FLORIDA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION
COMMISSION CONFERENCE AGENDA
CONFERENCE DATE AND
TIME: Tuesday, February
4, 2025, 9:30 a.m.
LOCATION: Betty Easley Conference Center, Joseph P. Cresse Hearing Room 148
DATE ISSUED: February 3, 2025*
NOTICE
Persons affected by Commission action on certain items on this agenda
may be allowed to address the Commission, either informally or by oral argument,
when those items are taken up for discussion at this conference. These items
are designated by double asterisks (**) next to the item number.
To participate informally, affected persons need only appear at the
conference and request the opportunity to address the Commission on an item
listed on the agenda. Informal participation is not permitted: (1) on
dispositive motions and motions for reconsideration; (2) when a recommended
order is taken up by the Commission; (3) in a rulemaking proceeding after the
record has been closed; or (4) when the Commission considers a post-hearing
recommendation on the merits of a case after the close of the record. The
Commission allows informal participation at its discretion in certain types of
cases (such as declaratory statements and interim rate orders) in which an
order is issued based on a given set of facts without hearing. See Florida
Administrative Code Rules 25-22.0021 (agenda conference participation) and
25-22.0022 (oral argument).
Conference agendas, staff recommendations, vote sheets, and
transcripts are available online at https://www.floridapsc.com,
by selecting Conferences
& Meeting Agendas and
Commission Conferences of the FPSC.
An official vote of "move staff" denotes that the Item's
recommendations were approved.
In accordance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, persons needing
a special accommodation to participate at this proceeding should contact the
Office of Commission Clerk no later than five days prior to the conference at
2540 Shumard Oak Boulevard, Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0850 or 850-413-6770
(Florida Relay Service, 1-800-955-8770 Voice or 1-800-955-8771 TDD). Assistive
Listening Devices are available upon request from the Office of Commission
Clerk, Gerald L. Gunter Building, Room 152.
The Commission Conference has a live video broadcast the day of the
conference, which is available from the FPSC website. Upon completion of the conference, the
archived video will be available from the website by selecting Conferences & Meeting Agendas, then Audio and Video Event Coverage.
EMERGENCY CANCELLATION OF CONFERENCE: If a named storm or other
disaster requires cancellation of the Conference, Commission staff will attempt
to give timely notice. Notice of cancellation will be provided on the
Commission’s website (https://www.floridapsc.com) under
the Hot Topics link on the home page. Cancellation can also be confirmed by
calling the Office of Commission Clerk at 850-413-6770.
If you have any questions, contact the Office of Commission Clerk at 850-413-6770 or Clerk@psc.state.fl.us.
1**PAA Docket No. 20240150-TX – Petition for designation as an eligible telecommunications carrier in the State of Florida, by Integrated Path Communications, LLC.
|
Critical Date(s): |
None |
||
|
Commissioners Assigned: |
All Commissioners |
||
|
Prehearing Officer: |
Fay |
||
|
Staff: |
IDM: Deas, Fogleman GCL: Augspurger, Imig |
||
Issue 1:
Should IPC be granted an ETC designation to provide lifeline service in the service areas listed in Attachment A of staff’s memorandum dated January 24, 2025?
Yes. IPC should be granted an ETC designation to provide Lifeline service in the service areas listed in Attachment A of staff’s memorandum dated January 24, 2025. Staff also recommends that if there is a future change of Company ownership, the new owners should be required to file a petition with the Commission to demonstrate that it is in the public interest to maintain the Company’s ETC designation.
Issue 2:
Should this docket be closed?
Yes. If no person whose substantial interests are affected by the proposed agency action files a protest within 21 days of the issuance of the Proposed Agency Action Order, this docket should be closed upon the issuance of a consummating order.
2**PAA Docket No. 20240162-TP – Petition for designation as an eligible telecommunications carrier, by TAG Mobility, LLC d/b/a TAG Mobile.
|
Critical Date(s): |
None |
||
|
Commissioners Assigned: |
All Commissioners |
||
|
Prehearing Officer: |
Clark |
||
|
Staff: |
IDM: Mallow, Day, Deas, Fogleman GCL: Imig, Augspurger |
||
Issue 1:
Should TAG Mobility be granted ETC designation to provide Lifeline service throughout the State of Florida?
