FLORIDA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION
COMMISSION CONFERENCE AGENDA
CONFERENCE DATE AND
TIME: Tuesday, June 3,
2025, 9:30 a.m.
LOCATION: Betty Easley Conference Center, Joseph P. Cresse Hearing Room 148
DATE ISSUED: May 21, 2025
NOTICE
Persons affected by Commission action on certain items on this agenda
may be allowed to address the Commission, either informally or by oral
argument, when those items are taken up for discussion at this conference.
These items are designated by double asterisks (**) next to the item number.
To participate informally, affected persons need only appear at the
conference and request the opportunity to address the Commission on an item
listed on the agenda. Informal participation is not permitted: (1) on
dispositive motions and motions for reconsideration; (2) when a recommended
order is taken up by the Commission; (3) in a rulemaking proceeding after the
record has been closed; or (4) when the Commission considers a post-hearing
recommendation on the merits of a case after the close of the record. The
Commission allows informal participation at its discretion in certain types of
cases (such as declaratory statements and interim rate orders) in which an
order is issued based on a given set of facts without hearing. See Florida
Administrative Code Rules 25-22.0021 (agenda conference participation) and
25-22.0022 (oral argument).
Conference agendas, staff recommendations, vote sheets, and
transcripts are available online at https://www.floridapsc.com,
by selecting Conferences
& Meeting Agendas and
Commission Conferences of the FPSC.
An official vote of "move staff" denotes that the Item's
recommendations were approved.
In accordance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, persons needing
a special accommodation to participate at this proceeding should contact the
Office of Commission Clerk no later than five days prior to the conference at
2540 Shumard Oak Boulevard, Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0850 or 850-413-6770
(Florida Relay Service, 1-800-955-8770 Voice or 1-800-955-8771 TDD). Assistive
Listening Devices are available upon request from the Office of Commission Clerk,
Gerald L. Gunter Building, Room 152.
The Commission Conference has a live video broadcast the day of the
conference, which is available from the FPSC website. Upon completion of the conference, the
archived video will be available from the website by selecting Conferences & Meeting Agendas, then Audio and Video Event Coverage.
EMERGENCY CANCELLATION OF CONFERENCE: If a named storm or other
disaster requires cancellation of the Conference, Commission staff will attempt
to give timely notice. Notice of cancellation will be provided on the
Commission’s website (https://www.floridapsc.com) under
the Hot Topics link on the home page. Cancellation can also be confirmed by
calling the Office of Commission Clerk at 850-413-6770.
If you have any questions, contact the Office of Commission Clerk at 850-413-6770 or Clerk@psc.state.fl.us.
PAA A) Application for Certificate of Authority to Provide Telecommunications Service.
|
DOCKET NO. |
COMPANY NAME |
|
PB Florida Asset Entity, LLC |
Recommendation: The Commission should approve the action requested in the docket referenced above and close this docket.
2 Docket No. 20250038-WS – Petition for
an acquisition adjustment for a non-viable utility, by CSWR-Florida Utility
Operating Company, LLC.
Docket No. 20250043-WS – Petition for an acquisition adjustment for a
non-viable utility, by CSWR-Florida Utility Operating Company, LLC.
Docket No. 20250047-WS – Petition for an acquisition adjustment for a
non-viable utility, by CSWR-Florida Utility Operating Company, LLC.
Docket No. 20250052-WS – Application for increase in water and
wastewater rates in Brevard, Citrus, Duval, Highlands, Marion, and Volusia
Counties by CSWR-Florida Utility Operating Company.
|
Critical Date(s): |
None |
||
|
Commissioners Assigned: |
All Commissioners |
||
|
Prehearing Officer: |
Fay (20250038-WS) Fay (20250043-WS) Fay (20250047-WS) Clark (20250052-WS) |
||
|
Staff: |
GCL: Dose, Sandy, Sunshine, J. Crawford AFD: Bardin, D. Buys, Byrne, Ferrer, Przygocki, Sewards, York ECO: Bethea, Bruce, Hudson ENG: Smith II |
||
(Oral Argument Requested - Participation is
at the Discretion of the Commission)
Issue 1:
Should CSWR’s Request for Oral Argument on Citizens’ Motion to Dismiss with Prejudice or Alternative Motion for Summary Final Order and to Hold Docket No. 20250052-WS in Abeyance be granted?
No. Staff believes that the pleadings are sufficient on their face for the Commission to evaluate and rule on the Motion. However, if the Commission wants to exercise its discretion to hear oral argument, staff recommends that 5 minutes per party is sufficient.
