Commission Conference Agenda

11**PAA Docket No. 20240011-WU – Application for certificate to provide water service in St. Johns County, by Riverdale Utility Holding, Inc.

Critical Date(s):		01/31/25 (90-Day Deadline to Grant or Deny Application waived by Riverdale Utility Holding, Inc. to March 4, 2025)
Commissioners Assigned:			All Commissioners
Prehearing Officer:			Graham
Staff:	ENG: M. Watts, King, Ramos, Smith II AFD: Norris, Sewards ECO: Bethea, Bruce, Lenberg GCL: Sandy

(Proposed Agency Action for Issues 2-7)

Issue 1:

Should the application of Riverdale Utility Holding, Inc. for a water certificate be approved?

Recommendation:

Yes. The Commission should grant Riverdale Utility Holding, Inc. Certificate No. 686-W to serve the territory described in Attachment A of staff’s memorandum dated February 20, 2025, effective the date of the Commission’s vote. The resultant order should serve as Riverdale’s water certificate and it should be retained by the Utility. Further, the Utility should file a copy of its recorded deed in the docket file within 60 days of the issuance of the order granting the certificate.

Issue 2:

What are the appropriate water rates and return on investment for Riverdale?

Recommendation:

Staff’s recommended water rates, shown on Schedule No. 4 of staff’s memorandum dated February 20, 2025, are reasonable and should be approved. The approved rates should be effective for services rendered as of 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 until authorized to change them by the Commission in a subsequent proceeding. The overall cost of capital should be set at 8.64 percent. A return on equity (ROE) of 10.23 percent with a range of plus or minus 100 basis points should also be approved.

Issue 3:

Should Riverdale Utility Holding, Inc.’s requested initial customer deposits be approved?

Recommendation:

No. The appropriate initial customer deposit is $324 for water service for the residential 5/8″ x 3/4″ meter size. The initial customer deposits for all other residential meter sizes and all general service meter sizes should be two times the average estimated bill. The approved customer deposits should be effective for service rendered on or after the stamped approval date on the tariff pursuant to Rule 25-30.475, F.A.C. The Utility should be required to collect the approved deposits until authorized to change them by the Commission in a subsequent proceeding.

Issue 4:

What are the appropriate service availability charges for Riverdale Utility Holding, Inc.?

Recommendation:

The appropriate service availability charges are shown on Table 4-1 of staff’s memorandum dated February 20, 2025 and should be approved. The recommended main extension and plant capacity charges should be based on an estimated 250 gallons per day (gpd) of water demand. The approved charges should be effective for services rendered or connections made on or after the stamped approval date on the tariff pursuant to Rule 25-30.475, F.A.C. The Utility should be required to charge the approved charges until authorized to change them by the Commission in a subsequent proceeding.

Issue 5:

Should the temporary meter deposit requested by Riverdale Utility Holding, Inc. be approved?

Recommendation:

Yes. The Utility’s requested temporary meter deposit for general service customers at actual cost pursuant to Rules 25-30.315 and 25-30.345, F.A.C., is reasonable and should be approved. The approved temporary meter deposit should be effective for service rendered on or after the stamped approval date on the tariff sheet pursuant to Rule 25-30.475, F.A.C. Riverdale should be required to collect the approved deposit, which covers the anticipated costs of installing and removing facilities and materials for temporary service, until authorized to change it by the Commission in a subsequent proceeding.

Issue 6:

Should Riverdale Utility Holding, Inc.’s request for a meter tampering charge be approved?

Recommendation:

Yes. The Utility’s request for meter tampering charge at actual cost should be approved. The approved charge should be effective for service rendered or connections made on or after the stamped approval date on the tariff pursuant to Rule 25-30.475, F.A.C. The Utility should be required to charge its approved charge until authorized to change them by the Commission in a subsequent proceeding.

Issue 7:

What are the appropriate miscellaneous service charges for Riverdale Utility Holding, Inc.?

