Discussion
of Issues
Issue 1:
Is the quality of service provided by S. V.
Utilities, Ltd. satisfactory?
Recommendation:
No. The
Utility is in compliance with the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP)
standards; however, several customer comments regarding service interruptions
have been received. As such, staff recommends that SV’s quality of service be
considered marginal and no penalty be imposed at this time. Staff further recommends
that the Utility meet with its customers within three months of issuance of the
Consummating Order to discuss the service interruption issues. The Office of
Public Counsel and Commission staff should be made aware of the meeting place,
date, and time. Last, within one month after meeting with its customers, the
Utility shall file a report with the Commission summarizing the results of the
meeting. (Thompson)
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 and wastewater
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 (water), and the utility’s attempt to address
customer satisfaction (water and wastewater). The Rule further states that the
most recent chemical analyses for the water system, 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.
The operating conditions of the water and wastewater systems are addressed in
Issue 2.
Quality of the Utility’s Product
In
evaluation of SV’s product quality, staff reviewed the Utility’s compliance
with the DEP’s primary and secondary drinking water standards. Primary
standards protect public health while secondary standards regulate contaminants
that may impact the taste, odor, and color of drinking water. In the DEP’s last
Sanitary Survey Report dated September 16, 2021, no chemical or bacteriological
exceedances were noted for the previous 12 months, and the Utility was
determined to be in compliance with DEP standards.
The Utility’s Attempt to Address Customer
Satisfaction
Staff reviewed the Commission’s Consumer Activity Tracking System
(CATS) records, and there were no complaints recorded during the test year and
four years prior for SV. Staff requested all complaints received by the Utility
during the test year and four years prior, and the Utility responded that it
did not receive any complaints during this timeframe. Staff also requested all
complaints received by the DEP during the test year and four years prior, and
the DEP responded that it did not receive any complaints for SV during this
timeframe.
Staff performed a supplemental review of the complaints filed in CATS following
issuance of the Customer Meeting notices and the subsequent Customer Meeting
held on November 3, 2022. This review found five complaints filed in CATS, and
approximately 52 written comments. Most of the comments were regarding service
interruptions and rate concerns. Other
customer comments were regarding the water system not being properly
maintained, and water quality issues. Table 1-1 shows the number of
complaints and comments, by source and subject, received during the rate case.
Table 1-1
Number of Rate Case Comments
Received by Source and Subject
|
Subject of Comment
|
CATS
Complaint Records
|
Written/
Oral Comments
|
Total*
|
|
Service Interruptions
|
4
|
44
|
48
|
|
Rate Concerns
|
2
|
37
|
39
|
|
System Not Properly Maintained
|
1
|
16
|
17
|
|
Water Quality (Taste, Color, Odor)
|
2
|
12
|
14
|
|
Total*
|
9
|
109
|
118
|
*A single customer comment/complaint may be counted
multiple times if it is associated with
multiple categories.
Regarding
service interruptions, customers have expressed concerns about the number of
service interruptions, as well as the ensuing notices requiring them to boil
water for days following interruptions. Customers
have stated that when they have inquired as to why their service is being
interrupted, the Utility has consistently responded that the interruptions are
due to the age of the pipes. In response to Staff’s Fourth Data Request,
the Utility identified 11 service interruptions in the past 12 months, four of
which affected SV’s entire customer base, and the remaining seven impacted an
average of 23 customers each. Three of the system-wide interruptions were
planned, with all remaining interruptions unplanned. When asked if the Utility has considered replacing the aging pipes or
making other system improvements, and how much these improvements would cost,
SV responded that it has not attempted to get a quote for replacing the water
pipes. The Utility believes that the cost to repair line breaks is substantially
more cost-effective than replacing the water pipes, which would result in
higher rates for customers. Customers also expressed concerns that the Utility
may not be properly maintaining the water system by applying temporary fixes
for repairs, resulting in continual service interruptions. However, in response
to Staff’s Fourth Data Request, SV indicated that it does not perform temporary
fixes unless warranted by the situation. When temporary fixes are performed, SV
stated that permanent fixtures are put in place as soon as parts are available.
In addition, the Utility stated that it ensures that it completes repairs
properly and with quality parts and materials to prevent recurrence.
Regarding the rate increase, customers
expressed issues with the amount of the increase due to affordability issues,
and expressed concerns that their water service is not reliable enough to
justify the rate increase. Regarding the water quality issues, customers have
expressed concerns with the taste, odor, and color of the water. According to
the customer comments regarding water quality, the water is commonly cloudy or
yellow in color, and smells and tastes of chlorine. When asked how the Utility
intends to resolve these concerns, SV responded that the Utility meets all
primary and secondary water quality standards, and that the chlorine levels are
tested daily, as required, and do not exceed standards. The Utility further
stated that no water quality complaints were received prior to the filing of
this SARC and due to the stated reasons, the Utility believes no further action
is necessary.
