BEFORE THE FLORIDA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION
In Re: Fuel and Purchased Power
Cost Recovery Clause and
Generating Performance Incentive
Factor.
) DOCKET NO. 940001-EI
) ORDER NO. PSC-94-0963-PHO-EI
) ISSUED: August 9, 1994
)
)
Pursuant to Notice, a Prehearing Conference was held on
August 4, 1994, in Tallahassee, Florida, before Commissioner Susan
F. Clark, as Prehearing Officer.
APPEARANCES:
JAMES
A. McGEE, Esquire, Post Office
Petersburg, Florida 33733-4042
On behalf of Florida Power Corporation.
Box
14042,
St.
MATTHEW M. CHILDS, P.A., Steel Hector & Davis, 215 South
Monroe Street, Suite 601, Tallahassee, Florida 32301
On behalf of Florida Power and Light Company.
FLOYD R. SELF, Esquire, Messer, Vickers, Caparello, Madsen &
Goldman, P.A., Post Office Box 1876, Tallahassee,
Florida 32302-1876
On behalf of Florida Public Utilities Company.
G. EDISON HOLLAND, JR., Esquire, JEFFREY A. STONE, Esquire,
and TERESA E. LILES, Esquire, Beggs & Lane, 700 Blount
Building, 3 West Garden Street, Post Office Box 12950,
Pensacola, Florida 32576-2950
On behalf of Gulf Power Company.
LEE
L. WILLIS, Esquire and JAMES D. BEASLEY, Esquire,
Macfarlane, Ausley, Ferguson & McMullen, Post Office
Box 391, Tallahassee, Florida 32302
On behalf of Tampa Electric Company.
JOSEPH A. McGLOTHLIN, Esquire and VICKI GORDON KAUFMAN,
Esquire, McWhirter, Reeves, McGlothlin, Davidson &
Bakas,
315
South
Calhoun
Street,
Suite
716,
Tallahassee, Florida 32301
On behalf of Florida Industrial Power Users Group.
MARK K. LOGAN, Esquire, Bryant, Miller & Olive, 201 South
Monroe Street, Suite 500, Tallahassee, Florida 32301
AND
THOMAS
J.
SCHMIDT,
General
Counsel,
Orgulf
Transport Company, 1400-580 Building, Post Office Box
1460, Cincinnati, Ohio 45201
On behalf of Orgulf Transport Company.
ORDER NO. PSC-94-0963-PHO-EI
DOCKET NO. 940001-EI
PAGE 2
JOHN ROGER HOWE, Esquire, Deputy Public Counsel, Office of
Public Counsel, c/o The Florida Legislature, 111 West
Madison Street, Room 812, Tallahassee, Florida 323991400
On behalf of the Citizens of the State of Florida.
MARTHA CARTER BROWN, Esquire, Florida Public Service Commission,
101
East
Gaines
Street,
Tallahassee,
Florida
32399-0863
On behalf of the Commission Staff.
PREHEARING ORDER
I. CASE BACKGROUND
As part of the Commission's continuing fuel cost, capacity
cost, and environmental cost recovery proceedings, a hearing is
set for August 11-12, 1994 in this docket and in Docket No.
940042-EI.
The hearing will address the issues set out in the
body of this prehearing order.
II.
PROCEDURE FOR HANDLING CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION
A.
Any information provided pursuant to a discovery
request for which proprietary confidential business information
status is requested shall be treated by the Commission and the
parties as confidential.
The information shall be exempt from
Section 119.07(1), Florida Statutes, pending a formal ruling on
such request by the Commission, or upon the return of the
information to the person providing the information.
If no
determination of confidentiality has been made and the information
has not been used in the proceeding, it shall be returned
expeditiously to the person providing the information.
If a
determination of confidentiality has been made and the information
was not entered into the record of the proceeding, it shall be
returned to the person providing the information within the time
periods set forth in Section 366.093, Florida Statutes.