Recommendation:

The appropriate miscellaneous service charges are shown on Table 7-3 of staff’s memorandum dated February 20, 2025 and should be approved. The Utility should file revised tariff sheets to reflect the Commission-approved charges. The approved charges should be effective for service rendered or connections made on or after the stamped approval date on the tariff sheets pursuant to Rule 25-30.475(1), F.A.C. The Utility should be required to charge the approved miscellaneous service charges until authorized to change them by the Commission in a subsequent proceeding.

Issue 8:

Should this docket be closed?

Recommendation:

Yes. If no protest to the proposed agency action is filed by a substantially affected person within 21 days of the date of the issuance of the Order, a Consummating Order should be issued and the docket should be closed administratively upon Commission staff’s verification that the revised tariff sheets have been filed, the utility has verified in writing that it has adjusted its books in accordance with the Commission’s decision, and that the utility has submitted the executed and recorded warranty deed within 60 days of the Commission’s Order.

12**PAA Docket No. 20240104-WS – Application for grandfather certificate to operate water and wastewater utility in Citrus County, by Tarawood Utilities, LLC.

Critical Date(s):		None
Commissioners Assigned:			All Commissioners
Prehearing Officer:			Fay
Staff:	ENG: Ramirez-Abundez, Smith II AFD: Bardin, Cicchetti, Norris, Sewards ECO: Bruce, Chambliss GCL: Dose

(Proposed Agency Action for Issues 3-6)

Issue 1:

Should Tarawood Utilities, LLC’s application for grandfather water and wastewater certificates in Citrus County be acknowledged?

Recommendation:

Yes. Tarawood’s application should be approved and the Utility should be issued Certificate Nos. 685-W and 584-S, effective May 28, 2024, to serve the territory described in Attachment A of staff’s memorandum dated February 20, 2025. The resultant order should serve as Tarawood’s certificate and should be retained by the Utility.

Issue 2:

What rates, charges, and deposits should be approved for Tarawood Utilities, LLC?

Recommendation:

Of the Utility’s rates, charges, and deposits for water and wastewater service that were in effect when Citrus County transferred jurisdiction to the Commission, only the rates, charges, and initial customer deposits shown in Schedule Nos. 1 and 2 of staff’s memorandum dated February 20, 2025, are appropriate and should be approved. The rates, charges, and initial customer deposits shown in Schedule Nos. 1 and 2 should be effective for services rendered or connections made on or after the stamped approval date on the tariff sheets. The Utility should be required to charge the approved rates, charges, and initial customer deposit shown in Schedule Nos. 1 and 2 until authorized to change them by the Commission in a subsequent proceeding.

Issue 3:

Should the Utility’s current terms of payment be revised to conform to Rule 25-30.335(6), F.A.C.?

Recommendation:

Yes. The Utility’s current terms of payment should be revised to conform to Rule 25-30.335(6), F.A.C. The Utility should file revised tariff sheets to reflect the appropriate terms of payment pursuant to Rule 25-30.335(6), F.A.C. The approved tariffs should be effective for service rendered or connections made on or after the stamped approval date on the tariff sheets pursuant to Rule 25-30.475, F.A.C. In addition, the tariff sheets will be approved upon staff’s verification that the tariffs are consistent with the Commission’s decision and that the proposed customer notice is adequate.

Issue 4:

What are the appropriate meter test deposit charges for Tarawood Utilities, LLC?

Recommendation:

Staff recommends that the appropriate meter test deposits be revised to conform to Rule 25-30.266(2)(a), F.A.C. The Utility should file a revised tariff sheet to reflect the appropriate meter test deposits pursuant to Rule 25-30.335(6), F.A.C. The approved tariff should be effective for service rendered or connections made on or after the stamped approval date on the tariff sheets pursuant to Rule 25-30.475, F.A.C. In addition, the tariff sheet will be approved upon staff’s verification that the tariffs are consistent with the Commission’s decision and that the proposed customer notice is adequate.

Issue 5:

What are the appropriate water and wastewater miscellaneous service charges for Tarawood Utilities, LLC?

