Case Background
On February 18,
2022, Tampa Electric Company (TECO or utility) filed a petition for approval of
a new Small Commercial Bright Choices Outdoor Lighting Agreement tariff (Small
Commercial lighting agreement or proposed Agreement). The proposed Small
Commercial lighting agreement would allow customers requesting the installation
of less than $20,000 of lighting equipment on commercial property to take
lighting service on a month-to-month term. The proposed Agreement may be
terminated by either party with 30 days’ notice. TECO further proposes several
modifications and clarifications to its current lighting tariffs.
TECO provides
outdoor lighting service to customers under its Lighting Service (LS-1) tariff.
The LS-1 tariff provides the lighting rates for all fixture and pole options.
LS-1 customers are also required to sign a lighting agreement, which specifies
the terms and conditions of lighting service. Prior to 2022, all customers
taking service under TECO’s LS-1 tariff were required to sign the standard,
Commission-approved Bright Choices Outdoor Lighting Agreement, which specifies
a primary contract term of 10 years.
As a provision
of TECO’s 2021 rate case settlement agreement, the Commission approved a Small
Residential lighting agreement effective January 1, 2022. The Small Residential lighting agreement allows
residential customers installing less than $10,000 of lighting equipment to
take service under the LS-1 tariff on a month-to-month term instead of a
primary term of 10 years. Customers installing more than $10,000 of lighting
equipment on residential property are still required to sign the standard
Bright Choices Outdoor Lighting Agreement.
This petition
contains TECO’s proposal for a counterpart Small Commercial lighting agreement.
The proposed Agreement contains similar language to the Small Residential
Lighting Agreement and would allow customers seeking installation of lighting
equipment costing less than $20,000 on commercial property to take service on a
month-to-month term.
In Order No.
PSC-2022-0140-PCO-EI, the Commission suspended the proposed tariffs to allow
staff sufficient opportunity to review the petition and gather all pertinent
information in order to present the Commission with an informed recommendation
on the tariff proposals. During the evaluation of the petition,
staff issued two data requests to TECO and received responses on March 28, 2022,
and April 26, 2022. In response to staff’s second data
request, TECO filed revised tariff sheet Nos. 6.835 and 7.275 to clarify
definitions and address questions raised by staff.
Attachment A to
this recommendation contains the proposed revised tariff sheets. The Commission
has jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to Sections 366.03, 366.04, 366.05,
and 366.06, Florida Statutes (F.S.).
Discussion
of Issues
Issue 1:
Should the Commission approve TECO's petition for a
new proposed Small Commercial Lighting Agreement and other proposed lighting
tariff revisions?
Recommendation:
Yes, the Commission should approve TECO's petition
for a new proposed Agreement and other associated lighting tariff revisions. The
proposed Agreement with a month-to-month term would benefit LS-1 customers
seeking installation of lighting equipment costing less than $20,000 on
commercial property. The proposed tariff sheets are contained in Attachment A
to this recommendation. The proposed tariffs should be effective upon the
issuance of a consummating order. (Hampson)
Staff Analysis:
The proposed Agreement is designed to provide
commercial customers with more flexible terms than the 10-year term specified
in the Bright Choices Outdoor Lighting Agreement. Under the proposed Agreement,
customers requesting the installation of lighting equipment costing $20,000 or
less on commercial property would agree to lighting service on month-to-month
terms and would be charged for lighting facilities pursuant to TECO’s LS-1
tariffs. The terms of the proposed Agreement are consistent with the
Commission-approved Small Residential lighting agreement.
TECO explained that the $20,000 installation cost maximum
for the proposed Agreement is based on a common unit and quantity of fixtures
and poles for a typical small commercial application.
The utility also provided two examples for a typical small commercial lighting
equipment installation costing approximately $20,000.
For both overhead and underground service examples described, TECO stated that
a typical installation would include between four and 12 fixture and pole
units.