B.
It is the policy of the Florida Public Service
Commission that all Commission hearings be open to the public at
all times. The Commission also recognizes its obligation pursuant
to Section 366.093, Florida Statutes, to protect proprietary
confidential business information from disclosure outside the
proceeding.
ORDER NO. PSC-94-0963-PHO-EI
DOCKET NO. 940001-EI
PAGE 3
In the event it becomes necessary to use confidential
information during the hearing, the following procedures will be
observed:
1)Any
party wishing to use any proprietary confidential
business information, as that term is defined in
Section 366.093, Florida Statutes, shall notify
the Prehearing Officer and all parties of record
by the time of the Prehearing Conference, or if
not known at that time, no later than seven (7)
days prior to the beginning of the hearing.
The
notice shall include a procedure to assure that
the confidential nature of the information is
preserved as required by statute.
2)Failure of any party to comply with 1) above shall be
grounds to deny the party the opportunity to
present evidence which is proprietary confidential
business information.
3)When
confidential information is used in the hearing,
parties must have copies for the Commissioners,
necessary staff, and the Court Reporter, in
envelopes clearly marked with the nature of the
contents.
Any party wishing to examine the
confidential material that is not subject to an
order granting confidentiality shall be provided a
copy in the same fashion as provided to the
Commissioners,
subject
to
execution
of
any
appropriate protective agreement with the owner of
the material.
4)Counsel and witnesses are cautioned to avoid verbalizing
confidential information in such a way that would
compromise
the
confidential
information.
Therefore, confidential information should be
presented by written exhibit when reasonably
possible to do so.
5)At the conclusion of that portion of the hearing that
involves confidential information, all copies of
confidential exhibits shall be returned to the
proffering party.
If a confidential exhibit has
been admitted into evidence, the copy provided to
the Court Reporter shall be retained in the
Commission Clerk's confidential files.
ORDER NO. PSC-94-0963-PHO-EI
DOCKET NO. 940001-EI
PAGE 4
III. PREFILED TESTIMONY AND EXHIBITS; WITNESSES
Testimony of all witnesses to be sponsored by the parties has
been prefiled. All testimony which has been prefiled in this case
will be inserted into the record as though read after the witness
has taken the stand and affirmed the correctness of the testimony
and associated exhibits.
All testimony remains subject to
appropriate objections. Each witness will have the opportunity to
orally summarize his or her testimony at the time he or she takes
the stand.
Upon insertion of a witness' testimony, exhibits
appended thereto may be marked for identification.
After all
parties and Staff have had the opportunity to object and crossexamine, the exhibit may be moved into the record.
All other
exhibits may be similarly identified and entered into the record
at the appropriate time during the hearing.
Witnesses are reminded that, on cross-examination, responses
to questions calling for a simple yes or no answer shall be so
answered first, after which the witness may explain his or her
answer.
The Commission frequently administers the testimonial oath to
more than one witness at a time. Therefore, when a witness takes
the stand to testify, the attorney calling the witness is directed
to ask the witness to affirm whether he or she has been sworn.
Witnesses whose names are preceded by an asterisk (*) have
been excused. The parties have stipulated that the testimony of
those witnesses will be inserted into the record as though read,
and cross-examination will be waived.
The parties have also
stipulated that all exhibits submitted with the witnesses'
testimony shall be identified as shown in Section VII of this
Prehearing Order and admitted into the record.
IV.
