|
State of Florida
|
Public Service Commission
Capital Circle Office Center ● 2540 Shumard
Oak Boulevard
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0850
-M-E-M-O-R-A-N-D-U-M-
|
|
DATE:
|
March 24, 2022
|
|
TO:
|
Office of Commission Clerk (Teitzman)
|
|
FROM:
|
Office of the General Counsel (Cowdery)
Division of Accounting
and Finance (T. Brown)
Division of Economics
(Guffey)
|
|
RE:
|
Docket No. 20210122-WS – Proposed amendment
of Rules 25-30.025, 25-30.4345, 25-30.445, 25-30.446, 25-30.455, 25-30.456,
and 25-30.565, F.A.C., related to water and wastewater utilities.
|
|
AGENDA:
|
04/05/22 – Regular Agenda – Interested Persons May Participate
|
|
COMMISSIONERS ASSIGNED:
|
All Commissioners
|
|
PREHEARING OFFICER:
|
La Rosa
|
|
RULE STATUS:
|
Rule Hearing
|
|
SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS:
|
None
|
|
|
|
|
Case Background
Rule 25-30.445,
Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.), General Information and Instructions
Required of Water and Wastewater Utilities in an Application for a Limited
Proceeding (Limited Proceeding Rule), was amended and proposed for adoption,
along with six other water and wastewater rules, by publication in the October
14, 2021 edition of the Florida Administrative Register (F.A.R.), Vol. 47, No.
200. On November 3, 2021, the Office of Public
Counsel (OPC) timely filed a petition for public hearing and requested changes
to paragraph (6)(a) of the proposed Limited Proceeding Rule.
Pursuant to
notice published in the December 15, 2021 edition of the F.A.R., Vol. 47, No.
241, a Section 120.54(3)(c)1., Florida Statutes (F.S.), rule hearing was held before
the Commission on January 20, 2022, for the purpose of giving affected persons
an opportunity to present evidence and argument on all issues under
consideration. At the January 20, 2022 rule hearing,
argument concerning the proposed rule was made by OPC and by Sunshine Water
Services (SWS). In addition, the Commission raised two issues for consideration:
(1)
Whether a definition of the term “project” should be
included in the rule; and
(2)
Whether, instead of capping the number of projects that
may be requested in a limited proceeding, an alternative metric should be used,
such as a dollar value threshold or a percentage of the capital outlay budget.
After hearing
the arguments made by OPC and SWS, comments by Commission staff, and discussion
by the Commissioners, the Commission asked staff to consider the issues and
provide a staff recommendation for Commission determination at a future public
hearing to be held at a regularly scheduled Commission Conference.
This item is
being brought back to the Commission as a Section 120.54(3)(c)1., F.S., rule
hearing, the purpose of which is for the Commission
to decide whether to change the language of Rule 25-30.445, F.S., that was
proposed on October 14, 2021. The provisions of Section 120.54(3)(c)1., F.S.,
give affected persons the opportunity to present evidence and argument on all
issues under consideration. Pursuant to Section 120.54(3)(d)., F.S.:
Any change,
other than a technical change that does not affect the substance of the rule, must
be supported by the record of public hearings held on the rule, must be in
response to written material submitted to the agency within 21 days after the
date of publication of the notice of intended agency action or submitted to the
agency between the date of publication of the notice and the end of the final
public hearing, or must be in response to a proposed objection by the [Joint
Administrative Procedures] committee.
The Commission
has jurisdiction pursuant to Sections 120.54(3), 350.127(2), 367.081, 367.0812,
367.0822, 367.121(1)(a), and 367.145(2), F.S.
Discussion
of Issues
Issue 1:
Should the Commission make changes to proposed Rule
25-30.445, F.A.C., General Information and Instructions Required of Water and
Wastewater Utilities in an Application for a Limited Proceeding?
