Staff Analysis. The overall sign design is cohesive with the proposed architectural design’s intent described in the narrative and with the signage package outlined in the USP.
Staff Analysis. DEF filed a petition for a limited proceeding seeking authority to implement an interim storm restoration recovery charge to recover $442.1 million for the incremental restoration costs related to Hurricanes Xxxx, Eta, Xxx, Xxxxxx, Xxxxxx and Tropical Xxxxx Xxxx, and to replenish its storm reserve. In its petition, DEF requested to replenish the storm reserve to $131.9 million. The petition was filed pursuant to the provisions of the 2017 Settlement approved by the Commission in Order No. PSC-2017-0451-AS-EU and 2021 Settlement approved by the Commission in Order No. PSC-2021-0202-AS-EI.3 Storm restoration costs for Eta, Xxxx, Xxxxxx, and Xxxx were incurred while the 2017 Settlement Agreement was in effect. Storm restoration costs for Xxx and Xxxxxx were incurred during the term of the 2021 Settlement Agreement. The Storm Cost Recovery provisions of the respective Settlement Agreements are identical. Pursuant to Paragraph 38 of the 2017 Settlement and 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 proposed an interim storm recovery charge of $13.14 per 1,000 kilowatt- hours (kWh) on a residential customer bill over a 12-month recovery period effective the first billing cycle of April 2023. In its petition, DEF asserted that it incurred total retail recoverable costs of approximately $442.1 million as a result of Hurricanes Xxxx, Eta, Xxx, Xxxxxx, and Xxxxxx and Tropical Xxxxx Xxxx, as well as to replenish its storm reserve. The Company further asserted that this amount was calculated in accordance with the Incremental Cost and Capitalization Approach methodology prescribed in Rule 25-6.0143, Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.). 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. After the actual costs are reviewed for prudence and reasonableness, and are compared to the actual amount recovered through the interim storm restoration recovery charge, a determination will be made whether any over/under recovery has occurred. The disposition of any over/under recovery, and associated interest, will be considered by the Commission at a later date. 3Order No. PSC-2017-0451-AS-EU, issued November 20, 2017, in Docket No. 20170183, In re: Application for limited proceeding to approve 2017 second revised and restated sett...
Staff Analysis. DEF has proposed to decrease the currently effective interim storm restoration surcharges as approved in Docket No. 20230020-EI, based on the Company’s recalculation of storm costs to include Hurricane Xxxxxx and modify its recovery period through December 31, 2024, as discussed in Issue 1. In paragraph 18 of the petition, DEF states that the estimated storm recovery amount was allocated to the rate classes consistent with the rate design method approved in the 2021 Settlement.3 Staff has reviewed the allocation to rate classes and believes that the allocations provided in Appendix A, pages 5 and 6 to the petition are consistent with those approved in DEF’s 2021 Settlement. Furthermore, staff has reviewed the derivation of the surcharges provided in Appendix A to the petition. Staff agrees that the surcharges have been calculated correctly, using projected kilowatt hour (kWh) sales for January through December 2024. The proposed interim storm restoration recovery factors should remain in effect until a final true-up is approved by the Commission. The proposed interim storm restoration surcharges are shown on page 6 of Appendix A to the petition. For residential customers, the proposed surcharge would be 0.509 cents per kWh, which equates to a total surcharge of $5.09 for a 1,000 kWh monthly bill. The current surcharge is
Examples of Staff Analysis in a sentence
This Senate Professional Staff Analysis does not reflect the intent or official position of the bill’s introducer or the Florida Senate.
Staff Analysis: The proposed amendment has been distributed to the County service departments for review and there are adequate public facilities and services available to support the amendment, and the amendment does not exceed natural or manmade constraints.
Staff Analysis: This policy is the umbrella policy over the entire FLUA amendment analysis and many of the items are addressed elsewhere in this report as identified above.
Palm Beach County shall utilize a series of overlays to implement more focused policies that address specific issues within unique identified areas as depicted on the Special Planning Areas Map in the Map Series.” Staff Analysis: The proposed amendment is not located within an overlay.