ORDER OF WITNESSES
Witness
Appearing For
Issues #
*Karl H. Wieland
FPC
1-9, 12-15
*William C. Micklon
FPC
10 and 11
*R. Silva
FPL
1,2,3,13,14
*D. C. Poteralski
FPL
1,2,3
ORDER NO. PSC-94-0963-PHO-EI
DOCKET NO. 940001-EI
PAGE 5
Witness
Appearing For
Issues #
*B. T. Birkett
FPL
1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,
15,16,17,18,19,20,
21,22,23,24a,24b
*Bachman
FPUC
1-8
M. L. Gilchrist
GULF
1,2,4,12
*M. W. Howell
GULF
1,2,4,19,20,21
*S. D. Cranmer
GULF
1,2,3,4,6,7,8,
19,20,21,22,23
*G. D. Fontaine
GULF
13,14
*Mary Jo Pennino
TECO
1,2,3,4,6,7,8,11c,
19,20,21,22,23,25a
*G. A. Keselowsky
TECO
13,14
*R. F. Tomczak and
*E. A. Townes
TECO
15,16,17,18
*W. N. Cantrell
TECO
11a,11b
V.
BASIC POSITIONS
FLORIDA POWER CORPORATION (FPC):
None necessary.
FLORIDA POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY (FPL):
None necessary.
FLORIDA PUBLIC UTILITIES COMPANY (FPUC): Florida Public Utilities
has properly projected its costs and calculated its true-up
amounts and purchased power cost recovery factors. Those factors
should be approved by the Commission.
GULF POWER COMPANY (GULF): It is the basic position of Gulf Power
Company that the proposed fuel factors and capacity cost recovery
factors present the best estimate of Gulf's fuel and purchased
power expense for the period October, 1994 through March, 1995
including the true-up calculations, GPIF and other adjustments
allowed by the Commission.
ORDER NO. PSC-94-0963-PHO-EI
DOCKET NO. 940001-EI
PAGE 6
TAMPA ELECTRIC COMPANY (TECO):
The Commission should approve
Tampa Electric's calculation of its fuel adjustment, capacity cost
recovery, GPIF, and oil backout cost recovery true-up calculations
and projections, including the proposed fuel adjustment factor of
2.353 cents per KWH before application of factors which adjust for
variation in line losses; the proposed capacity cost recovery
factor of .142 cents per KWH before applying the 12 CP and 1/13
allocation methodology; a GPIF reward of $406,404; and an oil
backout cost recovery factor of .096 cents per KWH.
FLORIDA INDUSTRIAL POWER USERS GROUP (FIPUG):
None necessary.
ORGULF TRANSPORT COMPANY (ORGULF):
The Florida Public Service
Commission should deny Gulf's petition with respect to all costs
related to the Peabody Coal contract buy-out and any other costs
related to the administration, suspension, and cancellation of the
Orgulf transportation contract as these costs were not prudently
incurred.
The Commission should also deny recovery for any
replacement fuel transportation costs incurred by Gulf Power
outside of its transportation agreement with Orgulf.
Alternatively, the Commission should order that Gulf Power be
prohibited from recovering all costs associated with the Peabody
Coal contract buy-out and other costs relative to the Orgulf
transportation agreement for the time period in question until the
pending litigation between Gulf and Orgulf Transport is concluded.
At such time the Commission can better determine whether costs
associated with the administration of the Peabody and Orgulf
contracts and other related transportation costs have been
prudently incurred and are therefore recoverable from Gulf's
ratepayers.
OFFICE OF PUBLIC COUNSEL (OPC):
None necessary.
STAFF:
Staff has no basic position in this docket.
Staff's
positions on specific issues are preliminary and based on
materials filed by the parties and on discovery. The preliminary
positions are offered to assist the parties in preparing for the
hearing.
Staff's final positions will be based upon all the
evidence in the record and may differ from the preliminary
positions.
ORDER NO. PSC-94-0963-PHO-EI
DOCKET NO. 940001-EI
PAGE 7
VI. ISSUES AND POSITIONS
Generic Fuel Adjustment Issues
STIPULATED
ISSUE 1: What are the appropriate final fuel adjustment true-up
amounts for the period October, 1993 through
March, 1994?
