Discussion
of Issues
Issue 1:
Has Environmental Utilities, LLC met the filing and
noticing requirements pursuant to Rules 25-30.030 and 25-30.033, Florida Administrative
Code?
Recommendation:
Yes. The Utility properly notified potential
customers of its application and met the noticing requirements of Rule
25-30.030, F.A.C. The application meets all other requirements of Rule
25-30.033, F.A.C. (M. Watts)
Position
of the Parties:
LC: No.
LGIPA: No,
EU has not met the filing requirements because EU has not satisfied all of the requirements
set forth in Rule 25-30.033, F.A.C., including a need for service, consistency
with the Comprehensive Plan and Sewer Master Plan, financial and technical
ability, and continued use of the land, i.e., easements. Additionally, EU
has not satisfied the noticing requirements because the grinder sewer system
proposed in its rebuttal case was not noticed with EU’s original Application.
PIE: No,
Environmental Utilities has not met the filing and noticing requirements
pursuant to Rules 25-30.030 and 25-30.033, Florida Administrative Code
EU: Yes.
Staff Analysis:
ANALYSIS
For original certificates, Rule
25-30.030, F.A.C., requires a utility to notice relevant local government
authorities, nearby utility entities, and each owner of property within the
proposed service territory. The notice must contain a description of the
proposed service area, contact information, and instructions on how potential
customers could file objections with the Commission. The Utility provided
affidavits of noticing as required by Rule 25-30.030(5), F.A.C. (EXH 48) Several
potential customers, including PIE, LGIPA, and LC, timely objected to EU’s
application for an original certificate after receiving this notice. Based on
staff’s review of the record, it appears that the Utility has met the noticing
requirements of Rule 25-30.030, F.A.C.
Rule 25-30.033(1), F.A.C.,
requires a utility to file with its application certain information, including
a description of the proposed utility, technical and financial information, a
description of the proposed service territory, need for service, and other
documentation. On February 27, 2024, EU filed its application pursuant to the
rule. (EXH 5) On May 13, 2024, the Utility filed a service territory
modification deleting Hideaway Bay Beach Club (Hideaway Bay) from the proposed
service territory. (EXH 48) If the requested amendment had been to add
territory, which would include prospective customers or landowners who had not
received notice, EU would have been required to issue a second round of
notices. Staff reviewed and verified the amended legal description and
territory map filed pursuant to the request for service territory modification.
(EXH 50) The proposed service territory is included in this recommendation as Attachment
A.
PIE and LC contended in their
briefs that the changes to the information required by Rule 25-30.033(1),
F.A.C., provided through discovery and rebuttal testimony, constituted a
material change to the application such that the application required
amendment. (PIE BR 5; LC BR 5) LGIPA argued in its brief that EU’s application
did not establish a need for service, did not demonstrate the financial or
technical ability to serve the requested territory, failed to provide evidence
that it has continued use of the land upon which treatment facilities will be
located, and that the application is not in the public interest. LGIPA further
contended that EU did not satisfy the noticing requirements because EU did not
include notice of the grinder sewer system in its original application. (LGIPA
BR 3-4) As such, the Intervenors argue that the application EU filed does not
meet the filing requirements of Rule 25-30.033, F.A.C. However, staff does not
agree. Commission rules do not require an applicant to file an amendment to its
application when information is supplemented, amended, or clarified during the
certification process. Staff believes this would not only be inefficient but
also could be an additional cost to a utility and potentially its customers. Section
367.031, F.S., clearly contemplates that obtaining a certificate of
authorization is only a first step towards the construction and operation of a
utility. Docket
No. 160220-WS provides a relevant example. In
that docket, the applicant filed an application for original water and wastewater
certificates, proposing to build a water and a wastewater treatment plant to
provide service to the prospective customers. The Commission granted the
certificates, and approved a rule waiver to bifurcate the certification and rate-setting
portions of the application. When the applicant filed the information required
to set the rates, the method to provide wastewater service had changed from
building and operating the treatment plant to purchasing bulk wastewater
treatment. The Commission did not require an amendment to the application, but
determined the rates based on the information provided. Staff believes the
Utility provided the information required by Rules 25-30.030 and 25-30.033,
F.A.C., in its testimony and exhibits from its witnesses, and provided
supplemental information needed for its application through discovery. (EXH 5; TR
310-311; EXH 33; TR 357-361; EXH 39) This information not only meets the
requirements of the rules, but also allowed the Intervenors the opportunity to
review and vet this information during the pendency of the hearing process.
CONCLUSION
Staff recommends that the Utility
properly notified potential customers of its application and met the noticing
requirements of Rule 25-30.030, F.A.C. The application meets all other
requirements of Rule 25-30.033, F.A.C.
Issue 2:
Is there a need for service in Environmental
Utilities, LLC’s proposed service territory?
Recommendation:
Yes. The Utility has provided the four items,
required by Rule 25-30.033(1)(k), F.A.C., an applicant must provide to
demonstrate a need for service, including requests for service from existing
property owners and potential developers. In addition, a resolution adopted by
the Charlotte County Board of County Commissioners affirming a need for service
was provided. (M. Watts)
Position
of the Parties:
LC: No.
LGIPA: No,
EU has not established a need for service in the proposed service territory, either
through requests for service or an environmental or public health and safety
need.
PIE: No,
EU has not established a need for service
EU: Yes.
Central wastewater service is needed at this time as set forth by expert
witness Lapointe, the Sewer Master Plan and Resolution 2023-155, and it is a
priority of Charlotte County
Staff Analysis:
ANALYSIS
Section 367.045(1)(b), F.S.,
requires an examination of the need for service in the proposed service
territory. Pursuant to Rule 25-30.033, F.A.C., an applicant for an original
certificate must provide a statement showing the need for service in the
proposed territory. Rule 25-30.033(k), F.A.C., which is discussed more fully
below, provides certain information a utility must provide to establish need.
Although PIE quoted Rule 25-30.033(k), F.A.C., in its brief, neither it nor the
other Intervenors provided arguments that specifically addressed all the rule
requirements. The Intervenors instead focused their arguments on the lack of
environmental need, inconsistencies with the Comp Plan, lack of local support,
and lack of County support for EU’s application. Specifically, the Intervenors
argued that there was no water quality testing in the bridgeless barrier
islands in the proposed service territory to show that septic systems caused
pollution or health and safety problems. (LC BR 5-7; PIE BR 5-7; LGIPA BR 7) LC
argued that water quality standards are already met in the waters surrounding
the proposed service area. (LC BR 6-7) PIE and LGIPA contended that EU only
raised hypothetical environmental concerns without demonstrating that any
actual environmental damage has occurred. (PIE BR 6-7; LGIPA BR 6-7) LC and PIE
contended that the Comp Plan supports septic on the bridgeless barrier islands.
(LC BR 7-8; PIE BR 7-12) The Intervenors all argued that there was a lack of
substantial local support for service from potential customers. (PIE BR 12-13;
LC BR 8-9; LGIPA BR 4-6) LC and LGIPA additionally claimed that there was
little evidence of County support for EU’s application (LC BR 9-10; LGIPA BR
8).
In the 2020 Docket, the Utility
did not provide any requests for service. Typically, when an applicant provides
one or more requests for service to demonstrate need, no additional factors are
considered apart from the rule requirements to establish need.[4] Since the
Utility did not provide any requests for service, the Commission considered
other factors that the Intervenors discussed in their briefs. However, based
primarily on the fact that EU did not provide any requests for service, the
Commission determined that the record did not support a need for service.[5] In
contrast, in the instant docket, EU’s application included 29 requests for
service from current property owners and developers. (EXH 5, BSP 55-63)
As in the 2020 Docket, there
continues to be a high level of opposition to EU’s proposal by its prospective
customers. PIE witness McCully testified that the overwhelming majority of the
members of PIE, a voluntary homeowner’s association representing 240 households
and over 390 individuals, opposed the notion of septic to sewer conversion and
preferred to remain on septic systems. (TR 151) However,
under cross examination, witness McCully stated, “We don’t wish to engage in
the debate over the environmental benefits of central sewer versus on-site
septic systems. Our opposition is and always has been that our membership
opposes the installation of central sewer by a privately owned, for-profit
utility.” (TR 157; EXH 57) Similar to witness McCully, LGIPA witness Weibley
testified that no member of LGIPA had expressed support for EU’s application.
Witness Weibley stated that its 241 members were polled on the issue, and 229
stated that they were opposed to the application, five were neutral, and seven
did not respond. None expressed support. (TR 218) The written comments
submitted in the docket were largely in opposition to the Utility’s
application, with a small minority in support.
Of the 104 people who testified
at the service hearings, only 10 indicated support for EU’s application, and
one speaker was neutral. (1/28 S-TR 16, 18,
32, 65, 68, 121-124, 149; 1/29 S-TR 17, 27, 42, 147) Ninety-three people
testified against the application, and multiple prospective customers testified
that they have their septic systems inspected and serviced regularly, that
their septic systems are working, and that they do not need or want central
wastewater service. (1/28 S-TR 100, 105,
127, 132, 137, 155, 157; 1/29 S-TR 18, 30,
37, 61, 63, 80, 90, 99, 103, 110) Several more prospective customers testified
that their septic systems work fine, particularly even after the impacts from
storms caused power outages and other damage.
