The Utility should require customers to provide
documentation of the annual inspection by a date specified by the Utility.
Issue 14:
Should the Commission approve the Utility's request
to implement a meter tampering charge and, if so, what is the appropriate
charge?
Recommendation:
Yes. The Utility’s request to implement a $178 meter
tampering charge should be approved. The Utility should be required to file 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 sheets pursuant to Rule 25-30.475(2),
F.A.C. In addition, the approved charge should not be implemented until staff
has approved the proposed customer notice. The Utility should provide proof of
the date notice was given no less than 10 days after the date of the notice.
(Bruce)
Staff Analysis:
In its application, the
Utility requested a meter tampering charge. In response to staff’s first data
request, the Utility requested approximately $154 for a meter tampering charge.
However, in staff’s second data request, the Utility revised its request to
include the cost of a meter lock, which increased the Utility’s request to
$178.79 for meter tampering charge. Nonetheless, the Utility rounded its
request down to $178. The Utility’s request to establish a meter tampering
charge was accompanied by a cost justification as required by Section 367.091,
F.S. The Utility indicated that there has been no evidence of meter tampering.
Rule 25-30.320(2)(i), F.A.C.,
provides that a customer’s service may be discontinued without notice in the
event of tampering with the meter or other facilities furnished or owned by the
Utility. In addition, Rule 25-30.320(2)(j), F.A.C., provides that a customer’s
service may be discontinued in the event of unauthorized or fraudulent use of
service. The rule allows the Utility to require the customer to reimburse the
utility for all changes in piping or equipment necessary to eliminate illegal
use and to pay an amount reasonably estimated as the deficiency in revenue
resulting from the customer’s fraudulent use before restoring service.
Pursuant to Rule 25-30.345, F.A.C., a Utility may charge a
reasonable fee to defray the cost of restoring service that was discontinued
for proper cause as specified in Rule 25-30.320, F.A.C. As shown in the
Utility’s cost justification, if there is evidence of meter tampering, the
Utility’s estimate to perform the labor consists of 4.00 hours, which includes
3.5 hours of driving time, 15 minutes to perform the meter repair, and 15
minutes to charge the customer’s account. The cost justification also reflects
transportation cost at $.56 per mile, which is consistent with the IRS standard
mileage rate. In this case, the Utility’s office is not in proximity of the
Sunny Shores’ service area; therefore, the majority of the labor consists of
driving time to and from the service area. Staff believes the Utility’s request
of $178 appears to be cost based. The Utility’s cost justification is
summarized on the following page in Table 14-1.
Table 14-1
Cost Basis for Meter
Tampering Charge
|
Item
|
Description
|
Quantity
|
Rate
|
Cost
|
|
Equipment
|
Meter Lock
|
1
|
$14.76
|
$14.76
|
|
Mileage
|
Round trip from Utility to service area
|
140 miles
|
$0.56
|
$78.40
|
|
Technical Labor
|
Driving time (round trip) and meter repair
|
3.75 hours
|
$21.50
|
$80.63
|
|
Administrative Labor
|
Phone call to customer and charge customer account
|
0.25 hours
|
$20.00
|
$5.00
|
|
Total Charge
|
|
|
|
$178.79
|
Source: Response to staff inquiry.
Based on the above, the Utility’s request to implement a
$178 meter tampering charge should be approved. The Utility should be required
to file 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 sheets pursuant to Rule 25-30.475(2),
F.A.C. In addition, the approved charge should not be implemented until staff
has approved the proposed customer notice. The Utility should provide proof of
the date notice was given no less than 10 days after the date of the notice.
Issue 15:
What is the appropriate amount by which rates should
be reduced four years after the published effective date to reflect the removal
of the amortized rate case expense as required by Section 367.081(8), F.S.?
Recommendation:
The rates should be reduced as shown on Schedule No.