Yes. TAG Mobility should be granted ETC designation to provide Lifeline service throughout the State of Florida. Staff also recommends that if there is a future change of Company ownership, the new owners should be required to file a petition with the Commission to demonstrate that it is in the public interest to maintain the Company’s ETC designation.
Issue 2:
Should this docket be closed?
Yes. If no person whose substantial interests are affected by the proposed agency action files a protest within 21 days of the issuance of the Proposed Agency Action Order, this docket should be closed upon the issuance of a consummating order.
3** Docket No. 20240172-EI – Petition for recovery of costs associated with named tropical systems during the 2023 and 2024 hurricane seasons and replenishment of storm reserve, by Tampa Electric Company.
|
Critical Date(s): |
None |
||
|
Commissioners Assigned: |
All Commissioners |
||
|
Prehearing Officer: |
Clark |
||
|
Staff: |
AFD: Vogel, Norris, D. Buys, Quigley, Gatlin ECO: Hampson, McClelland ENG: Ellis, Ramos GCL: Thompson |
||
Issue 1:
Should the Commission authorize TECO to implement an interim storm restoration recovery charge?
Yes. The Commission should authorize TECO to implement an interim storm restoration recovery charge, subject to refund. Once the total actual storm costs are known, TECO should be required to file documentation of the total actual storm costs for Commission review and true-up of any excess or shortfall.
Issue 2:
What is the appropriate security to guarantee the amount collected subject to refund through the interim storm restoration recovery charge?
The appropriate security to guarantee the funds collected subject to refund is a corporate undertaking.
Issue 3:
Should the Commission approve TECO's proposed interim storm restoration recovery charge tariff as shown in Attachment A of staff’s memorandum dated January 24, 2025?
Yes, the Commission should approve TECO’s proposal to revise the interim storm restoration recovery tariff and associated surcharges, as shown in Attachment A of staff’s memorandum dated January 24, 2025. The tariff should become effective the first billing cycle of March 2025. The interim storm restoration surcharges should be subject to final true-up once the total actual storm costs are known.
Issue 4:
Should this docket be closed?
No. This docket should remain open pending final reconciliation of actual recoverable storm costs with the amount collected pursuant to the interim storm restoration recovery charge and the calculation of a refund or additional charge if warranted.
4** Docket No. 20240173-EI – Petition for limited proceeding for recovery of incremental storm restoration costs related to Hurricanes Debby, Helene and Milton, by Duke Energy Florida, LLC.
|
Critical Date(s): |
None |
||
|
Commissioners Assigned: |
All Commissioners |
||
|
Prehearing Officer: |
Clark |
||
|
Staff: |
AFD: Vogel, D. Buys, Mason, Norris ECO: Hampson, Hudson, McClelland ENG: P. Buys, Ramos, Smith II GCL: Dose |
||
Issue 1:
Should the Commission authorize DEF to implement an interim storm restoration recovery charge?
Yes. The Commission should authorize DEF to implement an interim storm restoration recovery charge, subject to refund. Once the total actual storm costs are known, DEF should be required to file documentation of the total actual storm costs for Commission review and true-up of any excess or shortfall.
Issue 2:
What is the appropriate security to guarantee the amount collected subject to refund through the interim storm restoration recovery charge?
The appropriate security to guarantee the funds collected subject to refund is a corporate undertaking.
Issue 3:
Should the Commission approve DEF’s proposed interim storm restoration recovery charge tariff as shown in Attachment A of staff’s revised memorandum dated February 3, 2025?
Yes, the Commission should approve DEF’s proposal to revise the interim storm restoration recovery tariff and associated surcharges, as shown in Attachment A of staff’s revised memorandum dated February 3, 2025. The tariff should become effective the first billing cycle of March 2025. The interim storm restoration surcharges should be subject to final true-up once the total actual storm costs are known.