POSITION:
FPC:
FPL:
FPUC:
GULF:
TECO:
$5,074,211
$2,066,794
Marianna:
Fernandina
$810,768
resolution
$5,779,224
underrecovery
overrecovery
$ 10,735 overrecovery
Beach: $215,029 overrecovery
underrecovery,
pending
of Issue 12.
overrecovery
STIPULATED
ISSUE 2: What are the estimated fuel adjustment true-up amounts
for the period April, 1994 through September,
1994?
POSITION:
FPC:
FPL:
FPUC:
GULF:
TECO:
$26,512,241 underrecovery.
$32,451,868 overrecovery.
Marianna:
$38,323 underrecovery
Fernandina Beach:
$74,042 overrecovery
$1,969,504
underrecovery,
pending
resolution of Issue 12.
$4,827,083 underrecovery.
STIPULATED
ISSUE 3: What are the total fuel adjustment true-up amounts to
be collected during the period October, 1994
through March, 1995?
POSITION:
FPC:
FPL:
FPUC:
GULF:
TECO:
$31,586,452 underrecovery.
$34,518,662 overrecovery.
Marianna:
$ 27,588 underrecovery.
Fernandina Beach: $289,071 overrecovery.
$2,780,272
underrecovery,
pending
resolution of Issue 12.
$ 952,141 overrecovery.
ORDER NO. PSC-94-0963-PHO-EI
DOCKET NO. 940001-EI
PAGE 8
STIPULATED
ISSUE 4: What are the appropriate levelized fuel cost recovery
factors for the period October, 1994 through
March, 1995?
POSITION:
In cents/kWh:
FPC:
FPL:
FPUC:
GULF:
TECO:
STIPULATED
ISSUE 5: What
POSITION: The
STIPULATED
ISSUE 6: What
POSITION:
2.051
1.567
Marianna:
3.009
Fernandina Beach:
3.646
2.179
2.353
should be the effective date of the new fuel
adjustment
charge,
oil
backout
charge
and
conservation cost recovery charge for billing
purposes?
factor should be effective beginning with the
specified fuel cycle and thereafter for the period
October, 1994 through March, 1995. Billing cycles
may start before October 1, 1994, and the last
cycle may be read after March 31, 1995, so that
each customer is billed for six months regardless
of when the adjustment factor became effective.
are the appropriate fuel recovery line loss
multipliers to be used in calculating the fuel
cost recovery factors charged to each rate class?
The appropriate line loss multipliers are found on
page 2 of 10 of Staff Attachment 2.
STIPULATED
ISSUE 7: What are the appropriate Fuel Cost Recovery Factors for
each rate group adjusted for line losses?
POSITION:
STIPULATED
The appropriate factors are found on page 2 of 10
of Staff Attachment 2.
ORDER NO. PSC-94-0963-PHO-EI
DOCKET NO. 940001-EI
PAGE 9
ISSUE 8: What is the appropriate revenue tax factor to be
applied in calculating each company's levelized
fuel factor for the projection period of October,
1994 through March, 1995?
POSITION:
FPC: 1.00083
FPL: 1.01609
FPUC: Fernandina Beach:
Marianna:
GULF: 1.01609
TECO: 1.00083
1.01609
1.00083
COMPANY SPECIFIC FUEL ADJUSTMENT ISSUES
Florida Power and Light Company
STIPULATED
DEFERRED
ISSUE 9: Is FPL's proposed new methodology for allocating fuel
costs to the various customer classes appropriate?
POSITION:
This issue should be deferred to the February
1995 fuel hearings to allow further time to
analyze FPL's proposed methodology.
Florida Power Corporation
STIPULATED
ISSUE 10a:Should FPC be permitted to recover the costs associated
with the accelerated purchase of locomotives?
POSITION:
Yes.
The company has demonstrated that the
accelerated purchase of locomotives will increase
the savings to its ratepayers from $10.9 million
to $14.5. Therefore, the Commission should allow
FPC to recover the costs associated with the
accelerated purchases.