In the event a customer terminates the proposed Agreement
in the short-term, TECO explained that there would be no impact to the general
body of ratepayers. However, TECO stated that “there is an impact to lighting
customers in the next rate proceeding as the cost of the facilities not
producing revenues is included in the cost of service for all lighting
customers if not removed.” TECO further explained that the facilities would
remain in place as a new customer taking over the property typically requests
that the existing lights be turned on and the utility does not plan to utilize
the proposed Agreement in situations where service would be temporary or
seasonal. If
a new property owner requests removal of the lighting equipment, the equipment
would either be salvaged or returned to stock for reuse.
Staff inquired regarding the amount of commercial lighting
installations performed by TECO in the past year that were below the proposed
$20,000 maximum installation cost. In
response, the utility stated that it had performed a total of 140 installations
for commercial customers in the year 2021, assuming that one lighting installation
correlates to one lighting agreement. Of those 140 commercial lighting
installations, 133, or 95 percent, had material costs less than $20,000.
Furthermore, TECO explained that the average material cost of those 133
commercial lighting installations was $2,190.
The proposed Agreement may be terminated by either party,
after providing the other with 30 days’ notice. In response to staff’s second
data request, the utility stated that there would be no removal costs or other
fees for customers terminating the proposed Agreement, except in the event of
light trespass. If
removal of any equipment is the only practicable resolution for a light
trespass objection, the customer would be responsible for the removal costs for
the equipment that must be removed.
TECO explained that the proposed Agreement would also be
available to commercial tenants.
This is consistent with TECO’s Commission-approved standard Bright Choices
Outdoor Lighting Agreement and Small Residential lighting agreement.
Other Lighting Tariff Revisions
In addition to the proposed Agreement, TECO has proposed
several modifications and clarifications to its current lighting tariffs. The
main modifications are described below. None of the modifications affect the
lighting rates and charges customers pay.
In its LS-1 tariffs (tariff sheet Nos. 6.800-6.821), TECO
proposes to reopen a style of pole that was previously closed to new customers
and modify the non-standard facilities and service section. The Round style
light pole (Rate Code 523) was previously closed in 2017 at the request of the
utility. TECO
explained that the Round style light pole was closed to new business because,
at the time, there were few Round style light poles in service.
TECO now proposes to reopen this pole style at the request of the City of
Tampa. The City of Tampa has selected the Round style light pole as a signature
pole for expanded use.
Tariff sheet No. 6.815 lists certain non-standard lighting
facilities and services that are not typically provided by TECO as a part of a
lighting installation. As a result, the requesting customer is responsible for
the costs associated with those facilities and services. TECO explained that
the proposal to modify the list to make clarifying edits and include additional
non-standard services was in response to frequent questions from customers.
In its
Customer Specified Lighting Service (LS-2) tariffs (tariff sheet Nos. 6.830 and
6.835), TECO proposed to add a definition of in-place value for any customers
transferring from LS-1 to LS-2 service. The LS-2 tariff is available to
customers, at the option of the utility, requesting special fixtures or poles
that are not available under the LS-1 tariff and to bill customers for the fixture
and maintenance costs, TECO applies a monthly charge calculated by multiplying
0.93 percent of the in-place value of the facilities.
In its Small Residential lighting agreement (tariff sheet
Nos. 7.215-7.245), TECO proposed the following tariff clarifications. First,
TECO added a provision to indicate that during construction or removal of
lighting equipment, the requesting customer is responsible for the costs of
custom sidewalk restoration. Second, TECO clarified that the customer is
responsible for any removal costs if the lighting installation becomes
objectionable to other parties (other than the customer) and removal of the
lighting is the only practicable resolution.
The proposed clarifications to the Small Residential
lighting agreement have also been incorporated in the proposed Small Commercial
lighting agreement. Staff has reviewed the modifications described above and
believes they are reasonable.
Conclusion
The Commission
should approve TECO’s petition for a new proposed Agreement and other associated
lighting tariff revisions. The proposed Agreement with a month-to-month term
would benefit LS-1 customers seeking installation of lighting equipment costing
less than $20,000 on commercial property. The proposed tariff sheets are
contained in Attachment A to this recommendation. The proposed 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. (Stiller)
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.