The common theme amongst the
opposition testimony was that the prospective customers do not need the sewer
system as they already have a functioning septic tank. However, our rules do
not specifically define “need for service.” Instead, Rule 25-30.033(1)(k),
F.A.C., requires a utility to provide certain information to prove a need for
service exists. The rule first requires the utility to provide the number of
customers currently being served and proposed to be served by customer class
and meter size, including the types of customers to be served. In the
application, witness Boyer gives the number of current and proposed customers,
and states that virtually all are single family homes. (EXH 5, BSP 23)
Wastewater customers do not have wastewater meters. Therefore, the information
provided by EU is sufficient for the purposes of this subsection of the rule.
Second, the rule requires the
utility to provide a copy of all requests for service from property owners or
developers in areas not currently served. As noted above, the application
contained 29 requests from developers, current residents, and one landowner
with a house under construction. At the service hearing, the speakers
challenged the number of requests because some are from family members,
friends, and developers who requested service for multiple properties. (1/28
S-TR 97, 147-148; 1/29 S-TR 78-79) However, the Commission has never considered
the relationship of a requester to the utility owner in considering a need for
service, nor has it given weight to the relative number of requests. It is not
uncommon for the Commission to grant certificates to utilities owned by a
developer, accepting the request from the owner of the development company for
service when the utility is owned by the same individual as proof of a need for
service.[6]
Third, the rule to establish need
for service requires the utility to provide the current land use designation of
the proposed service territory as described in the local comprehensive plan.
The application states that the current land use designation is Compact Growth,
Mixed Use. (EXH 5, BSP C2-23) However, according to the Charlotte 2050
Comprehensive Plan (Comp Plan), the correct land use designation is Coastal
Residential. (EXH 53, BSP E627)
Finally, the rule requires the
utility to provide any known land use restrictions. In its application, EU
stated that it knew of no land use restrictions in the proposed service
territory. LC asserted there were multiple land use restrictions in the Comp
Plan and from other government agencies. (LC BR 4, 11) LC indicated that the
Utility would need multiple permits to deal with these restrictions. (LC BR 7; EXH
27, BSP C13-835) When LC questioned EU witness Boyer about permits, witness
Boyer replied that dealing with permitting requirements was in the Utility’s
budget as part of standard engineering and construction costs. He went on to
testify that Florida Power & Light Company, an electric utility providing
service to the area, as well as three other water utilities, have dealt with
these issues in the proposed service area multiple times, and that EU is
familiar with the process. (TR 144) While the Comp Plan is discussed in greater
detail in Issue 3, staff notes that LC’s permitting concerns are not under the
jurisdiction of the Commission, and therefore, will not be addressed by this
recommendation.
Following the 2020 Docket, the
Charlotte County Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) adopted Resolution No.
2023-155 (Resolution), which supports the Utility’s application for a
wastewater certificate for the proposed service territory.[7]
The Resolution specifically requests that:
. . . the PSC assist the County in
protecting our waters and enhance the health, safety and welfare of Charlotte
County by approving Environmental Utilities, Inc.’s application for a
wastewater certificate to provide central wastewater service to the Barrier
Islands.
(EXH 14, BSP
C6-597)
PIE witness Hardgrove objected to
the Resolution on the grounds that it was not reviewed by planning department
professionals for Comp Plan consistency and was presented at the meeting on the
consent agenda. (TR 172, 176-177) In its brief, PIE argued that the Resolution
merely stated that EU’s application was consistent with the Comp Plan without
any supporting evidence. PIE further stated that EU’s application remains
contradictory to the Comp Plan as the Resolution did nothing to change the Comp
Plan. (PIE BR 10-11) LC’s exhibit echoed witness Hardgrove’s concerns with the
Resolution. (EXH 27, BSP C13-834) In her brief, LC stated that the application
remains inconsistent with the Comp Plan. (LC BR 11) Nonetheless, the Resolution
affirms the County’s concerns regarding the current septic systems’ impact on
the area, and purports that the proposed system is “not inconsistent” with the
Comp Plan or the Sewer Master Plan (SMP). (EXH 14)
Additionally, the Charlotte
County Code of Ordinances, Section 3-8-41(a) (Mandatory Connection Ordinance),
requires all developed property to connect the plumbing system for any
structure on the property to an available public or private sewer system within
365 days after written notification by the public or private sewer system that
the system is available for connection. (EXH 5, BSP C2-72) LGIPA noted that the
Commission found that the Mandatory Connection Ordinance did not establish a
need for service simply by existing. (LGIPA BR 8). LGIPA argued that, since
there have been no changes to the County ordinances since the previous
decision, that the ordinance should continue to be given no weight by the
Commission. (LGIPA BR 8) Staff agrees that the Mandatory Connection Ordinance
does not establish need for service. Need for service is established via Rule
25-30.033(1)(k), F.A.C., as discussed above.
Since the Utility provided the
information required by Rule 25-30.033(1)(k), F.A.C., including requests for
service by property owners and developers, the record does support a need for
service based upon these requests. Also, the County’s Resolution states the
County’s belief that there is a need for wastewater service in the proposed
territory.
CONCLUSION
EU has provided the four items required by Rule
25-30.033(1)(k), F.A.C., to demonstrate a need for service: the number of
customers proposed to be served; a copy of all requests for service from
property owners or developers in areas not currently served; the current land
use designation; and any known land use restrictions. In addition, a resolution
adopted by the Charlotte County Board of County Commissioners affirming a need
for service was provided. Based on the foregoing, staff recommends that EU has
demonstrated there is a need for service in the proposed service area.
Issue 3:
Is Environmental Utilities, LLC’s application
consistent with Charlotte County’s Comprehensive Plan and/or Sewer Master Plan?
Recommendation:
EU’s application does not appear to be consistent
with the County’s Comprehensive Plan but does appear to be consistent with the
Sewer Master Plan. However, the County’s Resolution establishes support for
EU’s application, and the Commission is not bound by Charlotte County’s Comp
Plan or Sewer Master Plan. (M. Watts, Thompson, Dose)
Position
of the Parties:
LC: No.
LGIPA: EU’s
Application is inconsistent with Charlotte County’s Comprehensive Plan and
Charlotte County’s Sewer Master Plan.
PIE: No, the application is inconsistent with Charlotte County’s
Comprehensive Plan and Sewer Master Plan.
EU: Yes
as to both.
Staff Analysis:
ANALYSIS
Under Section 367.045(5)(b),
F.S., when granting or amending a certificate of authorization, the Commission
need not consider whether the issuance or amendment of the certificate of
authorization is inconsistent with the local comprehensive plan of a county or
municipality unless a timely objection to the notice required by this section
has been made by an appropriate motion or application. If an objection has been
timely made, the Commission shall consider, but is not bound by, the local
comprehensive plan of the county or municipality.[8]
Unlike a local comprehensive plan, there is no statutory or rule requirement
that the Commission consider the County’s Sewer Master Plan (SMP). Just as the
Commission is not bound by a local comprehensive plan in a certificate
proceeding, staff believes that a document such as the SMP – which is not
contemplated in Section 367.045, F.S., or Rule 25-30.033, F.A.C. – is not
binding upon the Commission. However, consistency with the SMP was identified
as an issue in this proceeding, and there was substantial evidence and
discussion at the hearing regarding this issue. The SMP and Comp Plan are both
discussed below.
The Utility states in its
application that, according to the SMP, all areas within a certain
environmental impact score range should be converted from septic to sewer
within five years, including the proposed service territory.[9] (EXH 5 BSP
C2-41) The SMP does not indicate that the
conversion of all similarly scored areas should be accomplished within five
years, but the proposed service territory was included in the five-year plan.[10] (EXH 5
BSP C2-144, C2-152) PIE argued that the only projects on the bridgeless barrier
islands are for connecting existing private wastewater utilities to the County
infrastructure, and that the Comp Plan would need to be amended to allow the
proposed project to be implemented. (PIE BR 14) LC also argued that the SMP
only addresses the two existing systems in its 5-Year Improvement Plan, and no
other systems in its 10-Year and 15-Year Improvement Plans. (LC BR 12) However,
staff notes that while the overall objectives of the SMP purport to encompass the
benefits to the County at large and thus provided the scoring criteria for all
areas of the County not served by central wastewater service, the specific
buildout and capital improvement plans apply to the areas that the County
intends to expend County funds to implement. (EXH 5, BSP C2-110, C2-134-157,
C2-244-255) Additionally, LGIPA argued that the SMP has not changed since the
2020 Docket, and since the Commission concluded then that the application did
not appear to be consistent with the SMP, it should make the same finding in
the instant docket. (LGIPA BR 11) However, staff believes that to the extent
that the proposed service territory is identified as an area that would benefit
from septic-to-sewer conversion, EU’s application is consistent with the SMP.
PIE and LC provided several
examples in their briefs of policies within the Comp Plan that they asserted
were inconsistent with EU’s application. LC argued that Future Land Use (FLU)
Policy 3.2.4 states that sanitary sewer services may not be extended outside
the Urban Service Area with the exception of where it has been clearly
demonstrated that a health problem exists for which there is no other feasible
solution, and EU has not provided evidence such health problem exists. She also
contends that the Barrier Island Overlay District (BIOD) language in the FLU
Element Appendix I prohibits the wastewater system in the proposed service
area. (LC BR 11) In its brief, PIE echoed LC’s arguments regarding FLU Policy
3.2.4. (PIE BR 8-10) PIE also argued that the Utility’s proposal is
inconsistent with a policy for the bridgeless barrier islands due to the
difficulty of transporting items to and from the islands, and incentivizes
transferring development rights off the island. (PIE BR 11) PIE also cited
Coastal Planning (CST) Policy 3.2.7 which states that the County shall not
provide nor allow infrastructure and service to be provided to offshore
islands, coastal swamps, marshland and beaches, as well as Water and Sewer
(WSW) Policy 3.2.4 which states that the County shall discourage expansion of
the service areas regulated by the Commission outside the Urban Service Area.