Recommendation:
No. The Commission should not make changes to proposed
Rule 25-30.445, F.A.C., but should adopt the rule as it was proposed on October
14, 2021, as shown in Attachment A. (T. Brown, Cowdery)
Staff Analysis:
The six project cap is appropriate for all water
and wastewater utility limited proceedings
Currently, under Rule 25-30.445, F.A.C., limited
proceeding applications will not be accepted if a water and/or wastewater
utility requests more than four projects. The proposed rule increases the
maximum number of projects requested in a limited proceeding to six. OPC’s
petition asked the Commission to change the proposed Limited Proceeding Rule as
follows:
(6) A limited proceeding will not be allowed if:
(a) The utility’s filing includes more than 4 six
separate projects for which recovery is sought unless the utility is
eligible for staff assistance pursuant to Section 367.0814, Fla. Stat.
Utilities eligible for staff assistance pursuant to Section 367.0814, Fla.
Stat., shall be limited to 6 separate projects under this section.
Corresponding adjustments for a given project are not subject to the above
limitation; …
Staff notes that to be eligible for a staff assisted rate
case (SARC) pursuant to Rule 25-30.455, Staff Assistance in Rate Cases, water
and wastewater utilities must have total gross annual operating revenues of
$300,000 or less for water service or wastewater service, or $600,000 or less on
a combined basis. Thus, under OPC’s suggested change, water utilities or
wastewater utilities with revenues over $300,000 for either system, or over
$600,000 on a combined basis, that file for a limited proceeding may not ask
for recovery of more than four separate projects, while water utilities and
wastewater utilities with revenues less than those amounts may seek recovery
for up to six separate projects.
Commission Rule 25-30.115, F.A.C., Uniform System of
Accounts for Water and Wastewater Utilities, defines a Class A water or wastewater
utility as one having annual operating revenues of $1 million or more; Class B
as having annual water or wastewater operating revenues of $200,000 or more but
less than $1 million; and Class C as having annual water or wastewater revenues
of less than $200,000. Thus, under OPC’s suggested change, some Class B
utilities would be SARC-eligible and allowed up to six projects, while other
Class B utilities would not be SARC-eligible and thus limited to four projects.
January 20, 2022 Rule Hearing
OPC’s position
OPC witness Jena Price stated that OPC supports increasing
the number of allowable projects from four to six for SARC-eligible utilities
to conserve staff resources dedicated to SARCs and because the data available shows
that limited proceedings offer the opportunity to provide utilities with a more
expeditious process to obtain rate relief and minimize rate case expense.
Witness Price stated that this approach could perhaps forestall a more
expensive rate case for these utilities. (TR 12-14) However, witness Price
argued that the number of rate cases filed by Class A and B utilities in the
past 10 years does not indicate excessive rate case activity for larger
utilities that would require increasing the project limit in limited
proceedings from four to six in order to alleviate a possible excessive or
congested rate case workload. (TR 15)
Sunshine Water Service’s position
Sunshine Water Systems supports the Limited Proceeding
Rule as proposed, which allows all water and wastewater utilities to seek
recovery in a limited proceeding for up to six separate projects. Jared Deason,
on behalf of SWS, argued that the proposed Limited Proceeding Rule made the
process more efficient and achieved cost savings by allowing six projects to be
considered in one limited proceeding instead of breaking it down into two
proceedings, each with separate filing fees, customer service hearing costs and
other processing costs. Witness Deason stated that by encouraging all
utilities, not just Class B and Class C utilities, to take advantage of a
limited proceeding, it could lengthen the time between full rate cases. (TR
16-18, 24-26) Witness Deason further stated that he was not aware of any
situation where companies have achieved a 30 percent rate increase in a limited
proceeding. (TR 25)
Staff Analysis
After considering all evidence
and argument from the rule hearing, staff believes that allowing up to six
projects is appropriate for all water and wastewater utility limited
proceedings and that the proposed Limited Proceeding Rule provides the
necessary safeguards to preserve the efficiencies the rule affords utilities. Staff
does not believe that the six project cap will increase the number of limited
proceedings at the expense of rate cases because the proposed rule contains
provisions that effectively prevent water and wastewater utilities from using
the limited proceeding process as a means to avoid rate cases.
