FLORIDA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION
COMMISSION CONFERENCE AGENDA
CONFERENCE DATE AND
TIME: Tuesday, October 6,
2026, 9:30 a.m.
LOCATION: Betty Easley Conference Center, Joseph P. Cresse Hearing Room 148
DATE ISSUED: September 24, 2026
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 |
|
Hyperlink Infrastructure, LLC |
PAA B) Docket No. 20260115-EI – Application for authority to issue and sell securities during calendar years 2027 and 2028 pursuant to Section 366.04, F.S., and Chapter 25-8, F.A.C., by Florida Power & Light Company.
PAA C) Docket No. 20260135-EI – Application for authority to issue and sell securities for 12 months ending December 31, 2027, by Tampa Electric Company.
Recommendation: The Commission should approve the actions requested in the dockets referenced above and close Docket No. 20260082-TX. For monitoring purposes, Docket Nos. 20260115-EI and 20260135-EI should remain open until May 5, 2028, to allow the Companies time to file the required Consummation Reports.
2** Docket No. 20260112-TL – Request for partial relinquishment of eligible telecommunications carrier (ETC) designation in Florida, by Frontier Florida LLC.
|
Critical Date(s): |
None |
||
|
Commissioners Assigned: |
All Commissioners |
||
|
Prehearing Officer: |
Clark |
||
|
Staff: |
IDM: Mallow, Fogleman GCL: Hixon |
||
Issue 1:
Should the Commission approve Frontier’s request for partial relinquishment of its ETC designation?
Yes. The Commission should approve Frontier’s request for partial relinquishment of its ETC designation.
Issue 2:
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 order, this docket should be closed upon the issuance of a consummating order.
3** Docket No. 20260113-TL – Request for relinquishment of eligible telecommunications carrier (ETC) designation in Florida, by Frontier Communications of the South, LLC.
|
Critical Date(s): |
None |
||
|
Commissioners Assigned: |
All Commissioners |
||
|
Prehearing Officer: |
Clark |
||
|
Staff: |
IDM: Mallow, Fogleman GCL: Hixon |
||
Issue 1:
Should the Commission approve Frontier's request for relinquishment of its ETC designation?
Yes. The Commission should approve Frontier’s request to relinquish its ETC designation.
Issue 2: 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 order, this docket should be closed upon the issuance of a consummating order.
4 Docket No. 20260031-WS – Petition to establish rate base value of acquired system using alternative procedure, by Sunshine Water Services Company.
|
Critical Date(s): |
11/08/26 (90 days to render final order under Section 120.569(2)(1), F.S.) |
||
|
Commissioners Assigned: |
All Commissioners |
||
|
Prehearing Officer: |
Ortega |
||
|
Staff: |
AFD: Cohn, D. Buys, Cicchetti, D'Sa, Higgins, Lenberg, Souchik, Worrall ECO: Bruce, Hudson ENG: King, Ramirez-Abundez, Ramos, T. Thompson GCL: Brownless, J. Crawford, M. Thompson |
||
(Post-Hearing Decision - Participation is
Limited to Commissioners and Staff)
Issue 1:
Is the proposed transaction expected to result in improvements in the overall quality of service provided to Placid Lakes’ customers pursuant to Section 367.0811(9)(a), F.S.?
Yes, the proposed transaction should result in improvements in the overall quality of service provided to Placid Lakes’ customers through improved system operations and the provision of safe, adequate, and reliable service.
Is the proposed transaction expected to result in improvements in regulatory compliance for the Placid Lakes’ systems pursuant to Section 367.0811(9)(b), F.S.?
Yes, the proposed transaction should result in improvements in regulatory compliance for the Placid Lakes systems following completion of SWS’s proposed improvement projects.
Issue 3:
What reasonable performance goals, if any, should the Commission set, pursuant to Section 367.0811(10), F.S.?
None. Based upon staff’s evaluation of the Utility’s petition in Issues 1, 2, 4, and 7 through 11, staff does not believe any performance goals are necessary at this time. Should future circumstances demonstrate otherwise, the Commission has the authority to evaluate the Utility’s performance in subsequent proceedings.
Issue 4:
Is the proposed transaction under Section 367.0811(9)(c), F.S., expected to result in rate reductions or rate stability over a long-term period?
Yes. The proposed transaction under Section 367.0811(9)(c), F.S., is expected to result in rate stability over a long-term period.