(PIE BR 12) LGIPA argued that the Resolution did not equate to consistency with
the Comp Plan, and EU witness Watson, who sponsored the Resolution as an
exhibit, was unknowledgeable about the Comp Plan. (LGIPA BR 9-10) Additionally,
LGIPA adopted PIE’s argument on the issue, and stated that the Commission’s
conclusion regarding the Comp Plan’s inconsistency with the Utility’s
application in the 2020 Docket should remain the Commission’s conclusion in the
instant docket. (LGIPA BR 10; EXH 16, BSP C7-612-C7-617; EXH 27, BSP
C13-832-C13-834)
Upon review, staff does not
entirely agree with the Intervenors’ assessments of the applicability of the Comp
Plan citations to the proposed system. First, LC’s argument that the BIOD
language in the FLU Element Appendix I prohibits the wastewater system in the
proposed service area. Staff notes that this element states, “The County shall
not expand the scope of potable water or sanitary sewer service to the
bridgeless barrier islands.” Staff does not believe that this supports LC’s
position on this issue as the County is not the one that would be expanding
wastewater service to the bridgeless barrier islands. Second, CST Policy 3.2.7
is entitled, “Infrastructure and Services to other than the Bridgeless Barrier
Islands.” This policy is applicable to “offshore” islands and specifically
states that services to the Bridgeless Barrier Islands are addressed in the BIOD
in the FLU Element Appendix I. As such, it is not applicable to the proposed
service territory. Third, WSW Policy 3.2.4 states:
The County shall
discourage expansion of the service areas of utility companies regulated by the
Florida Public Service Commission (PSC) to any areas outside of the Urban
Service Area, in accordance with FLU Policy 3.2.5: Support Economic
Viability of Agricultural Lands and Special Provision 1(b) of the Rural
Settlement Overlay District contained in FLU Appendix I.
(EXH 53, BSP E743) (emphasis in
original)
Staff notes that this policy
specifically restricts expansion of service areas of utilities regulated by the
Commission outside of the Urban Service Area to “agricultural” lands (FLU
Policy 3.2.5), which the proposed service territory is not, and to the Rural
Settlement Overlay District, which is a special district located on the eastern
edge of the County. Finally, PIE witness Hardgrove testified that FLU Policy
3.2.4, cited in both LC’s and PIE’s briefs, was the most significant one. (TR
160) This policy provides:
FLU Policy 3.2.4:
Limitation on the Extension of Urban Infrastructure
Infrastructure such
as water and sewer utilities and stormwater facilities within the Rural Service
Area shall reflect a rural level of service and shall not be modified to the
point that it allows for urban development. The County shall prohibit the
provision of water and sewer infrastructure within the Rural Service Area[11] . . . .
Of all the Comp Plan
inconsistencies argued by the Intervenors, staff believes that this policy is
the only one with which the Utility’s application is inconsistent. In the 2020
Docket, the Commission addressed the concerns expressed by the parties
regarding the Comp Plan in the issue on the need for service. The Commission
found that EU’s application appeared to be inconsistent with the Comp Plan, and
no change has been made to the relevant portion of the Comp Plan since that
time.[12] However,
in its Resolution, the Charlotte County BOCC stated its position that granting
the Utility’s application to provide wastewater service in the proposed service
territory is consistent with both the Comp Plan and the SMP. (EXH 14) LGIPA and
PIE argued in their briefs that the statements in the Resolution did not
constitute consistency with the Comp Plan because it lacked factual support,
was voted on as a consent agenda item with no discussion, and an email suggests
that EU’s attorney was the author of the Resolution (LGIPA BR 9-10; PIE BR
10-11; EXH 79) Despite the Resolution, the language of the Comp Plan cannot be
read in any way so as to be consistent with the system proposed in this docket.
As noted above, however, the Commission is not bound by a county’s
comprehensive plan.
CONCLUSION
Staff recommends that EU’s application is inconsistent
with the County’s Comp Plan, but not with the SMP. However, the County
Resolution expresses support for the Utility’s application for a wastewater
certificate for the proposed service territory, and while the Commission must
consider Charlotte County’s Comp Plan, it is not required to defer to it.
Issue 4:
Will the certification of Environmental Utilities,
LLC result in the creation of a utility which will be in competition with or
duplication of any other system?
Recommendation:
No. There are no other wastewater service providers
in or near the area who are willing or able to provide wastewater service to
the proposed service territory. (M. Watts)
Position
of the Parties:
LC: Yes.
LGIPA: LGIPA
adopts the position of PIE and LC.
PIE: PIE
specifically adopts the position taken by Linda B. Cotherman regarding this
topic
EU: No.
Staff Analysis:
ANALYSIS
Pursuant to Section 367.045(5)(a),
F.S., the Commission may not grant a certificate of authorization for a
proposed system that will be in competition with, or duplication of, any other
system or portion of a system, unless it first determines that such other
system or portion thereof is inadequate to meet the reasonable needs of the
public or that the person operating the system is unable, refuses, or neglects
to provide reasonably adequate service. Section 367.021(11), F.S., defines
“system” as facilities and land used or useful in providing service.
LC attested that the proposed
service territory is in Charlotte County Utilities’ (CCU) certificated service
area. She also stated that the north end of Knight Island is already being
served by Knight Island Utilities. (LC BR 13) PIE stated in its brief that it adopted
LC’s position on this issue, but provided no further argument. (PIE BR 15)
LGIPA adopted the positions of PIE and LC, but provided no further argument on
this issue. In its brief, EU argued that there is no competition with another
system in the area for which the certificate is requested, as the area is
currently served by individual septic systems. (EU BR 10) Further, Charlotte
County’s Comp Plan does not allow the County to serve the area, and the County
has evidenced its intention to allow EU to serve the area by executing the Bulk
Sewer Treatment Agreement. (EU BR 10)
In its application, the Utility
provided a letter from Knight Island Utilities that affirmed it did not object
to the Utility serving the proposed service territory. (EXH 5, BSP C2-458) Since CCU has no facilities near the proposed
service territory, and Knight Island’s letter indicates that it is not
interested in extending service to the proposed service territory, the
certification of EU would not result in the creation of a utility which will be
in competition with, or duplication of, another system.
CONCLUSION
Staff believes EU has met the requirements of the Statute,
demonstrating that there are no other wastewater service providers in or near
the area who are willing or able to provide wastewater service to the proposed
service territory. Therefore, the certification of EU will not result in the
creation of a utility which will be in competition with or duplication of any
other system.
Issue 5:
Does Environmental Utilities, LLC have the financial
ability to serve the requested territory?
Recommendation:
Yes, the Utility has the financial ability to serve
the requested territory. (Przygocki)
Position
of the Parties:
LC: No.
LGIPA: No,
EU has not demonstrated the financial ability to serve the requested territory.
EU’s proposed system and cost analysis, both in the original application and
modified by rebuttal testimony, significantly underestimate the cost of the
proposed system. Therefore, EU has not demonstrated the financial ability to
construct the proposed system and serve the requested territory.
PIE: PIE
specifically adopts the position taken by LGIPA and Linda B. Cotherman
regarding this topic
EU: Yes.
Staff Analysis:
ANALYSIS
Under Section 367(1)(b), F.S., when a utility applies for
an initial certificate of authorization from the Commission, it must provide
all information required by rule or order of the Commission, including a
detailed inquiry into the ability of the applicant to provide service. For
original certificates, the Commission requires a demonstration from the
applicant that it has both the financial and technical ability to serve the
requested territory. See Rule
25-30.030(1)(h) and (i), F.A.C.
EU provided personal financial statements for the owners
of the Utility, John and Diane Boyer. (EXH 5, BSP C2-29, C2-30) The Utility
also provided a letter from Freedom Holdings Manatee LLC confirming it will
make a personal loan of up to 75 percent of the pro forma appraised value of
the wastewater system available for the Utility to draw upon. (EXH 5, BSP
C2-31)
LC argued that John and Diane Boyer have not properly
demonstrated they can successfully construct and maintain this system. (TR 261)
LC argued the evidence of financial resources for this project primarily
consists of a non-binding letter. (LC BR 14) LC also stated that significant
costs were omitted from the total construction costs. (LC BR 15) LGIPA and PIE
adopted the position of LC. PIE also adopted the position taken by LGIPA and provided
no further testimony on this subject. (PIE BR 15) LGIPA witness Hull testified
that EU has severely underestimated the total cost of this Utility, as well as
the overall cost of doing work on the Bridgeless Barrier Islands. (LGIPA BR 14)
Witness Hull estimated the total cost of this project to be $51,244,204, much
higher than the Utility estimate of $17,363,148. (LGIPA BR 13; TR 229) However,
EU witness Swain stated that the costs used in the financial schedules included
engineering estimates at the time of the filing, which is typical for an
original certificate in which the facilities have not been constructed. (TR
362) EU also stated there may be low interest loans and grants available once
EU obtains a wastewater certificate. (EU BR 10; TR 379) Rule 25-30.033(1)(p)1.,
F.A.C., states that the applicant shall provide the existing and proposed costs
of the system. Staff believes the Utility has met this requirement with the
estimates included in its filing. (EXH 39) Additionally, staff believes that even
the higher estimated costs would not have an impact on the Utility’s financial
ability to serve the requested territory because of the financial documents
provided by the owners and Freedom Holdings Manatee LLC.