Issue 2:
Should OPC’s Motion to Dismiss with Prejudice or Alternative Motion for Summary Final Order be granted?
Staff recommends that OPC’s Motion to Dismiss should be granted in part and denied in part. Dismissal is appropriate and should be granted, however, the Motion to Dismiss should not be granted with prejudice. Administrative finality has attached to the prior denials of CSWR’s requested acquisition adjustments and CSWR has not demonstrated a significant change in circumstances or that it is in the public interest to reverse the Commission’s prior denials. Furthermore, CSWR is improperly seeking retroactive application of Rule 25-30.0371, F.A.C. However, CSWR should be allowed the opportunity to cure the defect in its petition to demonstrate either a change of circumstances or that reversing the prior denials is in the public interest. Therefore, the motion should not be granted with prejudice. If the Commission approves staff’s recommendation to grant OPC’s Motion to Dismiss, then OPC’s Alternative Motion for Summary Final Order would become moot. If, however, the Commission denies OPC’s Motion to Dismiss, staff recommends that the Commission deny OPC’s Alternative Motion for Summary Final Order.
Issue 3: Should OPC’s Motion to
Hold Docket No. 20250052-WS in Abeyance be granted?
If the Commission approves staff’s recommendation in Issue 2, OPC’s request to hold Docket No. 20250052-WS in abeyance is moot. If staff’s recommendation in Issue 2 is denied, OPC’s Motion to Hold Docket No. 20250052-WS in Abeyance should be denied.
Issue 4:
Should these dockets be closed?
After the final order is issued, Docket Nos. 20250038-WS, 20250043-WS, and 20250047-WS should be closed. Docket No. 20250052-WS should remain open to allow the Commission to address CSWR’s requested rates.
3**PAA Docket No. 20250059-GU – Petition requesting approval of an updated AFUDC rate of 7.72%, effective January 1, 2025, by Florida City Gas.
|
Critical Date(s): |
None |
||
|
Commissioners Assigned: |
All Commissioners |
||
|
Prehearing Officer: |
Administrative |
||
|
Staff: |
AFD: Quigley, D. Buys, Higgins GCL: Bloom |
||
Issue 1:
Should the Commission approve FCG’s request to establish an AFUDC rate of 7.65 percent?
Yes. The appropriate AFUDC rate for FCG is 7.65 percent based on a 13-month average capital structure for the period ended December 31, 2024.
Issue 2:
What is the appropriate monthly compounding rate to achieve FCG’s requested annual AFUDC of 7.65 percent?
The appropriate compounding rate to achieve an annual AFUDC rate of 7.65 percent is 0.006162.
Issue 3:
Should the Commission approve FCG’s requested effective date of January 1, 2025, for implementing the AFUDC rate?
Yes. The AFUDC rate should be effective January 1, 2025, for all purposes.
Issue 4:
Should this docket be closed?
4**PAA Docket No. 20250006-WS – Water and wastewater industry annual reestablishment of authorized range of return on common equity for water and wastewater utilities pursuant to Section 367.081(4)(f), F.S.
|
Critical Date(s): |
None |
||
|
Commissioners Assigned: |
All Commissioners |
||
|
Prehearing Officer: |
Fay |
||
|
Staff: |
AFD: McGowan, D. Buys, Higgins GCL: Bloom |
||
Issue 1:
What is the appropriate range of returns on common equity for water and wastewater utilities pursuant to Section 367.081(4)(f), F.S.?
The appropriate range of returns on common equity is 8.51 percent at 100 percent equity to 10.51 percent at 40 percent equity. This range was determined using the leverage formula methodology approved by Order No. PSC-2018-0327-PAA-WS applied to a proxy group comprised of natural gas and WAW utilities using the most recent financial data. Accordingly, the following leverage formula should be used until this matter is addressed again in 2026:
ROE = 7.17% + (1.337 ÷ Equity Ratio)
Where the Equity Ratio = Common Equity ÷ (Common Equity + Preferred Equity + Long-Term Debt + Short-Term Debt)
Range: 8.51% at 100% equity to 10.51% at 40% equity
The Commission should cap returns on common equity at 10.51 percent for all WAW utilities with equity ratios less than 40 percent. Imposing a cap serves to discourage imprudent financial risk. This cap is consistent with the methodology approved by Order No. PSC-2018-0327-PAA-WS.
Issue 2:
Should this docket be closed?