The seven-year limitation
requires that a utility must have had a rate case within seven years, ensuring
that the utility’s operations have been reviewed and reflect its current
operations. This provision alone prevents a utility from filing only limited
proceedings. Moreover, the Limited Proceeding Rule contains a maximum
percentage rate increase of 30 percent. Again, a utility cannot avoid a rate
case if it has experienced significant growth in plant or an increase in
expenses if the indicated rate increase exceeds that 30 percent cap. The 30
percent cap limits the customers’ exposure due to potential variations in the
anticipated operational changes associated with a project. Finally, the six
project cap serves to limit the complexity of evaluating a utility’s request
while offering greater flexibility to capture the economies of scale associated
with grouping related tasks in a single limited proceeding. As an additional
safeguard, the Commission will continue to conduct yearly earnings surveillance
as part of its review of utility annual reports.
Staff notes that Class A
utilities may actually have a more heightened need for the additional projects
given the size of their systems. Water and wastewater utilities that are in
need of repair, upgrade, or refurbishment may be required to engage in multiple
projects to meet quality standards. Providing water and wastewater utilities a
more expeditious process to obtain necessary rate relief can serve to minimize
rate case expense and improve service to customers. In fact, one of the primary
benefits of a limited proceeding is the overall reduction of rate case expense.
This is especially true for larger Class A utilities. As mentioned by witness
Deason during the hearing, SWS rate case expense may range from $40,000 to
$50,000 in a limited proceeding and from $750,000 to more than $1 million in a
formal rate case. Moreover, staff notes that allowing the use of a limited
proceeding for requests of six or fewer projects only provides for the utility
to use the limited proceeding process; the Commission will ultimately determine
whether any of the projects should be approved for cost recovery.
Staff does not believe the
addition of two projects amounts to “mission creep,” as suggested by OPC, nor
does it overly complicate the process. Even with two additional projects, the
process remains limited in nature. The additional projects also provide some
ability to divide projects into subprojects if it becomes necessary, without
adversely impacting the docket. The change from four to six projects may make limited
proceedings more efficient by avoiding some of the time-consuming
back-and-forth that sometimes occurs if the scope of an individual project is
challenged or if there is an issue as to whether a project should be divided
into multiple projects.
Staff disagrees with
OPC’s position that “the data does not indicate excessive rate case activities”
that would warrant the need to increase the project limit “as a solution to
alleviate a possible excessive or congested rate case workload at the SARC
level.” OPC’s statement does not reflect an accurate picture of staff’s water
and wastewater rate case workload, as it appears to only look at file and
suspend rate cases. In
addition to the 20 file and suspend rate cases mentioned by OPC, staff
processed 52 SARCs and 10 limited alternative rate increases between 2011 and
2021.
During this same period, eight limited proceedings were also processed.
Finally, staff supports the proposed Limited Proceeding
Rule’s six project limit because it will help capture economies of scale as
well as reduce costs to the utility and, in turn, customers. Staff believes
that limited proceedings provide a critical role in a utility’s ability to
recover costs associated with necessary plant projects in a timely and cost
effective manner.
Additional questions raised at the rule hearing
Procedural Overview
In
this docket, during the January 20, 2022 rule adoption hearing, the Commission
raised two new questions relative to this rulemaking: (1) whether the term “project” should be
defined in the rule, and (2) whether there should be an alternative to “using
the number of projects” (such as the metric of a dollar value threshold or a
percentage of the capital outlay budget) as a limiting factor to request a
limited proceeding.
Chapter
120, F.S., sets forth the proper procedures for agency rulemaking, including rulemaking
by collegial bodies. When an agency such as the Commission undertakes a rulemaking,
the law allows for rule development workshops. In this docket, a workshop was
not requested so none was held. The purpose of the rule development workshop is
to obtain information from stakeholders to assist in drafting the rule being
adopted or amended.
