06/11/2019 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

ORDER NO. PSC -2019 -0222 -TRF -EI DOCKET NO. 20190048 -EI PAGE 3 Former COVB Customer Bill Impacts and Notification In its response to Commission staff's data request, FPL stated that 83 former COVB customers are served by non-standard lighting. These customers are comprised of one governmental customer, 81 commercial customers, and one residential customer. Since the Asset Sale and Purchase Agreement closed on December 17, 2018, FPL has been billing these 83 former COVB lighting customers pursuant to the requested tariff, subject to refund or recovery of the difference pending the outcome of this proceeding. FPL has three lighting tariffs (SL -1, OL -1, and LT -1), while COVB had only one tariff for all lighting customers. By performing field surveys, FPL is able to identify the appropriate FPL tariff for all former COVB lighting customers. With the requested tariff revisions, an estimated 63 customers have seen their lighting bill decrease and 20 customers have seen their bill increase. Customer monthly bill decreases range from $0.39 to $326.61 a month, while the increases range from $1.32 to $786 a month. FPL explained that the customer (a condominium association) who saw the $786 increase had a note in COVB's billing file that referenced an agreement with COVB to pay a non -tariffed rate. FPL explained that when it contacted the customer, the customer was unaware that it was being billed less than the COVB tariffed rate. FPL represented it is working with the customer to reduce its lighting bill. FPL further explained that other former COVB customers experienced increases in their bills, because COVB charged the customers for an incorrect fixture. FPL has corrected this error from the COVB billing and is charging the lighting customers for the actual fixture provided. FPL stated that all former COVB non-standard lighting customers whose lighting bill increased by more than $8.00 were contacted by phone call or by an in person visit. To date, we have not received any customer comments or complaints regarding the requested tariff amendments. It is incumbent on public utilities to charge only those rates filed with and approved by the Commission, pursuant to Section 366.06, F.S. We recognize the unique circumstances surrounding FPL's acquisition and provision of service to the COVB customers, and that the majority of customers affected by the requested tariff will experience a rate decrease. However, FPL is cautioned to charge only those rates reflected in its Commission -approved tariffs, and that it is authorized to change such rates only after securing our approval. Conclusion We approved a similar lighting tariff for Gulf Power Company (Gulf) in Gulfs 2001 rate case3 in response to customers requesting more fixture or pole options. More recently, we approved Tampa Electric Company's (TECO) optional customer specified lighting tariff to allow TECO to respond to customer requests for special fixtures or poles in a timely and efficient manner. 4 We have reviewed FPL's petition and supporting documentation and find the addition of the Special Provision to the SL -1, OL -1, and LT -1 tariffs is reasonable and appropriate. 3 Order No. PSC-02-0787-FOF-EI, issued June 10, 2002, in Docket No. 010949 -EI, In re: Request for rate increase by Gulf Power Company. 4 Order No. PSC -2019 -0063 -TRF -EI, issued February 18, 2019, in Docket No. 20180222 -EI, In re: Petition for approval of customer specified lighting tariff by Tampa Electric Company. gal