No. Upon expiration of the protest period, if a timely protest is not received from a substantially affected person, the decision should become final and effective upon the issuance of a Consummating Order. However, this docket should remain open to allow staff to monitor changes in capital market conditions and to readdress the reasonableness of the leverage formula as conditions warrant.
5**PAA Docket No. 20250053-EQ – Petition for approval of revisions to standard offer contract and rate schedule COG-2, by Tampa Electric Company.
|
Critical Date(s): |
None |
||
|
Commissioners Assigned: |
All Commissioners |
||
|
Prehearing Officer: |
Administrative |
||
|
Staff: |
ENG: Sanchez, Ellis GCL: Farooqi, Marquez |
||
(Staff recommends the Commission
simultaneously consider Docket Nos. 20250053-EQ, 20250054-EQ, 20250055-EQ, and
20250056-EQ.)
Issue 1:
Should the Commission approve the amended standard offer contract and associated rate schedule COG-2 filed by Tampa Electric Company?
Yes. The provisions of TECO’s amended standard offer contract and associated rate schedule COG-2 conform to the requirements of Rules 25-17.200 through 25-17.310, F.A.C. The amended standard offer contract offers multiple payment options so that a developer of renewable generation may select the payment stream best suited to its financial needs.
Issue 2:
Should this docket be closed?
Yes. This docket should be closed upon issuance of a Consummating Order, unless a person whose substantial interests are affected by the Commission’s decision files a protest within 21 days of the issuance of the Commission’s Proposed Agency Action Order. Potential signatories should be aware that, if a timely protest is filed, TECO’s standard offer contract may subsequently be revised.
6**PAA Docket No. 20250054-EQ – Petition for approval of amended standard offer contract (Schedule COG-2), by Duke Energy Florida, LLC.
|
Critical Date(s): |
None |
||
|
Commissioners Assigned: |
All Commissioners |
||
|
Prehearing Officer: |
Administrative |
||
|
Staff: |
ENG: Sanchez, Ellis GCL: Augspurger, Marquez |
||
(Staff recommends the Commission simultaneously consider Docket Nos. 20250053-EQ, 20250054-EQ, 20250055-EQ, and 20250056-EQ.)
Issue 1:
Should the Commission approve the amended standard offer contract and associated rate schedule COG-2 filed by Duke Energy Florida, LLC?
Yes. The provisions of DEF’s amended standard offer contract and associated rate schedule COG-2 conform to the requirements of Rules 25-17.200 through 25-17.310, F.A.C. The amended standard offer contract offers multiple payment options so that a developer of renewable generation may select the payment stream best suited to its financial needs.
Issue 2:
Should this docket be closed?
Yes. This docket should be closed upon issuance of a Consummating Order, unless a person whose substantial interests are affected by the Commission’s decision files a protest within 21 days of the issuance of the Commission’s Proposed Agency Action Order. Potential signatories should be aware that, if a timely protest is filed, DEF’s standard offer contract may subsequently be revised.
7**PAA Docket No. 20250055-EQ – Petition for approval of standard offer contract and request for temporary waiver of rule on annual filing, by Florida Public Utilities Company.
|
Critical Date(s): |
06/03/2025 (The Commission must vote to grant or deny the rule waiver by this date.) |
||
|
Commissioners Assigned: |
All Commissioners |
||
|
Prehearing Officer: |
Administrative |
||
|
Staff: |
ENG: Davis, Ellis, King, Ramos GCL: Sparks, Imig |
||
(Staff recommends the Commission simultaneously consider Docket Nos. 20250053-EQ, 20250054-EQ, 20250055-EQ, and 20250056-EQ.)
Issue 1:
Should the Commission grant FPUC’s petition for a temporary waiver of Rule 25-17.250(1), F.A.C.?
Yes. Staff
recommends that FPUC’s petition for a temporary waiver of Rule 25-17.250(1)
should be granted.
Issue 2:
Should the Commission approve the proposed standard offer contract filed by FPUC?
Yes. The provisions of FPUC’s standard offer contract conform to all requirements of Rules 25-17.200 through 25-17.310, F.A.C. The proposed standard offer contract provides flexibility in the arrangements for payments so that a developer of renewable generation may select the payment stream best suited to its financial needs.
Issue 3:
Should this docket be closed?
Yes. If no person whose substantial interests are affected by the proposed agency action files a protest within 21 days of the issuance of the Proposed Agency Action Order, this docket should be closed upon the issuance of a consummating order.