After
the conclusion of rule development workshops, staff will typically bring a draft
rule to the Commission at a public hearing, generally held at a regularly
scheduled Commission Conference, for the purpose of having the Commission
decide whether to officially propose the rule. At that time, the Commission will
take any comments from the public, direct staff to consider making different
amendments to the rule language, which could involve additional workshops, or
propose the rule as recommended or as modified by the Commission.
Once the Commission proposes a rule, an
affected person has 21 days in which to ask the Commission to make changes to
the proposed rule at a rule hearing pursuant to Section 120.54(3)(c), F.S. If no request for hearing is brought, the
rule will be officially filed with the Department of State for adoption (a
ministerial act), following the procedures in Section 120.54(3)(d) and (e), F.S.
On
the other hand, if the Commission holds a rule hearing to address concerns of a
petitioner about the proposed rule, the Commission is limited under Section
120.54(3)(d), F.S., to the changes it may make to the proposed rule. In other
words, an agency’s ability to make changes to the proposed rule beyond what is
raised by a Petitioner is narrowed after a rule is officially proposed. As referenced in the Case Background, one of
these limitations is that any changes must be supported by the record of
public hearings held on the rule.
In
this docket, the two questions raised by the Commission at the rule hearing were
not addressed during the development of the proposed rule or raised in OPC’s
petition for rule hearing. Thus, there is no information in the hearing record
on which to base a change to the proposed Limited Proceeding Rule on these two
questions.
However,
after an agency proposes a rule, without changes or with changes supported by
the record, if the agency wishes to make new and different amendments to the
rule, the correct procedure to follow is to either: (1) withdraw the proposed
rule prior to adoption pursuant to Section 120.54(3)(d)2., F.S., (essentially terminating
the existing rulemaking altogether and starting all over) or (2) file the
proposed rule for adoption pursuant to Section 120.54(3)(e), F.S., and open a separate
new rulemaking docket to address the new issues. The latter approach can be a more efficient
way to proceed to address new questions because it allows the other amendments
that have been proposed to the rule, and fully vetted as supported by the
record, to be adopted and become effective. Staff will discuss below the merits
of addressing the questions raised in a future rulemaking.
Alternative to the project metric
At the January 20, 2022 rule
hearing, the Commission raised a question about finding an alternative to using
the number of projects as one of the limiting factors for requesting a limited
proceeding. Use of a metric such as a dollar value threshold or a percentage of
the capital outlay budget were suggested. These alternatives were not raised in
the rule development process prior to the rule being proposed or by OPC in its
petition for hearing, and neither staff, OPC, nor SWS had a comprehensive
response during the hearing as to how that approach would impact limited
proceedings or what its application would look like. As discussed above, any
substantive change to the proposed rule must be based on the record of the public
hearing pursuant to Section 120.54(3)(d), F.S. Thus, at this point in the
rulemaking process, it would not be appropriate to change the proposed rule to
use an alternative to the project metric.
Nevertheless, OPC stated at the
hearing that this approach would be “difficult” to use. (TR 24) OPC indicated
that its primary concern was with “mission creep,” especially with the increase
in the number of projects from four to six for Class A utilities. SWS addressed
the issue by indicating that the proposed rule is still only looking at a
limited number of projects. SWS suggested that “if you can have the opportunity
to carve out some of those larger components, some of the larger projects that
come up that need to be addressed and address them solely so that you can
reduce rate case expense from having to go to a full-blown rate case, that's an
efficiency.” (TR 26) SWS went on to state that the efficiency “benefits the
utility and the customers” and reiterated support for the six projects in the
proposed rule. (TR 26)
Staff notes that only a limited
number of water and wastewater utilities will have a designated capital outlay
budget. While many of the Class A and larger Class B utilities might have
capital budgets, the vast majority of the Class B and Class C utilities do not.
