FLORIDA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION COMMISSION CONFERENCE AGENDA NOTICE

Transcription

1 FLORIDA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION COMMISSION CONFERENCE AGENDA CONFERENCE DATE AND TIME: Tuesday,, 9:30 a.m. LOCATION: Betty Easley Conference Center, Joseph P. Cresse Hearing Room 148 DATE ISSUED: November 14, 2014 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 agenda item number. To participate informally, affected persons need only appear at the agenda conference and request the opportunity to address the Commission on an item listed on 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 Rule , F.A.C., concerning Agenda Conference participation and Rule , F.A.C., concerning oral argument. Agendas, staff recommendations, and vote sheets are available from the PSC Web site, by selecting Conferences & Meeting Agendas and Commission Conferences of the FPSC. Once filed, a verbatim transcript of the will be available from this page by selecting the conference date, or by selecting Clerk's Office and the Item's docket number, (you can then advance to the Docket Details page and the Document Filings Index for that particular docket). An official vote of "move staff" denotes that the Item's recommendations were approved. If you have any questions, contact the Office of Commission Clerk at (850) or e- mail the clerk at Clerk@psc.state.fl.us. In accordance with the American 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 , via (Voice) or (TDD), Florida Relay Service. Assistive Listening Devices are available at the Office of Commission Clerk, Gerald L. Gunter Building, Room 152. The has a live video broadcast the day of the conference, which is available from the PSC s Web site. Upon completion of the conference, the video will be available from the Web site by selecting Conferences & Meeting Agendas, then Audio and Video Event Coverage.

2 Table of Contents Agenda 1** Consent Agenda Docket No EI Fuel and purchased power cost recovery clause with generating performance incentive factor Docket No EI Fuel and purchased power cost recovery clause with generating performance incentive factor **PAA 5**PAA 6**PAA 7**PAA Docket No WU Request to remove the fines imposed for the delay of filing annual reports for Cedar Acres, Inc Docket No EI Petition for approval of base rate adjustment for extended power uprate project by Florida Power & Light Company Docket No SU Application to transfer wastewater facilities and Certificate No. 137-S in Brevard County from Colony Park Utilities, Inc. to Colony Park Development Utilities, LLC Docket No EI Petition for approval of 2014 nuclear decommissioning study, by Duke Energy Florida, Inc ** Docket No GU Joint petition for approval of Gas Reliability Infrastructure Program (GRIP) by Florida Public Utilities Company and the Florida Division of Chesapeake Utilities Corporation **PAA 10**PAA Docket No GU 2014 depreciation study by Florida Public Utilities Company Docket No SU Application for limited proceeding rate increase in Polk County by West Lakeland Wastewater, Inc Docket No WU Application for staff-assisted rate case in Brevard County by Brevard Waterworks, Inc ** Docket No WU Request for approval of water rate tariff for a revision in customer billing from quarterly billing to monthly billing by W.B.B. Utilities, Inc. in Lake County **PAA Docket No EU Joint petition for approval of amendment to territorial agreement between the City of Tallahassee and Talquin Electric Cooperative, Inc ** Docket No GU Petition for approval of Cast Iron/Bare Steel Pipe Replacement Rider (Rider CI/BSR), by Peoples Gas System ** Docket No EI Petition for approval of revised facilities rental agreement by Tampa Electric Company i -

3 Table of Contents Agenda 16 Docket No WS Application for increase in water/wastewater rates in Highlands County by HC Waterworks, Inc **PAA Docket No WS Application for staff-assisted rate case in Lake County by Lakeside Waterworks, Inc Docket No EI Commission review of numeric conservation goals (Florida Power & Light Company). Docket No EI Commission review of numeric conservation goals (Duke Energy Florida, Inc.). Docket No EI Commission review of numeric conservation goals (Tampa Electric Company). Docket No EI Commission review of numeric conservation goals (Gulf Power Company). Docket No EM Commission review of numeric conservation goals (JEA). Docket No EM Commission review of numeric conservation goals (Orlando Utilities Commission). Docket No EI Commission review of numeric conservation goals (Florida Public Utilities Company) **PAA Docket No EI Petition to modify transmission structure inspection cycle, by Tampa Electric Company Docket No WS Application for increase in water/wastewater rates in Pasco County by Labrador Utilities, Inc **PAA 22**PAA Docket No WU Application for approval of transfer of Certificate No. 339-W from Brendenwood Utilities, LLC. to Brendenwood Waterworks, Inc. in Lake County Docket No WU Application for approval of transfer of Certificate No. 539-W from Raintree Harbor Utilities, LLC to Raintree Waterworks, Inc. in Lake County Docket No EM Petition for declaratory statement or other relief regarding the expiration of the Vero Beach electric service franchise agreement, by the Board of County Commissioners, Indian River County, Florida ** Docket No PU Amendment of Rule , F.A.C., Records and Reports in General, Rule , F.A.C., Location and Preservation of Records, Rule , F.A.C., Records and Reports in General, Rule F.A.C., Location and Preservation of Records, and Rule , F.A.C., Capitalization Versus Expensing ii -