CONCLUSION
Based on a review of the financial
documents provided for the owners and Freedom Holdings Manatee LLC, staff
believes the Utility has met its burden of demonstrating the financial ability
necessary to fund the Utility. Therefore, staff recommends that EU has the
financial ability to serve the requested territory.
Issue 6:
Does Environmental Utilities, LLC have the technical
ability to serve the requested territory?
Recommendation:
Yes, EU demonstrated that, with the retention of
outside professionals for the construction and operations of its system, it has
the technical ability to serve the requested territory. (Ramirez-Abundez)
Position
of the Parties:
LC: No.
LGIPA: No,
EU has not demonstrated the technical ability to serve the requested territory.
EU’s proposed system, which has been significantly modified several times
throughout the discovery process in this proceeding, does not fully account for
the technical requirements of serving the requested territory. Therefore, EU
has not demonstrated the technical ability to construct the proposed system and
serve the requested territory.
PIE: PIE
specifically adopts the position taken by LGIPA and Linda B. Cotherman
regarding this topic
EU: Yes.
Staff Analysis:
ANALYSIS
Section 367.045(1)(b), F.S., and Rule 25-30.033(1)(i),
F.A.C., require a utility applying for an original certificate to provide
information showing that it has the technical ability to provide service in the
territory requested. EU witness Boyer testified that he has owned and operated
Little Gasparilla Water Utility, Inc. for over 35 years. (TR 119) Furthermore,
EU stated that it will employ technical professionals to operate the wastewater
system. (TR 126; TR 146; EU BR 11) LGIPA does not believe EU demonstrated its
technical ability to serve the requested territory due to the proposed system
being modified throughout the discovery process in this proceeding. (LGIPA BR
16) LC argued that the applicant has not demonstrated any technical ability nor
any maintenance experience with wastewater utilities. (LC BR 15-16) PIE adopted
the same positions as LGIPA and LC regarding this issue, without providing
additional argument in its brief. (PIE BR 15)
LGIPA is correct in that EU did modify its proposed system
during the course of this docket, but staff does not believe this impacts EU’s
ability to employ the technical professionals needed to operate the wastewater
system. Furthermore, staff disagrees with LC’s position that the applicant has
not demonstrated any technical ability since EU indicated its intent to hire
external professionals for its operations. The Commission has found in prior
certification cases that the hiring of external professionals is reasonable and
an appropriate demonstration of technical ability.
Staff believes that EU has met the requirement of the rule demonstrating that,
with the retention of outside professionals for the construction and operation
of its system, EU has the technical ability to serve the requested service
territory.
Conclusion
Staff believes EU has met the requirement of the rule
demonstrating that, with the retention of outside professionals for the
construction and operation of its systems, it has the technical ability to
serve the requested territory.
Issue 7:
Will Environmental Utilities, LLC have sufficient
plant capacity to serve the requested territory?
Recommendation:
Yes. The Bulk Sewer Treatment Agreement (Agreement)
with Charlotte County reserves adequate capacity to serve the proposed service
territory and demonstrates that EU has planned for the estimated needs of the
proposed service area. (Ramirez-Abundez)
Position
of the Parties:
LC: Not
necessarily.
LGIPA: LGIPA
adopts the position of PIE and LC.
PIE: PIE
specifically adopts the position taken by Linda B. Cotherman regarding this
topic
EU: Yes,
by virtue of the Bulk Sewer Treatment Agreement entered into with Charlotte
County.
Staff Analysis:
ANALYSIS
In order to provide wastewater service to the proposed
service territory, EU entered into a Bulk Wastewater Agreement with Charlotte
County on July 14, 2020. (TR 33; EXH 15, P 1) Under the terms of the Agreement,
EU would transport wastewater to a lift station on the mainland and the
wastewater would then be treated in the County’s treatment facilities. (EXH 15,
P 3-4) The Agreement reserves capacity for up to 2,200 ERCs and has a 30-year
term. (EXH 15) While EU believes it has sufficient capacity due to the
Agreement, LC argued that EU cannot guarantee plant capacity until
Transmission, Accrued Guaranteed Revenue, and Plant Fees are remitted to the
County to reserve capacity. (EU BR 11; LC BR 16-17) LC argued that EU did not
analyze the information for gallons per day (GPD) flow and ERCs for the
requested territory. (LC BR 17) LGIPA and PIE adopted LC’s position on this
issue and did not provide any further argument in their briefs. (LGIPA BR 3;
PIE BR 15)
Staff disagrees with LC’s argument that EU cannot
guarantee plant capacity until transmission, guaranteed revenue, and plant fees
are paid because the Agreement clearly indicates the County’s reserved
treatment capacity for EU. (EXH 15, P 2) Furthermore, EU stated that the
Agreement was for the maximum amount of capacity that the Utility believed
would be needed to serve all the islands. (EXH 43, P 7) Based on the above,
staff agrees with EU and believes it has demonstrated adequate capacity to
serve the proposed service territory.
Conclusion
The
Agreement with the County reserves adequate capacity to serve the proposed
service territory and demonstrates that EU has planned for the estimated needs
of the proposed service territory. Therefore, EU has sufficient plant capacity
to serve the requested territory.
Issue 8:
Has Environmental Utilities, LLC provided evidence
that it has continued use of the land upon which the utility treatment
facilities are or will be located?
Recommendation:
Wastewater treatment will occur pursuant to a Bulk
Service Agreement. As such, the Utility does not own or operate the treatment
facilities and evidence of continued use of the land is not required or
applicable in this instance. (M. Watts)
Position
of the Parties:
LC: No.
LGIPA: No,
EU has not provided evidence that it has continued use of the land upon which
the utility treatment facilities are or will be located. EU has not provided
evidence of easements or other real property rights necessary for the installation
and operation of the proposed system.
PIE: PIE
specifically adopts the position taken by LGIPA and Linda B. Cotherman
regarding this topic
EU: This
requirement is effectively satisfied through the Bulk Sewer Treatment Agreement
entered into between EU and Charlotte County.
Staff Analysis:
ANALYSIS
Continued Use of the
Land
Section 367.1213, F.S., and Rule
25-30.033(1)(m), F.A.C., requires evidence that a utility has the right to
access and the continued use of the land upon which the utility treatment
facilities are or will be located. As discussed in Issue 7, EU will utilize the
County’s treatment facilities through the Bulk Sewer Treatment Agreement. (EXH
5, BSP C2-64-C2-71) The Agreement, which has a term of 30 years, grants the
Utility the ability to send wastewater to CCU’s treatment facilities located on
the mainland. In the 2020 Docket, the Commission found that, notwithstanding
concerns regarding easements, since wastewater treatment would occur pursuant
to a bulk service agreement, evidence of continued use of the land upon which
treatment occurred was not required or applicable.[14]
LGIPA argued that EU has not
provided evidence that it has continued use of the land upon which the utility
treatment facilities are located. LGIPA quotes the definitions of “treatment”
and “wastewater facility” in Rule 62-600.200, F.A.C., as follows:
“Treatment” means
any method, technique, or process which changes the physical, chemical, or
biological character or composition of wastewater and thereby reduces its
potential for polluting waters of the state.
”Wastewater
facility” or “facility” means any facility which discharges wastes into waters
of the State or which can reasonably be expected to be a source of water
pollution and includes any or all of the following: the collection and transmission [emphasis added by witness Cotherman]
system, the wastewater treatment works, the reuse or disposal system, and the
biosolids management facility.
(LGIPA BR 19)
However, Rule 25-30.033(1)(m),
F.A.C., requires that the utility furnish documentation for continued access to
the land which the utility treatment [emphasis
added] will be located. LGIPA contends that EU witness Bell’s description of
the process the grinder pump uses to prepare the raw sewage for transport,
grinding it into a fine slurry before it leaves the pump, qualifies as
“treatment” as defined in Rule 62-600.200(74), F.A.C. LGIPA states that the
definition “includes “any method,
technique, or process which changes the physical, chemical, or biological
character or composition of wastewater . . .” (emphasis added). (LGIPA BR 22)
Staff does not agree. While the
grinder pump does change the physical character of the wastewater (though not
the chemical or biological character), there is no evidence in the record that
such a change “. . . thereby reduce[s] its potential for polluting the waters
of the state,” as the final clause of the definition of “treatment” states in
Rule 62-600.200, F.A.C. LGIPA correctly argues that the collection system proposed
by the Utility meets the stated definition of a wastewater facility. However,
while the system proposed by EU may be a wastewater facility, no treatment
takes place within the system. Therefore, it is not a wastewater treatment
facility and evidence of continued use of the land Section 367.1213, F.S., and
Rule 25-30.033(1)(m), F.A.C., is not required or applicable in this instance.
Easements
The Intervenors devoted
considerable effort in their prefiled testimony and exhibits to the issue of
easements, as well as discussing easements in their post-hearing briefs,
contending that EU has not sufficiently accounted for the need for easements
for its proposed service area. (LGIPA BR 20-21; LC BR 18-19)[15] This is
an issue separate and apart from the need to demonstrate continued access to
the land upon which utility treatment facilities will be located under Section
367.1213, F.S. While there are no Commission statutes or rules that require an
applicant to demonstrate that it has secured easements needed to serve the
requested service territory, staff recommends it is appropriate to address the
parties’ arguments with respect to easements in this issue.