Recommendation:

The appropriate water and wastewater miscellaneous service charges are shown on Table 5-2 of staff’s memorandum dated February 20, 2025. The Utility should be required to file a proposed customer notice to reflect the Commission-approved charges. The approved charges should be effective for service rendered or connections made on or after the stamped approval date on the tariff sheet pursuant to Rule 25-30.475, F.A.C. In addition, the tariff sheets will be approved upon staff’s verification that the tariffs are consistent with the Commission’s decision and that the proposed customer notice is adequate.

Issue 6:

Should Tarawood Utilities, LLC’s water and wastewater charge for readiness to serve be classified as guaranteed revenue charges?

Recommendation:

The Utility’s water and wastewater charge for readiness to serve should be classified as guaranteed revenue charges. The charges should be effective for service rendered or connections made on or after the stamped approval date on the tariff sheets, provided customers have received notice pursuant to Rule 25-30.475, F.A.C. In addition, the tariff sheets should be approved upon staff’s verification that the tariffs are consistent with the Commission’s decision and that the proposed customer notice is adequate.

Issue 7:

Should this docket be closed?

Recommendation:

No. 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 and customer notice have been filed by the Utility and approved by staff. Once this action is complete, this docket should be closed administratively.

14**PAA Docket No. 20240099-EI – Petition for rate increase by Florida Public Utilities Company.

Critical Date(s):		02/20/25 (5-Month Effective Date - PAA Rate Case)
Commissioners Assigned:			All Commissioners
Prehearing Officer:			Passidomo Smith
Staff:	ECO: Guffey, Barrett, Galloway, Hampson, Hudson, P. Kelley, Kunkler, McNulty, Prewett, Wu AFD: D. Buys, Cicchetti, Ferrer, Folkman, Higgins, G. Kelley, McGowan, Quigley, Richards, Souchik, Vogel, Zaslow ENG: Ellis, King, Ramirez-Abundez, Ramos, Smith II, Thompson GCL: Brownless IDM: Eichler, Hitchins, Roberts, Rogers, Wooten

(Proposed Agency Action for All Issues, Except for Issues 63 and 64)

Issue 1:

Is FPUC's projected test period for the twelve months ending December 31, 2025, appropriate?

Recommendation:

Yes, FPUC’s projected test period for the twelve months ending December 31, 2025, is appropriate.

Issue 2:

Are FPUC’s forecasts of customers, energy, and demand by revenue and rate class for the projected test year appropriate?

Recommendation:

Yes, FPUC’s forecasts of customers, energy, and demand by revenue and rate class are appropriate.

Issue 3:

Are FPUC's estimated revenues from sales of electricity by rate class at present rates for the projected test year appropriate? If not, what adjustments should be made?

Recommendation:

Yes, FPUC's estimated revenues from sales of electricity by rate class at present rates for the projected test year are appropriate. No adjustments are necessary.

Issue 4:

What are the appropriate inflation, customer growth, and other non-payroll trend factors for use in forecasting the 2024 and 2025 test year budgets?

Recommendation:

The non-payroll trend factors appropriate for forecasting the 2024 and 2025 test year budgets are: 2.84 percent for inflation, 0.30 percent for customer growth, and 0.34 percent for the revenue trend factor (for 2024), and 2.31 percent for inflation, 0.31 percent for customer growth, and (0.09) percent for revenue (for 2025). The combination of customer and inflation trend factors for 2024 and 2025 are also appropriately used for this purpose.

Issue 5:

Is the quality of electric service provided by FPUC adequate?

Recommendation:

Yes. Staff recommends that FPUC’s overall quality of service is adequate.

Issue 6:

Should FPUC’s proposed acquisition and replacement of substations and transmission assets be included in the 2025 projected test year?

Recommendation:

Yes. FPUC’s proposed acquisition and replacement of substations and transmission assets should be included in the 2025 projected test year. These projects will allow FPUC to maintain and improve the reliability and integrity of its electric system and provide savings to customers. Further, staff recommends the Commission authorize FPUC to increase its base rates by the incremental revenue requirement associated with the substation and transmission projects once these assets are in service. FPUC should be required to file its step increase calculations and tariffs for staff review. The Commission should give staff administrative authority to approve FPUC’s revised tariffs.

