FLORIDA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION
COMMISSION CONFERENCE AGENDA
CONFERENCE DATE AND TIME: Tuesday, April 8, 2008, 9:30 a.m.
LOCATION: Betty Easley Conference Center, Joseph P. Cresse Hearing Room 148
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 25-22.0021, F.A.C., concerning Agenda Conference participation and Rule 25-22.0022, F.A.C., concerning oral argument.
To obtain a copy of staff’s recommendation for any item on this agenda, contact the Office of Commission Clerk at (850) 413‑6770. There may be a charge for the copy. The agenda and recommendations are also accessible on the PSC Website, at http://www.floridapsc.com, at no charge.
Any person requiring some accommodation at this conference because of a physical impairment should call the Office of Commission Clerk at (850) 413‑6770 at least 48 hours before the conference. Any person who is hearing or speech impaired should contact the Commission by using the Florida Relay Service, which can be reached at 1‑800‑955‑8771 (TDD). Assistive Listening Devices are available in the Office of Commission Clerk, Betty Easley Conference Center, Room 110.
Video and audio versions of the conference are available and can be accessed live on the PSC Website on the day of the Conference. The audio version is available through archive storage for up to three months after the conference.
1..................... Approval of Minutes
March 4, 2008 Regular Commission Conference
2**................. Consent Agenda
1 Approval of Minutes
March 4, 2008 Regular Commission Conference
PAA A) Applications for certificates to provide competitive local exchange telecommunications service.
|
DOCKET NO. |
COMPANY NAME |
|
Kentucky Data Link, Inc. |
|
|
080112‑TX |
QuikVoip, LLC |
Recommendation: The Commission should approve the action requested in the dockets referenced above and close these dockets.
3 Docket No. 070183-WS – Proposed adoption of Rule 25-30.4325, F.A.C., Water Treatment Plant Used and Useful Calculations.
|
Critical Date(s): |
None |
||
|
Rule Status: |
Adoption |
||
|
Commissioners Assigned: |
All Commissioners |
||
|
Prehearing Officer: |
Carter |
||
|
Staff: |
GCL: Gervasi, Jaeger ECR: Daniel, Hewitt, Rieger, Walden |
||
(Participation is limited to Commissioners and Staff)
Issue A:
Which party bears the burden of proof to demonstrate that specific provisions of proposed Rule 25-30.4325 should not be accepted?
As the Petitioner, OPC bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that the alternative rule proposals it has presented should be adopted by the Commission instead of the specific provisions in the proposed rule. Other parties and staff bear that same burden of proof with respect to the alternative rule proposals they have presented.
Issue 1:
Stipulation.
Issue 2:
Should the definition of storage facilities as proposed in Rule 25-30.4325(1)(b) be adopted?
Recommendation: Yes, the definition of storage facilities in Proposed Rule 25-30.4325(1)(b), F.A.C., should be adopted if the Commission approves staff’s recommendation in Issue 16. If the Commission denies staff’s recommendation in Issue 16, the definition of storage facilities should be changed to exclude high service pumps.
Issue 3:
Should the definition of peak demand as proposed in Rule 25-30.4325(1)(c) be adopted?
Yes, the definition of peak demand for a water system as proposed in Rule 25-30.4325(1)(c) should be adopted.
Issue 4:
Should the definition of peak demand for storage as proposed in Rule 25-30.4325(1)(d) be adopted?
Yes, the proposed rule language should be adopted without modification.
Issue 5:
Should the definition of excessive unaccounted for water as proposed in Rule 25-30.4325(1)(e) be adopted?
The proposed rule should be adopted with the modification shown on Attachments B and C of staff’s memorandum dated March 27, 2008.
Issue 6:
Should the Commission’s used and useful evaluation include a determination as to the prudence of the investment and consideration of economies of scale as proposed in Rule 25-30.4325(2) and be adopted?
The proposed rule should be adopted with the modification shown on Attachments B and C of staff’s memorandum dated March 27, 2008.