Staff Analysis: The proposed amendment was distributed to the County service departments for review.
More Definitions of Staff Analysis
Staff Analysis. Pursuant to Section 366.04(2)(d), F.S., and Rule 25-6.0440, Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.), the Commission has the jurisdiction to approve territorial agreements between and among rural electric cooperatives, municipal electric utilities, and other electric utilities. Unless the Commission determines that the agreement will cause a detriment to the public interest, the agreement should be approved.2
Staff Analysis. Pursuant to Section 366.04(2)(d), F.S., the Commission has the jurisdiction to approve territorial agreements between and among rural electric cooperatives, municipal electric utilities, and other electric utilities. Rule 25-6.0440(2), F.A.C., states that in approving territorial agreements, the Commission may consider the reasonableness of the purchase price of any facilities being transferred, the likelihood that the agreement will not cause a decrease in the reliability of electric service to existing or future ratepayers, and the likelihood that the agreement will eliminate existing or potential uneconomic duplication of facilities. Unless the Commission determines that the agreement will cause a detriment to the public interest, the agreement should be approved. Utilities Commission of the City of New Smyrna v. Florida Public Service Commission, 469 So. 2d 731 (Fla. 1985). As noted in the case background, FPL and JEA are parties to a Territorial Agreement, mostly recently amended in 2012. The 2014 Amendment, if approved, would: • Move Swap Parcel 1, currently in FPL’s territory, and place it in JEA’s territory; and • Move Swap Parcel 2, currently in JEA’s territory, and place it in FPL’s territory. The current territorial boundary between FPL and JEA traverses an undeveloped area for which a new private development is planned. At present there is no electric infrastructure in place to serve electric needs; however, JEA has existing infrastructure nearby. The 2014 Amendment alters the territory between FPL and JEA so that the new territorial boundary will be more closely aligned with planned road ways and will facilitate the provision of electric service for the new development by one utility. Although there are no current development plans for the area within Swap Parcel 2, FPL and JEA agree that FPL will be in a better position to provide electric service to any future development in this area. No customers will be transferred when the 2014 Amendment is implemented; therefore, no customers were notified pursuant to Rule 25-6.0440(1), F.A.C. Nor are there any facilities to be transferred and no purchase price will be involved. FPL and JEA state that they entered the 2014 Amendment after consideration of the best interest of electric consumers and the residents of the areas served by both parties. The 2014 Amendment is intended to avoid unnecessary duplication of services in the area. FPL and JEA state that it is their position that the 2014 Amendment ...
Staff Analysis. Pursuant to Section 366.04(2)(d), F.S., the Commission has the jurisdiction to approve territorial agreements between and among rural electric cooperatives, municipal electric utilities, and other electric utilities. Rule 25-6.0440(2), Florida Administrative Code, (F.A.C.), states that in approving territorial agreements, the Commission may consider the reasonableness of the purchase price of any facilities being transferred, the likelihood that the agreement will not cause a decrease in the reliability of electric service to existing or future ratepayers, and the likelihood that the agreement will eliminate existing or potential uneconomic duplication of facilities. Unless the Commission determines that the agreement will cause a detriment to the public interest, the agreement should be approved. Utilities Commission of the City of New Smyrna v. Florida Public Service Commission, 469 So. 2d 731 (Fla. 1985). As noted in the case background, Tampa Electric and Lakeland are parties to a Territorial Agreement dated May 20, 1991, and first amended in August 1998. Both the Agreement and the first amendment were approved by the Commission. Recently, the petitioners evaluated their entire boundary line to identify areas that needed adjustment based on existing facilities and load growth. This evaluation process identified four areas (Detail 1-4), as shown in Attachment B, where such boundary changes were needed. The adjustments will better accommodate service to future load in a more efficient and cost-effective manner avoiding unnecessary duplication of transmission and distribution facilities and better serving the needs of their respective customers.3 The adjustment to the boundary line is described in the Second Amendment contained in Attachment A. No customers will be transferred when the Second Amendment is implemented; therefore, no customers were notified pursuant to Rule 25-6.0440(1), F.A.C. Nor are there any facilities to be transferred and no purchase price will be involved. The petitioners state that the Second Amendment will not cause a decrease in the reliability of electrical service to the existing or future ratepayers of Tampa Electric or Lakeland. They believe approval and implementation of the Second Amendment will increase the reliability of electric service for customers of both utilities on a going-forward basis. Also, approval and implementation of the Second Amendment will help avoid uneconomic duplication of facilities in the future. Staf...
