Discussion of Issues. Should the Commission authorize DEF to implement an amended interim storm restoration recovery charge?
Discussion of Issues. ForestrySA manages a large network of tracks and roads for the purposes of effectively managing commercial pine plantations and Native Forest Reserves. There are a range of operations that are carried out in these areas that are potentially hazardous to visitors. In addition, the tracks and roads are generally designed for limited access, although well designed logging tracks can sustain relatively high levels of use throughout the year. ForestrysA also provides for a range of non-motorised forest based recreational activities. These activities are not generally compatible with motor vehicle activities, except where they are used in support roles.
Discussion of Issues. Forests are important places for rally motor sport in South Australia. Much of the appeal of the Forests Reserves is due to: • having significant areas under the management of a single agency; • large areas being available under certain conditions; • the availability of a large number of well-made tracks; • having attractive places in which to participate. In some areas, closer settlement and more restrictive council attitudes have reduced the amount of land outside of Forest Reserves available for rallying. In this environment, it is expected that the demand for motor sport on Forest Reserves will increase. Motor sport will generally be permitted within Forest Reserves, including the limited number of Native Forest Reserves listed in Appendix II, providing that a number of conditions are met by the organisers to the satisfaction of ForestrySA. These conditions are included in Appendix I : Standard Conditions of Use. Key issues to be addressed include: • public safety; • minimisation of damage to the environment and forest assets; • timely and effective restoration of damaged areas; • effective event planning and implementation; • responsibilities of the event organisers; • adequate financial return for the use of the forest. If the conditions are met, it is anticipated that • up to two major car events, endorsed by CAMS, can be held each twelve months in the combined Mount Lofty Ranges Forest Reserves; • up to one major and one minor motorcycle event, endorsed by Motorcycle Australia may be held in the combined Mount Lofty Ranges Forest Reserves; • up to three major and five minor car events, endorsed by CAMS, can be held each twelve months in the combined South East Forest Reserves. For the purposes of this policy, a major event is one where there is a significant impact on the forest and may involve multiple laps by a large field of entrants covering a significant area of Forest Reserve. A minor event generally has a limited impact on the forest Reserve and may have a restricted field of entrants traversing a small area of forest. Additional infrequent minor events can be considered at ForestrySA's discretion. These may include the following: • Vehicle Demonstration Events conducted for commercial purposes by vehicle manufacturers and dealers. • Rally Practice sessions prior to an event. • Motor sport Promotion Events conducted as part of a broader motor sport program. It is expected that these events will be professionally managed to ensure that Forest...
Discussion of Issues. Issue 1: Should the Commission approve Duke and XXXXX’s joint petition for a temporary territorial variance? Recommendation: Yes. The Commission should approve Duke and XXXXX’s joint petition for a temporary territorial variance, entered into by the Parties on February 28, 2023, because it is in the public interest and will avoid uneconomic duplication of facilities. For the term of the variance agreement, Duke will temporarily serve the mining load south of SR 64 in the eastern expansion project area until the mining project is completed. The mining project south of SR 64 is estimated to begin in 2024 and continue until 2028. The Parties should notify the Commission once the mining operations subject to the variance are concluded. (X. Xxxxxx, Xxxxxxx) The Parties request that Duke, instead of PRECO, temporarily serve the industrial customer’s entire project area including the area south of SR 64. The Parties estimate the customer will conclude its mining operations in the project south of SR 64 by December 31, 2028. The Parties stated in response to Staff’s Second Data Request that they will notify the Commission once the mining operations are concluded. Duke asserts in the petition that it has sufficient capacity to serve the industrial customer’s load south of SR 64 and can provide immediate electric service to the project from an existing substation located within Duke’s electric service territory located in Hardee County. XXXXX asserts in the petition that it does not have sufficient capacity to serve the load and will need Duke’s assistance to provide immediate electric service to the project. To serve the new load south of SR 64, PRECO would need to construct a new substation, estimated to cost approximately $4 million. Due to these circumstances, the Parties agree Duke should serve the load as the industrial customer estimates that the project would add approximately 20 megawatts (MW) of load south of SR 64. No customers are being transferred as a result of the proposed variance. Therefore, Rule 25- 6.0440 (1) (d), Florida Administrative Code, regarding customer notification of transferred customers, does not apply. The proposed variance includes a provision that PRECO will acquire Duke’s Lake Branch substation (substation) by December 31, 2025. The substation is located in PRECO’s service territory north of SR 64 by the intersection of Lake Branch Road and Xxxxx Road (County Road 664A) in Hardee County. Pursuant to Section 2.5 of the 2019 Agreemen...
Discussion of Issues. Issue 1: Should the Commission approve TECO's petition for a new proposed Small Commercial Lighting Agreement and other proposed lighting tariff revisions?
Discussion of Issues. Issue 1: Should the Commission approve the February 19, 2021 proposed Agreement between SeaCoast and Peoples? Recommendation: Yes, the Commission should approve the February 19, 2021 proposed Agreement between SeaCoast and Peoples. (Xxxx)
Discussion of Issues. Issue 1: Should the Commission approve the joint petition of Tampa Electric Company and the City of Lakeland for Approval of Second Amendment to the Territorial Agreement?
Discussion of Issues. Issue 1: Should the Commission approve the proposed Amendment No. 1 to the Pasco Agreement between FPUC and Peoples in Pasco County? Recommendation: Yes, the Commission should approve the proposed Amendment No. 1, which transfers a portion of FPUC’s service territory to Peoples. The proposed Amendment No. 1 would facilitate the provision of economical and reliable natural gas service by Peoples to prospective residential and business customers in the proposed transfer area identified as Service Area B in Amendment No. 1 – Exhibit A, thereby avoiding duplication of facilities and services. (Xxxxxx, Xxxxxxx, Xxxxxx) Staff Analysis: Pursuant to Section 366.04(3)(a), F.S., and Rule 25-7.0471, Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.), the Commission has the jurisdiction to approve territorial agreements between natural gas utilities. Unless the Commission determines that the proposed Amendment No. 1 will cause a detriment to the public interest, the proposed amendment should be approved.5
Discussion of Issues. Issue 1: Should the Commission approve the proposed First Amendment to the Territorial Agreement between SECO and DEF in Sumter, Lake, Marion, Levy, and Citrus counties? Recommendation: Yes, the Commission should approve the proposed First Amendment to the Territorial Agreement between SECO and DEF in Sumter, Lake, Marion, Levy, and Citrus counties. The First Amendment to the Territorial Agreement will not cause a detriment to the public interest and will enable SECO and DEF to avoid duplication of facilities and to serve their customers in an efficient manner. (Xxxxxx)
Discussion of Issues. Issue 1: Should the Commission approve the proposed amendment No. 1 to firm transportation agreement dated January 8, 2018, between FPUC and Peninsula? Recommendation: Yes, the Commission should approve the proposed amendment No. 1 to firm transportation agreement dated January 8, 2018, between FPUC and Peninsula. The proposed amendment is reasonable and meets the requirements of Section 368.105, F.S. (Xxxxxx, Xxxxxx)