Issue 7:
Should alternative calculations for water treatment systems and storage facilities be allowed as proposed in Rule 25-30.4325(3) and be adopted?
The proposed rule should be adopted with the modifications shown on Attachments B and C of staff’s memorandum dated March 27, 2008.
Issue 8:
Should the conditions for considering a water treatment system 100% used and useful as proposed in Rule 25-30.4325(4) be adopted?
The proposed rule should be adopted with the modifications shown on Attachments B and C of staff’s memorandum dated March 27, 2008.
Issue 9:
Stipulation.
Issue 10:
Should the definition of firm reliable capacity for various combinations of water treatment systems and storage facilities as proposed in Rule 25-30.4325(6) be adopted?
The proposed rule should be adopted with the modification that the limiting factors should be moved from subsection (6) of the rule to subsection (3), as shown on Attachments B and C of staff’s memorandum dated March 27, 2008.
Issue 11:
Should the basis for expressing peak demand as proposed in Rule 25-30.4325(7) be adopted?
The proposed rule should be adopted with the modifications shown on Attachments B and C of staff’s memorandum dated March 27, 2008.
Issue 12:
Stipulation.
Issue 13:
Stipulation.
Issue 14:
Should the method of determining adjustments to plant and operating expenses because of excessive unaccounted for water as proposed in Rule 25-30.4325(10) be adopted?
Yes, the method of determining adjustments to plant and operating expenses because of excessive unaccounted for water as proposed in Rule 25-30.4325(10) should be adopted.
Issue 15:
Should the Commission’s consideration of other relevant factors as proposed in Rule 25-30.4325(11) be adopted?
Yes, however the substance of the provisions of subsection (11) should be moved to subsection (3). The proposed revision is shown on Attachments B and C of staff’s memorandum dated March 27, 2008.
Issue 16:
Should there be a separate used and useful calculation for high service pumping?
No. If the Commission approves staff’s recommendation on Issue 2, OPC’s proposal for a separate definition for high service pumps should be denied. If the Commission denies staff’s recommendation on Issue 2 and agrees with OPC’s position that there should be a separate used and useful calculation for high service pumping, then the definition of storage facilities, as discussed in Issue 2, will need to be modified to exclude high service pumps and a separate definition of high service pumps will need to be approved, as discussed in Issue 17.
Issue 17:
If there is a separate calculation for high service pumping, what is the proper definition for high service pumping?
If the Commission approves staff’s recommendation in Issue 16 to deny OPC’s proposal to have a separate definition for high service pumps, then this issue need not be ruled upon. If the Commission denies staff’s recommendation on Issue 16 and approves OPC’s proposal to have a separate definition for high service pumps, then OPC’s proposed definition should be approved.
Issue 18:
If there is a separate calculation for high service pumping, what is the proper definition for peak demand for high service pumping?
If the Commission approves staff’s recommendation in Issue 16 to deny OPC’s proposal to have a separate definition for high service pumps, then this issue need not be ruled upon. If the Commission denies staff’s recommendation on Issue 16 and approves OPC’s proposal to have a separate definition for high service pumps, then the appropriate definition of peak demand for high service pumps should be the single maximum day in the test year with no unusual occurrence, such as a fire or line break. If actual flow data is not available, the rule provides a default number of gallons per ERC to be used.
Issue 19:
If there is a separate calculation for high service pumping, how should the firm reliable capacity of high service pumping be determined?
If the Commission approves staff’s recommendation on Issue 16 to deny OPC’s proposal to have a separate definition for high service pumps, then this issue need not be ruled upon. If the Commission denies staff’s recommendation on Issue 16 and approves the use of a separate formula for evaluating the used and usefulness of high service pumps, staff recommends that OPC’s proposal, which is the only proposal that was provided to define firm reliable capacity for high service pumps, should be approved.
Issue 20:
If there is a separate calculation for high service pumping, how should the used and usefulness of high service pumping be determined?