ORDER NO. PSC-94-0963-PHO-EI
DOCKET NO. 940001-EI
PAGE 10
STIPULATED
ISSUE 10b:Is it appropriate for FPC to differentiate fuel charges
by metering voltage?
POSITION: Yes.
Differentiating fuel charges in this manner will
ensure consistency with the treatment of base rate
charges, the ECCR and the CCR.
Tampa Electric Company
STIPULATED
ISSUE 11a:Has
POSITION: Yes.
STIPULATED
ISSUE 11b:Has
POSITION: Yes.
Tampa Electric Company adequately justified any
costs associated with the purchase of coal from
Gatliff Coal Company that are in excess of the
1993 benchmark price?
TECO's actual costs are below the benchmark and
therefore this issue is moot.
Tampa Electric Company adequately justified any
costs associated with transportation services
provided by affiliates of Tampa Electric Company
that are in excess of the 1993 waterborne
transportation benchmark price?
TECO's actual costs are below the benchmark, and
therefore this issue is moot.
STIPULATED
ISSUE 11c:Has Tampa Electric Company prudently administered its
contract with Consol Coal Company?
POSITION:
contract.
Yes.
TECO
has
prudently
administered
its
Gulf Power Company
ISSUE 12: What costs, if any, are appropriate for Gulf to recover
through the fuel cost recovery clause as a result
of the Peabody contract suspension?
GULF: Gulf should recover all costs associated with the Peabody
contract suspension, including the suspension
payment and the costs of purchasing replacement
coal.
These costs were prudently incurred and
ORDER NO. PSC-94-0963-PHO-EI
DOCKET NO. 940001-EI
PAGE 11
resulted in net fuel savings for the customers
totalling approximately $14,479,865. (Gilchrist)
OPC:
No position.
FIPUG:
No position.
ORGULF:
None.
STAFF:
Gulf has provided a cost benefit analysis that
demonstrates a positive savings as a result of the Peabody
contract suspension.
Therefore, the prudently incurred costs
associated with the suspension of the Peabody Contract are
appropriate for recovery.
Generic Generating Performance Incentive Factor Issues
STIPULATED
ISSUE 13: What
POSITION:
is the appropriate GPIF reward or penalty for
performance achieved during the period October,
1993 through March, 1994?
FPC:
FPL:
GULF:
TECO:
$1,009,345 reward.
$3,107,919 reward.
$84,941 (penalty).
$406,404 (reward).
STIPULATED
ISSUE 14: What should the GPIF targets/ranges be for the period
October, 1994 through March, 1995?
POSITION: FPC: As provided on page
FPL: As provided on
GULF:As provided on
TECO:As provided on
2 of
page
page
page
Staff Attachment 1.
2 of Staff Attachment 1.
2 of Staff Attachment 1.
2 of Staff Attachment 1.
ORDER NO. PSC-94-0963-PHO-EI
DOCKET NO. 940001-EI
PAGE 12
Company-Specific GPIF Issues
No company-specific GPIF issues have been identified for this
hearing.
Generic Oil Backout Issues
STIPULATED
ISSUE 15: What is the final oil backout true-up amount for the
October, 1993 through March, 1994 period?
POSITION:
FPL:
TECO:
$257,863 overrecovery.
$ 81,177 underrecovery.
STIPULATED
ISSUE 16: What is the estimated oil backout true-up amount for
the period April, 1994 through September, 1994?
POSITION:
FPL:
TECO:
$250,389 overrecovery.
$ 49,634 overrecovery.
STIPULATED
ISSUE 17: What is the total oil backout true-up amount to be
collected during the period October, 1994 through
March, 1995?
POSITION:
FPL:
TECO:
$508,252 overrecovery.
$ 31,543 underrecovery.
STIPULATED
ISSUE 18: What is the projected oil backout cost recovery factor
for the period October, 1994 through March, 1995?