In addition, the use of a dollar value threshold, instead of a specific number
of projects, might not reflect the true impact of the capital improvements.
When capital additions are made, there will be a series of corresponding
adjustments that will also impact the calculated final increase. When capital
additions are made to utility plant in service, that amount may be offset by
retirements, with additional adjustments being made to accumulated depreciation,
depreciation expense, and taxes. Finally, staff notes that the limited
proceeding process is not limited to the recovery of capital projects as many
limited proceedings involve adjustments to operating expenses as well.
For the above reasons, staff does not recommend that the
proposed rule be changed to include an alternative to the project metric.
However, as with the question of whether a definition of the term “project”
might be included in the Limited Proceeding Rule, the question of using a dollar
value threshold or a percentage of capital outlay budget as a factor in
determining whether a limited proceeding is appropriate could be evaluated in a
future rulemaking where affected persons would be given an opportunity to
provide more detailed input on the issue.
Definition of project
Also at
the January 20, 2022 rule hearing, the Commission raised the question of
whether the term “project” should be defined in the Limited Proceeding Rule. No
definition of project was provided during rule development or at the rule
hearing. As previously explained, it
would not be appropriate to add a definition of project to the rule at this
time in the rulemaking process. As such, staff recommends that the Commission
move forward with the Limited Proceeding Rule as initially proposed with no
changes. Further, staff recommends that the Commission consider the following
arguments as to whether to direct staff to proceed with future rulemaking to
define the term “project.”
Staff
believes that it is not necessary to define the term “project” in this
rule. Application of the plain meaning
of the term has not typically resulted in controversies that are not worked out
among parties. Currently, a project is best described generally as a capital
investment in plant, with a defined beginning and end, comprised of a series of
tasks to complete, resulting in an in-service plant investment. The term
“project” is best summarized in Rule 25-30.445(4)(c), F.A.C., which identifies
pieces of costs and requires the identification of rate base components
associated with a capital item, for which a limited proceeding is sought. For example, a typical project that might
qualify under the current rule would be work associated with a DEP required
replacement of a broken water pump in a well.
None
of the parties in this rulemaking docket have raised the lack of a definition
of a project as a possible issue that needs to be addressed. Parties and staff generally agree on the
singularity of purpose concept in a capital item or capital project. While the scope of a project can be an issue
in a docket, the definition of a project is not typically an issue. Because the
facts of each case determine the nature and scope of a project, the practice
has been to determine what constitutes a project on a case-by-case
determination thereby obviating the need for guidance in a rule. If a dispute
arose as to whether a project constituted one or more projects (i.e. the scope
of a project), staff would work with the parties to reach agreement to determine
the scope of a project, or the matter would become an issue in the docket for
the Commission to decide.
In
summary, because the lack of a definition of a project has not been at issue in
cases thus far and because there is a process to resolve a dispute on a
case-by-case basis should the issue arise, staff is of the view that it is not
necessary to pursue the definition of a project in any future rulemaking.
Conclusion
Staff recommends that the
Commission should not make changes to proposed Rule 25-30.445, F.A.C., but
should adopt the rule as it was proposed on October 14, 2021, as shown in
Attachment A.
Issue 2:
Should this docket be closed?
Recommendation:
Yes. The rule as approved by the Commission should
be filed with the Department of State pursuant to Section 120.54(3), F.S., and
the docket should be closed. (Cowdery)
Staff Analysis:
The rule as approved by the Commission should be filed
with the Department of State pursuant to the requirements of Section
120.54(3)(e), F.S., and the docket should be closed.
25-30.445 General Information and
Instructions Required of Water and Wastewater Utilities in an Application for a
Limited Proceeding.
(1)
Each applicant for a limited proceeding must provide the following general
information to the Commission:
(a)
The name of the applicant as it appears on the applicant’s certificate and the
address of the applicant’s principal place of business.