If the Commission approves staff’s recommendation on Issue 16 to deny OPC’s proposal to have a separate definition for high service pumps, then this issue need not be ruled upon. If the Commission denies staff’s recommendation on Issue 16 and approves the use of a separate formula for evaluating the used and usefulness of high service pumps, staff recommends that the used and usefulness of high service pumping should be determined by dividing the peak demand for high service pumping by the firm reliable capacity of the high service pumps. This is consistent with the method for calculating the used and usefulness of water treatment facilities which was stipulated in Issue 9. However, the language regarding the peak hour and maximum day demand for high service pumping is unnecessary because that is addressed in Issue 18.
Issue 21:
Should the rulemaking proceeding be resumed in order for Rule 25-30.4325 to be filed for adoption with the Secretary of State as approved by the Commission and the docket be closed?
Yes, the rule as approved by the Commission should be filed for adoption with the Secretary of State 21 days after the publication of a Notice of Change in the FAW and the docket should then be closed.
4** Docket No. 080159-TP – Joint petition to initiate rulemaking to adopt new rule in Chapter 25-24, F.A.C., amend and repeal Rules in Chapter 25-4, F.A.C., and amend rules in Chapter 25-9, F.A.C., by Verizon Florida LLC, BellSouth Telecommunications, Inc. d/b/a AT&T Florida, Embarq Florida, Inc., Quincy Telephone Company d/b/a TDS Telecom, and Windstream Florida, Inc.
|
Critical Date(s): |
April 14, 2008 (the Commission must grant or deny the petition by this date) |
||
|
Commissioners Assigned: |
All Commissioners |
||
|
Prehearing Officer: |
McMurrian |
||
|
Staff: |
GCL: Miller, Cibula CMP: Mailhot, Salak |
||
Issue 1:
Should the Commission grant the Petition to Initiate Rulemaking filed by Verizon Florida LLC, BellSouth Telecommunications, Inc. d/b/a/ AT&T Florida, Embarq Florida, Inc., Quincy Telephone Company d/b/a/ TDS Telecom and Windstream Florida, Inc.?
Yes. The Commission should grant the Petition and Initiate Rulemaking.
Issue 2:
Should this docket be closed?
No. If the Commission approves staff’s recommendation in Issue 1, this docket should remain open to proceed with the rulemaking process.
5 Docket No. 080083-EI – Petition for declaratory statement regarding applicability of Rule 25-6.0423, F.A.C., by Florida Power & Light Company.
|
Critical Date(s): |
May 5, 2008 (Final order must be issued by this date) |
||
|
Commissioners Assigned: |
All Commissioners |
||
|
Prehearing Officer: |
Administrative |
||
|
Staff: |
GCL: Bellak ECR: Hinton |
||
(Parties may participate at the Commission's discretion.)
Should the Commission grant OPC’s Request for Hearing?
No, OPC’s Request for Hearing should be denied.
Issue 2:
Should the Commission issue a declaratory statement to the effect that long-lead procurement items requiring advance payment up to and including the date of site clearing for Turkey Point Units 6 & 7 are preconstruction costs subject to cost recovery as provided for by Rule 25-6.0423(5)(a)?
Yes, the Commission should issue the declaratory statement requested by FPL.
Issue 3:
Should this docket be closed?
Yes, this docket should be closed.
6 Docket No. 080039-EI – Complaint of Sallijo A. Freeman against Florida Power & Light Company for violation of Rule 25-6.105, F.A.C.
|
Critical Date(s): |
None |
||
|
Commissioners Assigned: |
All Commissioners |
||
|
Prehearing Officer: |
Skop |
||
|
Staff: |
GCL: Bennett, Brown RCA: Hicks |
||
(Motion to Dismiss - Complainant Customer Requests Opportunity to Address Commission.)
Issue 1:
Should the Commission grant Petitioner Sallijo Freeman’s request to address the Commission at the Agenda Conference on April 8, 2008?
The Commission should grant Ms. Freeman’s request to address the Commission on April 8, 2008, on the Motion to Dismiss. However, the Commission should limit the presentation to the issues raised by the Motion to Dismiss, which is whether Ms. Freeman’s petition alleges facts sufficient to state a cause of action upon which relief may be granted.