EU witness Boyer described the
proposed system as a grinder tank system where the grinder tank would be located
on a customer’s private property. (TR 222) EU witness Cole testified that the
waste would be ground up and pumped out to the low pressure system. (TR 314)
The Utility would need access to customers’ private property to remove existing
septic tanks, as well as to install the grinder pump. Witness Cole testified
that the easement for the installation would require around a 15 foot by 15
foot area on private property. (TR 335) This would be a one-time event. Once
the grinder pump is installed, the easement necessary for it would be much
smaller since the grinder pump is 24 inches in diameter. (TR 334-335) Witness
Cole also testified that during installation, crews try to place sewer lines in
existing easements that also have another utility such as water lines in them.
(TR 324-325) EU witness Boyer acknowledged the possibility that the Utility
would need to claim eminent domain as a last resort and compensate property
owners for the use of the land. (TR 132) Witness Boyer testified that EU has
set aside $500,000 for this process. (TR 133) In its brief, EU contends that
PIE and LC mistakenly interpret this issue to require the Utility to
demonstrate it has access to easements to property where pump stations and
other non-treatment facilities are located. (EU BR 12)
While both LGIPA and LC argued in
their briefs that the various easement issues to be addressed by the Utility
constitute a finding that EU has not provided evidence that it has continued
use of the land upon which the utility treatment facilities are or will be
located, staff notes that “treatment,” as defined by Rule 62.600-200(74),
F.A.C., will not take place within the collection system. Staff agrees with EU
that Section 367.1213, F.S., and Rule 25-30.033(1)(m), F.A.C., do not require
an applicant to demonstrate that it has acquired easements to property where
pump stations and other non-treatment facilities are located. The issue of
acquiring such easements is one of many issues to be negotiated by an applicant
subsequent to the award of a certificate of authorization under Section
367.031, F.S., and is outside of the Commission’s jurisdiction.
CONCLUSION
Wastewater treatment will occur pursuant to a Bulk Service
Agreement. As such, the Utility does not own or operate the treatment facilities;
therefore, staff recommends that evidence of continued use of the land upon
which the utility treatment facilities are or will be located is not required
or applicable in this instance.
Issue 9:
Is it in the public interest for Environmental
Utilities, LLC to be granted a wastewater certificate for the territory
proposed in its application?
Recommendation:
Yes. Based on the recommendations in Issues 1
through 8, it is in the public interest to grant the Utility Certificate No. 585-S
to provide wastewater service to the territory described in Attachment A. (M. Watts)
Position
of the Parties:
LC: No.
LGIPA: No,
it is not in the public interest for EU to be granted a wastewater certificate
for the proposed territory. The vast majority of residents in the proposed
service territory object to the proposed system, and EU has not provided
evidence of an environmental or public health and safety need. Nor has EU has
provided evidence of public benefit, and the proposed fees and rates will not
be just and reasonable.
PIE: No,
the public interest will not be served if a wastewater certificate for the
territory proposed is issued to Environmental Utilities
EU: Yes.
The County has identified these islands as a priority for the removal of septic
tanks which the Charlotte County Master Sewer Plan identifies as a major
contributor to the degradation of water quality in the waters adjacent to the
County.
Staff Analysis:
ANALYSIS
LC argued that the proposed
system is not in the public interest because of the cost burden it will place
on the prospective customers. (LC BR 19-20) Additionally, LC argued that the
proposed system would have significant environmental impacts. (LC BR 21-22) PIE
argued that the Utility’s application should be denied because it demonstrated
a dearth of need, there was no evidence that the water quality in and around
the bridgeless barrier islands was degraded, and that it was inconstant with
the Comp Plan. (PIE BR 16) LGIPA argued that the elements that the Commission
considers in determining public interest – need, no competition or duplication
of another system, that the utility has the financial and technical ability to
provide the service, and the utility has sufficient plant capacity – weighs in
favor of the Commission denying the application. (LGIPA BR 24) LGIPA further
argues that the cost of the system to the prospective customers, coupled with
the financial burdens imposed by damage from hurricanes and with the frequency
and duration of power outages supports its position that EU’s application is
not in the public interest. (LGIPA BR 24-27)
Under Section 367.031, F.S., the
Commission has the authority to issue a utility a certificate of authorization
to serve a specific service area. Under Section 367.045(1)(b), F.S., when a
utility applies for an initial certificate of authorization from the
Commission, it shall provide all information required by rule or order of the
Commission, including a detailed inquiry into the ability of the applicant to
provide service, the area and facilities involved, the need for service in the
area involved, and the existence or nonexistence of service from other sources
within geographical proximity to the area in which the applicant seeks to
provide service. To implement these statutes, Rule 25-30.033(1)(h), (i), and
(k), F.A.C., require statements showing the financial and technical ability of
the applicant to provide service, the need for service in the proposed service
area, the identity of any other utilities within the proposed service area that
could potentially provide service, and the steps the applicant took to
ascertain whether such other service is available.
Section 367.045(5)(a), F.S.,
provides that the Commission may grant or amend a certificate of authorization,
in whole or in part or with modifications in the public interest, or it may
deny a certificate of authorization or an amendment to a certificate of
authorization, if in the public interest. In prior proceedings, the Commission
has made its determination regarding the public interest based upon whether a
utility’s application demonstrates there is a need for service, that the
application is not in competition with or duplication of another system, that
the utility has the financial and technical ability to provide service, and the
utility has sufficient plant capacity or will construct the plant when needed.[16]
In Issue 2, staff recommends that
EU’s application did comply with Section 367.045(1)(b), F.S., and Rule
25-30.033(1)(k), F.A.C., with regard to the need for service in the requested
area. The Utility furnished requests for service from residents and developers
in the proposed service territory as evidence that there is a need for service
in the requested territory. EU provided Charlotte County Resolution No.
2023-155, adopted by the Charlotte County BOCC, which affirms a need for
central sewer service in the proposed service territory. Based upon the record
evidence in this docket, staff recommends that there is a need for service in
the Utility’s proposed service area.
In Issue 3, staff recommends that
EU’s application does not appear to be consistent with the County’s Comp Plan
but does appear to be consistent with the SMP. However, the County’s Resolution
establishes support for EU’s application, and under Section 367.045(5)(b),
F.S., the Commission shall consider but is not bound by the Comp Plan or SMP.
Further, in Issue 4, staff recommends that the Utility will not be in competition
with, or duplication of, any other system.
In
Issues 5 and 6, staff recommends EU has demonstrated the
financial and technical ability to provide service. The Utility has
demonstrated that it will have access to adequate financial resources to operate
the utility. As a demonstration of EU’s technical ability, staff cited the
Utility’s intent to retain professionals for the engineering, design,
permitting, construction, and operation of the EU wastewater collection system.
In Issue 7, staff recommends
that, since the Utility has demonstrated that, via the Bulk Service Agreement
with CCU for 2,200 ERCs of treatment capacity, it will have sufficient plant
capacity to serve the customers in the proposed service territory.
In Issue 8, staff notes that
wastewater treatment will occur pursuant to a Bulk Service Agreement. As such,
EU does not own or operate the treatment facilities; therefore, staff
recommends that evidence of continued use of the land upon which treatment
facilities are located is not required or applicable in this instance.
Although LGIPA contends that the
costs to customers inure against the public interest, financial burden is not
an element contemplated by statute or rule and has not been a factor for
consideration by the Commission in past certification proceedings. See Section 367.045, F.S. and Rule
25-30.033, F.A.C.
In summary, staff recommends that
the Utility has demonstrated: (1) that there is a need for service; (2) that
the application will not be in competition with, or duplication of, any other
system; (3) that evidence of continued use of the land upon which treatment
facilities are located is not required or applicable in this instance; and (4)
that it has the financial and technical ability to provide service along with
the sufficient plant capacity via the bulk service purchase agreement with CCU
to serve the customers in the proposed service territory. Staff does not
believe that the inconsistency with the Comp Plan is sufficient to outweigh the
other elements discussed herein. As such, staff recommends EU has proven that
its application is in the public interest.
CONCLUSION
Based on the recommendations in Issues 1 through 8, staff
recommends it is in the public interest to grant the Utility Certificate No.
585-S to provide wastewater service to the territory described in Attachment A.
Issue 10:
What is the appropriate return on equity for
Environmental Utilities, LLC?
Recommendation:
The appropriate return on equity (ROE) is 8.66
percent with a range of plus or minus 100 basis points. (Przygocki)
Position
of the Parties:
LC: Not
Applicable.
LGIPA: LGIPA
adopts the position of PIE and LC.
PIE: PIE
specifically adopts the position taken by LGIPA and Linda B. Cotherman
regarding this topic
EU: 8.62%
Staff Analysis:
ANALYSIS
EU proposed
an ROE of 8.67 percent, based on the current leverage formula. (EU
BR 115; EXH 13) The intervening parties did not provide any testimony on this
matter. LC argued that no return on equity is appropriate because the area
should be handled by a governmental entity or a not-for-profit corporation. (LC
BR 22) No argument was provided by LGIPA’s or PIE’s post-hearing briefs with
respect to this issue. Staff notes that LC’s position on this issue is a
general disclaimer that EU should not provide service to the area, and doesn’t
speak specifically to the appropriate return on equity.
In its
filing, the Utility incorporated customer deposits into its calculation, however,
the leverage formula does not consider non-investor sources of funding.
Staff recalculated the ROE using only investor sources of funding and
recommends an ROE of 8.66 percent with a range of plus or minus 100 basis
points and an overall cost of capital of 8.63 percent, as shown on Schedule No.
