Case Background
On January 3,
2022, Florida Public Utilities Company (FPUC or utility) filed a petition
requesting Commission approval to modify its Lighting Service tariff (Rate
Schedule LS). Currently, Rate Schedule
LS offers customers various High Pressure Sodium (HPS) and Metal Halide (MH)
outdoor lighting options. In its petition, FPUC proposed to close the existing
HPS and MH fixture options to new customers and offer new Light Emitting Diode
(LED) fixture options.
Staff issued a
data request on January 26, 2022, with responses filed by the utility on
February 9, 2022. In its response, FPUC submitted revised tariff sheets Nos.
56, 57, and 58 to reflect corrections made to the cost support for the LED
fixtures. The revised tariffs are included as Attachment A to this
recommendation. On January 12, 2022, FPUC filed a letter in this docket waiving
the 60-day file and suspend provision of Section 366.06(3), Florida Statutes
(F.S.). The Commission has jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to Sections
366.04, 366.05, and 366.06 F.S.
Discussion
of Issues
Issue 1:
Should the Commission approve FPUC’s proposed
modifications to the Rate Schedule LS lighting tariff?
Recommendation:
Yes. The Commission should approve FPUC’s proposed
modifications to the Rate Schedule LS lighting tariff as shown in Attachment A
to the recommendation. The proposed new LED fixture options are cost based and
expand the fixture options available to customers. Closing the current HPS and
MH options for new lighting customers allows FPUC to recognize energy
efficiencies and technological improvements in the lighting industry. The
revised tariffs should be effective upon the issuance of a consummating order. (Forrest)
Staff Analysis:
FPUC, under Rate Schedule LS,
currently provides outdoor lighting service offering HPS and MH fixtures. The
utility requested approval to modify its Rate Schedule LS to close the existing
HPS and MH fixture options to new customers and to offer new customers fifteen
LED fixture options. Current customers served under Rate Schedule LS would remain
on the HPS and MH fixture rates and would not see a change in their lighting
bill. If a customer served under Rate Schedule LS needs to replace a light
fixture, it would be replaced with an LED fixture and billed under the new LED fixture
rates. All new lighting customers would be served under the proposed new LED
lighting rates.
Closure of HPS and MH Fixtures
To support its petition, FPUC
explained that as technology advances in the lighting market, the demand for
HPS and MH fixtures has decreased, while the demand for LED lighting has
increased. LED is a type of solid-state light that uses a semiconductor to
convert electric current to visible light. LED lighting is a more energy
efficient lighting source compared to its predecessors HPS and MH lights. Along
with demand decreasing for HPS and MH lights, manufacturers have begun to phase
out traditional product lines for HPS and MH lighting sources and replace them
with the more energy efficient LED production.
New LED Fixtures
FPUC proposed to add fifteen new
LED fixture rate options: five cobra heads, four decorative, four flood lights,
and two shoe box with varying lamp lumens and watt sizes. The charges for the
new LED lighting fixtures are comprised of three components: the fixture,
maintenance, and energy charges. The fixture charge includes the estimated
total cost to install an LED fixture and any carrying costs and taxes. The
maintenance charge is the cost associated with maintaining the LED fixture for
its expected service life. The energy charge is calculated by multiplying the
estimated energy usage of the fixture by the lighting non-fuel energy charge. The
new LED fixtures and associated charges can be seen on tariff sheet No. 57.
In conjunction with its petition,
the utility submitted supporting cost information for the proposed LED fixture,
maintenance, and energy charges. In its response to staff’s data request, the
utility made two corrections to its originally-submitted calculations. With previous
lighting options, there was a need to factor power loss into the calculation.
However, with LED technology, there is no longer a need to factor in a power
loss adjustment. Thus, the utility removed the eighteen percent power loss
calculation that was originally submitted with the petition.
Along with that change, the utility stated that an adjustment
was needed in its original overhead calculation. FPUC determined the correct
percentage for the overhead calculation should be decreased from 35 percent to 34
percent. These two cost calculation adjustments resulted in a decrease to the
proposed LED fixture rates submitted with the original petition. The revised
tariff sheets, which include these corrections, were submitted with the utility’s
data request responses and are attached as Attachment A to the recommendation.
Staff has reviewed these changes and believes them to be appropriate and
reasonable.
FPUC has provided staff with documentation that supports
closing the HPS and MH lighting rates to new customers and to offer LED
lighting rates in its place. As noted by FPUC, this should not only decrease
energy used by FPUC subscribers, but should also lower operating and
maintenance costs for the utility. The Commission has approved similar
petitions to close existing HPS and MH fixture options to new customers and
offer LED fixture options.
Staff has reviewed all pertinent information in the docket and analyzed the
cost support submitted to the Commission.
Conclusion
The Commission should approve FPUC’s proposed
modifications to the Rate Schedule LS lighting tariff as shown in Attachment A
to the recommendation. The proposed new LED fixture options are cost based and
expand the fixture options available to customers. Closing the current HPS and
MH options for new installations allows FPUC to recognize energy efficiencies
and technological improvements in the lighting industry. The revised tariffs
should be effective upon the issuance of a consummating order.
Issue 2:
Should this docket be closed?
Recommendation:
If a protest is filed
within 21 days of the issuance of the order approving the proposed tariffs, the
current tariffs should remain in effect pending resolution of the protest. If
no timely protest is filed, the approved tariffs should go into effect, and the
docket be closed, upon the issuance of a consummating order. (Brownless)
Staff Analysis:
If a protest is filed within 21 days of the issuance
of the order approving the proposed tariffs, the current tariffs should remain
in effect pending resolution of the protest. If no timely protest is filed, the
approved tariffs should go into effect, and the docket be closed, upon the
issuance of a consummating order.