Issue 7:

Should FPUC’s proposed reliability projects be included in the 2025 projected test year? What, if any, adjustments should be made?

Recommendation:

Yes. FPUC’s proposed reliability projects, with a total estimated capital cost of approximately $4.2 million, should be included in the 2025 projected test year with no adjustments. These projects will allow FPUC to maintain and improve the reliability of its electric system.

Issue 8:

Should FPUC’s proposed safety projects be included in the 2025 projected test year? What, if any, adjustments should be made?

Recommendation:

Yes. FPUC’s proposed safety projects, with a total estimated capital cost of approximately $1.6 million, should be included in the 2025 projected test year with no adjustments. Staff recommends that these projects are necessary to improve the safety and reliability of FPUC’s system, and to reduce risk to life and property.

Issue 9:

Should FPUC’s proposed security camera project be included in the 2025 projected test year? What, if any, adjustments should be made?

Recommendation:

Yes. The proposed security camera project, with a capital cost of $326,430 and annual O&M expense of $63,024, should be included in the 2025 projected test year without any adjustments. Staff recommends that this project is needed to improve security and monitoring to align with North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC) Critical Infrastructure Protection (CIP) standards and to also ensure the security of FPUC’s assets.

Issue 10:

Should FPUC’s proposed two-way communication system be included in the 2025 projected test year? What, if any, adjustments should be made?

Recommendation:

Yes. The proposed two-way communication system, with a capital cost of $326,430 should be included in the 2025 projected test year. This results in a reduction to rate base of $940,711 and a reduction to depreciation expense of $187,357. Staff recommends that this project is needed to improve employee safety and increase restoration efficiency.

Issue 11:

Should FPUC’s proposed New Customer Information System (CIS) be included in the 2025 projected test year? What, if any, adjustments should be made?

Recommendation:

Yes. The proposed CIS, with a capital cost of $6.9 million and O&M expense of $356,083, should be included in the 2025 projected test year without any adjustments. Staff recommends that the project is needed to replace software that is at the end of its life, and will improve the customer billing system and cybersecurity, which will protect FPUC’s system and customer information.

Issue 12:

Has FPUC made the appropriate adjustments to remove all non-utility activities from Plant in Service, Accumulated Depreciation, and Working Capital in the 2025 projected test year? What, if any, adjustments should be made?

Recommendation:

Yes. Staff believes the Company has made the appropriate adjustments to remove all non-utility activities from Plant in Service and Accumulated Depreciation in the 2025 projected test year. No adjustments to Working Capital are necessary.

Issue 13:

What level of Plant in Service should be approved for the 2025 projected test year?

Recommendation:

The appropriate level of Plant in Service for the 2025 projected test year is $203,856,204.

Issue 14:

What level of Accumulated Depreciation should be approved for the 2025 projected test year?

Recommendation:

Staff recommends the Commission approve an accumulated depreciation level of $80,674,837 for the 2025 projected test year.

Issue 15:

What level of Working Capital should be approved for the 2025 projected test year?

Recommendation:

The appropriate level of Working Capital for the 2025 projected test year is $12,767,460.

Issue 16:

What level of Construction Work in Progress should be approved for the 2025 test year?

Recommendation:

The appropriate level of Construction Work in Progress for the 2025 projected test year is $8,221,809.

Issue 17: What level of Property Held for Future Use should be approved for the 2025 projected test year?

Recommendation:

Staff recommends that the appropriate level of Property Held for Future Use is $0.

Issue 18:

What is the level of rate base that should be approved for the 2025 projected test year?

Recommendation:

Staff recommends that the appropriate level of rate base for the 2025 projected test year is $144,170,635.

Issue 19:

What amount of accumulated deferred taxes should be approved for inclusion in the capital structure for the 2025 projected test year?