2, attached to the recommendation.
CONCLUSION
Based on the above, a return on equity of 8.66 percent,
with a range of plus or minus 100 basis points, should be approved.
Issue 11:
What are the appropriate rates and rate structures
for Environmental Utilities, LLC?
Recommendation:
Staff’s recommended wastewater rates, shown on
Schedule No. 4, should be approved. The Utility’s proposal to include a
repression adjustment should be denied; therefore, the staff-recommended rates
shown on Schedule No. 4 do not include a repression adjustment. The rates
should be effective for services rendered or connections made 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 until authorized to
change them by the Commission in a subsequent proceeding. (Sibley, Przygocki)
Position
of the Parties:
LC: Not
Applicable.
LGIPA: LGIPA
adopts the position of PIE and LC.
PIE: PIE
specifically adopts the position taken by LGIPA and Linda B. Cotherman
regarding this topic
EU: Base
Facility Charge: 5/8” x 3/4" ……………
$ 109.29
[all
other meter sizes to be increased pursuant to Rule 25-30.055(1)(b), F.A.C.]
Residential
Gallonage Charge (10,000 cap) …… $ 18.82
General Service
Gallonage Charge …………….. $ 22.59
Staff Analysis:
ANALYSIS
LGIPA and PIE adopted the
position of LC. (LGIPA BR 3; PIE BR 16) LC argued that the estimated
residential billing is neither a fair nor equitable rate. Specifically, LC
noted that the SMP’s formula for determining an equitable monthly bill results
in a $113 per month bill for sewer alone. However, the projected BFC for EU
will be $109 per month without any volumetric use and thus will inevitably
exceed the ceiling established by the SMP. The rates are discussed more fully
in the following Projected Rates and Rate Structure section.
Projected Rate Base
Consistent with Commission practice in applications for
original certificates, rate base is identified only as a tool to aid in setting
initial rates and is not intended to formally establish rate base.
Based on EU’s growth projections, the Utility originally anticipated operating
at 80 percent of its design capacity in 2034, but it subsequently updated that
year to be 2038 through rebuttal testimony. (TR 361) The Utility’s proposed
wastewater rate base calculations, as well as staff adjustments, are described
below.
In its original filing, the Utility proposed a utility
plant in service (UPIS) balance of $20,900,608. (EXH 13) In rebuttal testimony,
witness Swain provided an updated UPIS balance of $20,329,767. (EXH 39) As
discussed in EU witness Cole’s rebuttal testimony, the cost estimates have been
updated based on a revised layout and recent unit prices. (TR 310) Staff agrees
with the Utility updates to UPIS. As such, staff recommends a decrease of
$565,362 to UPIS. Based on the above, staff recommends a total UPIS balance of
$20,335,246.
In its filing, EU proposed a balance of $800,000 in land.
(EXH 13) The Utility provided no updates to its land balance from its original
filing. Staff does not have any adjustments to land. Based on the above, staff
recommends a land balance of $800,000 be approved.
In its filing, the Utility proposed an accumulated
depreciation balance of $9,919,052. (EXH 13) In rebuttal, witness Swain
provided an updated accumulated depreciation balance of $9,933,997. (EXH 39) Staff
recalculated accumulated depreciation using the depreciation rates established
by Rule 25-30.140, F.A.C., based on the adjustments made to plant in service as
described above. As a result, staff recommends a decrease to accumulated
depreciation of $464,552. Based on the above, staff recommends an accumulated
depreciation balance of $9,454,500.
In its original filing, the Utility proposed contributions
in aid of construction (CIAC) and accumulated amortization of CIAC balances of
$16,153,462 and $7,230,578, respectively. (EXH 13) In rebuttal, witness Swain
provided updated balances of $16,967,390 and $6,980,166 for CIAC and accumulated
amortization of CIAC, respectively. (EXH 39) Based on staff’s recommended
connection fees, staff has recalculated CIAC and accumulated amortization of
CIAC. As such, staff recommends a balance of $16,967,393 and $7,558,202 for
CIAC and accumulated amortization of CIAC, respectively.
In its original filing, the Utility proposed a working capital
balance of $174,443. (EXH 13) This total was calculated using the balance sheet
method consistent with Rule 25-30.433(3), F.A.C., for Class A utilities. Staff
does not have any adjustments to working capital. As such, staff recommends a
working capital balance of $174,443 should be approved.
In total, EU proposed a rate base of $3,033,115. (EXH 13)
Based on the adjustments discussed above, staff recommends that rate base be
decreased by $587,117. As such, staff recommends an adjusted rate base of $2,445,998.
Rate base calculations are shown on Schedule No. 1-A. Staff’s adjustments are
shown on Schedule No. 1-B.
Net Operating Income
In its original filing, the Utility requested net
operating income (NOI) of $262,292. (EXH 13) In rebuttal, witness Swain updated
EU’s requested NOI to $119,320. (EXH 39) Based on the adjustments above, staff
recommends an NOI of $211,074. Staff’s recommended NOI reflects the full return
on investment resulting from recommended projections of rate base and overall
cost of capital. The projected NOI is shown in Schedule No. 3-A.
Operation and Maintenance Expense
In its original filing, EU proposed total operation and
maintenance (O&M) expense of $1,071,003. (EXH 13) In rebuttal, witness
Swain provided an updated total O&M expense projection of $1,202,516. (EXH
39) As discussed by witness Swain, the increase in O&M expense is due to
the 80 percent capacity year being shifted from 2034 to 2038, leading to extra
years of inflation for the expenses. (TR 360-361) Staff believes the costs
projected in witness Swain’s rebuttal testimony are reasonable. Therefore,
staff recommends an adjustment of $131,513 to total O&M expense, reflecting
the updated O&M projections. As such, staff recommends a total O&M
expense of $1,202,516.
Net Depreciation Expense
In its original filing, the Utility reflected net depreciation
expense of $216,798. (EXH 13) In rebuttal, witness Swain provided an updated
net depreciation expense of $246,605 (EXH 39) Based on staff’s adjustments to
rate base and accumulated depreciation, corresponding adjustments should be
made to decrease net depreciation expense by $59,866. As such, staff recommends
net depreciation expense of $156,932.
Amortization Expense
In its original filing, EU requested $17,644 of
amortization expense. (EXH 13) In rebuttal, witness Swain updated EU’s
amortization expense to $18,993. (EXH 39) Staff recommends an amortization
expense of $18,993 be approved.
Taxes Other Than Income
In its original filing, the Utility included total taxes
other than income (TOTI) expense of $245,479. (EXH 13) In rebuttal, witness
Swain provided an updated TOTI amount of $237,588, which is a total decrease of
$7,891 corresponding to the decreased revenue requirement in her filing. (EXH
39) Staff has recalculated the property tax expense based on the recommended
UPIS and accumulated depreciation balances and recommends an adjustment be made
to decrease TOTI by $6,335. Additionally, staff recommends decreasing regulatory
assessment fees by $90 to recognize the appropriate revenue requirement, as
discussed below. As such, staff recommends total TOTI expenses of $239,053.
Income Taxes
In its filing, the Utility indicated that it requested to
be taxed as a C Corporation. (EXH 13, BSP C5-590) EU proposed income taxes of
$88,944. (EXH 13) Based on staff’s adjustments to NOI, staff recommends total
income tax expense of $71,585.
Revenue Requirement
In its original filing, the
Utility proposed a revenue requirement of $1,902,160. (EXH 13) The Utility’s
projected revenue requirement includes O&M expenses, depreciation and
amortization expense, taxes other than income, income taxes, and a return on
investment. Staff recommends an adjusted revenue requirement of $1,900,154. The
recommended revenue requirement will allow the Utility the opportunity to
recover its expenses and earn an 8.63 percent return on its investment in rate
base, as shown on Schedule No. 3-A. Staff adjustments are shown on Schedule No.
3-B.
Projected
Rates and Rate Structure
The Utility’s proposed wastewater
rates are in accordance with Rule 25-30.033(2), F.A.C.,
which requires that a base facility and usage rate structure, as defined in
Rule 25-30.437(5), F.A.C., be used for metered service. In its brief, EU
asserted that the financial expert provided required financial schedules in
accordance with the Commission requirements to establish rates and charges. (EU
BR 16) EU’s proposed rates were designed to generate the Utility’s requested
revenue requirement, as updated in witness Swain’s rebuttal testimony, of $1,864,929
for its wastewater system. (EXH 39, BSP 1073)
Staff’s recommended rates shown
on Schedule No. 4 reflect generate revenues of $1,899,644 which is staff’s
recommended revenue requirement of $1,900,154 less miscellaneous revenues of
$510. EU proposed a rate structure which consists of a base facility charge
(BFC) and gallonage charge for its residential and general service customers.
In addition, EU proposed a 10,000 gallon cap for residential usage. (EXH 39,
BSP 1064) In EU witness Swain’s rebuttal testimony, the Utility’s proposed
wastewater rates recover 70 percent of wastewater revenues through the BFC. (EXH
39, BSP 1073) It is Commission practice to recover 50 percent, or greater, of
the revenue through the BFC for the purpose of recognizing the capital
intensive nature of wastewater plants.[21]
In response to staff’s interrogatories, witness Swain indicated that the
customer base is seasonal and will remain seasonal. (EXH 42, BSP 1191 and 1194)
Therefore, staff believes the Utility’s proposed allocation is reasonable in
this case.