Issue 5:
What is the projected rate impact of the proposed transaction under Section 367.0811(5)(e), F.S., over the next five years?
The projected rate impact of the proposed transaction under Section 367.081(5)(e) F.S., over the next five years is a decrease to the monthly residential bill for a 5/8-inch x 3/4-inch meter from $31.72 to $28.42 for water and $139.50 to $88.44 for wastewater.
Issue 6:
If the transaction under Section 367.0811(5)(h), F.S., is approved, should the Commission institute a rate stabilization plan for Placid Lakes Utilities, Inc.?
Staff recommends that if the proposed transaction under Section 367.0811(5)(h), F.S., is approved, the Commission should not institute a rate stabilization plan for Placid Lakes.
Issue 7:
Is the proposed transaction under Section 367.0811(9)(d), F.S., expected to provide cost efficiencies?
Yes. Staff recommends that the proposed acquisition of Placid Lakes is expected to provide cost efficiencies.
Issue 8:
Is the proposed transaction under Section 367.0811(9)(f), F.S., expected to generate economies of scale?
Yes. The proposed transaction under Section 367.0811(9)(f), F.S., is expected to generate economies of scale.
Issue 9:
Has Sunshine Water Services Company demonstrated that the purchase of Placid Lakes Utilities, Inc. is being made as part of an arms-length transaction under Section 367.0811(9)(e), F.S.?
The Asset Purchase
Agreement between SWS and Placid Lakes constitutes an arms-length transaction
because it involved two independent unrelated corporate entities with no shared
ownership or affiliation.
Issue 10:
Has Sunshine Water Services Company demonstrated that it has a greater access to capital than Placid Lakes Utilities, Inc. under Section 367.0811(9)(h), F.S.?
Yes. SWS has
demonstrated that it has greater access to capital than Placid Lakes under
Section 367.0811(9)(h), F.S.
Issue 11:
What is SWS’s NBV compared to the proposed rate base value of Placid Lakes Utilities, Inc. under Section 367.0811(9)(g), F.S.?
SWS’s net book value (NBV) as of December 31, 2024, is approximately $195,393,737. The proposed rate base value of Placid Lakes is $5,750,000, which represents approximately 2.9 percent of SWS’s NBV.
Issue 12:
What is the appropriate alternative rate base value if the proposed transaction is found to be in the public interest?
If the Commission finds the proposed acquisition of Placid Lakes by SWS to be in the public interest, the appropriate rate base value under Section 367.0811, F.S., is $5,750,000.
Issue 13:
Is the proposed transaction by Sunshine Water Services Company under Section 367.0811(9), F.S., in the public interest?
Yes. SWS has presented evidence demonstrating that all of the criteria listed in Section 367.0811(9), F.S, have been addressed and found to advance the purpose of the statute with minimum impact on SWS’s existing customers.
Issue 14:
Should this docket be closed?
No. This docket should be closed upon the expiration of the time for filing an appeal.
5 Docket No. 20260139-EI – Petition to
Implement 2027 subsequent year adjustment, by Tampa Electric Company.
|
Critical Date(s): |
11/03/26 (60-Day Suspension Date) |
||
|
Commissioners Assigned: |
All Commissioners |
||
|
Prehearing Officer: |
Administrative |
||
|
Staff: |
ECO: Nguyen, Hampson GCL: Brownless |
||
(Tariff Suspension - Participation is at
the Commission's Discretion)
Issue 1:
Should Tampa Electric Company’s proposed tariffs implementing the 2027 Subsequent Year Adjustment be suspended?
Yes. Staff recommends that the proposed tariffs be suspended to allow staff sufficient time to review the petition and gather all pertinent information in order to present the Commission with an informed recommendation on the tariff proposals.
Issue 2:
Should this docket be closed?
This docket should remain open pending the Commission’s decision on the proposed tariffs.
6** Docket No. 20260094-GU – Petition of Coastal Connect Services, LLC for approval of natural gas pipeline transmission company tariff and firm transportation service agreement.
|
Critical Date(s): |
11/08/26 (5-Month Effective Date) |
||
|
Commissioners Assigned: |
All Commissioners |
||
|
Prehearing Officer: |
Administrative |
||
|
Staff: |
ECO: Ward ENG: Brown GCL: Marquez, Stiller |
||
(Tariff Filing)
Issue 1:
What action, if any, should the Commission take regarding Florida City Gas’s Motion for Leave to Intervene?