Issue 4:
Should this docket be closed?
No. This docket should remain open pending final reconciliation of actual recoverable storm costs with the amount collected pursuant to the interim storm restoration recovery charge and the calculation of a refund or additional charge if warranted.
5**PAA Docket No. 20240148-EG – Petition for approval of proposed demand-side management plan, by Peoples Gas System, Inc.
|
Critical Date(s): |
None |
||
|
Commissioners Assigned: |
All Commissioners |
||
|
Prehearing Officer: |
Fay |
||
|
Staff: |
ENG: Wooten, Ellis, King GCL: Imig, Marquez |
||
Issue 1:
Should the Commission approve Peoples Gas System’s proposed DSM Plan and program standards?
Yes. The DSM Plan proposed by PGS is projected to exceed the annual numeric conservation goals approved by the Commission in the 2024 Goalsetting Order. PGS’s proposed DSM Plan is primarily a continuation, with some minor modifications, of its DSM portfolio used to establish the goals approved by the Commission in the 2024 Goalsetting Order. The programs within PGS’s proposed DSM Plan are projected to be cost-effective based upon both the G-RIM and Participants Tests.
Therefore, staff recommends that the Commission should allow PGS to file for cost recovery of the programs included in its proposed DSM Plan in the Natural Gas Conservation Cost Recovery (NGCCR) proceeding. However, PGS must demonstrate that the expenditures to implement its DSM programs are reasonable and prudent in order to recover those expenditures in the NGCCR.
PGS also submitted its administrative program standards with its proposed DSM Plan. Staff has reviewed PGS’s administrative program standards and recommends that the Commission find they are consistent with the Utility’s proposed DSM Plan submitted for approval. Staff requests that PGS be required to notify the Commission prior to any changes being made to the program standards as filed.
Issue 2:
Should this docket be closed?
Yes. 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, this docket should be closed upon the issuance of a consummating order.
6**PAA Docket No. 20240111-WU – Application for grandfather certificate to operate water utility in Citrus County, by Citrus Waterworks, Inc.
|
Critical Date(s): |
None |
||
|
Commissioners Assigned: |
All Commissioners |
||
|
Prehearing Officer: |
Clark |
||
|
Staff: |
ENG: P. Buys, Ramos, Smith II AFD: Bardin ECO: Bethea, Bruce GCL: Imig, Farooqi |
||
Issue 1:
Should Citrus Waterworks, Inc.’s application for a grandfather water certificate in Citrus County be acknowledged?
Yes.
Citrus’ application should be acknowledged and the Utility should be issued
Certificate No. 684-W, effective May 28, 2024, to serve the territory described
in Attachment A of staff’s memorandum dated January 24, 2025.
The resultant order should serve as
Citrus’ certificate and should be retained by the Utility.
Issue 2:
What rates and charges should be approved for Citrus Waterworks, Inc.?
The Utility’s monthly rates and charges that were in effect when Citrus County transferred jurisdiction to the Commission, shown on Schedule No. 1 of staff’s memorandum dated January 24, 2025, should be approved. The rates and charges should be effective for service rendered on or after the stamped approval date on the tariff sheets pursuant to Rule 25-30.475, F.A.C. The Utility should be required to charge the approved rates and charges until authorized to change them by this Commission in a subsequent proceeding.
Issue 3:
Should this docket be closed?
If no person whose substantial interests are
affected by the proposed agency action portion of this recommendation 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 have been filed by the Utility and approved by staff.
Once this action is complete, this docket should be closed administratively.
7** Docket No. 20240140-WS – Application for amendment of Certificate Nos. 589-W and 507-S in Polk County, by NC Real Estate Projects, LLC d/b/a Grenelefe Utility.
|
Critical Date(s): |
None |
||
|
Commissioners Assigned: |
All Commissioners |
||
|
Prehearing Officer: |
Administrative |
||
|
Staff: |
ENG: Davis, Ellis, Ramos GCL: Stiller |
||
Issue 1:
Should the Commission institute a show cause proceeding against Grenelefe for an apparent violation of Section 367.045, F.S.?
