Discussion
of Issues
Issue 1:
Should Hash Utilities, LLC’s application for a
grandfather water certificate in Citrus County for its Avalon Hills water
system be acknowledged?
Recommendation:
Yes. Avalon Hills’ application should
be acknowledged and the Utility should be granted Certificate No. 690-W, effective
May 28, 2024, to serve the territory described in Attachment A. The resultant
order should serve as Avalon Hills’ certificate and should be retained by the
Utility. (M. Watts, Bardin)
Staff Analysis:
The Utility’s application for a
certificate under grandfather rights to provide water service in Citrus County
is in compliance with Section 367.171(2)(b), F.S., and Rule 25-30.035, F.A.C.
The application contains a quitclaim deed as proof of ownership of the land on
which the Utility’s facilities are located, an accurate territory description,
and adequate service territory and system maps. The territory description is
provided in Attachment A.
As stated in the case background, Avalon
Hills serves approximately 300 residential customers. The Utility does not
currently have any outstanding citations, violations, or consent orders on file
with the Florida Department of Environmental Protection.
The Utility is aware of its obligation
to submit its 2024 Annual Report pursuant to Rule 25-30.110, F.A.C., and is
also aware of its obligation to pay regulatory assessment fees pursuant to Rule
25-30.120, F.A.C. In addition, the Utility is aware that it must maintain its
books and records according to the National Association of Regulatory Utility
Commissioners’ Uniform System of Accounts.
Conclusion
Based on the above, staff recommends
that Avalon Hills be granted Certificate No. 690-W to serve the territory described
in Attachment A. The resultant order should serve as the Utility’s certificate
and should be retained by the Utility.
Issue 2:
Should the Commission approve the Utility’s current
rates, charges, and deposit for Avalon Hills Water System?
Recommendation:
Yes.
The rates, charges, and deposit shown on Schedule No. 1
should be approved as proposed agency action for Avalon Hills. The rates,
charges, and initial customer deposit shown in Schedule No. 1 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 deposits shown in Schedule
No. 1 until authorized to change them by the Commission in a subsequent
proceeding. (Lenberg)
Staff Analysis:
Since its inception the
Utility has been either under the jurisdiction of the Commission or Citrus
County; however, the Utility has never been actively regulated by either
regulatory authority. The Utility has operated in Citrus County since at least
1981 without receiving a water certificate from the Commission or a Citrus
County franchise certificate. Further, the rates, charges, and initial customer
deposit have never been reviewed or approved by the Commission or Citrus
County.
Under the prior owner, in 2019, a
hearing was to take place for the Citrus County Water and Wastewater Authority
to determine whether it would exercise its regulatory authority over the
Utility. However, the prior owner never applied for the franchise certificate. In 2023, the current owner filed an
application for a franchise certificate. Even though the Utility has never had
a water certificate nor a franchise certificate, it has been registered with
the Florida Department of Environmental Protection where it paid the annual fees
and submitted monthly reports. In
addition, the Utility has a water use permit issued by the Southwest Florida
Water Management District.
Staff has verified that Avalon
was charging its current rates, charges and initial customer deposit on May 28,
2024, the date Citrus County transferred jurisdiction. The Utility is currently
charging its customers bi-monthly water rates, which consists of a base
facility charge (BFC) and gallonage charge per 1,000 gallons. The Utility’s
water charges consists of miscellaneous service charges and service
availability charges, which includes a service availability policy. Staff
believes Avalon’s rates and charges are reasonable. However, some of the
Utility’s miscellaneous service charges are not consistent with Florida
Statutes or Commission Rules and are discussed in Issue 3.
A grandfathered utility’s
existing rates are normally continued and approved as final agency action. In
this case however, where the Utility’s rates were never approved by an
appropriate regulatory authority, staff recommends that the existing rates be
approved as proposed agency action.
Conclusion
Based on the
above, the rates and charges shown on Schedule No. 1 should be approved for Avalon
Hills as proposed agency action. The rates, charges, and initial customer
deposit shown in Schedule No. 1 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 deposits shown in Schedule No. 1 until authorized to change them by
the Commission in a subsequent proceeding.
Issue 3:
Should the Utility’s current miscellaneous service charges
for Avalon Hills Water System be approved?