None. The Motion for Leave to Intervene is premature because of this docket’s current procedural posture. Only after the Commission votes and an order is rendered can a substantially affected person file a petition requesting an administrative hearing regarding that proposed agency action. And until and unless the proposed agency action order is protested, there is no pending administrative proceeding in which a substantially affected person may petition to intervene. However, at the Agenda Conference, the Commission may permit FCG an opportunity to be heard in its capacity as an interested person.
Issue 2:
Should the Commission approve Coastal Connect Services, LLC’s natural gas pipeline transmission company tariff?
Yes, the proposed tariff should be approved pursuant to Chapter 368, F.S. Upon the issuance of the consummating order in this docket, CCS should begin to pay regulatory assessment fees, as required by Rule 25-7.101, Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.). CCS should also file Annual Reports as required by Rule 25-7.100, F.A.C. Within 30 days after executing a transportation service agreement, CCS and the customer should file an affidavit with the Commission, as required by Section 368.105(3), F.S. Upon request by the Commission, CCS should make available its negotiated Transportation Service Agreements.
Issue 3:
What action, if any, should the Commission take regarding Coastal Connect Services, LLC’s proposed Firm Transportation Service Agreement?
None. Staff believes that because CCS and SpaceX filed affidavits that satisfy the requirements of Section 368.105(3), F.S., the rates contained in the Firm Transportation Service Agreement are deemed to be just and reasonable and approved by the Commission by operation of law. Therefore, staff recommends that no action by the Commission is needed at this time.
Issue 4:
Should this docket be closed?
7 Docket No. 20260133-GU – Petition for approval of GUARD true-up cost recovery factors, by Florida Public Utilities Company.
|
Critical Date(s): |
10/31/2026 (60-Day Suspension Date) |
||
|
Commissioners Assigned: |
All Commissioners |
||
|
Prehearing Officer: |
Administrative |
||
|
Staff: |
ECO: Hampson GCL: M. Thompson |
||
(Tariff Suspension - Participation is at
the Commission's Discretion)
Issue 1:
Should the Commission suspend FPUC's proposed GUARD cost recovery factors and associated tariff for the period January to December 2027?
Yes. Staff recommends that FPUC's proposed GUARD cost recovery factors and associated tariff for the period January to December 2027 be suspended to allow staff sufficient time to review the petition and gather all pertinent information in order to present the Commission with an informed recommendation on the proposed tariff modifications.
Issue 2:
Should this docket be closed?
This docket should remain open pending the Commission’s decision on the proposed tariffs.
8 Docket No. 20260134-GU – Petition for approval of safety, access, and facility enhancement program true-up and 2027 cost recovery factors, by Florida City Gas.
|
Critical Date(s): |
10/31/26 (60-Day Suspension Date) |
||
|
Commissioners Assigned: |
All Commissioners |
||
|
Prehearing Officer: |
Administrative |
||
|
Staff: |
ECO: Kelley GCL: M. Thompson |
||
(Tariff Suspension - Participation is at
the Commission's Discretion)
Issue 1:
Should the Commission suspend FCG's proposed SAFE tariffs for the period of January through December 2027?
Yes. Staff recommends that FCG’s proposed SAFE tariffs for the period January through December 2027 be suspended to allow staff sufficient time to review the petition and gather all pertinent information in order to present the Commission with an informed recommendation on the tariff proposals.
Issue 2:
Should this docket be closed?
No. This docket should remain open pending the Commission’s decision on the proposed tariffs.
9 Docket No. 20260136-GU – Petition for approval of 2025 true-up, projected 2026 true-up; and 2027 revenue requirements and surcharges associated with cast iron/bare steel pipe replacement rider; and request to extend rider from 1/28 through 12/31, by Peoples Gas System, Inc.
|
Critical Date(s): |
10/31/26 (60-Day Suspension Date) |
||
|
Commissioners Assigned: |
All Commissioners |
||
|
Prehearing Officer: |
Administrative |
||
|
Staff: |
ECO: Ward GCL: Farooqi |
||
(Tariff Suspension - Participation is at
the Commission's Discretion)
Issue 1:
Should the Commission suspend Peoples’ proposed CI/BSR rates and associated tariff for the period January through December 2027?