8**PAA Docket No. 20250056-EQ – Petition for approval of renewable energy tariff and standard offer contract, by Florida Power & Light Company.
|
Critical Date(s): |
None |
||
|
Commissioners Assigned: |
All Commissioners |
||
|
Prehearing Officer: |
Administrative |
||
|
Staff: |
ENG: Wooten, Ellis, King GCL: Imig, Marquez |
||
(Staff recommends the Commission simultaneously consider Docket Nos. 20250053-EQ, 20250054-EQ, 20250055-EQ, and 20250056-EQ.)
Issue 1:
Should the Commission approve the renewable energy tariff and amended standard offer contract filed by Florida Power & Light Company?
Yes. The provisions of FPL’s renewable energy tariff and amended standard offer contract conform to the requirements of Rules 25-17.200 through 25-17.310, F.A.C. The amended standard offer contract offers multiple payment options so that a developer of renewable generation may select the payment stream best suited to its financial needs.
Issue 2:
Should this docket be closed?
Yes. This docket should be closed upon issuance of a consummating order, unless a person whose substantial interests are affected by the Commission’s decision files a protest within 21 days of the issuance of the Commission’s Proposed Agency Action Order. Potential signatories should be aware that, if a timely protest is filed, FPL’s standard offer contract may subsequently be revised.
9**PAA Docket No. 20250034-EI – Petition for a limited proceeding to approve first solar base rate adjustment, by Duke Energy Florida, LLC.
|
Critical Date(s): |
None |
||
|
Commissioners Assigned: |
All Commissioners |
||
|
Prehearing Officer: |
Passidomo Smith |
||
|
Staff: |
ENG: Davis, Ellis, King, Ramos AFD: Gatlin, Holloway ECO: Ward GCL: Bloom, J. Crawford |
||
Issue 1:
Should the Commission approve DEF’s First SoBRA Tranche which includes the Sundance, Rattler, Half Moon, and Bailey Mill solar projects?
Yes. The First SoBRA Tranche is reasonable and cost-effective in accordance with the criteria of subparagraph 16(c) of the 2024 Settlement, and therefore should be approved for inclusion in base rates through the SoBRA mechanism.
Issue 2:
What is the estimated annual revenue requirement associated with DEF’s First SoBRA Tranche which includes the Sundance, Rattler, Half Moon, and Bailey Mill solar projects?
The estimated annual revenue requirement associated with DEF’s First SoBRA Tranche is $73.3 million.
Issue 3:
Should the Commission give staff administrative authority to approve tariffs and associated charges for DEF’s First SoBRA Tranche which includes the Sundance, Rattler, Half Moon, and Bailey Mill solar projects?
Yes. DEF should file tariffs and supporting calculations two months prior to the effective date of each solar base rate adjustment. DEF should also submit a letter to the Commission declaring the commercial operation date of each solar facility prior to any base rate changes going into effect.
Issue 4:
Should this docket be closed?
No. This docket shall remain open pending DEF’s letters confirming commercial operation. Once these letters have been received, this docket shall be closed administratively.
10**PAA Docket No. 20250036-EI – Petition for approval of purchased power agreement between Tampa Electric Company and Hillsborough County.
|
Critical Date(s): |
None |
||
|
Commissioners Assigned: |
All Commissioners |
||
|
Prehearing Officer: |
Fay |
||
|
Staff: |
ENG: Wooten, Ellis, King GCL: Augspurger, Marquez |
||
Issue 1:
Should the Commission approve cost recovery of the negotiated purchase power agreement between Tampa Electric Company and Hillsborough County?
Yes. Based on staff’s review, the negotiated PPA improves TECO’s fuel diversity with the addition of renewable energy and is cost-effective based on current forecasts, saving approximately $2.9 million in Net Present Value (NPV). The PPA has adequate security and performance guarantees to protect ratepayers in the event of a default or non-performance by Hillsborough.
Issue 2:
Should this docket be closed?
Yes. This docket should be closed upon issuance of a Consummating Order unless a person whose substantial interest are affected by the Commission’s decision files a protest within 21 days of the issuance of the proposed agency action.
11**PAA Docket No. 20240130-WS – Application for grandfather certificate to operate water and wastewater utility in Citrus County, by CSWR-Florida Utility Operating Company, LLC.
|
Critical Date(s): |
None |
||
|
Commissioners Assigned: |
All Commissioners |
||
|
Prehearing Officer: |
Graham |
||
|
Staff: |
ENG: Lewis, Ramos, Smith II AFD: Bardin, Cicchetti, Norris, Sewards ECO: Bruce, Sibley GCL: Brownless |
||
(Proposed Agency Action for Issues 3, 4, 5,
6, and 7.)