Recommendation:
The Utility’s existing Violation Reconnection
Charge, Late Payment Charge, and NSF Charge should be approved as proposed
agency action. The remaining miscellaneous service charges shown on Table 3-2
should be approved as modified, also as proposed agency action. 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 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. (Lenberg)
Staff Analysis:
Section
367.091, F.S., authorizes the Commission to establish, increase, or change a
rate or charge other than monthly rates or service availability charges. Staff
recommends that the Utility’s existing Violation Reconnection Charge,
Late Payment Charge, and NSF Charge should be continued; however, they should
be approved as proposed agency action because they have received no prior
regulatory approval. Staff recommends that some of the Utility’s existing
charges that are set forth in Table 3-1 should be revised to conform with Rule
25-30.460, F.A.C. The Utility’s current miscellaneous service charges for water
service shown on Table 3-1.
Table 3-1
Avalon
Hills Utilities, LLC Existing Miscellaneous Service Charges
|
|
Existing Charges
|
|
Initial Connection Charge
|
$45.00
|
|
Normal Reconnection Charge
|
$45.00
|
|
Violation Reconnection Charge
|
$45.00
|
|
Premises
Visit Charge (in lieu of disconnection)
|
$45.00
|
|
Premises Visit Charge
|
$30.00
|
|
Late Payment Charge
|
$5.00
|
|
NSF Charge
|
Pursuant to Section 68.065, F.S.
|
|
Tampering Charge
|
$150.00
|
Source:
Utility’s current tariff and response to staff’s deficiencies.
Premises Visit Charge
and Violation Reconnection Charge
As shown on Table 3-1, the
Utility currently has an initial connection charge, a normal reconnection
charge, a violation reconnection charge, and a premises visit charge of $45.
The Utility also has a premises visit charge of $30. However, pursuant to Rule
25-30.460, F.A.C., initial and reconnection charges are obsolete and are
subsumed in the definition of the premises visit charge. Therefore, staff
recommends that the initial and reconnection charges be removed. As mentioned
above, the Utility has two premises visit charges. According to the Utility’s
tariff, the definitions for the premises visit charge is assessed for the
purpose of discontinuing of service while the other definition is defined when
a utility representative visits a premises except for the purposes of
discontinuing service. The Commission rule encompasses both of the Utility
definitions into one for the premises visits charge. Since the premises visit
now entails a broader range of tasks, staff recommends that the premises visit
charge reflect the amount of the higher premises visit charge of $45.
Therefore, staff recommends that the premises visit charge of $30 be removed.
Staff recommends that the definition for the premises visit charge be updated
to comply with Rule 25-30.460, F.A.C.
Tampering or Prohibited
Connection or Use Charge
The Utility has a tampering charge
of $150 for water service. Rule 25-30.320(2)(j), F.A.C., provides that a
utility may refuse or discontinue service without notice in the event of
unauthorized or fraudulent use of service. The rule further states that whenever
service is discontinued for fraudulent use of such service, the Utility, before
restoring service, may require the customer to make at his own expense all
changes in piping or equipment necessary to eliminate illegal use and to pay an
amount reasonably estimated as the deficiency in revenue resulting from the
customer’s fraudulent use before restoring service. As shown in Table 3-2,
staff recommends that the Utility’s tampering charge of $150 be modified and
the meter tampering charge be approved at actual cost. Setting the meter
tampering charge at actual cost is consistent with prior Commission decisions.
Table 3-2
Staff’s Recommended
Miscellaneous Service Charges
|
|
All Hours
|
|
Premises Visit Charge
|
$45.00
|
|
Violation Reconnection Charge
|
$45.00
|
|
Tampering Charge
|
Actual Cost
|
|
NSF Charge
|
Pursuant to Section
68.065, F.S.
|
|
Late Payment Charge
|
$5.00
|
Conclusion
Based on the above, the Utility’s existing Violation
Reconnection Charge, Late Payment Charge, and NSF Charge should be approved as
proposed agency action. The remaining miscellaneous service charges shown on
Table 3-2 should be approved as modified, also as proposed agency action. 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(2), 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 4:
Should this docket be closed?
Recommendation:
If
no person whose substantial interests are affected by the proposed agency
action portion of this recommendation files a protest within 21 days of the
issuance of the order, a consummating order should be issued. The docket should
remain open for staff’s verification that the revised tariff sheets have been
filed by the Utility and approved by staff. Once this action is complete, this
docket should be closed administratively. (Dose)
Staff Analysis:
If
no person whose substantial interests are affected by the proposed agency
action portion of this recommendation files a protest within 21 days of the
issuance of the order, a consummating order should be issued. The docket should
remain open for staff’s verification that the revised tariff sheets have been
filed by the Utility and approved by staff. Once this action is complete, this
docket should be closed administratively.
