STAFF ANALYSIS. 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.
STAFF ANALYSIS. The federally approved California Coastal Management Program (CCMP) comprises three distinct state agencies: the Commission, BCDC, and SCC. The CZMA requires that one single state agency be the primary recipient of all federal CZMA funds awarded to the CCMP. The Coastal Act designates the Commission to serve this purpose. Therefore, any federal CZMA funds for other state agencies must be received by the Commission, included in the Commission’s budget, and passed through to the other CCMP agencies by means of an interagency agreement. The arrangement to pass through funds has been used since 1978 when the United States Department of Commerce approved the CCMP. For Fiscal Year 2015-2016, which starts July 1, 2015, the State of California will receive $2,516,000 in CZMA funds. The funds will be distributed as follows: BCDC will receive $294,600, SCC will receive $300,000 and the Coastal Commission will retain the remaining $1,921,400 (see table below). The grant funds will be awarded pursuant to two sections of the CZMA: Sections 306 and 309. The SCC has not received CZMA funds for some time but requested to be included in the grant application for this fiscal year. The executive directors of the three state agencies mutually agreed upon the distribution of federal funds as outlined in the table below. The SCC is not eligible to receive section 309 funds at this time since they do not have an approved 309 Assessment and Strategy in place. Distribution of FY 2015-2016 CZMA grant funding by agency and CZMA Section CZMA Sections CA Coastal Commission BCDC State Coastal Conservancy CZMA grant section TOTALS Section 306 Coastal Management Program (*state match required) $1,531,400* $164,600* $300,000* $1,996,000* Section 309 Enhancement Grants $390,000 $130,000 $0 $520,000 Section 310 Miscellaneous - Other Note: No funds were appropriated $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,921,400 $294,600 $300,000 total grant $2,516,000 Section 306 - $1,996,000 (Commission/$1,531,400; BCDC/$164,600; and SCC/$300,000) Section 306 provides program implementation funding for the CCMP. The Commission uses Section 306 funding to support core program activities, including staff work on permits, appeals, LCPs, federal consistency review, and enforcement. BCDC uses Section 306 funding to support its work associated with permitting, federal consistency and enforcement activities. The SCC will use the 306 funding to support three projects that address sea-level rise, coastal resiliency and flood plain managem...
STAFF ANALYSIS. The federally approved California Coastal Management Program (CCMP) comprises three distinct state agencies: the Commission, BCDC, and the State Coastal Conservancy (Conservancy). The CZMA requires that one single state agency be the primary recipient of all federal CZMA funds awarded to the CCMP. The Coastal Act designates the Commission to serve this purpose. Therefore, any federal CZMA funds for other state agencies must be received by the Commission, included in the Commission’s budget, and passed through to the other CCMP agencies by means of an interagency agreement. The arrangement to pass through funds has been used since 1977 when the United States Department of Commerce approved the CCMP. For Fiscal Year 2011-2012, which started July 1, 2011, the State of California will receive $2,619,000 in CZMA funds. Using a formula agreed to in previous years, the funds will be distributed as follows: BCDC will receive $333,300, and the Coastal Commission will retain the remaining $2,285,700 (see table below). The grant funds will be awarded pursuant to two sections of the CZMA: Sections 306 and 309. The Conservancy did not request any funds from the FY 2011-12 CZMA grant, consistent with years past. Given the Conservancy’s role in developing and implementing programs to protect, restore, and enhance resources in the coastal zone and the San Francisco Bay, and the uncertainty of future opportunities to secure funding from state bonds or other sources, future federal CZMA funding may be increasingly important to the Conservancy. Distribution of FY11-12 CZMA grant funding, by agency and CZMA Section CZMA Sections CA Coastal Commission BCDC State Coastal Conservancy CZMA grant section TOTALS Section 306 Coastal Management Program (*state match required) 1,874,700* $208,300* (no funds requested) $2,083,000* Section 309 Enhancement Grants $411,000 $125,000 $536,000 Miscellaneous - Other (Section 310) Note: No funds were appropriated to the Nonpoint Source Program $0 $0 $0 $2,285,700 $333,300 $0 total grant $2,619,000 Section 306 - $2,083,000 (Commission/$1,874,700 and BCDC/$208,300) Section 306 provides program implementation funding for the CCMP. The Commission uses Section 306 funding to support core program activities, including work on permitting, appeals, LCPs, federal consistency review, and enforcement. BCDC uses Section 306 funding to support its work associated with permitting and enforcement activities. The state is required to match any Section 306 fu...