Recommendation:

The amount of accumulated deferred income taxes to be included in the 2025 projected test year capital structure is $13,497,717.

Issue 20:

What amount and cost rate for customer deposits should be approved for inclusion in the capital structure for the 2025 projected test year?

Recommendation:

The amount and cost rate for customer deposits that should be included in the 2025 projected test year capital structure is $4,001,097 at a cost rate of 2.20 percent.

Issue 21:

What is the appropriate amount and cost rate for short-term debt to include in the capital structure for the 2025 projected test year?

Recommendation:

The appropriate amount for short-term debt to include in the capital structure for the 2025 projected test year is $6,906,199 at a cost rate of 5.81 percent.

Issue 22:

What amount and cost rate for long-term debt should be approved for inclusion in the capital structure for the 2025 projected test year?

Recommendation:

The amount of long-term debt to include in the capital structure for the 2025 projected test year is $54,153,162 at a cost rate of 4.51 percent.

Issue 23:

What equity ratio should be approved for use in the capital structure for ratemaking purposes for the 2025 projected test year?

Recommendation:

An equity ratio of 50.04 percent, based on investor sources, should be approved for use in the capital structure for ratemaking purposes for the 2025 projected test year.

Issue 24:

What return on common equity should be approved for use in establishing FPUC’s revenue requirement for the 2025 projected test year?

Recommendation:

A return on common equity of 10.15 percent, with a range of 9.15 percent to 11.15 percent, should be approved for use in establishing FPUC’s revenue requirement for the 2025 projected test year.

Issue 25:

What capital structure and weighted average cost of capital should be approved for use in establishing FPUC’s revenue requirement for the 2025 projected test year?

Recommendation:

A capital structure consisting of 50.04 percent common equity, 44.31 percent long-term debt, and 5.65 percent short-term debt as a percentage of investor sources should be approved for the 13-month average test year ending December 31, 2025. A weighted average cost of capital of 6.34 percent should be approved for establishing FPUC’s 2025 projected test year revenue requirement.

Issue 26:

What amount of Miscellaneous Service Revenue should be approved for the 2025 projected test year?

Recommendation:

The amount of $163,225 in Miscellaneous Service Revenue should be approved for the 2025 projected test year.

Issue 27:

What amount of Total Operating Revenue should be approved for the 2025 projected test year?

Recommendation:

The appropriate amount of Total Operating Revenue for the 2025 projected test year is $25,353,946.

Issue 28:

Should FPUC’s proposed costs for the S&P Global Platts package be approved for the 2025 projected test year? What, if any, adjustments should be made?

Recommendation:

Yes. FPUC’s proposed costs associated with the S&P Global Platts package should be approved for the 2025 projected test year.

Issue 29:

Has FPUC made the appropriate test year adjustments to remove fuel revenues and fuel expenses recoverable through the Fuel and Purchased Power Cost Recovery Clause?

Recommendation:

Yes. FPUC has made the appropriate test year adjustments to remove fuel revenues and fuel expenses recoverable through the Fuel and Purchased Power Cost Recovery Clause.

Issue 30:

Has FPUC made the appropriate test year adjustments to remove conservation revenues and conservation expenses recoverable through the Conservation Cost Recovery Clause?

Recommendation:

Yes. FPUC has made the appropriate test year adjustments to remove conservation revenues and conservation expenses recoverable through the Conservation Cost Recovery Clause.

Issue 31:

Should FPUC’s proposed addition of Electric Line Operation Supervisor in both the Northeast and Northwest Territory be included in O&M Expense for the 2025 projected test year? What, if any, adjustments should be made?

Recommendation:

Yes. FPUC’s proposed addition of an Electric Line Operation Supervisor in both its Northeast and Northwest territories, with a salary of $105,000 for each position, should be included in the 2025 projected test year with no adjustments.

Issue 32:

Has FPUC made the appropriate test year adjustments to remove all storm hardening revenues and expenses recoverable through the Storm Protection Plan Cost Recovery Clause?