(b)
The type of business organization under which the applicant’s operations are
conducted; if the applicant is a corporation, the date of incorporation; the
names and addresses of all persons who own 5 percent or more of the applicant’s
stock; or the names and addresses of the owners of the business.
(c)
The number(s) of the Commission order(s), if any, in which the Commission most
recently considered the applicant’s rates for the system(s) involved.
(d)
The address within the service area where the application is available for
customer inspection during the time the rate application is pending.
(e)
A statement signed by an officer of the utility that the utility will comply
with the noticing requirements in Rule 25-30.446, F.A.C.
(2)
In a limited proceeding application:
(a)
Each schedule must be cross-referenced to identify related schedules.
(b)
Except for handwritten official company records, all data in the petition and
application must be typed.
(c)
The original and three copies must be filed with the Office of Commission Clerk. The copies must be clearly labeled “COPY.” If the
application is e-filed, the utility must provide the required number of paper
copies, clearly labeled “COPY,” to the Office of Commission Clerk within seven
calendar days after electronic filing,
(3)
A filing fee as required in Rule 25-30.020, F.A.C., must be submitted at the
time of application.
(4)
The following minimum filing requirements must be filed with the utility’s
application for limited proceeding for a Class A or B water or wastewater
utility:
(a)
A detailed statement of the reason(s) why the limited proceeding has been
requested.
(b)
If the limited proceeding is being requested to recover costs required by a
governmental or regulatory agency, provide the following:
1.
A copy of any rule, regulation, order or other regulatory directive that has
required or will require the applicant to make the improvement or the
investment for which the applicant seeks recovery.
2.
An estimate by a professional engineer, or other person, knowledgeable in
design and construction of water and wastewater plants, to establish the
projected cost of the applicant's investment and the period of time required
for completion of construction.
(c)
A schedule that provides the specific rate base components for which the
utility seeks recovery. Supporting detail must be provided for each item
requested, including:
1.
The actual or projected cost(s);
2.
The date the item will be or is projected to be placed in service;
3.
Any corresponding adjustments that are required as a result of adding or
removing the requested component(s) from rate base, which may include
retirement entries; and,
4.
Any other relevant supporting information.
(d)
If the utility’s application includes a request for recovery of plant in
service, accumulated depreciation and depreciation expense, supporting detail must
be provided by primary account as defined by the NARUC Uniform System of
Accounts, in accordance with Rule 25-30.110, F.A.C.
(e)
A calculation of the weighted average cost of capital must be provided for the
most recent 12-month period, using the mid-point of the range of the last
authorized rate of return on equity, the current embedded cost of fixed-rate
capital, the actual cost of short-term debt, the actual cost of variable-cost
debt, and the actual cost of other sources of capital which were used in the
last individual rate proceeding of the utility. If the utility does not have an
authorized rate of return on equity, the utility must use the current leverage
formula pursuant to Section 367.081(4)(f), F.S.
(f)
If the utility is requesting recovery of operating expenses, the following
information must be provided:
1.
A detailed description of the expense(s) requested;
2.
The total cost by primary account pursuant to the NARUC Uniform System of
Accounts;
3.
Supporting documentation or calculations; and,
4.
Any allocations that are made between systems, affiliates or related parties.
If allocations are made, submit full detail that shows the total amount
allocated, a description of the basis of the allocation methodology, the
allocation percentage applied to each allocated cost, and the workpapers
supporting the calculation of the allocation percentages.
(g)
Calculations for all items that will create cost savings or revenue impacts
from the implementation of the requested cost recovery items.
(h)
If the utility includes any other items where calculations are required,
supporting documentation must be filed that reflects the calculations or
assumptions made.
(i)
A calculation of the revenue increase including regulatory assessment fees and
income taxes, if appropriate.
(j)
Annualized revenues for the most recent 12-month period using the rates in
effect at the time the utility files its application for limited proceeding and
a schedule reflecting this calculation by customer class and meter size.
(k)
A schedule of current and proposed rates for all classes of customers.