A virtual customer meeting was held on November
3, 2022, and three customers provided oral comments, one of which presented
comments on his behalf, and on the behalves of approximately 40 other customers
in attendance with him. At the meeting, customers expressed concerns regarding
the issues discussed above. In addition, one customer wanted to ensure that the
employees are not over earning as the employees are the same across all of the
sister utilities. Another concern brought up at the Customer Meeting that
relates to the service interruption concerns is the lack of isolation valve
usage to reduce the need to interrupt the service of all or large amounts of
customers whenever there are service interruptions. Regarding the isolation
valve concern, in response to Staff’s Fourth Data Request, the Utility
explained that it has made every effort to replace any isolation valves that
are not working, and add isolation valves to areas that would allow it to
isolate more areas.
Conclusion
The Utility is in
compliance with DEP standards; however, several customer comments regarding
service interruptions have been received. As such, staff recommends that SV’s
quality of service be considered marginal and no penalty be imposed at this
time. Staff further recommends that the Utility meet with its customers within
three months of issuance of the Consummating Order to discuss the service interruption
issues. The Office of Public Counsel and Commission staff should be made aware
of the meeting place, date, and time. Last, within one month after meeting with
its customers, the Utility shall file a report with the Commission summarizing
the results of the meeting.
Issue 2:
Are the infrastructure and operating conditions of
S. V. Utilities, Ltd.’s water and wastewater systems in compliance with DEP
regulations?
Recommendation:
Yes. SV’s water and wastewater treatment facilities
are currently in compliance with DEP regulations. (Thompson)
Staff Analysis:
Rule 25-30.225, F.A.C., requires that each
water utility shall operate and maintain its plant and facilities by employing
qualified operators in accordance with the rules of the DEP in order to provide
safe and efficient service up to and including the point of delivery into the
piping owned by the customer. During a rate making proceeding, 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 and Wastewater System Operating Conditions
SV’s water system has a permitted capacity of 432,000
gallons per day (gpd). The Utility’s water system has two wells with pumping
capacities of 300 gallons per minute (gpm) each, and two hydropneumatic storage
tanks with capacities of 8,000 gallons each. Groundwater from the wells is
treated through liquid chlorination. Staff reviewed SV’s sanitary survey
reports conducted by the DEP to determine the Utility’s overall water facility
compliance. A review of the inspection conducted on September 16, 2021,
indicated that SV’s water treatment facility is in compliance with the DEP’s
rules and regulations.
SV’s wastewater system consists of a permitted 0.141
million gallons per day (MGD) three month rolling average daily flow (3MRADF)
design capacity extended aeration domestic wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) that
provides secondary treatment with basic disinfection. Staff reviewed the
Utility’s compliance evaluation inspections conducted by the DEP to determine
the Utility’s overall wastewater facility compliance. A review of the
inspection conducted on October 15, 2020, indicated that SV’s wastewater
treatment facility was in compliance with the DEP’s rules and regulations.
Conclusion
SV’s water and wastewater treatment facilities are
currently in compliance with DEP regulations.
Issue 3:
What are the used and useful (U&U) percentages
of S. V. Utilities, Ltd.’s water treatment plant (WTP), WWTP, water
distribution, and wastewater collection systems?
Recommendation:
SV’s WTP, WWTP, water distribution, and wastewater
collection systems should be considered 100 percent U&U. Additionally, staff
recommends that a 2.1 percent adjustment to purchased power and chemicals
should be made for excessive unaccounted for water (EUW). No adjustment is
recommended for excessive infiltration and inflow (I&I). (Thompson)
Staff Analysis:
SV’s water and wastewater
systems began operations in 1981. The Utility’s water system has two wells with
pumping capacities of 300 gpm each, and two hydropneumatic storage tanks with
capacities of 8,000 gallons each. SV’s water distribution system is composed of
165 feet of 1-inch polyvinyl chloride (PVC) pipe, 15,330 feet of 2-inch PVC
pipe, 950 feet of 4-inch PVC pipe, and 17,075 feet of 6-inch PVC pipe. There
are 49 fire hydrants throughout the water distribution system.
SV’s wastewater system consists
of a permitted 0.141 MGD 3MRADF design capacity extended aeration domestic
WWTP. The Utility’s wastewater collection system is composed of 2,600 feet of
4-inch PVC pipe, 9,700 feet of 6-inch PVC pipe, and 16,287 feet of 8-inch PVC
pipe. There are 4 lift stations, and 54 manholes throughout the wastewater
collection system.
Used and Useful Percentages
Rule 25-30.432, F.A.C., addresses
the method by which the U&U of a wastewater system is determined, and Rule
25-30.4325, F.A.C., addresses the method by which the U&U of a water system
is determined. SV’s U&U percentages were last determined in Docket No.
20130211-WS. In that
docket, the Commission determined the Utility’s WTP, WWTP, water distribution,
and wastewater collection systems to be 100 percent U&U. The Utility has
not increased the capacity of its WTP or WWTP since rates were last
established. The Utility’s water distribution and wastewater collection systems
continue to only provide service to existing customers, the service area
remains built out, and there continues to be no potential for expansion of the
service area. Therefore, consistent with the Commission’s previous decision,
staff recommends that the Utility’s WTP, WWTP, water distribution, and
wastewater collection systems be considered 100 percent U&U.
Excessive Unaccounted for Water
Rule
25-30.4325, F.A.C., additionally 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.