Issue 2:
Should the Commission grant Florida Power & Light Company's Motion to Dismiss the Complaint of Sallijo A. Freeman?
The Commission should grant Florida Power & Light Company’s Motion to Dismiss. Although petitioner’s complaint alleges facts which, when taken as true and construed in the light most favorable to the petitioner, state a cause of action, there is no additional relief that the Commission may grant the petitioner. In her complaint, petitioner has asked that FPL be directed to restore her power. FPL has restored Ms. Freeman’s electrical service. The petitioner has also asked that she be awarded damages resulting from the allegedly improper termination of services. The Commission lacks jurisdiction to award monetary damages.
Issue 3:
Should this docket be closed?
Yes. If the Commission accepts staff’s recommendation in Issue 2, this docket should be closed after the time for appeal has expired.
7** Docket No. 060433-WU – Application for certificate to operate water utility in Lake County by South Umatilla Water.
|
Critical Date(s): |
None |
||
|
Commissioners Assigned: |
All Commissioners |
||
|
Prehearing Officer: |
McMurrian |
||
|
Staff: |
GCL: Brown ECR: Clapp, Kaproth, Slemkewicz, Walden |
||
Should the Commission dismiss South Umatilla Water’s application for a certificate to operate a water facility in Lake County?
Recommendation: Yes. Since the utility facilities are now owned and operated by Lake County, South Umatilla’s application is moot, and the Commission should dismiss it.
Issue 2:
Should this docket be closed?
Yes. Since the utility facilities are now owned and operated by Lake County, South Umatilla’s application is moot and the docket should be closed.
8**PAA Docket No. 070670-TX – Application for certificate to provide competitive local exchange telecommunications service by Effectel Corp.
|
Critical Date(s): |
None |
||
|
Commissioners Assigned: |
All Commissioners |
||
|
Prehearing Officer: |
Administrative |
||
|
Staff: |
CMP: McCoy GCL: McKay |
||
Issue 1:
Should the Commission accept the settlement offer proposed by Effectel Corp and grant Effectel Corp Certificate No. 8716 to operate as a competitive local exchange telecommunications company in Florida as provided by Section 364.337(1), Florida Statutes?
Yes. The Commission should accept the settlement offer proposed by Effectel Corp and grant Effectel Corp Certificate No. 8716 to operate as a competitive local exchange telecommunications company in Florida.
Issue 2:
9**PAA Docket No. 080047-TP – Request for cancellation of CLEC Certificate No. 7943, and for acknowledgment of cancellation of IXC Registration No. TJ557 by Telsys, Inc., effective December 31, 2007.
|
Critical Date(s): |
None |
||
|
Commissioners Assigned: |
All Commissioners |
||
|
Prehearing Officer: |
Administrative |
||
|
Staff: |
CMP: Isler GCL: McKay |
||
Issue 1:
Should the Commission cancel Telsys, Inc.’s Competitive Local Exchange Telecommunications Company (CLEC) Certificate No. 7943 and Intrastate Interexchange Telecommunications (IXC) tariff and remove its name from the register on its own motion effective December 31, 2007; notify the Division of Administrative Services that any unpaid Regulatory Assessment Fees should not be sent to the Florida Department of Financial Services, and request permission to write off the uncollectible amount?
Yes, the company’s CLEC certificate, IXC tariff, and registration should be cancelled on the Commission’s own motion.
Issue 2:
Should this docket be closed?