Recommendation:

Yes. Staff recommends that FPUC has made the appropriate test year adjustments to remove all storm hardening revenues and expenses recoverable through the SPPCRC.

Issue 33:

Is FPUC’s proposed reserve target level and annual storm damage accrual for the 2025 projected test year appropriate? If not, what adjustment should be made?

Recommendation:

Yes. FPUC’s proposed increase to its annual accrual is reasonable and therefore, staff recommends that FPUC’s proposed reserve target level of $1.5 million and annual storm damage accrual of $446,979 for the 2025 projected test year are appropriate and should be approved without any adjustments.

Issue 34:

What amount of advertising expense should be approved for the 2025 projected test year?

Recommendation:

An advertising expense of $103,998 should be approved for the 2025 projected test year.

Issue 35:

What amount of economic development expense should be approved for the 2025 projected test year?

Recommendation:

An amount of $19,055 should be approved for the 2025 projected test year.

Issue 36:

What annual rate case expense should be approved for the 2025 projected test year?

Recommendation:

Staff recommends the Commission approve a total rate case cost of $1,530,907 with a four-year amortization period. The corresponding annual amortization expense is $382,727.

Issue 37:

What are the appropriate cost allocation methodologies and what, if any, adjustments should be made to the allocated costs and charges with affiliated companies for FPUC for the 2025 projected test year?

Recommendation:

Staff recommends that FPUC’s cost allocation methodologies are reasonable and that no adjustments are necessary.

Issue 38:

What amount of salaries and benefits, including incentive compensation, should be approved for the 2025 projected test year?

Recommendation:

Staff recommends the amount of salaries and benefits is $11,388,043 for the 2025 projected test year.

Issue 39:

What amount of Bad Debt expense should be approved for the 2025 projected test year?

Recommendation:

Staff recommends that the appropriate amount of Bad Debt expense for the 2025 projected test year is $602,010 and an average bad debt rate of 0.5227 percent be incorporated into the Revenue Expansion Factor.

Issue 40:

What amount of distribution O&M expense should be approved for the 2025 projected test year?

Recommendation:

FPUC’s distribution O&M expense should be $3,935,481 for the 2025 projected test year. Staff recommends that the overall distribution O&M expense is reasonable, including the costs associated with the engineering and supervision of plant improvement projects due to the increased workload associated with the acquisition and replacement/rebuild of the substation assets discussed in Issue 6, and increased position responsibilities. This amount is based on directly projecting known distribution O&M expenses, and increasing historic test year distribution O&M expenses for inflation and customer growth, consistent with FPUC’s prior base rate proceedings.

Issue 41:

What amount of transmission O&M expense should be approved for the 2025 projected test year?

Recommendation:

FPUC’s transmission O&M expense should be $144,837 for the 2025 projected test year. This amount is based on directly projecting known transmission O&M expenses, and increasing historic test year transmission O&M expenses for inflation and customer growth, consistent with FPUC’s prior base rate proceedings. Therefore, staff recommends that FPUC’s transmission O&M expense is reasonable and should be approved.

Issue 42:

What total amount of O&M expense should be approved for the 2025 projected test year?

Recommendation:

Staff recommends O&M expense for the 2025 projected test year of $16,169,022.

Issue 43:

What amount of depreciation expense should be approved for the 2025 projected test year?

Recommendation:

Staff recommends the Commission approve a depreciation expense of $5,119,891 for the 2025 projected test year.

Issue 44:

What amount of Taxes Other Than Income should be approved for the 2025 projected test year?

Recommendation:

Staff recommends Taxes Other Than Income taxes for the 2025 projected test year of $2,357,780.

Issue 45:

What amount of Income Tax expense should be approved for the 2025 projected test year?

Recommendation:

Staff recommends that the amount of Income Tax expense for the 2025 projected test year is ($2,415,324).

Issue 46:

What amount of Net Operating Income should be approved for the 2025 projected test year?

Recommendation:

Staff recommends that the appropriate Net Operating Income is $1,673,316 for the 2025 projected test year.