4 1** Consent Agenda PAA A) Applications for Certificates of Authority to Provide Telecommunications Service. DOCKET NO. COMPANY NAME TX Integrated Path Communications, LLC TX GC Pivotal, LLC d/b/a Global Capacity PAA B) Request for Approval of Transfer of a Certificate of Necessity or Authority. DOCKET NO. COMPANY NAME TX VoDa Networks, Inc. PAA C) Application for Certificate of Authority to Provide Telecommunications Service. DOCKET NO. COMPANY NAME TX Talk America Services, LLC PAA D) Application for Certificate of Authority to Provide Pay Telephone Service. DOCKET NO. COMPANY NAME TC Lattice Incorporated d/b/a Lattice, Inc. of FL - 1 -

5 1** Consent Agenda (Continued from previous page) E) Docket No GU - Florida City Gas (Company) seeks authority to finance its on-going cash requirements through its participation and borrowings from and investments in AGL Resources Inc.'s (AGLR) Utility Money Pool during Florida City Gas is a division of Pivotal Utility Holdings, Inc., which is a whollyowned subsidiary of AGLR. The maximum aggregate short-term borrowings by Pivotal Utility Holdings, Inc.'s three utilities (Elizabethtown Gas, Elkton Gas, and Florida City Gas) from the Utility Money Pool during 2015 will not exceed $800 million. Florida City Gas states that its share of these borrowings will not exceed $250 million. In connection with this application, Florida City Gas confirms that the capital raised pursuant to this application will be used in connection with the regulated natural gas operations of Florida City Gas and not the unregulated activities of the utility or its affiliates. Staff has reviewed the Company s projected capital expenditures. The amount requested by the Company exceeds its expected capital expenditures. The additional amount requested exceeding the projected capital expenditures allows for financial flexibility for the purposes enumerated in the Company s petition as well as unexpected events such as hurricanes, financial market disruptions, and other unforeseen circumstances. Staff believes the requested amounts are appropriate. Staff recommends the Company s petition to issue securities be approved. Recommendation: For monitoring purposes, Docket No GU should remain open until April 29, 2016, to allow the Company time to file the required Consummation Report. The Commission should approve the action requested in Docket Nos TX, TX, TX, TX and TC and close these dockets

6 2 Docket No EI Fuel and purchased power cost recovery clause with generating performance incentive factor. Critical Date(s): None Prehearing Officer: Brown Staff: AFD: Maurey GCL: Barrera (Motion to Dismiss, Participation dependent on Issue No. 1.) Issue 1: Should oral argument on OPC s Motion to Dismiss be granted? Recommendation: Oral argument should be granted at the Commission s discretion. If oral argument is granted, 15 minutes for each side appears reasonable. Issue 2: Should OPC s motion to dismiss be granted? Recommendation: No. The Commission has jurisdiction over the subject matter of FPL s petition under its broad statutory authority to set rates for a public utility. The fuel and purchased power cost recovery clause with generating performance incentive factor is a rate proceeding and FPL s petition requests a prudence determination for its gas reserve project and a ruling that the costs are recoverable through the fuel and purchased power cost recovery clause. The Commission does not have to assert jurisdiction over unregulated entities to rule on the merits of the petition. The issues raised in the motion mainly address the prudence of FPL s request and may be more appropriately presented as part of OPC s position on the hearing issues

7 3 Docket No EI Fuel and purchased power cost recovery clause with generating performance incentive factor. Critical Date(s): None Prehearing Officer: Brown Staff: AFD: Barrett, Lester, Mouring ENG: Matthews, Vickery GCL: Barrera, Mapp, Young (Post-Hearing Decision - Participation is Limited to Commissioners and Staff.) Issue 1C: Has Duke made appropriate adjustments, if any are needed, to account for replacement power costs associated with April 2014 forced outage (transformer fire) at the Bartow Unit? If appropriate adjustments are needed and have not been made, what adjustment(s) should be made? Recommendation: Yes. Duke has removed approximately $12.7 million from retail fuel expense, which is the appropriate adjustment to account for replacement power costs associated with the April 2014 forced outage (transformer fire) at the Bartow unit. Issue 10: What are the appropriate total fuel adjustment true-up amounts to be collected/refunded from January 2015 to December 2015? Recommendation: Given the 2013 final true-up of an over-recovery of $27,234,093 and the 2014 actual/estimated true-up of an under-recovery of $100,906,296, the appropriate amount to be collected by Duke in 2015 is a net under-recovery of $73,672,203. Duke has correctly made the necessary adjustments and refunds pursuant to the Revised and Restated Stipulation and Settlement Agreement that the Commission approved by Order No. PSC FOF-EI. Issue 11: What are the appropriate projected total fuel and purchased power cost recovery amounts for the period January 2015 through December 2015? Recommendation: The appropriate projected total fuel and purchased power cost recovery amount for Duke is $1,638,735,421. Duke has correctly made the necessary adjustments and refunds pursuant to the Revised and Restated Stipulation and Settlement Agreement that the Commission approved by Order No. PSC FOF-EI