POSITION:
FPL:
TECO:
.011 cents/kwh.
.096 cents per KWH.
Company-Specific Oil Backout Issues
There are no company-specific oil backout issues for this
hearing.
ORDER NO. PSC-94-0963-PHO-EI
DOCKET NO. 940001-EI
PAGE 13
Generic Capacity Cost Recovery Issues
STIPULATED
ISSUE 19: What is the appropriate final capacity cost recovery
true-up amount for the period October, 1993
through March, 1994?
POSITION:
FPC:
FPL:
GULF:
TECO:
$
69,905
$8,570,760
$1,135,019
$ 861,751
under-recovery.
overrecovery
underrecovery.
overrecovery.
STIPULATED
ISSUE 20: What is the estimated capacity cost recovery true-up
amount
for
the
period
April,
1994
through
September, 1994?
POSITION:
FPC:
FPL:
GULF:
TECO:
$4,622,826
$8,210,602
$
56,118
$ 742,821
over-recovery.
overrecovery.
over-recovery.
overrecovery
STIPULATED
ISSUE 21: What is the total capacity cost recovery true-up amount
to be collected during the period October, 1994
through March, 1995?
STAFF:
FPC:
FPL:
GULF:
TECO:
$ 4,552,921
$16,781,361
$ 1,078,901
$ 1,604,572
overrecovery.
overrecovery.
underrecovery.
overrecovery
STIPULATED
ISSUE 22: What is the appropriate projected net purchased power
capacity cost recovery amount to be included in
the recovery factor for the period October, 1994
through March, 1995?
POSITION:
FPC:
FPL:
GULF:
TECO:
$ 82,945,428
$152,074,783
$ 6,956,372
$ 9,181,060
ORDER NO. PSC-94-0963-PHO-EI
DOCKET NO. 940001-EI
PAGE 14
STIPULATED
ISSUE 23: What are the projected capacity cost recovery factors
for the period October, 1994 through March, 1995?
POSITION:
The appropriate capacity cost recovery factors are
found on page 3 of 10 of Staff Attachment 2.
Company-Specific Capacity Cost Recovery Issues
Florida Power and Light Company
STIPULATED
ISSUE 24a:Was it appropriate for FPL to change the amount of
annual capacity credit associated with the St.
Johns River Power Park from $63,975,761 to
$56,945,592?
POSITION: Yes.
The
adjustment
appropriately
reflects
all
purchased power capacity revenues and costs that
were included in base rates as a result of FPL's
1988 tax savings docket.
STIPULATED
ISSUE 24b:How should FPL recover capacity costs from customers who
take standby power?
POSITION:FPL should recover capacity costs from standby customers
through
the
combination
of
a
reservation
charge/daily demand charge component.
These
charges
should
be
calculated
in
a
manner
consistent with the methodology outlined in Order
No. 17159.
Tampa Electric Company
DEFERRED
ISSUE 25a:Other than economy sales and revenues from the seven
entities that were separated out in TECO's last
rate case, should Tampa Electric credit all
nonfuel revenues from off-system sales back to the
retail ratepayers through the fuel adjustment
clause and the capacity cost recovery clause?
TECO: No.
The level of sales and resulting revenues from long-term
firm off-system sales vary subsequent to a rate
ORDER NO. PSC-94-0963-PHO-EI
DOCKET NO. 940001-EI
PAGE 15
case.
In Docket No. 920324-EI it was determined
that long-term firm off-system sales were to be
treated with consistency. (Pennino)
OPC:
Yes.
FIPUG:
TECO is making additional wholesale sales from
"excess jurisdictional capacity."
Order No. 930664 requires that nonfuel revenues from such
sales be credited back to retail customers through
the fuel clause.
Yes.
ORGULF:No position.
STAFF:Yes.
VII.