EUW is calculated by subtracting
both the gallons sold to customers and the gallons used for other services,
such as flushing, from the total gallons pumped and purchased for the test
year, and dividing by the sum of gallons pumped and purchased. The amount in
excess of 10 percent, if any, is the EUW percentage. Based on monthly operating
reports, SV produced 51,270,000 gallons of water
from January 1, 2021, to December 31, 2021. No water was purchased during the
test year. From the audit completed by staff, the Utility sold 39,558,173 gallons
of water to customers. The Utility documented 5,507,000
gallons of water usage for line flushing. The resulting calculation
([51,270,000 + 0 – 39,558,173 – 5,507,000] / [51,270,000 + 0]) for unaccounted
for water is 12.1 percent. Therefore, there is EUW of 2.1 percent. The Utility
raised concerns regarding the amount of gallons sold used in the calculation,
suggesting its Annual Report was more accurate. Staff used the results of the
staff audit, which reviewed the Utility’s records for the test year. As staff
traditionally uses the gallons sold data determined by the staff audit, staff
recommends that a 2.1 percent adjustment be made to purchased power and
chemical expenses for EUW. Regarding the cause, the Utility stated that the
amount of EUW can be attributable to underestimating other uses.
Infiltration and Inflow (I&I)
Infiltration typically results from groundwater entering a
wastewater collection system through broken or defective pipes and joints;
whereas, inflow results from water entering a wastewater collection system
through manholes or lift stations. By convention, the allowance for
infiltration is 500 gpd per inch diameter pipe per mile, and an additional 10
percent of residential water billed is allowed for inflow. Rule 25-30.432,
F.A.C., provides that in determining the WWTP amount of U&U, the Commission
will consider I&I.
Since all
wastewater collection systems experience I&I, the conventions noted above
provide guidance for determining whether the I&I experienced at a WWTP is
excessive. Staff calculates the allowable infiltration based on system
parameters, and calculates the allowable inflow based on water billed to
customers. The sum of these amounts is the allowable I&I. Staff next
calculates the estimated amount of wastewater returned from customers. The
estimated return is determined by summing 80 percent of the water billed to
residential customers with 90 percent of the water billed to non-residential
customers. Adding the estimated return to the allowable I&I yields the
maximum amount of wastewater that should be treated by the wastewater system
without incurring adjustments to operating expenses. If this amount exceeds the
actual amount treated, no adjustment is made. If it is less than the gallons
treated, then the difference is the excessive amount of I&I.
From January
1, 2021, through December 31, 2021, the allowance for infiltration was
calculated as 6,874,720 gallons, and the allowance for inflow was calculated as
2,928,561 gallons; therefore, the total I&I allowance was calculated as
9,803,281 gallons. Based on staff’s audit, the total water billed to
residential customers was 27,669,143 gallons, and the total water billed to
general service customers was 1,616,470. Therefore, the estimated amount of
wastewater returned from customers was calculated as 23,590,137 gallons.
Summing the estimated return and the allowable I&I results in a maximum of 33,393,418
gallons of wastewater that should be treated by the wastewater system without
incurring adjustments to operating expenses. Based on the Utility’s discharge
monitoring reports, the actual amount of wastewater treated was 11,261,000
gallons from January 1, 2021, through December 31, 2021. Therefore, there is no
excessive I&I and no adjustment to purchased power and chemicals are recommended.
Conclusion
SV’s WTP, WWTP, water distribution, and wastewater
collection systems should be considered 100 percent U&U. Additionally, staff
recommends that a 2.1 percent adjustment to purchased power and chemical
expenses should be made for EUW. No adjustment is recommended for excessive
I&I.
Issue 4:
What is the appropriate average test year rate base
for S. V. Utilities, Ltd.?
Recommendation:
The appropriate average test year rate base for SV
is $192,696 for water and $402,349 for wastewater. (Richards, Thompson)
Staff Analysis:
The appropriate components
of the Utility’s rate base include utility plant in service (UPIS), land and
land rights, accumulated depreciation, and working capital. SV does not have
any contributions-in-aid-of-construction (CIAC). Staff selected the test year
ended December 31, 2021, 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 UPIS of
$627,412 for water and $802,558 for wastewater. There were auditing adjustments
increasing UPIS by $12,041 and $17,913, for water and wastewater respectively.
Additionally, staff made an adjustment further increasing UPIS by $4,871 for
water and decreasing UPIS by $1,001 for wastewater to reflect the appropriate
amounts in plant Accounts 341 and 391 - Transportation Equipment. Staff further
increased UPIS by $8,300 for water to reflect the replacement of a motor on the
No. 2 Well which happened during the test year. In order to reflect the test
year beginning and ending UPIS average balances, staff made an adjustment
decreasing UPIS by $15,030 for water and decreasing UPIS by $3,513 for
wastewater.
Pro Forma Plant Additions
Table 4-1 shows SV’s two requested pro forma plant
projects. For the Digester Repair project, the Utility stated that the walls of
the digester at the WWTP were cracking. To resolve the issue, the interior of
the digester was cleaned, concrete repairs were made, and the interior was
coated, and new concrete walls were poured on the exterior of the digester.