Since EU is a wastewater-only utility,
the water providers to the potential customers of EU are Bocilla Utilities and
Little Gasparilla Water Utility. (EXH 42, BSP 1192) In her testimony, witness
Swain defines an ERC as 90 GPD. (EXH 44, BSP 1224) The 90 GPD is the average
water consumption for the customers. (TR 110) The anticipated number of ERCs at
design capacity for the Utility is 1,248. (EXH 13, BSP 573) Rates in this
proceeding are based on 80 percent of the design capacity of the system, which
is 998.4 ERCs. Witness Swain estimated billable gallons by multiplying 998.4 x
90 x 365, which results in 32,797,440. (EXH 42, BSP 1196). Staff agrees with
witness Swain’s calculation of proposed billable gallons.
Furthermore, witness Swain also
proposed a 10 percent repression adjustment to reduce the proposed billable
gallons. (EXH 13, BSP 589; EXH 39, BSP 1073; EXH 42, BSP 1196) Witness Swain asserted
that the Commission does not typically do a repression adjustment for a
wastewater-only Utility and does not agree with the Commission’s practice. (TR
110) As is the Commission’s practice, witness Swain indicated that wastewater billable
gallons are based on water usage. (TR 114, TR 358) Witness Swain also indicated
that the average consumption for this customer base is low coupled with a very
high seasonality; however, EU believes a repression adjustment is appropriate
in this case. Witness Swain explained that when the seasonal customers are in
residence, there may be higher levels of discretionary usage. (TR 112-113)
Witness Swain also believes that
customers will reduce their water consumption based on the Utility’s proposed
wastewater bill. (TR 114) The Commission, as a result of an increase in the
price of water, has applied a corresponding wastewater repression adjustment
when the water and wastewater provider are the same utility.[22] Even in cases
with a single water and wastewater utility provider, there still has been no
recognition of an adjustment due to an increase in the price of wastewater, but
only the recognition of the effect of an increase in the price of water on
customer demand. It is Commission practice that an increase in the price of
water is the catalyst for whether or not there is a repression adjustment which
would ultimately flow through to wastewater.
As mentioned previously, EU is
not the water provider to its potential customers. The potential customers are
served by two separate water utilities, which are Bocilla and Little
Gasparilla. In its brief, EU asserted that witness Swain believes that although
the customers receive water service from another utility consumption will be
reduced when water customers begin paying for wastewater service based upon
their water usage. (EU BR 16) Consistent with existing Commission practice, there
would have to be an increase in the price of water provided by those two
entities to determine whether there should be a repression adjustment to the
billable gallons for wastewater. There is nothing in the record to demonstrate
or evaluate price increases in water for Bocilla and Little Gasparilla.
In addition to a lack of
precedent for a wastewater repression adjustment, there is no incentive to
restrict usage because the demographics of the area is 65 percent rental
properties or vacation rentals by owner. (EXH 42, BSP 1191; TR 384) The renters
are not paying the utility bill, which results in no incentive to restrict
usage based on cost. Based on the above, staff does not believe a repression
adjustment is appropriate for the Utility.
Lastly, the Utility proposed a
residential wastewater cap of 10,000 gallons for its wastewater rates. (EXH 13,
BSP 579) The wastewater cap is to recognize that not all water consumption is
returned to the wastewater system.
Staff believes the proposed cap of 10,000 gallons is reasonable for that
recognition. Witness Swain made no adjustments to the billable gallons because
the requested cap does not have an impact on gallons billed. (EXH 42, BSP 1195)
As a result, the appropriate gallons for ratesetting purposes are 32,797,440.
With EU’s proposed revenue requirement, rates with repression based on average
consumption of 2,463 result in an average bill of approximately $156. (EU BR
16; TR 366). Based on staff’s recommended revenue requirement, rates without a
repression adjustment based on an average consumption of 2,737 result in an
average bill of approximately $159.
CONCLUSION
Staff’s recommended wastewater rates, shown on Schedule
No. 4, should be approved. The Utility’s proposal to include a repression
adjustment should be denied; therefore, the staff-recommended rates shown on
Schedule No. 4 do not include a repression adjustment. The rates should be
effective for services rendered or connections made 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 until authorized to change them
by the Commission in a subsequent proceeding.
Issue 12:
What are the appropriate initial customer deposits
for Environmental Utilities, LLC?
Recommendation:
The appropriate initial customer
deposit is $318 for wastewater for the residential 5/8 inch x 3/4 inch 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 connections made 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 collect the approved
initial customer deposits until authorized to change them by the Commission in
a subsequent proceeding. (Sibley)
Position
of the Parties:
LC: Not
Applicable.
LGIPA: LGIPA
adopts the position of PIE and LC.
PIE: PIE
specifically adopts the position taken by LGIPA and Linda B. Cotherman
regarding this topic
EU: The
customer deposit should be equal to the estimated average charge for wastewater
service for two months pursuant to Rule 25-30.311(7), F.A.C, based upon the
approved final rates.
Staff Analysis:
ANALYSIS
EU
requested an initial customer deposit of $320, pursuant to Rule 25-30.311(7),
F.A.C., based on its average customer bill of $155.65 for its wastewater
system. (EXH 39, BSP 1074; EU BR 16) No
argument was provided in the post-hearing briefs for LGIPA or PIE on this
issue. LC argues that the initial
customer deposits cannot be accurately calculated due to unsubstantiated
construction and installation costs. (LC BR 23-24). All costs at this juncture
are projections, but the projected costs are reasonable as discussed in Issue 11.
Rule
25-30.311, F.A.C., contains criteria for collecting, administering, and
refunding customer deposits. Rule 25-30.311(1), F.A.C., requires that each
company’s tariff contains its specific criteria for determining the amount of
initial deposits. Customer deposits are designed to minimize the exposure of
bad debt expense for a utility and, ultimately, the general body of ratepayers.
In addition, collection of customer deposits is consistent with one of the
fundamental principles of ratemaking, ensuring that the cost of providing
service is recovered from the cost-causer.
Rule
25-30.311(7), F.A.C., authorizes utilities to collect new or additional
deposits from existing customers not to exceed an amount equal to the average
actual charge for water and/or wastewater service for two billing periods for
the 12-month period immediately prior to the date of notice. The two billing
periods reflect the lag time between the customer’s usage and a utility’s
collection of the revenues associated with that usage. It is Commission
practice to set initial customer deposits equal to two months bills based on
the average consumption for a 12-month period for each class of customers.[24]
In its brief, EU agrees that it is Commission precedent that customer deposits
are equal to two months average bills. (EU BR 16) Staff has reviewed the
financial information provided. Based on the
staff recommended wastewater rates and average residential demand of 2,737
gallons, the average monthly residential
bill is $159 with a resulting initial customer deposit of $318 based on the 2-month
period.
CONCLUSION
The appropriate initial customer
deposit is $318 for wastewater for the residential 5/8 inch x 3/4 inch meter
size. The initial customer deposit 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 connections made 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 collect the approved
initial customer deposits until authorized to change them by the Commission in
a subsequent proceeding.
Issue 13:
What are the appropriate miscellaneous service
charges for Environmental Utilities, LLC?
Recommendation:
The appropriate miscellaneous
service charges are shown on Schedule No. 5 and should be approved. The Utility
should file revised tariff sheets and a proposed customer notice to reflect the
Commission-approved charges. The approved charges should be effective for
services rendered on or after the stamped approval date on the tariff sheet
provided customers have received notice pursuant to Rule 25-30.475(1), F.A.C.
The Utility should provide proof of noticing within 10 days of rendering the
approved notice. (Sibley)
Position
of the Parties:
LC: Not
Applicable.
LGIPA: LGIPA
adopts the position of PIE and LC.
PIE: PIE
specifically adopts the position taken by LGIPA and Linda B. Cotherman
regarding this topic
EU: Premises
Visit ………………………. $30.00
Violation
Reconnection Charge ………. Actual Cost
Late Payment
Fee ……………………….$ 7.50
Bad
Check Charge ………………………Pursuant to §68.065(2), Fla. Statutes
Staff Analysis:
ANALYSIS
In
witness Swain’s testimony, the Utility proposed miscellaneous service charges
consisting of initial connection, normal reconnection, and premises visit
charges of $30 during normal business hours. EU also proposed that its
violation reconnection charge be actual cost. The Utility proposed a late
payment charge of $7.50 and non-sufficient funds (NSF) charges pursuant to
statute. (EXH 13 BSP 578; EXH 39, BSP 1063) EU’s proposed miscellaneous charges
were accompanied by a cost justification as required by Section 367.091(6),
F.S. No argument was provided in the post-hearing briefs for LGIPA or PIE on
this issue. LC argues that the miscellaneous service charges cannot be
accurately calculated due to unsubstantiated construction and installation
costs. (LC BR 24) EU contends its proposed miscellaneous service charges are
supported by its cost justification, and are in line with miscellaneous service
charges the Commission has approved for other utilities. (EU BR 16)
The purpose of these charges is
to place the burden for requesting or causing these services on the cost-causer
rather than the general body of ratepayers. The Utility requested the recovery
of $26.60 of field and supervisorial labor associated with processing
miscellaneous services based on an hourly salary of $20 and the time it takes
to perform all job functions, which is estimated to be 1.33 hours.
Additionally, EU requested recovery of vehicle mileage of $3.48 based on a
mileage rate of $0.58 per mile for six miles. (EXH 13, BSP 578; EXH 39, BSP
1063) The Utility’s cost justification for its requested miscellaneous service
charges is shown below on Table 13-1.