In Order No PSC-93-0664-FOF-EI, the Commission ordered
TECO to credit all nonfuel revenues from offsystem sales that had not been allocated to the
wholesale
jurisdiction
back
to
the
retail
ratepayers by including those revenues as credits
in the Capacity Cost Recovery Clause and the Fuel
and Purchased Power Clause.
TECO has not been
crediting all off-system sales to the appropriate
clauses.
As a result, the shareholders are
receiving the benefits of these off-system sales
while the retail ratepayers are bearing the costs.
EXHIBIT LIST
Witness
Proffered By
*Wieland
FPC
_______
(KHW-1)
True-up Variance
Analysis
*Wieland
FPC
_______
(KHW-2)
Schedules A1 through
A13 (True-up)
*Wieland
FPC
_______
(KHW-3)
Forecast Assumptions
(Parts
A-C),
Capacity
Factors
Information
I.D. No.
Description
Cost
Recovery
(Part D), and Other
Supporting
(Parts E-G)
ORDER NO. PSC-94-0963-PHO-EI
DOCKET NO. 940001-EI
PAGE 16
Witness
Proffered By
I.D. No.
Description
*Wieland
FPC
_______
(KHW-4)
Schedules E1 through
E11 and H1
(Projections)
*Micklon
FPC
_______
(WCM-1)
Standard Form GPIF
Schedules
(Reward/Penalty)
*Micklon
FPC
_______
(WCM-2)
Standard Form GPIF
Schedules
(Targets/Ranges)
*Birkett
FPL
_______
(BTB-1)
Appendix I/Fuel Cost
Recovery True-Up
Calculation
*Birkett
FPL
_______
(BTB-2)
Appendix II/Capacity
Cost Recovery True-
Up
Calculation
*Birkett
FPL
_______
(BTB-3)
Appendix III/Oil
Backout Cost
Recovery True-Up
Calculation
*Birkett
FPL
_______
(BTB-4)
Appendix IV/A
Schedules
October 1993 - March
1994
*Silva
FPL
_______
(RS-1)
Appendix I/Fuel Cost
Recovery Forecast
Assumptions
*Birkett
Cost
FPL
_______
Appendix
(BTB-5)
*Birkett
Cost
FPL
Recovery Calculation
of Factor
Appendix
III/Fuel
*Birkett
FPL
_______
II/Fuel
(BTB-6)
Recovery
Estimated/Actual
True-Up Calculation
_______
(BTB-7)
Appendix
IV/Capacity Cost
Recovery Calculation
Of Factors
ORDER NO. PSC-94-0963-PHO-EI
DOCKET NO. 940001-EI
PAGE 17
Witness
Proffered By
*Birkett
Backout
FPL
*Silva
I.D. No.
Description
_______
Appendix
(BTB-8)
Cost Recovery
Calculation of Factor
FPL
_______
(RS-2)
Document No. 1/GPIF
Results
*Silva
FPL
_______
(RS-3)
Document No. 1/GPIF
Targets and Ranges
*Birkett
FPL
_______
(BTB-9)
*Bachman
E1b,
FPUC
_______
Schedules
(GMB-2)
E2,
E11,
V/Oil
Fuel Cost Recovery,
Calculation of Factor
Revised
E4,
E,
E1,
E8,
E10,
H1 & M1 (Marianna
Division)
Schedules
E1b,
E2,
E10,
E4,
E,
E1,
E8,
E8A,
E11, H1 & F1
(Fernandina Beach
Division)
Gilchrist
GULF
_______
(MLG-1)
Coal Suppliers
Oct '93 - Mar '94
Gilchrist
GULF
_______
(MLG-2)
Projected vs. Actual
Fuel
Cost;
Calculation
of Net Fuel Savings
-
Peabody Suspension
Agreement
*Howell
GULF
_______
(MWH-1)
Projected Capacity
Transactions
Oct.'94 - Mar '95
*Cranmer
GULF
_______
(SDC-1)
Fuel Cost Recovery
Final True-up
Calculation
ORDER NO. PSC-94-0963-PHO-EI
DOCKET NO. 940001-EI
PAGE 18
Witness
Proffered By
*Cranmer
through
GULF
I.D. No.