8 4**PAA Docket No WU Request to remove the fines imposed for the delay of filing annual reports for Cedar Acres, Inc. Critical Date(s): None Prehearing Officer: Administrative Staff: AFD: Polk, Fletcher GCL: Young Issue 1: Should the Commission approve the request to waive the fines imposed for the delay of filing annual reports for Cedar Acres, Inc.? Recommendation: Yes. Cedar Acres request to waive the fines imposed for the delay of filing the Utility s annual reports for 2008, 2009, 2010, and 2011 should be granted. Issue 2: Should this docket be closed? Recommendation: 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

9 5**PAA Docket No EI Petition for approval of base rate adjustment for extended power uprate project by Florida Power & Light Company. Critical Date(s): None Prehearing Officer: Brisé Staff: AFD: Fletcher ECO: Draper GCL: Young Issue 1: Should the Commission approve FPL's base rate revenue requirement reduction of $761,690 associated with the final true-up of the Company s EPU project? Recommendation: Yes. The Commission should approve FPL's base rate revenue requirement reduction of $761,690 associated with the final true-up of the Company s EPU project. Issue 2: What is the appropriate effective date of FPL's revised bate rates? Recommendation: If the Commission approves the staff recommendation in Issue 1, the revised base rates should be implemented with the first billing cycle for 2015, which falls on January 2, Staff s recommended base rate revenue requirement reduction should be allocated among the various rate classes consistent with the Cost of Service study approved by the Commission in Order No. PSC S-EI. 1 Furthermore, FPL should file revised tariff sheets to reflect the revised base energy charges to implement the Commission vote in Issue 1 for administrative approval by staff prior to their effective date. Issue 3: Should this docket be closed? Recommendation: 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. FPL should file revised tariff sheets to reflect the base energy charges implemented by the Commission s vote on Issue 1 for administrative approval by staff prior to the effective date of the new rates. Once these actions are complete, this docket should be closed administratively. 1 See Order No. PSC S-EI, issued January 14, 2013, in Docket No EI, In re: Petition for increase in rates by Florida Power & Light Company

10 6**PAA Docket No SU Application to transfer wastewater facilities and Certificate No. 137-S in Brevard County from Colony Park Utilities, Inc. to Colony Park Development Utilities, LLC. Critical Date(s): None Prehearing Officer: Balbis Staff: AFD: Norris, Fletcher ECO: Hudson ENG: Watts GCL: Lawson IDM: Roberts (Proposed Agency Action for Issue 2.) Issue 1: Should the Commission approve the transfer of Colony Park Utilities, Inc. and wastewater Certificate No. 137-S to Colony Park Development Utilities, LLC? Recommendation: Yes. The transfer of Colony Park Utilities, Inc. (Colony Park or Utility) wastewater system and the transfer of Certificate No. 137-S to Colony Park Development Utilities, LLC (Colony Park Development or Buyer) is in the public interest and should be approved effective the date of the Commission vote. The territory being transferred is described in Attachment A of staff s memorandum dated November 13, The resultant order should serve as Colony Park Development s wastewater certificate and should be retained as such. The Utility s existing rates and charges should remain in effect until a change is authorized by the Commission in a subsequent proceeding. The tariff pages reflecting the transfer should be effective on or after the stamped approval date on the tariff sheets, pursuant to Rule (1), Florida Administrative Code, (F.A.C.). Colony Park Development will be responsible for annual reports and regulatory assessment fees for 2014 and all future years. Issue 2: What is the appropriate net book value for Colony Park Development for transfer purposes, and should an acquisition adjustment be approved? Recommendation: The net book value (NBV) of Colony Park Development s wastewater system for transfer purposes is $56,933, as of September 27, An acquisition adjustment should not be included in rate base. Within 30 days of the final order, Colony Park Development should be required to provide general ledgers that show its books have been updated to reflect the Commission-approved balances as of September 27, 2012, along with a statement that these adjustments will also be reflected in the Utility s 2014 Annual Report

11 6**PAA Docket No SU Application to transfer wastewater facilities and Certificate No. 137-S in Brevard County from Colony Park Utilities, Inc. to Colony Park Development Utilities, LLC. (Continued from previous page) Issue 3: Should Colony Park be required to show cause for why it should not be fined for an apparent violation of Section (1), F.S., for failing to obtain Commission approval prior to the transfer of its assets? Recommendation: No. Staff recommends that the Utility's apparent violation of Section (1), F.S. does not rise to the level which warrants the initiation of a show cause proceeding. Therefore, Colony Park should not be required to show cause for failing to obtain Commission approval prior to closing on the sale of its facilities. Issue 4: Should this docket be closed? Recommendation: Yes. If no protest to the proposed agency action issue is filed by a substantially affected person within 21 days of the date of the order, the docket should be closed administratively after Colony Park Development has provided proof that its general ledgers have been updated to reflect the Commission-approved balances net book values and balances as of September 27,

