Case Background
On January 9,
2023, Tampa Electric Company (TECO) and the City of Bartow, Electric Department
(Bartow), collectively the joint petitioners, filed a petition seeking Commission
approval of an amendment to their current territorial agreement in Polk County
(the proposed amendment). TECO serves retail customers in Hillsborough County
and in portions of Polk, Pinellas, and Pasco Counties. Bartow serves retail
customers within and adjacent to the City of Bartow, Polk County, Florida.
In 1985, the
Commission approved the original territorial agreement between TECO and Bartow. The instant petition seeks to amend the territorial
boundaries to accommodate development within the Ranches at Lake McLeod
subdivision (Ranches at Lake McLeod or subdivision), as shown in Attachment B
to the recommendation. All other terms and conditions of the current agreement,
shown in Attachment A, would remain in place.
During the
review of this joint petition, staff issued one data request to the joint
petitioners on March 1, 2023, for which responses were received on March 10,
2023. The Commission has jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to Section
366.04, Florida Statutes (F.S).
Discussion
of Issues
Issue 1:
Should the Commission approve the joint petition by
TECO and Bartow to amend their territorial agreement related to the boundaries
in Polk County?
Recommendation:
Yes, the Commission should approve the joint
petition by TECO and Bartow to amend their territorial agreement related to the
boundaries in Polk County. The approval of this amendment would enable TECO and
Bartow to redefine their existing service boundary to better serve future
customers in Polk County and will not be a detriment to the public interest. Furthermore,
it appears that the proposed territorial amendment eliminates any potential
uneconomic duplication of facilities and will not cause a decrease in the
reliability of electric service. (Ward)
Staff Analysis:
Pursuant to Section 366.04(2)(d), F.S., and Rule 25-6.0440(2),
Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.), the Commission has the jurisdiction to
approve territorial agreements between and among rural electric cooperatives,
municipal electric utilities, and other electric utilities. Unless the
Commission determines that the amendment to the territorial agreement will
cause a detriment to the public interest, the amendment should be approved.
Proposed Amendment to the 1985 Territorial
Agreement
A new residential subdivision, known as Ranches at Lake
McLeod, is currently under development in Polk County. A section of the
existing service boundary runs through the planned subdivision. The joint
petitioners explained that the current service boundary runs through proposed
home lots, across planned streets, and without regard to future utility
easement areas in the subdivision.
The joint petitioners stated that they had discussions for
the provision of electric service to the new subdivision, which led to a mutual
agreement between TECO and Bartow regarding the most efficient, reliable
provision of electricity to the new subdivision. Under this agreement, the
revised boundary lines would follow planned streets and along lot lines within
the subdivision. The joint petitioners assert that this proposal would allow both
utilities to have sufficient access to the areas to be served. Furthermore,
the joint petitioners assert that the proposed territorial amendment would not
cause a decrease in the reliability of electric service to the existing and
future ratepayers of either utility and would prevent the uneconomic
duplication of facilities. Pursuant to Rule 25-6.0440(1)(f), F.A.C., the joint
petitioners provided a map depicting the proposed boundary line of the
subdivision. The map is shown in Attachment B to this recommendation.
Pursuant to Rule 25-6.0440(1)(b), F.A.C., the joint
petitioners provided the original 1985 territorial agreement, shown in
Attachment A to the recommendation. In paragraph 26 of the petition, the joint
petitioners explained that the terms and conditions of the original 1985
territorial agreement remain in effect; the only proposed change is to modify
the boundary line within the new subdivision. Furthermore, the joint petitioners
explained that the 1985 territorial agreement continues to remain in effect
until terminated or modified by the joint petitioners.
Under the proposed division of the
development, TECO would serve 541 lots, including 140 in the North Ranch
segment of the subdivision, and Bartow would serve 469 lots. In paragraph 19 of
the petition, the joint petitioners explained that the North Ranch segment of
the subdivision is wholly within TECO’s service area and was not part of the
negotiations leading to this boundary line amendment. Aside from the unaffected
North Ranch segment, this subdivision has not yet been developed. Therefore, there
are no current customers or facilities to be transferred as a result of the
proposed territorial amendment. Similarly, there are no affected customers to
be notified as required by Rule 25-6.0440(1)(d), F.A.C.
Conclusion
After review of the petition, the
proposed territorial amendment, and the joint petitioners’ responses to staff’s
data request, staff recommends that the Commission should approve the proposed
amendment to the territorial agreement between TECO and Bartow in Polk County.
Staff believes that the proposed territorial amendment will enable TECO and
Bartow to redefine their existing service boundary to
better serve future customers in Polk County and will not cause a detriment to
the public interest. Furthermore, it appears that the proposed territorial
amendment eliminates any potential uneconomic duplication of facilities and
will not cause a decrease in the reliability of electric service.
Issue 2:
Should this docket be closed?
Recommendation:
Yes. If no protest is filed by a person whose
substantial interests are affected within 21 days of the issuance of the Order,
this docket should be closed upon the issuance of the Consummating Order.
(Dose)
Staff Analysis:
If no protest is filed by a person whose substantial
interests are affected within 21 days of the issuance of the Order, this docket
should be closed upon the issuance of the Consummating Order.