Issue 1:
Should CSWR-Florida Utility Operating Company, LLC’s application for grandfather water and wastewater certificates in Citrus County be acknowledged?
Yes. CSWR’s statutory right should be
acknowledged and the Utility should be granted Certificate Nos. 694-W, and
587-S, effective May 28, 2024, to serve the territory described in Attachment A
of staff’s memorandum dated May 21, 2025. The resultant order should serve as
CSWR’s certificate and should be retained by the Utility.
Issue 2:
What rates and charges should be approved for CSWR-Florida Utility Operating Company, LLC?
Of the Utility’s rates, charges, and deposits for water and wastewater services that were approved by Citrus County and in effect when Citrus County transferred jurisdiction to the Commission, the rates and charges shown on Schedule Nos. 1A and 1B, of staff’s memorandum dated May 21, 2025, should be approved. In addition, the Utility’s existing violation reconnection charge for water should be approved. This charge, as well as the rates and charges shown in Schedule Nos. 1A and 1B, 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 for water as well as the rates and charges shown in Schedule Nos. 1A and 1B, until authorized to change them by the Commission in a subsequent proceeding.
Issue 3:
Should the Utility’s current terms of payment be revised to conform to Rule 25-30.335(6), F.A.C.?
Yes. The Utility’s current terms of payment
should be revised to conform to Rule 25-30.335(6), F.A.C.
Issue 4:
What are the appropriate initial customer deposits for CSWR?
The appropriate initial customer deposit should be $40 for the residential 5/8 inch x 3/4 inch meter sizes for water and $60 for wastewater. The initial customer deposits for all other residential meter sizes and all general service meter sizes should be two times the average estimated bill for water and wastewater. Staff recommends that the residential rental deposit of $60 for water and $75 for wastewater be removed. The approved initial customer deposits 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 collect the approved deposits until authorized to change them by the Commission in a subsequent proceeding.
Issue 5:
What are the appropriate meter test deposit charges for CSWR?
Staff recommends that the appropriate meter test deposits be revised to conform to Rule 25-30.266(2)(a), F.A.C.
Issue 6:
What are the appropriate water and wastewater miscellaneous service charges for CSWR?
With the exception of the Utility’s existing violation reconnection charge for water (which is discussed in Issue 2), the appropriate miscellaneous service charges shown on Table 6-2 of staff’s memorandum dated May 21, 2025, 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.
Issue 7:
Should the Commission approve the removal of the CIAC Tax Impact charge from the Utility’s current tariff?
Yes. Staff recommends that the Commission approve the removal of the Utility’s CIAC Tax Impact charge from its current tariff.
Issue 8:
Should this docket be closed?
If no person whose substantial interests are
affected by the proposed agency action portion of this recommendation files a
protest within 21 days of the issuance of the order, a consummating order
should be issued. The docket should remain open for staff’s verification that
the revised tariff sheets have been filed by the Utility and approved by staff.
Once this action is complete, this docket should be closed administratively if
no timely protest has been filed.
12**PAA Docket No. 20240144-SU – Application for amendment of Certificate No. 104-S to extend service to Oak Stone Development in DeSoto County and petition for approval of special developer agreement and service availability charges, by Ni Florida, Inc.
|
Critical Date(s): |
None |
||
|
Commissioners Assigned: |
All Commissioners |
||
|
Prehearing Officer: |
Administrative |
||
|
Staff: |
ENG: Sanchez, Ellis ECO: Chambliss, Bruce GCL: Dose |
||
(Proposed Agency Action for Issue 2)
Issue 1:
Should the Commission approve Ni Florida's application for amendment of Certificate No. 104-S to extend its wastewater service to Oak Stone Development in DeSoto County?
Yes. The Commission should amend Certificate No. 104-S to include the territory as described in Attachment A of staff’s memorandum dated May 21, 2025, effective the date of the Commission’s vote. The resultant order should serve as Ni Florida’s amended certificate and should be retained by the Utility. The Utility should charge future customers in the territory added herein the rates and charges contained in its current tariffs until a change is authorized by the Commission in a subsequent proceeding.
Issue 2:
Should the Commission approve Ni Florida’s request for approval of the special developer agreement and service availability charge for the proposed service area?
Yes. Staff recommends that Ni Florida’s proposed special developer agreement and plant capacity charge of $4,140 for the proposed service area should be approved. The approved service availability charge should be effective for service rendered or connections made on or after the stamped approval date of the tariff pursuant to Rule 25-30.475, F.A.C.