12 7**PAA Docket No EI Petition for approval of 2014 nuclear decommissioning study, by Duke Energy Florida, Inc. Critical Date(s): None Prehearing Officer: Balbis Staff: ECO: Higgins AFD: Holmes, Springer, Cicchetti GCL: Young Issue 1: What is the estimated cost to decommissioning the CR3 nuclear power plant in 2013 dollars? Recommendation: Staff recommends the Commission find the total estimated cost to decommission the Crystal River Nuclear Power Plant in the amount of $1,180,128,000 in 2013 dollars is reasonable. This total cost amount, inclusive of a 13.5 percent contingency allowance, is comprised of three categories of costs; license termination costs of $861,902,000, spent fuel management costs of $265,505,000, and site restoration costs of $52,721,000. Issue 2: What is the appropriate annual accrual in equal dollar amounts necessary to recover the future decommissioning costs of the CR3 nuclear power plant for DEF? Recommendation: Staff recommends a continuation of the suspension of the accrual for nuclear decommissioning as approved by the Commission in Order Nos. PSC AS-EI, 2 PSC S-EI, 3 and PSC PAA-EI. 4 Accordingly, the appropriate jurisdictional annual accrual amount necessary to recover future decommissioning costs for the CR3 nuclear unit is zero. Additionally, staff recommends that the assumptions included in DEF s 2014 decommissioning study to determine the annual accrual are reasonable. Issue 3: What should be the effective dates for adjusting the annual decommissioning accrual amount? Recommendation: If the staff recommendations in Issues 1 and 2 are approved, there is no change to the current approved zero decommissioning accrual. Therefore, an effective date for adjusting the annual decommissioning accrual is moot. 2 See Order No. PSC AS-EI, issued May 14, 2002, in Docket No EI, In re: Review of Florida Power Corporation's earnings, including effects of proposed acquisition of Florida Power Corporation by Carolina Power & Light. 3 See Order No. PSC S-EI, issued September 28, 2005, in Docket No EI, In re: Petition for rate increase by Progress Energy Florida, Inc. 4 See Order No. PSC PAA-EI, issued April 30, 2012, in Docket No EI, In re: Petition for approval of nuclear decommissioning cost study, by Progress Energy Florida, Inc

13 7**PAA Docket No EI Petition for approval of 2014 nuclear decommissioning study, by Duke Energy Florida, Inc. (Continued from previous page) Issue 4: When should DEF file its next nuclear decommissioning study? Recommendation: DEF s next decommissioning cost study for CR3 should be filed no later than March 21, Issue 5: Should this docket be closed? Recommendation: Yes. If no person whose substantial interests are affected by the Commission s 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

14 8** Docket No GU Joint petition for approval of Gas Reliability Infrastructure Program (GRIP) by Florida Public Utilities Company and the Florida Division of Chesapeake Utilities Corporation. Critical Date(s): 04/27/15 (8-Month Effective Date) Prehearing Officer: Administrative Staff: ECO: Ollila GCL: Young Issue 1: Should the Commission approve FPUC's and Chesapeake's proposed GRIP surcharge factors for 2015? Recommendation: Yes. FPUC s and Chesapeake s calculations of the GRIP surcharge factors are reasonable and accurate. Issue 2: Should this docket be closed? Recommendation: Yes. If Issue 1 is approved, the tariffs should become effective on January 1, If a protest is filed within 21 days of the issuance of the order, the tariffs should remain in effect, with any revenues held subject to refund, pending resolution of the protest. If no timely protest is filed, this docket should be closed upon the issuance of a consummating order

15 9**PAA Docket No GU 2014 depreciation study by Florida Public Utilities Company. Critical Date(s): None Prehearing Officer: Brisé Staff: ECO: Ollila, Higgins, Wu AFD: Cicchetti, Fletcher, Trueblood GCL: Barrera Issue 1: What are the appropriate depreciation rates? Recommendation: Staff s recommended remaining lives, net salvage percentages, reserve percentages, and the resulting depreciation rates are contained in Attachment A of staff s memorandum dated November 13, Attachment B of staff s memorandum shows a total annual expense of $7,197,946, which is $60,409 less than the Company proposed expense of $7,258,355. Issue 2: What should be the implementation date for the new depreciation rates? Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the Company s proposed January 1, 2014 implementation date for revised depreciation rates. Issue 3: Should the Commission approve Florida Public Utilities Company s proposal to defer $61,851 associated with consulting fees as a regulatory asset, and to amortize the asset over a five-year period beginning January 1, 2014? Recommendation: No. The Commission should approve Florida Public Utilities Company to defer $58,452 associated with consulting fees incurred by the Company in the development of the three depreciation studies that were subsequently consolidated. The $58,452 should be recorded as a regulatory asset in Account 182.3, Other Regulatory Assets, and be amortized to Account 407.3, Regulatory Debits, over a five-year period beginning January Issue 4: Should the current amortization of investment tax credits (ITCs) be revised to reflect the approved depreciation rates? Recommendation: Yes. The current amortization of ITCs should be revised to match the actual recovery periods for the related property. The Company should file detailed calculations of the revised ITC amortization at the same time it files its surveillance report covering the period ending December 31, Issue 5: Should this docket be closed? Recommendation: Yes. If no person whose substantial interests are affected by the Commission s 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