Staff Analysis. Pursuant to Section 366.04(3)(a), F.S., the Commission has the jurisdiction to approve territorial agreements between and among natural gas utilities. Rule 25-7.0471(2), Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.), states that in approving territorial agreements, the Commission may consider the reasonableness of the purchase price of any facilities being transferred, the likelihood that the agreement will not cause a decrease in the reliability of gas service to existing or future ratepayers, and the likelihood that the agreement will eliminate existing or potential uneconomic duplication of facilities. Unless the Commission determines that the agreement will cause a detriment to the public interest, the agreement should be approved. Utilities Commission of the City of New Smyrna v. Florida Public Service Commission, 469 So. 2d 731 (Fla. 1985). The Petitioners represent that approval and implementation of the agreement will not cause a decrease in the availability or reliability of natural gas service to the existing or future ratepayers. No customers of either party will be transferred upon the approval of the agreement. However, Peoples currently provides natural gas service to customers located in Neptune Beach, Florida, which is situated within BES territory according to the pending agreement. Provided the agreement is in effect, Section 2.5 states that Peoples shall transfer the Neptune Beach customers to BES within 90 days following receipt of written notice from BES that its natural gas distribution system is capable of providing natural gas service to these customers. At the time of such transfer, Xxxxxxx would also convey to BES the facilities necessary to serve Neptune Beach at the depreciated book value. Once approved, the Agreement will remain in effect until modifications are mutually agreed upon by the parties and approved by the Commission, or until termination or modification shall be mandated by a governmental entity or court with appropriate jurisdiction. If Section 2.5 was exercised today, approximately 20 customers (19 primarily small commercial customers and 1 residential customer) would be transferred from Peoples to BES. These customers were sent notice advising of the possible future transfer and were provided examples of monthly bill calculations under the current Peoples and BES rates. Customers were also notified that neither Peoples nor BES knows whether or when any such transfer may occur and the current differences in rates may or ma...
Staff Analysis. The parties explained that Pensacola Energy has requested an additional point of delivery to enhance their gas service in the area. Specifically, the proposed project will begin by installing a tap to the existing Peninsula pipeline near the intersection of US 29 and Champion Drive. From this tap, Peninsula will install 510 feet of two-inch pipeline to the new point of delivery. Peninsula states that construction will commence in July 2023 and be completed by September 2023. The 2018 transportation agreement contains a negotiated monthly reservation charge that reflects Peninsula’s cost to construct and maintain the pipeline constructed in 2018 in Escambia county. The proposed amendment includes the reservation charge approved in the 2018 transportation agreement and an additional amount related to Peninsula’s costs to construct the facilities necessary in response to Pensacola Energy’s request for the additional point of delivery. The parties stated that the amount associated with the increase in the reservation charge will be solely paid by Pensacola Energy and will not impact FPUC’s general body of ratepayers. Staff believes that is appropriate as Pensacola Energy requested the additional point of delivery. The parties confirmed that Pensacola Energy has been informed of the construction costs and its responsibility to pay FPUC for the additional point of delivery. Finally, the parties assert that the negotiated rates in the amendment meet the requirements of Section 368.105(3), F.S., and are consistent with a market rate in that they are within the range of the rates set forth in similar agreements. Staff recommends that 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. Issue 2: Should this docket be closed? Recommendation: Yes. If no protest if 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. (Xxxxx)
Staff Analysis. The proposed addition of distilled spirits service would mean greater tax revenue for the City of Berkeley, with a greater variety of menu options to attract more people. It would also increase the economic health of the business whose cuisine offers a unique culinary opportunity to the community. The additional service would contribute to the cultural, economic, and social opportunities in the C-E District.