Issue 47:

What revenue expansion factor and net operating income multiplier should be approved for the 2025 projected test year, including the appropriate elements and rates?

Recommendation:

Staff recommends that the appropriate 2025 projected test year revenue expansion factor is 74.2015 percent and the net operating income multiplier is 1.3477. The appropriate elements and rates are discussed in the analysis portion of staff’s memorandum dated February 20, 2025.

Issue 48:

What amount of annual operating revenue increase should be approved for the 2025 projected test year?

Recommendation:

The amount of annual operating revenue increase that should be approved for the projected 2025 test year is $9,898,162.

Issue 49:

What is the appropriate cost of service methodology to be used in designing FPUC’s rates?

Recommendation:

The appropriate cost of service study methodology utilizes the 12 Monthly Coincident Peak (CP) method for the allocation of transmission costs; non-coincident peak and customer maximum demand for distribution plant; and classifies only the meter, service drop, and customer-service components of the distribution system as customer-related. The appropriate cost of service study is contained in MFR Schedule E and is consistent with FPUC’s last rate case filing. FPUC should file a revised cost of service study, including rates and tariffs, that reflect the Commission vote on all issues by March 10, 2025, close of business.

Issue 50:

If a revenue increase is granted, how should the increase be allocated to rate classes?

Recommendation:

The appropriate allocation of the increase in revenue requirement, after recognizing any additional revenues realized in other operating revenues, should track, to the extent practical, the revenue deficiency of each class as determined from the approved cost of service study and move the classes toward parity to the extent practicable. The increase should be allocated to the rate classes in a manner that moves the class rate of return indices as close to parity as practicable based on the approved cost allocation methodology, subject to the following constraints: (1) no class should receive an increase greater than 1.5 times the system average percentage increase in total, and (2) no class should receive a decrease.

Issue 51:

What are the appropriate customer facilities charges?

Recommendation:

The final customer facilities charges are a fall-out issue and will be decided at the March 20, 2025 Commission Conference. The calculation of the customer facilities charges is dependent on the Commission’s vote on the final revenue requirement. FPUC should be required to recalculate the customer facilities charges based on the Commission’s vote on all prior issues.

Issue 52:

What are the appropriate demand charges?

Recommendation:

The final demand charges are a fall-out issue and will be decided at the March 20, 2025 Commission Conference. The calculation of the customer facilities charges is dependent on the Commission’s vote on the final revenue requirement. FPUC should be required to recalculate the demand charges based on the Commission’s vote on all prior issues.

Issue 53:

What are the appropriate energy charges?

Recommendation:

The final energy charges are a fall-out issue and will be decided at the March 20, 2025 Commission Conference. The calculation of the customer facilities charges is dependent on the Commission’s vote on the final revenue requirement. FPUC should be required to recalculate the energy charges based on the Commission’s vote on all prior issues.

Issue 54:

Should FPUC’s proposal to delete standby service be approved?

Recommendation:

Yes, FPUC’s proposal to delete standby service should be approved. Accordingly, the standby service tariff should be closed once the Commission’s decision in this docket has become final.

Issue 55:

Should the proposed modifications to the temporary service charges be approved?

Recommendation:

Yes, the proposed modifications to the temporary service charges should be approved.

Issue 56:

Should the proposed modifications to deposit amounts to prepare requested binding cost estimates for new underground construction and overhead conversions be approved?

Recommendation:

Yes. The proposed modifications to deposit amounts to prepare requested binding cost estimates for new underground construction and overhead conversions should be approved.

Issue 57:

What are the appropriate Miscellaneous Service Charges (Tariff Sheet No. 6.027)?

Recommendation:

The appropriate Miscellaneous Service Charges are contained in Table 57-1 of staff’s memorandum dated February 20, 2025 and should be approved.

Issue 58:

Is FPUC’s proposal to close the Non-Firm Energy Program-Experimental (Tariff Sheet No. 7.023) to new customers appropriate?