16 10**PAA Docket No SU Application for limited proceeding rate increase in Polk County by West Lakeland Wastewater, Inc. Critical Date(s): None Commissioners Assigned: Brisé, Balbis, Brown Prehearing Officer: Balbis Staff: ECO: Thompson, Daniel, Hudson AFD: Mouring ENG: King, Watts GCL: Barrera Issue 1: What is the appropriate increase in revenues for this utility? Recommendation: The appropriate revenue increase is $2,379 for wastewater. Issue 2: What are the appropriate wastewater rates for West Lakeland? Recommendation: The appropriate monthly wastewater rates are shown on Schedule No. 1 of staff s memorandum dated November 13, The recommended rates should be designed to produce additional service revenues of $2,379 or a 1.98 percent increase. The percent increase should be applied as an across-the-board increase to the existing rates. 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 sheet, pursuant to Rule (1), Florida Administrative Code (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. Issue 3: Should the recommended rates be approved for West Lakeland on a temporary basis, subject to refund, in the event of a protest filed by a substantially affected person? Recommendation: Yes. The recommended rates should be approved for the Utility on a temporary basis, subject to refund, in the event of a protest filed by a substantially affected person. Prior to implementation of any temporary rates, the Utility should provide appropriate security. 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 analysis portion of staff s memorandum dated November 13, In addition, after the increased rates are in effect, pursuant to Rule (6), F.A.C., the Utility should file reports with the Commission s Clerk s Office no later than the 20th of each month indicating the monthly and total amount of money subject to refund at the end of the preceding month. Should a refund be required, the refund should be with interest and undertaken in accordance with Rule , F.A.C

17 10**PAA Docket No SU Application for limited proceeding rate increase in Polk County by West Lakeland Wastewater, Inc. (Continued from previous page) Issue 4: What is the appropriate amount by which rates should be reduced four years after the established effective date to reflect the removal of the amortized rate case expense as required by Section , F.S.? Recommendation: The wastewater rates should be reduced as shown on Schedule No. 1 of staff s memorandum dated November 13, 2014, to remove rate case expense grossed up for regulatory assessment fees and amortized over a four-year period. The decrease in rates should become effective immediately following the expiration of the four-year rate case expense recovery period, pursuant to Section , F.S. West Lakeland 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, separate data should be filed 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? Recommendation: 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. Once these actions are complete, this docket should be closed administratively

18 11 Docket No WU Application for staff-assisted rate case in Brevard County by Brevard Waterworks, Inc. Critical Date(s): 11/28/14 (60-Day Suspension Date) Prehearing Officer: Brown Staff: ECO: Thompson, Hudson AFD: Monroe, Norris, Holmes ENG: P. Buys, King GCL: Murphy (Decision on Interim Rates - Participation is at the Discretion of the Commission.) Issue 1: Should an interim revenue increase be approved? Recommendation: Yes, Brevard Waterworks should be authorized to collect annual revenues as indicated below: Adjusted Test Year O&M Expenses Annualized Operating Revenues $ Increase % Increase Water $150,411 $136,788 $13, % Issue 2: What are the appropriate interim water rates? Recommendation: The interim rate increase of percent for water should be applied as an across-the-board increase to the existing rates. The rates, as shown on Schedule No. 1 of staff s memorandum dated November 13, 2014, should be effective for service rendered on or after the stamped approval date on the tariff sheets, pursuant to Rule (1), F.A.C. The Utility should file revised tariff sheets and a proposed customer notice to reflect the Commission-approved rates. In addition, the approved rates should not be implemented until the required security has been filed, 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

19 11 Docket No WU Application for staff-assisted rate case in Brevard County by Brevard Waterworks, Inc. (Continued from previous page) Issue 3: What is the appropriate security to guarantee the interim increase? Recommendation: The Utility should be required to open an escrow account or secure a surety bond or letter of credit to guarantee any potential refund of revenues collected under interim conditions. If the security provided is an escrow account, the Utility should deposit $1,135 into the escrow account each month. Otherwise, the surety bond or letter of credit should be in the amount of $9,084. Pursuant to Rule (6), F.A.C., the Utility should provide a report by the 20th of each month indicating the monthly and total revenue collected subject to refund. Should a refund be required, the refund should be with interest and in accordance with Rule , F.A.C. Issue 4: Should this docket be closed? Recommendation: No. The docket should remain open pending the Commission s final action on the Utility s requested rate increase