This project was completed in June 2022. Regarding the Electronic
Meter Reading Equipment Upgrades project, the Utility stated that it is having
issues capturing all of the readings from the meters due to the reading system
being outdated and not functioning properly with the newer meters. To resolve
the issue, the Utility intends to switch to new meter reading software. This
project is anticipated to be completed in December 2022. SV also requested one operation and maintenance (O&M) pro forma
project which is discussed in Issue 7.
As is Commission practice, staff requested that three bids
be provided for each pro forma project. However, the Utility provided one bid
for each item. According to the Utility, the vendor that provided a bid for the
Digester Repair project was the only vendor that would provide a bid. Regarding
the Electronic Meter Reading
Equipment Upgrades project, this project is being completed by the same company
that installed the Utility’s water meters. As these improvements are necessary
for the Utility to provide safe and reliable service to its customers, staff recommends
that these project costs are appropriate.
Table
4-1
Pro-Forma Plant Projects
|
Project
|
Account Number
|
Amount
|
Retirement
|
|
Digester Repair
|
380
|
$99,740
|
-
|
|
Electronic Meter Reading
Equipment Upgrades
|
334
|
$3,009
|
($2,257)
|
|
Total
|
-
|
$102,749
|
($2,257)
|
Source: Utility responses to staff data requests.
Based on the above, staff
increased UPIS for water by $3,009 to reflect pro forma additions, offset by a
decrease of $2,257 for pro forma retirements. Staff also increased UPIS for
wastewater by $99,740 to reflect pro forma additions, and there was no retirement
associated with the wastewater pro forma addition.
As described above and summarized in Table 4-2, staff’s
adjustments to UPIS result in an increase of $10,935 for water and an increase
of $113,140 for wastewater. Therefore, staff recommends an average UPIS balance
of $638,347 ($627,412 + $10,935) for water and $915,698 ($802,558 + $113,140)
for wastewater.
Table 4-2
Staff Adjustments to
UPIS
|
Description
|
Water Adj.
|
Wastewater Adj.
|
|
To reflect auditing adjustments.
|
$12,041
|
$17,913
|
|
To reflect appropriate amount
in transportation accts.
|
4,871
|
(1,001)
|
|
To reflect replacement of motor
on No. 2 Well.
|
8,300
|
0
|
|
To reflect averaging adjustments.
|
(15,030)
|
(3,513)
|
|
To reflect pro forma additions.
|
3,009
|
99,740
|
|
To reflect pro forma
retirement.
|
(2,257)
|
0
|
|
Total adjustments to UPIS.
|
$10,935
|
$113,140
|
Source: Utility responses to staff data requests.
Land and Land Rights
The Utility recorded land and land rights balances of
$2,621 and $27,935 for water and wastewater, respectively. Staff made no adjustments
to this account and therefore recommends land and land rights balances of
$2,621 for water and $27,935 for wastewater.
Used and Useful
As discussed
in Issue 3, the Utility’s systems are considered 100 percent U&U.
Therefore, no U&U adjustments are necessary
Accumulated Depreciation
The Utility recorded an
accumulated depreciation balance of $472,234 for water and $553,874 for
wastewater. Staff made auditing adjustments increasing accumulated depreciation
by $6,145 for water and $8,280 for wastewater. Additionally, staff made an adjustment
increasing accumulated depreciation by $190 for water and a decrease of $1,945
for wastewater to reflect the appropriate amounts in plant Accounts 341 and 391
- Transportation Equipment. Staff decreased accumulated depreciation by $6,103
for water to reflect the replacement of the motor on the Number 2 Well. Staff
made averaging adjustments decreasing accumulated depreciation for water by
$5,674 and wastewater by $8,122. Staff also made adjustments decreasing
accumulated depreciation by $2,213 for water, and increasing accumulated
depreciation by $6,649 for wastewater to reflect pro forma adjustments.
As described
above and summarized in Table 4-3, staff’s adjustments to accumulated
depreciation result in a decrease of $7,654 for water and an increase of $4,863
for wastewater. Therefore, staff recommends an average accumulated depreciation
balance of $464,580 ($472,234 - $7,654) for water and $558,737 ($553,874 +
$4,863) for wastewater.
Table 4-3
Staff Adjustments to
Accumulated Depreciation
|
Description
|
Water Adj.
|
Wastewater Adj.
|
|
To reflect auditing adjustments.
|
$6,145
|
$8,280
|
|
To reflect appropriate amount
in transportation accts.
|
190
|
(1,945)
|
|
To reflect replacement of motor
on No. 2 Well.
|
(6,103)
|
0
|
|
To reflect averaging adjustments.
|
(5,674)
|
(8,122)
|
|
To reflect pro forma
adjustments.
|
(2,213)
|
6,649
|
|
Total adjustments to
accumulated depreciation.
|
($7,654)
|
$4,863
|
Source: Utility responses to staff data requests.
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 $1,283 for water and $1,208 wastewater. This resulted in an adjusted
O&M expense balance of $130,464 ($131,747 - $1,283) for water and $139,625
($140,833 - $1,208) for wastewater. Applying this formula, staff recommends a
working capital allowance of $16,308 ($130,464 ÷ 8) for water and $17,453 ($139,625
÷ 8) for wastewater.