(l)
Schedules for the most recent 12-month period showing that, without any
increased rates, the utility will earn below its authorized rate of return in
accordance with Section 367.082, F.S. The schedules must consist of a rate
base, net operating income and cost of capital schedule with adjustments to
reflect those consistent with the utility’s last rate proceeding.
(m)
If the limited proceeding is being requested to change the current rate
structure, provide a copy of all workpapers and calculations used to calculate
requested rates and allocations between each customer class. The test year must
be the most recent 12-month period. In addition, the following schedules from
Form PSC 1028 (12/20), entitled “Class A Water and/or Wastewater Utilities
Financial, Rate and Engineering Minimum Filing Requirements,” which is
incorporated by reference in Rule 25-30.437, F.A.C., must be provided:
1.
Schedule E-2, entitled “Revenue Schedule at Present and Proposed Rates.”
2.
Schedule E-14, entitled “Billing Analysis Schedules.” Only an original and one
copy is required.
(n)
Revised tariff sheets should not be filed with the application.
(o)
A water utility’s application for limited proceeding must also include:
1.
A copy of all customer complaints that the utility has received regarding DEP
secondary water quality standards during the past five years; and,
2.
A copy of the utility’s most recent secondary water quality standards test
results.
(5)
In addition to the requirements stated in subsections (1) through (3), the
following minimum filing requirements must be filed with the utility’s
application for limited proceeding for a Class C water or wastewater utility:
(a)
A detailed statement of the reason(s) why the limited proceeding has been
requested.
(b)
If the limited proceeding is being requested to recover costs required by a
governmental or regulatory agency, provide a copy of any rule, regulation,
order or other regulatory directive that has required or will require the
applicant to make the improvement or the investment for which the applicant
seeks recovery.
(c)
A schedule that provides the specific rate base components for which the
utility seeks recovery, if known. Supporting detail must be provided for each
item requested, including:
1.
The actual or projected cost(s);
2.
The date the item will be or is projected to be placed in service;
3.
Any corresponding adjustments, if known, that are required as a result of
adding or removing the requested component(s) from rate base, which may include
retirement entries; and,
4.
Any other relevant supporting information, if known.
(d)
If the utility is requesting recovery of operating expenses, provide an
itemized description of the expense(s), including the cost and any available
supporting documentation or calculations.
(e)
Provide a description of any known items that will create cost savings or
revenue impacts from the implementation of the requested cost recovery items.
(f)
A calculation of the revenue increase including regulatory assessment fees and
income taxes, if applicable.
(g)
Annualized revenues for the most recent 12-month period using the rates in
effect at the time the utility files its application for limited proceeding and
a schedule reflecting this calculation by customer class and meter size.
(h)
A Class C water utility’s application for limited proceeding must also include:
1.
A copy of all customer complaints that the utility has received regarding DEP
secondary water quality standards during the past five years; and,
2.
A copy of the utility’s most recent secondary water quality standards test
results.
(6)
A limited proceeding will not be allowed if:
(a)
The utility’s filing includes more than six separate projects for which
recovery is sought. Corresponding adjustments for a given project are not
subject to the above limitation;
(b)
The requested rate increase exceeds 30 percent;
(c)
The utility has not had a rate case within seven years of the date the petition
for limited proceeding is filed with the Commission; or
(d)
The limited proceeding is filed as the result of the complete elimination of
either the water or wastewater treatment process.
(7)
The utility must provide a statement in its filing to the Commission that addresses
whether the utility’s rate base has declined or whether any expense recovery
sought by the utility is offset by customer growth since its most recent rate
proceeding or will be offset by future customer growth expected to occur within
one year of the date new rates are implemented.
Rulemaking
Authority 350.127(2), 367.121(1)(a) FS. Law Implemented 367.081, 367.0812,
367.0822, 367.121(1)(a), 367.145(2) FS. History–New 3-1-04, Amended 5-30-17,___________.