STAFF ANALYSIS. At the conclusion of the protest period, if no protest is filed this docket should be closed upon the issuance of a consummating order.
STAFF ANALYSIS. A. Annexation (AZ) The Applicant proposes to annex 1.73-acres of land with an R-8 zoning district. A legal description and exhibit map for the annexation area is included in Section VIII.A. This property is within the City’s Area of City Impact boundary. A preliminary plat and conceptual building elevations were submitted showing how the property is proposed to be subdivided and developed with 9 single-family attached and detached dwelling units and 2 common lots at a gross density of 5.84 units per acre (see Sections VIII.B, E). The proposed use and density of the development is consistent with the MDR XXXX designation. Single-family detached and attached dwellings are listed as a principal permitted use in the R-8 zoning district per UDC Table 11-2A-2. Future development is subject to the dimensional standards listed in UDC Table 11-2A-6 for the R-8 zoning district. The property is contiguous to City annexed land to the north and is within the City’s Area of City Impact boundary. A legal description and exhibit map of the overall annexation area for the R-8 zoning districts are included in Section VIII.A. The City may require a development agreement (DA) in conjunction with an annexation pursuant to Idaho Code section 67-6511A. If this property is annexed, Staff recommends a DA is required with the provisions discussed herein and included in Section IX.A.
STAFF ANALYSIS. As stated in the Case Background, DEF filed a petition requesting an amended interim storm surcharge in Docket No. 20230116-EI to reflect an estimated total of $166.1 million in incremental storm restoration costs from the Storms and Hurricane Xxxxxx, including interest, and replenishment of the storm reserve, beginning with the first billing cycle of January 2024 through December 2024, subject to true-up. DEF’s request would also modify the 12- month recovery period of the remaining incremental restoration costs previously approved for the Storms, as approved in Docket No. 20230020-EI. The interim petition for Docket No. 20230116-EI was filed pursuant to the provisions of the 2021 Settlement approved by Commission Order No. PSC-2021-0202-AS-EI.2 Pursuant to Paragraph 30c of the 2021 Settlement, DEF can begin recovery of storm costs, without a cap, 60 days following the filing of a petition for recovery. DEF has requested an amended interim storm recovery charge of $5.09 per 1,000 kilowatt-hours (kWh) on a residential customer bill over a 12-month recovery period beginning with the first billing cycle of January 2024. The Company requested to combine the estimated recovery amount of $91.9 million from Hurricane Xxxxxx with the remaining uncollected amount of $73.9 million from the Storms, for a total recovery amount of approximately $166.1 million. DEF also requested a modified recovery period to spread cost recovery for the remaining uncollected incremental storms costs over an additional nine months to reduce the impact of the increase due to the recovery of Hurricane Xxxxxx xxxxx costs. The Company stated that this will result in a rate reduction and will assist in rate stability. The approval of an interim storm restoration recovery charge is preliminary in nature and is subject to refund pending further review once the total actual storm restoration costs are known. Staff recommends amending the interim storm surcharge to reflect the known and measurable changes by the Company and modifying the recovery period to spread the cost recovery over a longer period. 2Order No. PSC-2021-0202-AS-EI, issued June 4, 2021, in Docket No. 20210016-EI, In re: Petition for limited proceeding to approve 2021 settlement agreement, including general base rate increases, by Duke Energy Florida, LLC.