4, to remove rate case expense grossed-up for RAFs and amortized over a
four-year period. The decrease in rates should become effective immediately
following the expiration of the rate case expense recovery period, pursuant to
Section 367.081(8), F.S. Sunny Shores should be required to file revised
tariffs and a proposed customer notice setting forth the lower rates and the
reason for the reduction no later than one month prior to the actual date of
the required rate reduction. If the Utility files this reduction in conjunction
with a price index or pass-through rate adjustment, separate data should be
filed for the price index and/or pass-through increase or decrease and the
reduction in the rates due to the amortized rate case expense. (Bruce, D.
Brown) (Procedural Agency Action)
Staff Analysis:
Section
367.081(8), F.S., requires that the rates be reduced immediately following the
expiration of the recovery period by the amount of the rate case expense
previously included in rates. The reduction will reflect the removal of revenue
associated with the amortization of rate case expense and the gross-up for RAFs,
which results in a reduction of $487.
Staff
recommends that the rates should be reduced as shown on Schedule No. 4 to
remove rate case expense grossed-up for RAFs and amortized over a four-year
period. The decrease in rates should become effective immediately following the
expiration of the rate case expense recovery period, pursuant to Section
367.081(8), F.S. Sunny Shores should be required to file revised tariffs and a
proposed customer notice setting forth the lower rates and the reason for the
reduction no later than one month prior to the actual date of the required rate
reduction. If the Utility files this reduction in conjunction with a price
index or pass-through rate adjustment, separate data should be filed for the
price index and/or pass-through increase or decrease and the reduction in the
rates due to the amortized rate case expense.
Issue 16:
Should the recommended rates be approved for Sunny
Shores on a temporary basis, subject to refund the interest, in the event of a
protest filed by a party other than the Utility?
Recommendation:
Yes. Pursuant to Section 367.0814(7), F.S., the
recommended rates should be approved for the Utility on a temporary basis,
subject to refund with interest, in the event of a protest filed by a party other
than the Utility. Sunny Shores should file revised tariff sheets and a proposed
customer notice reflecting the Commission-approved rates. The approved rates
should be effective for services rendered on or after the stamped approval date
on the tariff sheet, pursuant to Rule 25-30.475(1), F.A.C. In addition, the
temporary rates should not be implemented until staff has approved the proposed
notice, and the notice has been received by the customers. Further, prior to
implementing any temporary rates, the Utility should provide appropriate
financial security.
If the recommended rates are approved on a temporary
basis, the rates collected by the Utility should be subject to the refund
provisions discussed below in the staff analysis. In addition, after the
increased rates are in effect, pursuant to Rule 25-30.360(6), F.A.C., the
Utility should file reports with the Commission’s Office of Commission Clerk no
later than the 20th of each month indicating both the current monthly and total
amount subject to refund at the end of the preceding month. The report filed should
also indicate the status of the security being used to guarantee repayment of
any potential refund. (D. Brown) (Procedural Agency Action)
Staff Analysis:
This
recommendation proposes an increase in rates. A timely protest might delay a
rate increase resulting in an unrecoverable loss of revenue to the Utility.
Therefore, pursuant to Section 367.0814(7), F.S., in the event of a protest
filed by a party other than the Utility, staff recommends that the proposed
rates be approved on a temporary basis. Sunny Shores should file revised tariff
sheets and a proposed customer notice reflecting the Commission-approved rates.
The approved rates should be effective for service rendered on or after the
stamped approval date on the tariff sheet, pursuant to Rule 25-30.475(1),
F.A.C. In addition, the temporary rates should not be implemented until staff
has approved the proposed notice, and it has been received by the customers.
The additional revenue produced by staff’s recommended rates and collected by the
Utility should be subject to the refund provisions discussed below.
Sunny Shores
should be authorized to initiate the temporary rates upon staff’s approval of
an appropriate security for the potential refund and cost of the proposed
customer notice. Security should be in the form of either a bond or letter of
credit in the amount of $10,871. Alternatively, the Utility may establish an
escrow agreement with an independent financial institution.