20 12** Docket No WU Request for approval of water rate tariff for a revision in customer billing from quarterly billing to monthly billing by W.B.B. Utilities, Inc. in Lake County. Critical Date(s): 60-Day Suspension Date Waived Through 11/25/14 Prehearing Officer: Administrative Staff: IDM: Roberts ECO: Hudson GCL: Villafrate, Janjic Issue 1: Should W.B.B s proposed tariff to change its billing cycle from quarterly to monthly be approved? Recommendation: Yes. W.B.B. s proposed tariff to change its billing from quarterly to monthly should be approved. W.B.B. should be required to bill on a monthly basis until authorized to change the billing cycle by this Commission in a subsequent proceeding. W.B.B. should be required to file a proposed customer notice indicating the change from quarterly to monthly billing and the date on which the change to monthly billing will become effective. The monthly billing should be effective for services rendered on or after the stamped approval date of the tariff sheet, pursuant to Rule (1), F.A.C. In addition, the monthly billing 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? Recommendation: If no protest is filed by a person whose interests are substantially affected within 21 days of the issuance of the Order, the Tariff Order will become final upon the issuance of a Consummating Order and the docket should be closed. If a protest is filed within 21 days of the issuance of the Order, the tariff should remain in effect pending the resolution of the protest, and the docket should remain open

21 13**PAA Docket No EU Joint petition for approval of amendment to territorial agreement between the City of Tallahassee and Talquin Electric Cooperative, Inc. Critical Date(s): None Prehearing Officer: Brisé Staff: ECO: Garl GCL: Villafrate Issue 1: Should the Commission approve the proposed amendment to the existing territorial agreement between the City and Talquin? Recommendation: Yes. The amendment to the territorial agreement between the City and Talquin will not cause a detriment to the public interest; therefore, it should be approved. Issue 2: Should this docket be closed? Recommendation: Yes. 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

22 14** Docket No GU Petition for approval of Cast Iron/Bare Steel Pipe Replacement Rider (Rider CI/BSR), by Peoples Gas System. Critical Date(s): 8-Month Effective Date: 5/5/15 Prehearing Officer: Administrative Staff: ECO: Garl GCL: Villafrate Issue 1: Should the Commission approve Peoples' proposed CI/BSR Rider surcharges for 2015? Recommendation: Yes. Peoples calculation of the CI/BSR Rider surcharge for each rate class is reasonable and accurate. Issue 2: Should this docket be closed? Recommendation: Yes. If Issue 1 is approved, the tariffs should become effective on January 1, If a protest is filed within 21 days of the issuance of the order, the tariffs should remain in effect, with any revenues held subject to refund, pending resolution of the protest. If no timely protest is filed, this docket should be closed upon the issuance of a consummating order

23 15** Docket No EI Petition for approval of revised facilities rental agreement by Tampa Electric Company. Critical Date(s): 60-Day Suspension Date Waived until 11/25/14 Prehearing Officer: Brown Staff: ECO: Garl GCL: Janjic Issue 1: Should the Commission approve TECO's revisions to its facilities rental agreement? Recommendation: Yes. TECO=s proposed revision to its facilities rental agreement should be approved. Issue 2: Should this docket be closed? Recommendation: Yes. If Issue 1 is approved, and a protest is filed within 21 days of the issuance of the order, the tariff should remain in effect, with any increase in revenue collected held subject to refund, pending resolution of the protest. If no timely protest is filed, this docket should be closed upon the issuance of a consummating order

24 16 Docket No WS Application for increase in water/wastewater rates in Highlands County by HC Waterworks, Inc. Critical Date(s): 12/02/2014 (60-Day Suspension Date) Prehearing Officer: Brisé Staff: ECO: Bruce, Daniel, Hudson GCL: Crawford, Mapp (Suspension of Rates - Participation is at the Discretion of the Commission.) Issue 1: Should HC's proposed final water and wastewater rates be suspended? Recommendation: Yes. HC s proposed final water and wastewater rates should be suspended. Issue 2: Should this docket be closed? Recommendation: No. This docket should remain open pending the Commission s final action on HC s application for increase in rates and charges