No. A show cause proceeding should not be initiated.
Issue 2:
Should the Commission approve Grenelefe’s application for amendment of Certificate Nos. 589-W and 507-S to extend its territory from its certificated water and wastewater service territory in Marion County?
Yes. The Commission should amend Certificate Nos. 589-W and 507-S to include the territory as described in Attachment A of staff’s memorandum dated January 24, 2025, effective the date of the Commission’s vote. The resultant order should serve as Grenelefe’s amended certificates and should be retained by the Utility. The Utility should charge future customers in the territory added herein the rates and charges contained in its current tariffs until a change is authorized by the Commission in a subsequent proceeding.
Issue 3:
Should this docket be closed?
If the Commission approves staff’s recommendation, no further action will be necessary, and this docket should be closed upon issuance of the order.
8**PAA Docket No. 20240107-GU – Petition for approval of modifications to cast iron/bare steel pipe replacement rider, by Peoples Gas System, Inc.
|
Critical Date(s): |
None |
||
|
Commissioners Assigned: |
All Commissioners |
||
|
Prehearing Officer: |
Administrative |
||
|
Staff: |
ECO: Ward, Hampson ENG: Ellis, Sanchez, Thompson GCL: Sandy |
||
Issue 1:
Should the Commission approve Peoples' proposed modifications to the CI/BS Rider?
Yes, in part. The Commission should approve Peoples’ expansion of the rider program to include: (1) maximum allowable operating pressure (MAOP) reconfirmation and material verification, (2) pipeline spans and shallow/exposed pipe, and (3) the relocation of facilities in rear easements. These components of the proposed rider expansion are reasonable additions that are required by recent changes to the United States Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Administration (PHMSA) regulations and/or are consistent with approved items in previous Commission Orders.
The Commission should deny the inclusion of (1) pipeline pressurization monitoring and management, (2) pipeline damages and leaks, (3) pipeline within casings, (4) undetectable facilities, and (5) system enhancement projects, as they are not required by PHMSA regulations and/or are part of the utility's normal operations and, therefore, more appropriately addressed through traditional ratemaking processes.
Issue 2:
Should this docket be closed?
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 a Consummating Order.
9**PAA Docket No. 20240141-GU – Petition for approval of transportation service agreement between Peninsula Pipeline Company, Inc. and Florida City Gas.
|
Critical Date(s): |
None |
||
|
Commissioners Assigned: |
All Commissioners |
||
|
Prehearing Officer: |
Passidomo |
||
|
Staff: |
ECO: Hampson GCL: Sandy |
||
Issue 1:
Should the Commission approve the proposed firm transportation service agreement between Peninsula and FCG, dated September 18, 2024?
Yes, the Commission should approve the proposed firm transportation agreement between Peninsula and FCG, dated September 18, 2024. The proposed agreement is reasonable and meets the requirements of Section 368.105, F.S. Furthermore, the proposed agreement benefits FGC’s current and future customers by increasing system resiliency and reliability.
Issue 2:
Should this docket be closed?
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, this docket should be closed upon the issuance of a consummating order.
10 Docket No. 20240108-SU – Application for increase in wastewater rates in Monroe County by K W Resort Utilities Corp.
|
Critical Date(s): |
02/11/25 (60-Day Suspension Date) |
||
|
Commissioners Assigned: |
All Commissioners |
||
|
Prehearing Officer: |
Fay |
||
|
Staff: |
ECO: Sibley, Chambliss, Bruce AFD: Bardin, York, Sewards ENG: Wooten, Ellis GCL: Brownless |
||
(Tariff Suspension - Participation is at
the discretion of the Commission)
Issue 1:
Should the utility's proposed wastewater rates be suspended?
Yes. The utility’s proposed wastewater rates should be suspended to allow staff and any intervenors sufficient time to adequately and thoroughly examine the appropriateness of the utility’s request for final rate relief.
Issue 2:
Should this docket be closed?
This docket should remain open pending the Commission’s final action on the utility’s requested rate increase.