Staff recommends that the Order issued from this recommendation will become final and effective upon issuance of a Consummating Order, unless a person whose substantial interests are affected by the Commission’s decision files a protest that identifies with specificity the issues in dispute, in the form provided by Rule 28-106.201, Florida Administrative Code, within 21 days of the issuance of the Proposed Agency Action Order. As provided by Section 120.80(13)(b), Florida Statutes, any issues not in dispute should be deemed stipulated. If any entity fails to timely file a protest and to request a Section 120.57, Florida Statutes, hearing, the facts should be deemed admitted and the right to a hearing waived. The company’s CLEC certificate and IXC tariff should be cancelled administratively, the company’s name should be removed from the register, and the collection of the unpaid Regulatory Assessment Fees, including statutory late payment charges, should not be referred to the Florida Department of Financial Services for further collection efforts. If the company’s CLEC certificate and IXC tariff are cancelled and its name removed from the register in accordance with the Commission’s Order from this recommendation, the company should be required to immediately cease and desist providing telecommunications services in Florida. This docket should be closed administratively upon cancellation of the company’s CLEC certificate and IXC tariff and removal from the register.
10**PAA Docket No. 080066-TX – Request for cancellation of CLEC Certificate No. 8412 by Synergy Networks, Inc., effective December 31, 2007.
|
Critical Date(s): |
None |
||
|
Commissioners Assigned: |
All Commissioners |
||
|
Prehearing Officer: |
Administrative |
||
|
Staff: |
CMP: Isler GCL: McKay |
||
Issue 1:
Should the Commission deny Synergy Networks, Inc., a voluntary cancellation of its competitive local exchange telecommunications company (CLEC) Certificate No. 8412 and cancel the certificate on the Commission’s own motion with an effective date of December 31, 2007?
Yes, the company should be denied a voluntary cancellation as listed on Attachment A of staff’s memorandum dated March 27, 2008.
Issue 2:
Should this docket be closed?
Staff recommends that the Order issued from this recommendation will become final and effective upon issuance of a Consummating Order, unless a person whose substantial interests are affected by the Commission’s decision files a protest that identifies with specificity the issues in dispute, in the form provided by Rule 28-106.201, Florida Administrative Code, within 21 days of the issuance of the Proposed Agency Action Order. As provided by Section 120.80(13)(b), Florida Statutes, any issues not in dispute should be deemed stipulated. If the company fails to timely file a protest and to request a Section 120.57, Florida Statutes, hearing, the facts should be deemed admitted and the right to a hearing waived. If the company pays the Regulatory Assessment Fee, including applicable late payment charges, prior to the expiration of the Proposed Agency Action Order, then the cancellation of the company’s CLEC certificate will be voluntary. If the company fails to pay the Regulatory Assessment Fee, including applicable late payment charges, prior to the expiration of the Proposed Agency Action Order, then the company’s CLEC certificate should be cancelled administratively, and the collection of the past due Regulatory Assessment Fee should be referred to the Florida Department of Financial Services for further collection efforts. If the company’s CLEC certificate is cancelled in accordance with the Commission’s Order from this recommendation, the company should be required to immediately cease and desist providing telecommunications service in Florida. This docket should be closed administratively either upon receipt of the payment of the Regulatory Assessment Fee, including applicable late payment charges, or upon cancellation of the company’s CLEC certificate.
11**PAA Docket No. 080084-TP – Request for cancellation of STS Certificate No. 8450, and for acknowledgment of cancellation of IXC Registration No. TJ874 by Sunshine State Communications, Inc., effective December 31, 2007.
|
Critical Date(s): |
None |
||
|
Commissioners Assigned: |
All Commissioners |
||
|
Prehearing Officer: |
Administrative |
||
|
Staff: |
CMP: Isler GCL: McKay |
||
Issue 1:
Should the Commission deny Sunshine State Communications, Inc., a voluntary cancellation of its intrastate interexchange telecommunications carrier (IXC) tariff and Registration No. TJ874 and cancel the tariff and remove the company’s name from the register on the Commission’s own motion with an effective date of December 31, 2007?
Yes, the company should be denied a voluntary cancellation as listed on Attachment A of staff’s memorandum dated March 27, 2008.
Issue 2:
Should this docket be closed?
Staff recommends that the Order issued from this recommendation will become final and effective upon issuance of a Consummating Order, unless a person whose substantial interests are affected by the Commission’s decision files a protest that identifies with specificity the issues in dispute, in the form provided by Rule 28-106.201, Florida Administrative Code, wit