25 17**PAA Docket No WS Application for staff-assisted rate case in Lake County by Lakeside Waterworks, Inc. Critical Date(s): 12/17/14 (15-Month Effective Date (SARC)) Prehearing Officer: Edgar Staff: ENG: Watts, Rieger AFD: Barrett GCL: Murphy IDM: Roberts (Proposed Agency Action Except for Issue Nos. 10 and 14.) Issue 1: Is the overall quality of service provided by Lakeside satisfactory? Recommendation: Yes. Staff recommends that the condition of the water and wastewater treatment facilities are satisfactory and the water provided by Lakeside is meeting applicable water quality standards, including primary and secondary standards, as prescribed in the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) rules. It also appears that the Utility has attempted to address the customers concerns. Therefore, staff recommends that the overall quality of service for the Lakeside water and wastewater systems in Lake County is satisfactory. Issue 2: What are the used and useful percentages (U&U) of Lakeside s WTP, water storage facilities, WWTP, and distribution and collection systems? Recommendation: Lakeside s WTP should be considered 40.5 percent U&U, its water storage facilities should be considered 100 percent U&U, its WWTP should be considered 16.8 percent U&U, and its water distribution and wastewater collection systems should be considered 100 percent U&U. There is no indication of excessive inflow and infiltration (I&I) or excessive unaccounted for water (EUW). Issue 3: What is the appropriate average test year rate base for Lakeside? Recommendation: The appropriate average test year rate base for Lakeside is $30,811 for water and $27,925 for wastewater. Issue 4: What is the appropriate rate of return on equity and overall rate of return for Lakeside? Recommendation: The appropriate return on equity (ROE) is 8.74 percent with a range of 7.74 percent to 9.74 percent. The appropriate overall rate of return is 8.74 percent. Issue 5: What are the appropriate test year revenues? Recommendation: The appropriate test year revenues for this Utility are $38,806 for water and $32,176 for wastewater. Issue 6: What is the appropriate amount of operating expense? Recommendation: The appropriate amount of operating expense is $55,770 for water and $55,482 for wastewater

26 17**PAA Docket No WS Application for staff-assisted rate case in Lake County by Lakeside Waterworks, Inc. (Continued from previous page) Issue 7: Should the Commission utilize the operating ratio methodology as an alternative means to calculate the revenue requirement for Lakeside and, if so, what is the appropriate margin? Recommendation: Yes, the Commission, on its own motion, should utilize the operating ratio methodology for calculating the revenue requirement for Lakeside. The margin should be 10 percent of O&M expense for water and wastewater. Issue 8: What is the appropriate revenue requirement? Recommendation: The appropriate revenue requirement is $60,768 for water and $60,675 for wastewater, resulting in an annual increase of $21,962 for water (56.59 percent), and an annual increase of $28,499 for wastewater (88.57 percent). Issue 9: What are the appropriate rate structures and rates for Lakeside s water and wastewater systems? Recommendation: The recommended rate structures and monthly water and wastewater rates are shown on Schedule Nos. 4-A through 4-D, respectively, of staff s memorandum dated November 13, 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 services rendered on or after the stamped approval date on the tariff sheets, pursuant to Rule (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. Issue 10: What is the appropriate amount by which rates should be reduced in four years after the published effective date to reflect the removal of the amortized rate case expense as required by Section , F.S.? Recommendation: The rates should be reduced as shown on Schedule Nos. 4-B for water and 4-D for wastewater, of staff s memorandum dated November 13, 2014, to remove rate case expense grossed up for regulatory assessment fees and amortized over a four-year period. The decrease in rates should become effective immediately following the expiration of the four-year rate case expense recovery period, pursuant to Section , F.S. Lakeside 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, separate data should be filed for the price index and/or pass-through increase or decrease and the reduction in the rates due to the amortized rate case expense

27 17**PAA Docket No WS Application for staff-assisted rate case in Lake County by Lakeside Waterworks, Inc. (Continued from previous page) Issue 11: What are the appropriate initial customer deposits for Lakeside? Recommendation: The appropriate initial customer deposits should be $55 and $76 for the residential 5/8 inch x 3/4 inch meter size for water and wastewater, respectively. 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. 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 , 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 12: Should Lakeside s request to implement a $5.25 late payment charge be approved? Recommendation: Yes. Lakeside s request to implement a $5.25 late payment charge should be approved. Lakeside should be required to file a proposed customer notice to reflect the Commission-approved charge. The approved charge should be effective for services rendered on or after the stamped approval date on the tariff sheet, pursuant to Rule (1), F.A.C. In addition, the approved charge should not be implemented until staff has approved the proposed customer notice. The Utility should provide proof of the date notice was given no less than ten days after the date of the notice. Issue 13: Should Lakeside s request to revise its existing service availability charges be approved, and if so, what are the appropriate charges? Recommendation: Yes. Staff recommends that Lakeside s existing service availability charges be revised. A main extension charge per ERC of $210 for water and $131 for wastewater should be approved. The approved service availability charges should be effective for service rendered on or after the stamped approval date of the tariff, pursuant to Rule , F.A.C

28 17**PAA Docket No WS Application for staff-assisted rate case in Lake County by Lakeside Waterworks, Inc. (Continued from previous page) Issue 14: Should the recommended rates be approved for the Utility on a temporary basis, subject to refund with interest, in the event of a protest filed by a party other than the Utility? Recommendation: Yes. Pursuant to Section (7), F.S., the recommended rates should be approved for the Utility on a temporary basis, subject to refund with interest, in the event of a protest filed by a party other than the Utility. Lakeside 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 sheet, pursuant to Rule (1), F.A.C. In addition, the temporary rates should not be implemented until staff has approved the proposed notice, and the notice has been received by the customers. Prior to implementation of any temporary rates, the Utility should provide appropriate security. 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 analysis portion of staff s memorandum dated November 13, In addition, after the increased rates are in effect, pursuant to Rule (6), F.A.C., the Utility should file reports with the Office of Commission Clerk no later than the 20th of each month indicating the monthly and total amount of money 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. Issue 15: Should the Utility be required to provide proof, within 90 days of an effective order finalizing this docket, that it has adjusted its books for all applicable National Association of Regulatory Commissioners Uniform System of Accounts (NARUC USOA) primary accounts associated with the Commission-approved adjustments? Recommendation: Yes. To ensure that the Utility adjusts its books in accordance with the Commission s decision, Lakeside should provide proof, within 90 days of the final order in this docket, that the adjustments for all applicable NARUC USOA primary accounts have been made