Rate Base Summary
Based on the
foregoing, staff recommends that the appropriate average test year rate base is
$192,696 for water and $402,349 for wastewater. Rate base is shown on Schedule
Nos. 1-A and 1-B. The related adjustments are shown on Schedule No. 1-C.
Issue 5:
What is the appropriate return on equity and overall
rate of return for S. V. Utilities, Ltd.?
Recommendation:
The appropriate return on equity (ROE) is 7.84
percent with a range of 6.84 percent to 8.84 percent. The appropriate overall
rate of return is 7.84 percent. (Richards)
Staff Analysis:
The Utility’s reported capital structure consists
entirely of common equity. The Utility has no debt nor customer deposits. Audit
staff determined that no test year adjustments were necessary. The Utility’s
capital structure has been reconciled with staff’s recommended rate base. The
appropriate ROE is 7.84 percent based upon the Commission-approved leverage
formula currently in effect.
Staff recommends an ROE of 7.84 percent, with a range of 6.84 percent to 8.84
percent, and an overall rate of return of 7.84 percent. The ROE and overall
rate of return are shown on Schedule No. 2.
Issue 6:
What are the appropriate amount of test year
revenues for S. V. Utilities, Ltd.’s water and wastewater systems?
Recommendation:
The appropriate test year revenues for SV’s water system
are $104,124 and $137,965 for the wastewater system. (Bethea)
Staff Analysis:
The Utility recorded total test year revenues of
$99,428 for water and $137,440 for wastewater. The Utility did not record any
miscellaneous revenues during the test year. To determine the appropriate
service revenues for water and wastewater, staff applied the number of billing
determinants to the Utility’s existing rates. As a result, staff determined
that service revenues for water should be $104,124, which is an increase of
$4,696 ($104,124 - $99,428). For wastewater, staff determined that service
revenues should be $137,965, which is an increase of $525 ($137,965 -
$137,440). Based on the above, the appropriate test year revenues for SV’s
water system are $104,124 and $137,965 for the wastewater system.
Issue 7:
What is the appropriate operating expense for S. V.
Utilities, Ltd.?
Recommendation:
That appropriate amount of operating expense for SV
is $156,623 for water and $179,246 for wastewater. (Richards, Thompson)
Staff Analysis:
The Utility recorded operating expense of $153,325
for water and $168,320 for wastewater. 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
After review of the Utility’s records, staff made no
adjustments to the recorded balances in Sludge Removal (711), Materials and
Supplies expense (620/720), Contractual Services – Professional (631/731),
Contractual Services – Testing (635/735), Insurance Expense (655/755), and
Miscellaneous Expense (675/775). Staff’s recommended balances for these
accounts are shown on Schedule Nos. 3-D and 3-E.
Salaries and Wages – Employees (601 /
701)
The Utility
recorded salaries and wages – employee’s expense of $56,176 for water and $64,753
for wastewater. Staff reviewed the Utility’s response to Staff’s Second Data
Request containing salary information on a per employee basis and the audited
employee responsibilities and duties. The Utility does not employ its own staff
and is operated and managed by employees of Mobile Home Lifestyles, Inc. and
Realco Properties, Inc. The Utility’s salary expenses are allocated by the
percentage of time the employees spend working on water and wastewater utility
matters. The Utility shares a full-time wastewater operator and engineer with
four other sister water and wastewater utilities. Staff reviewed the employee
allocations and salaries and believe them to be reasonable. Therefore, staff recommends
salaries and wages – employee’s expense of $56,176 for water and $64,753 for
wastewater.
Purchased Power (615 / 715)
The Utility
recorded purchased power expenses of $8,678 for water and $16,051 for
wastewater. As discussed in Issue 3, staff recommended an EUW adjustment of
2.10 percent. As such, staff decreased purchased power for water by $182
($8,678 x 2.10 percent). Staff made no adjustment to the wastewater balance.
Therefore, staff recommends purchased power expense of $8,496 ($8,678 - $182)
for water, and $16,051 for wastewater.
Chemicals (618 / 718)
The Utility
recorded chemical expenses of $4,527 for water and $7,699 for wastewater.
Similarly to purchased power, staff decreased chemicals expense for water by
$95 to reflect an EUW adjustment of 2.10 percent. Staff made no adjustment to
the wastewater balance, and therefore recommends chemicals expense of $4,432
($4,527 - $95) for water and $7,699 for wastewater.
Contractual Services – Other (636 /
736)
The Utility
recorded contractual services – other expenses of $37,664 for water and $2,635
for wastewater. SV requested one O&M pro forma project: to have the
interiors of its two water tanks coated. The water tanks are required to be inspected
every five years by the Polk County Health Department, and coated as needed
based on the results of the inspection. During the most recent inspection, it
was determined that the interior of the water tanks required new coatings. The
Utility only obtained one bid because only one vendor would bid the project.
The total for the project was $12,000 (both tanks), and this project has been completed.