If the Utility chooses a bond for
securing the potential refund, the bond should contain wording to the effect
that it will be terminated only under the following conditions:
1.
The Commission approves the rate increase; or,
2.
If the Commission denies the increase, the Utility
shall refund the amount collected that is attributable to the increase.
If the Utility chooses a letter
of credit for securing the potential refund, the letter of credit should
contain the following conditions:
1.
The letter of credit is irrevocable for the period it
is in effect.
2.
The letter of credit will be in effect until a final
Commission order is rendered, either approving or denying the rate increase.
If security is provided through
an escrow agreement, the following conditions should be part of the agreement:
1.
The Commission Clerk, or his or her designee, must be a
signatory to the escrow agreement.
2.
No monies in the escrow account may be withdrawn by the
Utility without the prior written authorization of the Commission Clerk, or his
or her designee.
3.
The escrow account shall be an interest bearing
account.
4.
If a refund to the customers is required, all interest
earned by the escrow account shall be distributed to the customers.
5.
If a refund to the customers is not required, the
interest earned by the escrow account shall revert to the Utility.
6.
All information on the escrow account shall be
available from the holder of the escrow account to a Commission representative
at all times.
7.
The amount of revenue subject to refund shall be
deposited in the escrow account within seven days of receipt.
8.
This escrow account is established by the direction of
the Florida Public Service Commission for the purpose(s) set forth in its order
requiring such account. Pursuant to Cosentino
v. Elson, 263 So. 2d 253 (Fla. 3d DCA 1972), escrow accounts are not
subject to garnishments.
9.
The account must specify by whom and on whose behalf
such monies were paid.
In no
instance should the maintenance and administrative costs associated with the
refund be borne by the customers. These costs are the responsibility of, and
should be borne by, the Utility. Irrespective of the form of security chosen by
the Utility, an account of all monies received as a result of the rate increase
should be maintained by the Utility. If a refund is ultimately required, it
should be paid with interest calculated pursuant to Rule 25-30.360(4), F.A.C.
The Utility should maintain a record of the amount of the
bond, and the amount of revenues that are subject to refund. In addition, after
the increased rates are in effect, pursuant to Rule 25-30.360(6), F.A.C., the
Utility should file reports with the Commission Clerk’s office no later than
the 20th of every month indicating the monthly and total amount of money
subject to refund at the end of the preceding month. The report filed should
also indicate the status of the security being used to guarantee repayment of
any potential refund.
Issue 17:
Should Sunny Shores be required to notify the
Commission within 90 days of an effective order finalizing this docket, that it
has adjusted its books for all the applicable National Association of
Regulatory Utility Commissioners (NARUC) Uniform System of Accounts (USOA)
associated with the Commission approved adjustments?
Recommendation:
Yes. Sunny Shores should be required to notify the
Commission, in writing, that it has adjusted its books in accordance with the
Commission’s decision. Sunny Shores should submit a letter within 90 days of
the Commission’s final order in this docket, confirming that the adjustments to
all applicable NARUC USOA primary accounts have been made to the Utility’s
books and records. In the event the Utility needs additional time to complete
the adjustments, a notice providing good cause should be filed not less than
seven days prior to the deadline. Upon providing a notice of good cause, staff
should be given administrative authority to grant an extension of up to 60
days. (D. Brown) (Procedural Agency Action)
Staff Analysis:
Sunny Shores should be required to notify the
Commission, in writing, that it has adjusted its books in accordance with the
Commission’s decision. Sunny Shores should submit a letter within 90 days of
the Commission’s final order in this docket, confirming that the adjustments to
all the applicable NARUC USOA primary accounts have been made to the Utility’s
books and records. In the event the Utility needs additional time to complete
the adjustments, a notice providing good cause should be filed not less than
seven days prior to the deadline. Upon providing a notice of good cause, staff
should be given administrative authority to grant an extension of up to 60
days.
Issue 18:
Should this docket be closed?
Recommendation:
No. 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, 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. (Weisenfeld)
Staff Analysis:
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, 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.