STAFF ANALYSIS. Staff recommends that all funds collected subject to refund be secured by a corporate undertaking. The criteria for a corporate undertaking include sufficient liquidity, equity ownership, profitability, and interest coverage to guarantee any potential refund. DEF requested a 12-month collection period from January 2024 to December 2024 for Interim Storm Cost Recovery Charges of $166.1 million related to Hurricanes Idalia, Xxxx, Eta, Xxx, Xxxxxx, Xxxxxx, and Tropical Xxxxx Xxxx. Staff reviewed DEF’s three most recent Annual Reports filed with the Commission (2022, 2021, and 2020) to determine if the Company can support a corporate undertaking to guarantee the funds collected for recovery of incremental storm restoration costs related to all the weather events. DEF’s financial information indicates the Company’s liquidity is deficient, that is, current assets are less than current liabilities. However, the Company participates in Duke Energy Corporation’s (DEF’s parent company) money pool and has access to additional funds if needed. In addition, DEF’s equity ownership, profitability, and interest coverage are sufficient to support a potential refund of $166.1 million. DEF’s net income is 4.65 times the requested amount held subject to refund and it is improbable DEF will be required to refund the entire requested amount. Accordingly, staff believes DEF has adequate resources to support a corporate undertaking in the amount requested. Based on this analysis, staff recommends that a corporate undertaking of $166.1 million is acceptable. This brief financial analysis is only appropriate for deciding if the Company can support a corporate undertaking in the amount proposed and should not be considered a finding regarding staff’s position on other issues in this proceeding.
STAFF ANALYSIS. No. Docket No. 20230020 should remain open to conduct the administrative hearing scheduled for that docket. Docket No. 20230116-EI should remain open pending final reconciliation of actual recoverable storm costs with the amount collected pursuant to the interim storm restoration recovery charge and the calculation of a refund or additional charge if warranted.
STAFF ANALYSIS. Port staff believes the proposed structure above meets each of the four goals in the Executive Summary. By agreeing to enter a building permit immediately that would include the augmented provisions noted above, the Port will be better protected from potential liability while the final settlement agreement and new lease are approved and executed. Once those agreements are approved the Port will be further protected, and will also have a direct and cooperative relationship with RPD to manage this shared tenant. In addition, engaging in a collective negotiation of a new lease arrangement with the Club and RPD aligns this settlement with the terms of the SERC settlement: first requiring a payment of back rent to partially address prior use of the property and then setting the stage for a new relationship going forward that partners with RPD for a more cohesive oversight of the facility, protects the Port from liability and requires no rent in acknowledgement of the public access to water recreation provided by the Club in alignment with the Port’s trust mission. Port Staff Recommendation For the reasons set forth above, Port staff recommends approval of the attached resolution. Prepared by: Xxxxxxx Xxxxxx Deputy Director, Real Estate and Development PORT COMMISSION CITY & COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO RESOLUTION NO. 20-15
STAFF ANALYSIS. The federally-approved California Coastal Management Program (CCMP) comprises three distinct state agencies: the Commission, BCDC, and the California State Coastal Conservancy (Conservancy). The CZMA requires that one single state agency be the primary recipient of all federal CZMA funds awarded to the CCMP. The Coastal Act designates the Commission to serve this purpose. Therefore, any federal CZMA funds for other state agencies must be received by the Commission; included in the Commission’s budget; and passed through to the other CCMP agencies by means of an interagency agreement. The arrangement to pass through funds has been used since 1977, when the United States Department of Commerce approved the CCMP. In the fiscal year 2010-11 appropriation for CZMA grants, NOAA received additional funding to provide a competitive grant program for eligible states to modernize and improve their state’s land use information and permit tracking systems. The Commission and BCDC submitted a joint proposal in early June of this year seeking funding for improvements to each agency’s respective land use information and project/permit tracking system. We were successful in the grant competition and received a total grant award of $235,710. BCDC will receive a portion of these funds totaling $58,927 (see table below). The CCC and BCDC each maintain their own separate permit and project tracking systems due to their differing jurisdictions and regulatory authorities. The existing systems for both agencies are labor intensive, outdated and woefully inadequate to assess, track and manage the high volume of projects and permits within their respective jurisdictions. The outdated functionality of these systems hampers the ability of each agency to efficiently manage their important regulatory and planning functions. The federal funding received under this grant award will be used to take initial steps to modernize, expand on and improve each agency’s coastal management project and permit information systems. While each agency has their own system, the end goal of both of these projects is to improve the effectiveness of each agency’s coastal management program by providing reliable and convenient access to permit records, supporting land use documents, and natural resource information for use in regulatory decision-making, planning and enforcement and to integrate this data with each agency’s Geographic Information System (GIS). The funds from this grant will cover only a smal...