Based on the above, staff recommends the O&M cost of coating the interior
of the water tanks be amortized over five years. Staff increased contractual
services – other by $2,400 to reflect the requested pro forma project amortized
over five years ($12,000 ÷ 5 years). Therefore, staff recommends contractual
services – other of $40,064 ($37,664 + $2,400) for water and $2,635 for
wastewater.
Transportation Expense (650 / 750)
The Utility
recorded transportation expenses of $6,151 and $7,073 for water and wastewater,
respectively. Staff decreased this account by $3,590 for water and $2,972 for
wastewater to reflect auditing adjustments. Therefore, staff recommends
transportation expenses of $2,561 ($6,151 - $3,590) for water and $4,101
($7,073 - $2,972) for wastewater.
Rate Case Expense (665 / 765)
The Utility did not record any rate case expense. The
Utility is required by Rule 25-22.0407, F.A.C., to mail notices containing the
rate case overview, final rates, and four-year rate reduction. Because of the
rescheduling of the customer meeting due to Hurricane Ian, the Utility was
required to mail out a second rate case overview along with notices for the
customer meeting. Staff calculated noticing costs to be $2,995. In
correspondence with staff, the Utility advised two representatives will be
present at the Commission Conference.
Staff calculated the round-trip distance from the Utility to Tallahassee as 486
miles. Based on the 2022 IRS business mileage rate of $0.625, staff calculated a
total travel and lodging expense for both representatives of $1,008. As the
Utility is scheduled to have three sister utilities participate in the December
6, 2022 Commission Conference, staff equally divided the total travel and
lodging expense of $1,008 amongst the four. As such, in the instant docket,
staff recommends travel and lodging of $252 ($1,008 ÷ 4).
The Utility retained the legal services of Dean Mead, and
on September 21, 2022, provided staff with a schedule of actual and estimated
rate case expense. In its
schedule, the Utility indicated actual legal fees of $429, in addition to
estimated legal fees of $4,290. Staff believes these fees are reasonable and
are in line with previous dockets represented by Dean Mead. Additionally, the
Utility paid a filing fee of $1,000 for water and $1,000 for wastewater.
Staff
calculated the total amount of noticing costs, travel expenses and legal fees
of $7,965 ($2,994 + $252 + $4,719). Staff allocated these costs between water
and wastewater based on the number of ERCs, which totaled $4,132 for water and
$3,834 for wastewater. In addition to the $1,000 filing fee for each system,
staff recommends total rate case expense of $5,132 for water and $4,834 for
wastewater, which amortized over four years is $1,283 and $1,208 for water and
wastewater, respectively.
Bad Debt Expense (670 / 770)
The Utility recorded
bad debt expense of $421 for water and $371 for wastewater for the test year. Staff
notes that it is Commission practice to calculate bad debt expense using a
three-year average when the information is available. In
its three most recent Annual Reports for 2021, 2020 and 2019, the Utility
recorded bad debt expenses of $421, $724 and $991 for the water system, and
$371, $534 and $937 for wastewater. This represents an increase of $291 for
water and $243 for wastewater. Therefore, staff recommends bad debt expense of
$712 ($421 + $291) for water and $614 ($371 + $243) for wastewater.
Operation and
Maintenance Expense Summary
The Utility
recorded test year O&M expenses of $131,640 for water and $142,354 for
wastewater. Based on the above adjustments, staff recommends the O&M
expense be increased by $107 for water and decreased by $1,521 for wastewater.
This results in total O&M expenses of $131,747 ($131,640 + $107) for water
and $140,833 ($142,354 - $1,521) for wastewater. Staff’s recommended adjustments
to O&M expenses are shown on Schedule Nos. 3-D and 3-E.
Depreciation Expense
The Utility
recorded depreciation expenses of $17,211 for water and $19,775 for wastewater.
Using the depreciation rates prescribed in Rule 25-30.140, F.A.C., staff
increased depreciation expense for water by $122 to reflect the motor
replacement on the No. 2 Well, and decreased depreciation by $242 to reflect
the appropriate amount in plant Account 341 – Transportation Equipment.
Additionally, staff increased depreciation expense for wastewater by $736 to
correspond to the recommended balance in plant Account 391 – Transportation
Equipment. Staff further increased depreciation expense by $44 for water and
$6,649 wastewater to reflect the incremental depreciation expense associated
with pro forma investments. These adjustments result in a net decrease of $76
($122 - $242 + $44) for water, and an increase of $7,385 ($736 + $6,649) for
wastewater. Therefore, staff recommends depreciation expense of $17,135
($17,211 - $76) for water and $27,160 ($19,775 + $7,385) for wastewater.
Taxes Other Than Income
(TOTI)
The Utility
recorded TOTI of $4,474 for water and $6,191 for wastewater. Staff increased
TOTI by $211 for water and $18 for wastewater to reflect the appropriate RAFs
based on corrected Utility test year revenues. Staff further increased TOTI by
$14 for water and $1,767 for wastewater to reflect property taxes associated
with pro forma additions. These adjustments result in a test year TOTI increase
of $225 ($211 + $14) for water and $1,785 ($18 + $1,767) for wastewater.