Yes. Staff recommends that Peoples’ proposed CI/BSR rates and associated tariff for the period January through December 2027 be suspended to allow staff sufficient time to review the petition and gather all pertinent information in order to present the Commission with an informed recommendation on the tariff proposal.
Issue 2:
Should this docket be closed?
No. This docket should remain open pending the Commission’s decision on the proposed tariffs.
10 Docket No. 20260138-GU – Joint petition for approval of swing service rider for Florida City Gas and approval of rates for January 2027 through December 2027 for Florida Public Utilities Company and Florida City Gas, by Florida City Gas and Florida Public Utilities Company.
|
Critical Date(s): |
10/31/26 (60-Day Suspension Date) |
||
|
Commissioners Assigned: |
All Commissioners |
||
|
Prehearing Officer: |
Administrative |
||
|
Staff: |
ECO: Nguyen GCL: Rauch, J. Crawford |
||
(Tariff Suspension - Participation is at
the Commission's Discretion)
Issue 1:
Should the Commission suspend FPUC and FCG’s joint proposed Swing Service Rider rates and associated tariffs for the period January through December 2027?
Yes. Staff recommends that FPUC and FCG’s joint proposed Swing Service Rider rates and associated tariffs for the period January through December 2027 be suspended to allow staff sufficient time to review the petition and gather all pertinent information in order to present the Commission with an informed recommendation on the tariff proposals.
Issue 2:
Should this docket be closed?
No. This docket should remain open pending the Commission decision on the proposed revised tariffs.
11**PAA Docket No. 20250122-WS – Application for staff-assisted rate case in Highlands County, by Sun Communities Acquisitions, LLC d/b/a Buttonwood Bay Utilities.
|
Critical Date(s): |
03/03/27 (15-Month Effective Date (SARC)) |
||
|
Commissioners Assigned: |
All Commissioners |
||
|
Prehearing Officer: |
La Rosa |
||
|
Staff: |
ECO: Sibley, Bruce AFD: Cohn, Higgins, Worrall ENG: Davis, Ellis, King, Ramos GCL: Sparks, Farooqi |
||
(Proposed Agency Action - Except for Issues
13, 14, and 15)
Is the quality of service provided by Buttonwood Bay satisfactory?
No. While Buttonwood Bay’s water product is in compliance with the rules and regulations of the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (DEP), staff recommends that the Utility’s attempts to address customer satisfaction have not been adequate based on the recordkeeping, reporting, and communications of the Utility. Staff recommends the quality of service be considered unsatisfactory, return on equity be reduced by 50 basis points, and the Utility be required to file a plan outlining how it will improve its recordkeeping and customer communications within 30 days of the Order becoming final.
Are the infrastructure and operating conditions of Buttonwood Bay’s water and wastewater system in compliance with DEP regulations?
Yes. Buttonwood Bay’s water and wastewater systems are in compliance with DEP regulations, with the exception of the wastewater system’s permit which is currently subject to a DEP Administrative Order until the plant achieves full compliance with the DEP’s standards for effluent quality related to nitrogen and phosphorus by March 1, 2027.
What are the used and useful (U&U) percentages of Buttonwood Bay’s water treatment plant (WTP) and water storage, wastewater treatment plant (WWTP), water distribution, and wastewater collection systems?
Buttonwood Bay’s WTP, water storage, water distribution system, WWTP, and wastewater collection system should all be considered 100 percent used and useful. An 18.03 percent adjustment should be made to reduce the operating expenses for chemicals and purchased power for EUW; and, consistent with Issue 1, the Utility should be required to file a plan, within 30 days of the Commission’s Order becoming final, outlining how it will improve its recordkeeping as it relates to flushing and EUW.
What is the appropriate average test year rate base for Buttonwood Bay?
What is the appropriate return on equity and overall rate of return for Buttonwood Bay?
The appropriate return on equity (ROE) is 8.58 percent with a range of 7.58 percent to 9.58 percent. The appropriate overall rate of return is 8.58 percent.
What are the appropriate amount of test year operating revenues for Buttonwood Bay’s water and wastewater system?
The appropriate test year operating revenues for Buttonwood Bay are $183,124 for the water system and $157,265 for the wastewater system.
What is the appropriate amount of operating expenses for Buttonwood Bay?
The appropriate amount of operating expense for Buttonwood Bay is $223,621 for water and $158,692 for wastewater.
Does Buttonwood Bay meet the criteria for application of the operating ratio methodology?