Issue 3:
Should this docket be closed?
If no person whose substantial interests are affected by the proposed agency action portion of this recommendation files a protest within 21 days of the issuance of the order, a consummating order should be issued. The docket should remain open for staff’s verification that the revised tariff sheets have been filed by the Utility and approved by staff. Once this action is complete, this docket should be closed administratively.
13**PAA Docket No. 20250042-GU – Petition for approval of amendment to transportation service agreement between Peninsula Pipeline Company, Inc. and Florida City Gas.
|
Critical Date(s): |
None |
||
|
Commissioners Assigned: |
All Commissioners |
||
|
Prehearing Officer: |
Clark |
||
|
Staff: |
ECO: Hampson GCL: Dose |
||
Issue 1:
Should the Commission approve the proposed amendment to the transportation service agreement between Peninsula and FCG, dated February 14, 2025?
Yes, the Commission should approve the proposed amendment to the transportation service agreement between Peninsula and FCG, dated February 14, 2025. The proposed Total Monthly Reservation Charge for Segment I, as shown on Exhibits A and C to the transportation service agreement, is reasonable and meets the requirements of Section 368.105, F.S.
Issue 2:
Should this docket be closed?
Yes. If no protest is filled by a person whose substantial interest are affected within 21 days of the issuance of the Order, this docket should be closed upon the issuance of a Consummating Order.
14**PAA Docket No. 20240106-WU – Application for a revenue-neutral uniform water rate restructuring limited proceeding in Alachua, Duval, Leon, Okaloosa, and Washington Counties, by North Florida Community Water Systems, Inc.
|
Critical Date(s): |
None |
||
|
Commissioners Assigned: |
All Commissioners |
||
|
Prehearing Officer: |
Fay |
||
|
Staff: |
ECO: Bethea, Bruce, Hudson ENG: Watts GCL: Dose, J. Crawford |
||
Issue 1:
Should North Florida Community Water System’s request for a revenue-neutral restructuring limited proceeding for uniform rates be approved?
Yes. The Commission should approve NFCWS’s request for a revenue-neutral rate restructuring limited proceeding for uniform rate.
Issue 2:
What is the appropriate revenue requirement for restructuring the rates?
The appropriate revenue requirement for restructuring the water rates is $1,537,556.
Issue 3:
What are the appropriate rate structures and rates for the water systems?
The staff recommended rate structure and rates for the water systems are shown on Schedule No. 1 of staff’s memorandum dated May 21, 2025. The utility should file revised tariff sheets and a proposed customer notice to reflect the Commission-approved rates. The approved rates should be effective for service rendered on or after the stamped approval date on the tariff sheets pursuant to Rule 25-30.475(1), F.A.C. In addition, the approved rates should not be implemented until staff has approved the proposed customer notices and the notices have been received by the customers. The utility should provide proof of the date notices were given within 10 days of the date of the notice.
Issue 4:
What is the appropriate amount of rate case expense and what is the appropriate amount by which rates should be reduced four years after the published effective date to reflect the removal of the amortized rate case expense?
The appropriate amount of rate case expense is $9,425. The total rate case expense should be amortized over four years, resulting in an annual expense of $2,467, when grossed-up for RAFs. The rates should be reduced as shown on Schedule Nos. 1-A and 1-B of staff’s memorandum dated May 21, 2025, to remove rate case expense grossed-up for RAFs and amortized over a four-year period. In addition, for prior unamortized rate case expense, the rates should be reduced as shown on Schedule No. 2. Pursuant to Section 367.081(8), F.S., the decrease in rates should become effective immediately following the expiration of the rate case expense recovery period. NFCWS should be required to file revised tariffs and a proposed customer notice setting forth the lower rates and the reason for the reduction no later than one month prior to the actual date of the required rate reduction. If the utility files this reduction in conjunction with a price index or pass-through rate adjustment, the utility should file separate data for the price index and/or pass-through increase or decrease and the reduction in the rates due to the amortized rate case expense.
Issue 5:
Should this docket be closed?
No. If no person whose substantial interests are affected by the proposed agency action files a protest within 21 days of the issuance of the Proposed Agency Action Order, a consummating order should be issued. The docket should remain open for staff’s verification that the revised tariff sheets and customer notices have been filed by the utility and approved by staff. Upon staff’s approval of the tariff sheets and customer notices, this docket should be closed administratively.