Recommendation:

Yes, FPUC’s proposal to close the Non-Firm Energy Program-Experimental to new customers and subsequently end the program by September 1, 2025, is appropriate and should be approved. Staff believes it is reasonable to close the program because the program has not benefitted the general body of ratepayers as intended.

Issue 59:

Should the new Technology Cost Recovery Rider and associated Tariff Sheets (Nos. 7.027 through 7.029) be approved?

Recommendation:

No. The new Technology Cost Recovery Rider (TCRR or Rider) and associated Tariff Sheets (Original Sheet Nos. 7.027 through 7.029) should be denied. The proposed TCRR program and associated costs are still in a development stage and are part of the Company’s normal operations and, therefore, more appropriately addressed through traditional ratemaking processes.

Issue 60:

Should the Commission approve FPUC’s proposal to recover the Hurricane Michael storm recovery surcharge from General Service - Large Demand 1 (GSLD 1) customers as a fixed charge?

Recommendation:

Yes, the Commission should approve FPUC’s proposal to recover the Hurricane Michael storm recovery surcharge from GSLD 1 customers as a fixed charge, as opposed to a variable energy charge. Recovery of Hurricane Michael costs through a fixed charge should not impact the total recovery of the surcharge.

Issue 61:

What is the appropriate effective date for FPUC's revised rates and charges?

Recommendation:

This is a fallout issue and will be decided at the March 20, 2025 Commission Conference.

Issue 62:

Should the Commission give staff administrative authority to approve tariffs reflecting Commission approved rates and charges?

Recommendation:

This is a fallout issue and will be decided at the March 20, 2025 Commission Conference.

Issue 63:

Should any portion of the interim increase granted be refunded to customers?

Recommendation:

No. Based on staff’s recommended final revenue increase; an interim-related refund is not required. Further, upon issuance of the final order in this docket, the corporate undertaking should be released.

Issue 64:

Should FPUC be required to file, within 90 days after the date of the final order in this docket, a description of all entries or adjustments to its annual report, rate of return reports, and books and records which will be required as a result of the Commission’s findings in this rate case?

Recommendation:

Yes. FPUC should be required to file, within 90 days after the date of the final order in this docket, a description of all entries or adjustments to its annual report, rate of return reports, and books and records which will be required as a result of the Commission’s findings in this rate case.

Issue 65:

Should this docket be closed?

Recommendation:

No. This docket should remain open for the Commission to make its final determination regarding the requested rate increase at the March 20, 2025 Special Agenda Conference.

DOCKET NO.	COMPANY NAME
20240164‑TX	ExteNet LVS, LLC
20250028‑TX	Conexon Connect LLC
20240156‑TX	Dense Air Networks US, LLC

Rule Status:		Proposed – New Rule 25-12.100, F.A.C., must be proposed by April 1, 2025, pursuant to Section 120.74(5), F.S.
Commissioners Assigned:			All Commissioners
Prehearing Officer:			Graham
Staff:	GCL: Rubottom ECO: Guffey ENG: Brown

Rule Status:		Proposed
Commissioners Assigned:			All Commissioners
Prehearing Officer:			Graham
Staff:	GCL: Rubottom ECO: Guffey ENG: Brown

Rule Status:		Proposed – Rule must be proposed by April 1, 2025, pursuant to Section 120.74(5), F.S.
Commissioners Assigned:			All Commissioners
Prehearing Officer:			Graham
Staff:	GCL: Sapoznikoff ECO: Guffey IDM: Hinton

Critical Date(s):		03/11/25 (60-day Decision on Interim Rates)
Commissioners Assigned:			All Commissioners
Prehearing Officer:			Graham
Staff:	ENG: Ramirez-Abundez, Ramos, Smith II, King AFD: Folkman, G. Kelley ECO: Sibley, Bruce GCL: Imig, Augspurger

Critical Date(s):		03/14/25 (60-Day Suspension Date)
Commissioners Assigned:			All Commissioners
Prehearing Officer:			Administrative
Staff:	ECO: McClelland GCL: Sandy