Discussion
of Issues
Issue 1:
Should Hash Utilities, LLC’s application for a
grandfather water certificate in Citrus County for its Lucky Hills water system
be acknowledged?
Recommendation:
Yes. Lucky Hills’ application should be
acknowledged and the Utility should be granted Certificate No. 691-W, effective
May 28, 2024, to serve the territory described in Attachment A. The resultant
order should serve as Lucky 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 warranty 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, Lucky
Hills serves approximately 80 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 Lucky Hills be granted Certificate No. 691-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:
What rates, charges, and deposits should be approved
for Lucky Hills Water System?
Recommendation:
Of the Utility’s rates, charges, and deposits that
were in effect when Citrus County transferred jurisdiction to the Commission,
only the rates, charges, and initial customer deposit shown on Schedule No. 1
are appropriate and should be approved. In addition, the Utility’s existing
Violation Reconnection Charge, Late Payment Charges, and NSF Charge should be
approved. These charges, as well as the rate, 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 deposit shown in Schedule No. 1 until authorized to change
them by the Commission in a subsequent proceeding. (Lenberg)
Staff Analysis:
Citrus County Water and
Wastewater Authority approved the Utility’s current bi-monthly rates by Final
Order 23-03 on August 14, 2023. The bi-monthly water rates consist of a base
facility charge (BFC) and gallonage charge per 1,000 gallons. It appears the
Utility has not been billing the appropriate rates, which will be addressed in
Issue 4. Staff recommends that the rates that were last approved in Final Order
23-03 by Citrus County should be billed to customers and approved by the
Commission.
The Utility’s water charges
consist of miscellaneous service charges and service availability charges,
which include a service availability policy. The Miscellaneous service charges
were established under the prior owner, however, some of the Utility’s
miscellaneous service charges are not consistent with the Florida Statutes or
Commission Rules and are discussed in Issue 3. However, as stated previously,
the Utility’s existing Violation Reconnection Charge, Late Payment Charge, and
NSF Charge remain unchanged and should be approved herein. The Utility’s
service availability charges were approved in Final Order 24-01 on January 29,
2024.
Conclusion
Staff recommends that, of the
Utility’s rates, charges, and deposits that were approved by Citrus County and
in effect when Citrus County transferred jurisdiction to the Commission, only
the rates, charges, and initial customer deposit shown on Schedule No. 1, and
the Utility’s existing Violation Reconnection Charge, Late Payment Charge, and
NSF Charge, are appropriate and should be approved. The rate, 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
Violation Reconnection Charge, Late Payment Charge, and NSF Charge, as well as
the rates, charges, and initial customer deposit shown in Schedule No. 1 until
authorized to change them by the Commission in a subsequent proceeding.
Issue 3:
What are the appropriate miscellaneous service
charges for Lucky Hills Water System?
Recommendation:
With the exception of the Utility’s existing
Violation Reconnection Charge, Late Payment Charge, and NSF Charge (which are
approved in Issue 2), the appropriate miscellaneous service charges shown on
Table 3-2 should be approved. The Utility should be required to file a proposed
customer notice to reflect the Commission-approved charges. The approved charges
should be effective for service rendered or connections made on or after the
stamped approval date on the tariff sheet pursuant to Rule 25-30.475, F.A.C. In
addition, the tariff sheets will be approved upon staff’s verification that the
tariffs are consistent with the Commission’s decision and that the proposed
customer notice is adequate. (Lenberg)
Staff Analysis:
The Utility did not request
to revise its existing miscellaneous service charges. Section
367.091, F.S., however, authorizes the Commission to establish, increase, or
change a rate or charge other than monthly rates or service availability
charges. Staff recommends that some of the Utility’s existing charges
that are set forth in Table 3-1 be revised to conform with Rule 25-30.460,
F.A.C. As discussed in Issue 2, the Utility’s existing Violation Reconnection
Charge, Late Payment Charge, and NSF Charge should be approved without
modification, but are shown below for illustrative purposes. The Utility’s
current miscellaneous service charges for water service consist of various
charges and are shown on Table 3-1.
Table 3-1
Lucky
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:
Document No. 02871-2025, Filed on April 16, 2025, in Docket No. 20240116-WU
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 (in lieu
of disconnection) of $45. The Utility also has a separate “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, one assessed for the purpose of discontinuing
of service while the other is assessed when a utility representative visits a
premises for purposes other than discontinuing of service. The Commission rule
encompasses both of these Utility charges 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 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 state 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. To be consistent with this
Rule, staff recommends that the Utility’s tampering charge of $150 be denied
and the meter tampering charge be approved at actual cost. Setting the meter
tampering charge at actual cost is also consistent with prior Commission
decisions. The water miscellaneous service charges shown on Table 3-2 are
appropriate and should be approved.
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
The Utility’s existing Violation
Reconnection Charge, Late Payment Charge, and NSF Charge remain unchanged and
are recommended for approval in Issue 2, and are shown above for illustrative
purposes. 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 will be approved upon staff’s verification that the
tariffs are consistent with the Commission’s decision and that the proposed
customer notice is adequate.
Issue 4:
Did Lucky Hills bill the appropriate rates pursuant
to Citrus County Final Order 23-03, if not, what is the appropriate action?
Recommendation:
The Utility did not bill the appropriate rates
pursuant to Citrus County Final Order 23-03. Staff recommends that a docket be
opened to investigate the Utility’s billing practices and determine the
appropriate action. (Lenberg)
Staff Analysis:
As mentioned in Issue 2, the Utility is currently charging
unauthorized rates. As reflected in the current tariff, Lucky Hills bills a
bi-monthly BFC of $21.27 and a gallonage charge of $4.37 per 1,000 gallons.
However, Citrus County Final Order 23-03 only authorizes monthly BFC $20.81 and
a gallonage charge of $4.28 per 1,000. Staff contacted Citrus County, which
indicated that the Utility’s last price index increase was approved in Final
Order 23-03 on August 14, 2023. The last price index approved rates are a
bi-monthly BFC of $20.81 and a gallonage charge of $4.28.
On March, 4, 2024 the County issued Final Order 24-04 which authorizes the
Utility to apply for a 3.24 percent
price index increase. Lucky Hills allegedly applied. As reflected in unissued
Citrus County Final Order 24-05, County staff had identified application
deficiencies which suggested that a 2.19 percent would be the more appropriate
price index adjustment for the Utility. However, proposed Final Order 24-05 was
never signed by the county because the Citrus County Water and Wastewater
Authority meeting, scheduled on May 20, 2024 to decide that matter, was canceled
because of the changes of Citrus County Jurisdiction in progress with the
commission. It appears to Commission staff that the Utility mistakenly
implemented a 2.19 percent increase to its 2023 approved rates before Citrus
County Water and Wastewater Authority officially approved or decided the
matter. Therefore, according to the Utility’s own tariff, customers are being
overcharged. Staff recommends that this matter should be investigated further.
Conclusion
Based on the above, the Utility did not bill the appropriate rates pursuant
to Citrus County Final Order 23-03. Staff recommends that a docket be opened to
investigate the Utility’s billing practices and determine the appropriate
action.
Issue 5:
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. (Sparks)
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.