As discussed
in Issue 9, staff recommends revenues be increased by $67,607 for water and
$72,825 for wastewater in order to cover expenses and allow an opportunity to
earn the recommended rate of return. As a result, TOTI should be increased by
$3,042 for water and $3,277 for wastewater to reflect RAFs of 4.5 percent of
the change in revenues. Therefore, staff recommends TOTI of $7,741 ($4,474 +
$225 + $3,042) for water and $11,252 ($6,191 + $1,785 + $3,277) for wastewater.
Operating Expenses
Summary
The Utility recorded operating expenses of $153,325 for
water and $168,320 for wastewater. The application of staff’s recommended
adjustments to the Utility’s operating expenses result in a total operating
expense of $156,623 for water and $179,246 for wastewater. Operating expenses
are shown on Schedule Nos. 3-A and 3-B, and the related adjustments are shown
on Schedule No. 3-C.
Issue 8:
Does S. V. Utilities, Ltd. meet the criteria for
application of the Operating Ratio Methodology?
Recommendation:
No. SV does not meet the requirement for application
of the operating ratio methodology for calculating revenue requirement.
(Richards)
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
its rate base is not greater than 125 percent of O&M expenses, less rate
case expense, and the use of the operating ratio methodology does not change
the Utility’s qualification for a SARC.
With respect to SV, staff has recommended a rate base of $192,696
for water and $402,349 for wastewater. After removal of rate case expense,
staff has calculated an O&M expense of $130,464 ($131,747 - $1,283) for
water and $139,625 ($140,833 - $1,208) for wastewater. Based on staff’s
recommended amounts, the Utility’s rate base is 147 percent of its adjusted
O&M expense for water, and 288 percent of its adjusted O&M expense for
wastewater. Based on these ratios, the Utility does not qualify for application
of the operating ratio methodology.
Issue 9:
What is the appropriate revenue requirement for S.
V. Utilities, Ltd.?
Recommendation:
The appropriate revenue requirement is $171,731 for
water, resulting in an annual increase of $67,607 (64.93 percent). The appropriate
revenue requirement is $210,790 for wastewater, resulting in an annual increase
of $72,825 (52.79 percent). (Richards)
Staff Analysis:
SV should be allowed an annual increase of $67,607
(64.93 percent) for water and an annual increase of $72,825 (52.79 percent) for
wastewater. This should allow the Utility the opportunity to recover its
expenses and earn a 7.84 percent return on rate base for water and wastewater.
The calculations for water are shown in Table 9-1, and for wastewater in Table
9-2.
Table 9-1
Water Revenue
Requirement
|
Water Rate Base
|
$192,696
|
|
Rate of Return
|
7.84%
|
|
Return on Rate Base
|
$15,107
|
|
Water O&M Expense
|
$131,747
|
|
Depreciation Expense
|
$17,135
|
|
Taxes Other Than Income
|
$7,741
|
|
Revenue Requirement
|
$171,731
|
|
Less Test Year Revenues
|
$104,124
|
|
Annual Increase / (Decrease)
|
$67,607
|
|
Percent Increase / (Decrease)
|
64.93%
|
Source: Staff calculations.
Table 9-2
Wastewater Revenue
Requirement
|
Wastewater Rate Base
|
$402,349
|
|
Rate of Return
|
7.84%
|
|
Return on Rate Base
|
$31,544
|
|
Wastewater O&M Expense
|
$140,833
|
|
Depreciation Expense
|
$27,160
|
|
Taxes Other Than Income
|
$11,252
|
|
Revenue Requirement
|
$210,790
|
|
Less Test Year Revenues
|
$137,965
|
|
Annual Increase / (Decrease)
|
$72,825
|
|
Percent Increase / (Decrease)
|
52.79%
|
Source: Staff calculations.
Issue 10:
What are the appropriate rate structures and rates
for the water and wastewater systems of S. V. Utilities, Ltd.?
Recommendation:
The recommended rate structures and monthly water
and wastewater rates are shown on Schedule Nos. 4-A and 4-B, respectively. 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.
(Bethea)
Staff Analysis:
Water Rates
SV provides
water service to approximately 707 residential customers and 6 general service
customers. A review of the billing data indicates approximately 15 percent of
the residential bills during the test year had zero gallons, which indicates a
non-seasonal customer base. The average residential water demand was 4,145
gallons per month. The average water demand, excluding zero gallon bills, was
4,847 gallons per month.
Currently,
the Utility’s water rate structure consists of a monthly base facility charge
(BFC) and a two-tier inclining block rate structure, which includes separate
gallonage charges for discretionary and non-discretionary usage for residential
water customers. The rate blocks are: 1)
0-5,000 gallons; and 2) all usage in excess of 5,000 gallons per month. The general
service and irrigation customers’ rate structure consists of a monthly BFC and
a gallonage charge.
Staff
performed an analysis of the Utility’s billing data 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.
In this
case, staff recommends that 40 percent of the water revenues be generated from
the BFC, which will provide sufficient revenues to design gallonage charges
that send pricing signals to customers using above the non-discretionary level.