29 17**PAA Docket No WS Application for staff-assisted rate case in Lake County by Lakeside Waterworks, Inc. (Continued from previous page) Issue 16: Should this docket be closed? Recommendation: 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 adjustments for all applicable NARUC USOA primary accounts have been made. Once these actions are complete, this docket should be closed administratively

30 18 Docket No EI Commission review of numeric conservation goals (Florida Power & Light Company). Docket No EI Commission review of numeric conservation goals (Duke Energy Florida, Inc.). Docket No EI Commission review of numeric conservation goals (Tampa Electric Company). Docket No EI Commission review of numeric conservation goals (Gulf Power Company). Docket No EM Commission review of numeric conservation goals (JEA). Docket No EM Commission review of numeric conservation goals (Orlando Utilities Commission). Docket No EI Commission review of numeric conservation goals (Florida Public Utilities Company). Critical Date(s): Pursuant to Section (6), F.S., the Commission must review conservation goals at least every five years. New conservation goals must be set by January 1, Prehearing Officer: Brisé Staff: ENG: P. Buys, Ellis, Graves, Matthews ECO: Brown, Gilbert, Lingo, Ortega GCL: Corbari, Murphy, Tan IDM: Clemence, Dowds, Marr (Post-Hearing Decision - Participation is Limited to Commissioners and Staff.) Issue 1: Are the Company s proposed goals based on an adequate assessment of the full technical potential of all available demand-side and supply-side conservation and efficiency measures, including demand-side renewable energy systems, pursuant to Section (3), F.S.? Recommendation: Yes. Consistent with Order No. PSC PCO-EU, the FEECA utilities employed a common methodology wherein the Technical Potential Study utilized for the 2009 goal-setting proceeding was updated to reflect new technologies, current marketplace conditions, and appliance and efficiency standards. Issue 2: Do the Company s proposed goals adequately reflect the costs and benefits to customers participating in the measure, pursuant to Section (3)(a), F.S.? Recommendation: Yes. Consistent with Order No. PSC FOF-EG, the FEECA utilities correctly calculated the costs and benefits to the customers participating in the energy savings and demand reduction measures included in their goals by properly utilizing the Participants test. The goals proposed by the utilities adequately reflect these costs and benefits, pursuant to Section (3)(a), F.S

31 18 Docket No EI Commission review of numeric conservation goals (Florida Power & Light Company). Docket No EI Commission review of numeric conservation goals (Duke Energy Florida, Inc.). Docket No EI Commission review of numeric conservation goals (Tampa Electric Company). Docket No EI Commission review of numeric conservation goals (Gulf Power Company). Docket No EM Commission review of numeric conservation goals (JEA). Docket No EM Commission review of numeric conservation goals (Orlando Utilities Commission). Docket No EI Commission review of numeric conservation goals (Florida Public Utilities Company). (Continued from previous page) Issue 3: Do the Company s proposed goals adequately reflect the costs and benefits to the general body of ratepayers as a whole, including utility incentives and participant contributions pursuant to Section (3)(b), F.S.? Recommendation: Yes. Staff recommends that consideration of both the RIM and TRC is necessary to fulfill the requirements of Section (3)(b), F.S. Consistent with Order No. PSC PCO-EU, the Utilities provided information based on the RIM and TRC tests. Issue 4: Do the Company s proposed goals adequately reflect the need for incentives to promote both customer-owned and utility-owned energy efficiency and demand-side renewable energy systems, pursuant to Section , F.S.? Recommendation: Yes. Staff recommends that the Utilities methodology of applying customer incentives for the purpose of establishing goals in this proceeding is adequate. Staff recommends that performance incentives for Utilities are not necessary at this time. Issue 5: Do the Company s proposed goals adequately reflect the costs imposed by state and federal regulations on the emission of greenhouse gases, pursuant to Section (3)(d), F.S.? Recommendation: Yes. Currently there are no costs imposed by state and federal regulations on the emissions of greenhouse gases (GHG). Consistent with Order No. PSC PCO-EU, the Utilities filed base case goals assuming a cost of zero dollars for carbon dioxide (CO 2 ). Pursuant to Section (6), F.S., the Commission may change the goals for a reasonable cause. Once the compliance costs associated with any regulations on the emission of GHGs are known, including carbon dioxide, the Commission has the authority to review and, if appropriate, modify goals