No, Buttonwood Bay does not meet the criteria for application of the operating ratio methodology for calculating the revenue requirement.
What is the appropriate revenue requirement for Buttonwood Bay?
The appropriate revenue requirement is $286,851 for water and $205,091 for wastewater, resulting in an annual increase of $103,727 (56.64 percent) for water and $47,826 (30.41 percent) for wastewater.
What are the appropriate rate structure and rates for Buttonwood Bay’s water and wastewater system?
The recommended rate structure and monthly water and wastewater rates are shown on Schedule Nos. 4-A and 4B of staff’s memorandum dated September 24, 2026. 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 notice and the notice has been received by the customers. The Utility should provide proof of the date notice was given within 10 days of the date of the notice.
Should Buttonwood Bay’s miscellaneous service charges be revised to conform to Rule 25-30.460, F.A.C.?
Yes. Staff recommends that the miscellaneous service charges be revised
to comply with Rule 25-30.460, F.A.C. The Utility should be required to file a
proposed customer notice to reflect the Commission-approved charges. The
approved charge should be effective on or after the stamped approval date on
the tariff sheet pursuant to Rule 25-30.475(2), F.A.C. In addition, the
approved charge should not be implemented until staff has approved the proposed
customer notice and the notice has been received by customers. The Utility should
provide proof of the date notice was given by affidavit no less than 10 days
after the date of notice.
Should Buttonwood Bay’s service availability charges be revised?
Yes. The Utility’s existing system capacity charges for
water and wastewater should be discontinued. Staff recommends that the existing
meter installation charges remain in effect. The Utility should file a revised
tariff sheet to reflect the Commission-approved charges. The approved charges
shall be effective for connections made on or after the stamped approval date
on the tariff sheet. In addition, the approved charges should not be
implemented until staff has approved the proposed customer notice and the
notice has been received by property owners who requested service beginning 12
months prior to the establishment of this docket. The Utility shall provide proof
of noticing within 10 days of rendering the approved notice.
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 rates should be reduced, as shown on Schedule Nos. 4-A and 4-B of staff’s memorandum dated September 24, 2026, to remove rate case expense grossed-up for RAFs and amortized over a four-year period. 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. Buttonwood Bay should be required to file revised tariffs and a proposed customer notice setting forth the lower rates and rationale no later than one month prior to the effective date of the new rates. If the Utility files revised tariffs reflecting this reduction in conjunction with a price index or pass-through rate adjustment, separate data should be filed for the price index and/or pass-through increase and the reduction in the rates due to the amortized rate case expense.
Should the recommended rates be approved for Buttonwood Bay on temporary basis, subject to refund with interest, in the event of a protest filed by a party other than the Utility?
If the recommended rates are approved on a temporary basis, the rates collected by the Utility should be subject to the refund provisions discussed in the staff analysis portion of staff’s memorandum dated September 24, 2026. In addition, after the increased rates are in effect, pursuant to Rule 25-30.360(6), F.A.C., the Utility should file reports with the Commission’s Office of Commission Clerk no later than the 20th of each month indicating both the current monthly and total amount subject to refund at the end of the preceding month. The report filed should also indicate the status of the security being used to guarantee repayment of any potential refund.
Should Buttonwood Bay be required to notify the Commission within 90 days of an effective order finalizing this docket, that it has adjusted its books for all the applicable NARUC USOA?
Yes. Buttonwood Bay should be required to notify the Commission, in writing, that it has adjusted its books in accordance with the Commission’s decision. The Utility should submit a letter within 90 days of the Commission’s final order in this docket, confirming that the adjustments to all applicable NARUC USOA primary accounts have been made to the Utility’s books and records. In the event the Utility needs additional time to complete the adjustments, a notice providing good cause should be filed not less than seven days prior to the deadline requesting an extension. Upon providing a notice of good cause, staff should be given administrative authority to grant an extension of up to 60 days.
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 order, a consummating order should be issued. The docket should remain open for staff’s verification that the revised tariff sheets and customer notice have been filed by the Utility and approved by staff, and that the required plan outlining how the Utility will improve its recordkeeping and customer communications within 30 days of the Order becoming final has been filed and approved by staff.