The average people per household served by the water system is 3.0; therefore,
based on the number of people per household, 50 gallons per day per person, and
the number of days per month, the non-discretionary usage threshold should be
5,000 gallons per month.[9] Staff’s
review of the billing analysis indicates that the discretionary usage above
5,000 gallons represents 28 percent of the bills, which account for
approximately 36 percent of the water demand. This is considered moderately
high discretionary usage for this customer base.
For this case, staff recommends a
BFC and a three-tier inclining block rate structure, which includes separate gallonage
charges for discretionary and non-discretionary usage for residential water customers.
The rate blocks are: 1) 0-5,000 gallons; 2) 5,001-10,000 gallons; and 3) all
usage in excess of 10,000 gallons per month. This rate structure sends the
appropriate pricing signals because it targets customers with high consumption
levels and minimizes price increases for customers at non-discretionary levels.
In addition, the third tier provides an additional pricing signal to customers
using in excess of 10,000 gallons of water per month, which represents
approximately 16 percent of the usage. General service and irrigation customers
should be billed a BFC and a gallonage charge.
Based on
staff’s recommended revenue increase of 64.93 percent, the residential consumption
can be expected to decline by 3,698,000 gallons resulting in anticipated
average residential demand of 3,710 gallons per month. Staff recommends a 10.5
percent reduction in test year residential gallons for rate setting purposes.
As a result, the corresponding reductions are $811 for purchased power expense,
$423 for chemical expense, and $58 for RAFs to reflect the anticipated
repression, which results in a post repression revenue requirement of $170,438.
Wastewater Rates
SV provides
wastewater service to approximately 707 residential customers and 6 general
service customers. Currently, the wastewater rate structure for residential
customers consists of a monthly uniform BFC for all meter sizes and gallonage
charge with a 8,000 gallonage cap. General service customers are billed a BFC
by meter size and gallonage charge that is 1.2 times higher than the
residential gallonage charge.
Staff performed an analysis of
the Utility’s billing data in order to evaluate various BFC cost recovery
percentages and gallonage caps for the residential wastewater 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; and 3) implement a gallonage cap, where
appropriate, that considers approximately the amount of water that may return
to the wastewater system.
Consistent
with Commission practice, staff allocated 50 percent of the wastewater revenue
to the BFC due to the capital intensive nature of wastewater plants. SV’s
current residential wastewater cap is 8,000 gallons per month. The wastewater
gallonage cap recognizes that not all water used by the residential customers
is returned to the wastewater system. It is Commission practice to set the
wastewater cap at approximately 80 percent of residential water sold. Based on
staff’s review of the billing analysis, approximately 80 percent of the
residential gallons are captured at the 8,000 gallon consumption level. For this
reason, staff recommends a continuation of the Utility’s current gallonage cap
of 8,000 gallons per month.
General
service customers should continue to be billed a BFC by meter size and a
gallonage charge that is 1.2 times higher than the residential gallonage
charge. Staff evaluates wastewater repression between the non-discretionary
threshold (5,000 gallons) and the wastewater gallonage cap (8,000 gallons).
Between those two levels, the expected wastewater repression is de minimis.
Therefore, staff does not recommend a repression adjustment for wastewater.
Conclusion
Based on the above, the
recommended rate structures and monthly water and wastewater rates are shown on
Schedule Nos. 4-A and 4-B, respectively. 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 the notice.
Issue 11:
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?
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. Pursuant to Section 367.081(8), F.S., the decrease in rates
should become effective immediately following the expiration of the rate case
expense recovery period. SV should be required to file revised tariffs and a
proposed customer notice setting forth the lower rates and rationale no later
than one month prior to the effective date of the new rates. If the Utility
files revised tariffs reflecting 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. (Richards, Bethea) (Procedural
Agency Action)
Staff Analysis:
Section
367.081(8), F.S., requires that the rates be reduced by the amount of the rate
case expense previously included in rates immediately following the expiration
of the recovery period. With respect to SV, the reduction will reflect the
removal of revenue associated with the amortization of rate case expense and
the gross-up for RAFs. The total reduction is $1,343 for water and $1,265 for
wastewater.
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. Pursuant to Section 367.081(8), F.S., the
decrease in rates should become effective immediately following the expiration
of the rate case expense recovery period. SV should be required to file revised
tariffs and a proposed customer notice setting forth the lower rates and
rationale no later than one month prior to the effective date of the new rates.
If the Utility files revised tariffs reflecting 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 12:
Should the recommended rates be approved for S.
V. Utilities, Ltd. on a temporary basis, subject to refund with 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. SV 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. (Richards) (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. SV 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.
SV 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 $95,544. 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 13:
Should S. V. Utilities 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?
Recommendation:
Yes. SV should be required to notify the Commission,
in writing, that it has adjusted its books in accordance with the Commission’s
decision. SV 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. (Richards)
Staff Analysis:
SV should be required to notify the Commission, in
writing, that it has adjusted its books in accordance with the Commission’s
decision. SV 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 14:
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 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. In addition, this docket should remain
open until the report with the summary of the results of the customer meeting
has been submitted by the Utility. Once these actions are complete, this docket
should be closed administratively. (Imig)
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 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. In addition, this docket should remain open until the report
with the summary of the results of the customer meeting has been submitted by
the Utility. Once these actions are complete, this docket should be closed
administratively.