Table 13-1
Miscellaneous Service Charges Cost
Justification
|
Labor ($20 x 1.33)
|
$26.60
|
|
Vehicle ($0.58 x 6)
|
$3.48
|
|
Total
|
$30.08
|
Source: Utility’s Cost Justification (EXH 13, BSP 578)
Rule
25-30.460, F.A.C., does not allow for initial connection and normal
reconnection charges. Pursuant to Rule 25-30.460, F.A.C., the definitions for
initial connection charges and normal reconnection charges were incorporated in
the definition of the premises visit charge. EU’s proposed charges for
initial connection and normal reconnection charges are obsolete and inconsistent
with the rule. However, in its briefs, EU proposed its miscellaneous service
charges consistent with the rule by removing the initial connection and normal
reconnection charges. (EU BR 16) Therefore, the
Utility’s proposed premises visit charge of $30 and violation reconnection
charge at actual cost should be approved pursuant to Rule 25-30.460, F.A.C.
Late
Payment Charge
The
Utility’s requested late payment charge of $7.50 is to recover the cost of
supplies and labor associated with processing late payment notices. Within its
cost justification, EU included $5.00 for clerical labor associated with
processing late payments based on the clerical employee who is paid $20 per hour
and the amount of time it takes the employee to process a single late payment
charge of 15 minutes. (EXH 13 BSP 578; EXH 39, 1063) This is consistent with
Commission practice, in which the Commission has found that 10 to 15 minutes is
an appropriate amount of time for a billing employee to process a single late
payment.[25]
Furthermore, EU requested to recover supervisorial labor of $2.00 based on the
supervisor’s hourly salary of $25 per hour and the time it takes the supervisor
to review a late payment charge of eight minutes, which is consistent with
prior Commission cases.
The Utility is also requesting a recovery of $0.10 for supplies and $0.50 for
postage. (EXH 13 BSP 578; EXH 39, 1063) EU’s cost justification totals $7.60.
The Utility rounded down its requested late payment charge to $7.50. Staff
notes the Commission has previously approved a late payment charge of $7.50.[27]
Staff believes the Utility’s requested late payment charge is reasonable and
should be approved. The Utility’s cost justification for its requested
miscellaneous service charges is shown on Table 13-2.
Table 13-2
Late Payment Charge Cost Justification
|
Clerical Labor ($20 x 0.25)
|
$5.00
|
|
Supervisor Labor ($25 x 0.08)
|
$2.00
|
|
Printing Supplies and Postage
|
$0.60
|
|
Total
|
$7.60
|
Source: Utility’s Cost Justification (EXH 13, BSP 578)
Staff
recommends that EU should be authorized to collect NSF charges consistent with
Section 68.065, F.S., which allows for the assessment of charges for the
collection of worthless checks, drafts, or orders of payment. As currently set
forth in Section 68.065(2), F.S., the following NSF charges may be assessed:
1) $25, if the face value does not exceed $50,
2) $30, if the face value exceeds $50 but does
not exceed $300,
3) $40, if the face value exceeds $300,
4) or 5 percent of the face amount of the
check, whichever is greater.
CONCLUSION
Staff believes that EU has provided
adequate cost justification in the record to support staff’s recommended
miscellaneous service charges. The appropriate miscellaneous service charges
are shown on Schedule No. 5 and should be approved. The
Utility should file revised tariff sheets and a proposed customer notice to
reflect the Commission-approved charges. The approved charges should be
effective for services rendered on or after the stamped approval date on the
tariff sheet provided customers have received notice pursuant to Rule
25-30.475(1), F.A.C. The Utility should provide proof of noticing within 10 days
of rendering the approved notice.
Issue 14:
What are the appropriate service availability
charges for Environmental Utilities, LLC?
Recommendation:
The
appropriate service availability charges are shown on Schedule No. 5 and should
be approved. In addition, the Utility’s proposed service availability policy
should be approved. The approved charges and policy should be effective for
connections made on or after the stamped approval date on the tariff sheets
pursuant to Rule 25-30.475, F.A.C. EU should be required to collect its
approved service availability charges until authorized to change them by the
Commission in a subsequent proceeding. (Sibley)
Position
of the Parties:
LC: Not
Applicable.
LGIPA: LGIPA
adopts the position of PIE and LC.
PIE: PIE
specifically adopts the position taken by LGIPA and Linda B. Cotherman
regarding this topic
EU: Main Capacity
Charge
Residential per ERC
............................................................ $ 15,587.00
All others per gallon ............................................................ $
72.16
Sewer Lateral
Installation Fee ………………………….
$ 1,414.25
Staff Analysis:
ANALYSIS
EU
proposed a main capacity (main extension) charge of $15,587 to recover a
portion of the cost of the Utility’s collection system from future customers. (EU
BR 17; EXH 39 BSP 1061) In addition, the Utility proposed a sewer lateral installation
charge to recover the cost of piping used to connect customers to mains. In her
rebuttal testimony, witness Swain provided a revised sewer lateral charge in
the amount of $1,414.25 due to the increase in cost for the force main
construction. (EXH 39, BSP 1062; TR 362-363) The Utility states that its
proposed service availability charges result in a contribution level of 83.37
percent at design capacity. (EXH 39, BSP 1061) LC does not believe the
estimates used in preparation of service availability charges were accurate,
nor provided the necessary level of detail. Additionally, she argued that the
service availability charges should be identical to those charged by Charlotte
County Utilities. (LC BR 24-27) No argument
was provided in the post-hearing briefs for LGIPA and PIE on this issue.
Pursuant
to Rule 25-30.580(1), F.A.C., the maximum amount of CIAC, net of amortization,
should not exceed 75 percent of the total original cost, net of depreciation,
of the Utility’s facilities and plant when the facilities and plant are at
their designed capacity. Rule 25-30.580(2), F.A.C., provides that the minimum
amount of CIAC should not be less than the percentage of such facilities and
plant that is represented by water transmission and distribution and sewage
collection systems. Service availability charges are one-time charges
applicable to new connections, which allow customers to pay their pro rata
share of the facilities and plant costs.
EU
asserted that the guidelines of Rule 25-30.580(2), F.A.C do not always apply in
a case, wherein the system is designed entirely of a collection system.
Following the guidelines that the minimum CIAC should not be less than the cost
of the collection system, it results in a 100 percent CIAC, which is higher than
the maximum guideline. (EU BR 18) In this case, EU’s wastewater system in its entirety
is a collection system, which represents 83.37 percent of total UPIS. In witness Swain rebuttal testimony, the
contribution level is reflected at 71.74 percent at design capacity, which
includes the depreciation of plant and amortization of CIAC over time. (EXH 39,
BSP 1062) However, the contribution level does not include the sewer lateral
installation cost. Staff added the sewer laterals cost, which results in a contribution
level of 77.70 percent. Staff recommends the proposed main extension and sewer
lateral installation charges are reasonable and should be approved.
The
Utility’s proposed service availability policy states that the sewer lateral
and low-pressure system tank for each residence will be installed by the Utility.
The customer will be responsible for the plumbing and electrical to connect
from the residence to the tank. The customers will be required to pay the Commission’s
recommended service availability charges as well as existing charges imposed by
Charlotte County. Furthermore, the service availability policy states that the
existing property owners will have 365 days from the written notice that the
wastewater system is available to its property within which to connect. If the
property owner fails to connect to the system within the deadline, the property
owner will be subject to code enforcements and will begin billing the property
owner the approved BFC. (EXH 48, BSP 1375)
In
its briefs, EU asserted that some property owners asked why they had no option
to pay over time. EU stated that pursuant to Section 381.00655(1)(a), F.S.,
customers will have the option of prepaying the amortized value or required
connection charges in equal monthly installments over a period not to exceed
two years from the date of the initial notification of anticipated
availability. Furthermore, if EU is granted a wastewater certificate, property
owners can request an option to pay the service availability charges in monthly
installments as required by the statute. (EU BR 19) Staff agrees that the
installment option is available pursuant to the statute.
In
conclusion, staff believes there is sufficient information and detail in the
record to calculate service availability charges. Further, it would not be
appropriate to set EU’s charges to be identical to those charged by Charlotte
County Utilities; each utility has its own unique operational costs, service
area, and customer base, meaning a simple comparison could lead to unfair
pricing for consumers depending on the situation.
CONCLUSION
The appropriate service
availability charges are shown on Schedule No. 5 and should be approved. In
addition, the Utility’s proposed service availability policy should be
approved. The approved charges and policy should be effective for connections
made on or after the stamped approval date on the tariff sheets pursuant to
Rule 25-30.475, F.A.C. EU should be required to collect its approved service
availability charges until authorized to change them by the Commission in a
subsequent proceeding.
Issue 15:
Should this docket be closed?
Recommendation:
This docket should be closed. (Thompson, Dose)
Position
of the Parties:
LC: Yes.
LGIPA: Yes,
EU’s application should be denied and the docket should be closed.
PIE: Yes,
the docket should be closed.
EU: Yes
Staff Analysis:
ANALYSIS
The parties all agree that the
docket should be closed, although for different reasons: LC, LGIPA, and PIE
contend that the application should be denied and the docket closed. (LC BR
27-28; LGIPA BR 28; PIE BR 17) EU argues that upon issuance of a wastewater
certificate to EU, no further action is required in the docket and it should be
closed. (EU BR 19)
If the Commission approves
staff’s recommendation, a final order should be issued granting EU a wastewater
certificate and establishing initial rates and charges. Upon issuance of the
final order, this docket should be closed.