12**PAA Docket No. 20260098-WS – Application for a limited proceeding to increase wastewater rates and service availability charges in Polk County, by NC Real Estate Projects, LLC d/b/a Grenelefe Utility.
|
Critical Date(s): |
10/20/26 (90-day statutory deadline to address rule waiver request) |
||
|
Commissioners Assigned: |
All Commissioners |
||
|
Prehearing Officer: |
Ortega |
||
|
Staff: |
ECO: Sibley, Bruce, Hudson, McClelland AFD: Bardin, Norris, Sewards, Vogel ENG: Brown, King, Ramirez-Abundez, Ramos, Thompson GCL: Imig, Stiller |
||
Should the Commission grant Grenelefe’s petition for a waiver of Rule 25-30.445(6), F.A.C.?
Yes. Grenelefe has demonstrated that the purpose of the underlying statute will be achieved by other means and that the application of the rule would create a substantial hardship or would violate the principles of fairness.
Issue 2:
Should this docket be closed?
If no person whose substantial interests are affected by the proposed agency action files a protest within 21 days of the issuance of the order, a consummating order should be issued. If the utility’s petition for a rule waiver is granted, then the docket should remain open pending the Commission’s decision regarding Grenelefe’s application for a limited proceeding. However, if the utility’s petition for a rule waiver is denied, then the docket should be closed upon the issuance of the consummating order.
13** Docket No. 20260130-WU – Request for establishment of a backflow testing charge, meter tampering charge and investigation of meter tampering charge, by North Florida Community Water Systems.
|
Critical Date(s): |
10/30/2026 (60-Day statutory deadline to approve, deny, or suspend tariff) |
||
|
Commissioners Assigned: |
All Commissioners |
||
|
Prehearing Officer: |
Administrative |
||
|
Staff: |
ECO: McClelland, Bruce GCL: Rauch, J. Crawford |
||
(Tariff Decision)
Issue 1:
Should the Commission approve NFCWS’ proposed tariff sheets to implement a backflow prevention device charge and the backflow prevention testing requirements?
Yes. NFCWS’ proposed tariff sheets, Original Sheet No. 16.5 and Original Sheet No. 16.6, shown on Attachment A of staff’s memorandum dated September 24, 2026, are appropriate and should be approved. The charge should be effective on or after the stamped approval date on the tariff pursuant to Rule 25-30.475, Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.). In addition, the approved charge should not be implemented until staff has approved the proposed customer notice and the notice has been received by the customers. The Utility should provide proof of the date notice was given within 10 days of the date of the notice.
Issue 2:
Should NFCWS’ request for meter tampering charge and investigation of meter tampering charges be approved?
Yes. Staff recommends that NFCWS’ proposed tariff, Original Sheet No. 16.7, shown on Attachment B of staff’s memorandum dated September 24, 2026, indicating a meter a tampering charge at actual cost and the investigation of meter tampering charge of $68.46 should be approved. The Utility should be required to file a proposed 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 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 the proposed customer is adequate.
Issue 3:
Should this docket be closed?
If a timely protest is filed, the tariff should not be implemented while the protest is pending. If no protest is filed by a person whose substantial interests are affected within 21 days of the issuance of the Order, this docket should be closed upon the issuance of a Consummating Order.
14** Docket No. 20260132-WU – Request for tariff filing revisions for backflow preventor devices testing requirements, by Florida Community Water Systems.
|
Critical Date(s): |
10/30/26 (60-Day statutory deadline to approve, deny, or suspend tariff) |
||
|
Commissioners Assigned: |
All Commissioners |
||
|
Prehearing Officer: |
Administrative |
||
|
Staff: |
ECO: McClelland, Bruce, Hudson, Sibley GCL: Rauch, J. Crawford |
||
(Tariff Decision)
Issue 1:
Should FCWS’ request for revisions to its backflow prevention device annual testing requirement tariff sheet be approved?
Yes. FCWS’ proposed tariff sheet shown on Attachment A of staff’s memorandum dated September 24, 2026, should be approved. The approved tariff should be effective for service rendered on or after the stamped approval date on the tariff pursuant to Rule 25-30.475, Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C). In addition, the approved tariff should not be implemented until staff has approved the proposed customer notice and the notice has been received by the customers. The Utility should provide proof of the date notice was given within 10 days of the date of the notice.
Issue 2:
Should this docket be closed?
If a timely protest is filed, the tariff should not be implemented while the protest is pending. If no protest is filed by a person whose substantial interests are affected within 21 days of the issuance of the Order, this docket should be closed upon the issuance of a Consummating Order.