Description
_______
Schedules
(SDC-2)
E-11; 12; 13; H-1;
CCE-1, CCE-1a; CCE-
1b;
E-1
CCE-2; & monthly A-1
thru A-12, Nov '93
thru May '94;
(development of fuel
cost
and
capacity
cost
recovery factors)
*Fontaine
Schedules
GULF
_______
GPIF
Results
*Fontaine
GULF
_______
(GDF-2)
GPIF Targets and
Ranges
*Pennino
TECO
_______
(MJP-1)
Levelized fuel cost
recovery
and
(GDF-1)
capacity
cost recovery final
true-up,
October
1993
- March 1994
*Pennino
TECO
_______
(MJP-2)
Fuel adjustment
projection, October
1994 - March 1995
*Pennino
recovery
TECO
_______
Capacity
(MJP-3)
projection, October
1994 - March 1995
*Keselowsky
Performance
TECO
_______
Generating
(GAK-1)
Incentive Factor
Results,
October
1993
cost
- March 1994
*Keselowsky
TECO
_______
(GAK-2)
GPIF Targets and
Ranges for October
1994 - March 1995
*Keselowsky
TECO
_______
Estimated Unit
ORDER NO. PSC-94-0963-PHO-EI
DOCKET NO. 940001-EI
PAGE 19
(GAK-3)
Performance Data,
October 1994 - March
1995
ORDER NO. PSC-94-0963-PHO-EI
DOCKET NO. 940001-EI
PAGE 20
Witness
Proffered By
I.D. No.
Description
*Tomczak/
Townes
TECO
___________
(RFT/EAT-1)
Schedules Supporting
Oil Backout Cost
Recovery Factor Actual, October 1993
- March 1994
*Tomczak/
Townes
TECO
___________
(RFT/EAT-2)
Schedules Supporting
Oil Backout Cost
Recovery Factor,
October 1994 - March
1995
*Tomczak/
Townes
of
TECO
____________
(RFT/EAT-3)
Gannon Conversion
Project
Comparison
Projected
with
Payoff
Original Estimate as
of May 1994
*Cantrell
TECO
Calculation,
Order
VIII.
_______
(WNC-1)
Transportation
Benchmark
FPSC Order 93-0443
-FOF-EI
and
FPSC
No. 20298
PROPOSED STIPULATIONS
Issues Nos. 1-11, and 13-24b.
The proposed stipulations
represent the position of those parties that chose to take a
position on the issue.
Issue 9 and Issue 25a will be deferred
until the March 1995 hearings.
IX.
RULINGS
It is noted that Intervenor Tropicana Products voluntarily
withdrew from participation in this docket.
It is therefore,
ORDERED by Commissioner Susan F. Clark, as Prehearing
Officer, that this Prehearing Order shall govern the conduct of
these proceedings as set forth above unless modified by the
Commission.
ORDER NO. PSC-94-0963-PHO-EI
DOCKET NO. 940001-EI
PAGE 21
By ORDER of Commissioner Susan
Officer, this 9th day of August, 1994.
F.
Clark,
as
Prehearing
SUSAN F. CLARK, Commissioner and
Prehearing Officer
( S E A L )
MCB:bmi
NOTICE OF FURTHER PROCEEDINGS OR JUDICIAL REVIEW
The Florida Public Service Commission is required by Section
120.59(4),
Florida
Statutes,
to
notify
parties
of
any
administrative hearing or judicial review of Commission orders
that is available under Sections 120.57 or 120.68, Florida
Statutes, as well as the procedures and time limits that apply.
This notice should not be construed to mean all requests for an
administrative hearing or judicial review will be granted or
result in the relief sought.
Any party adversely affected by this order, which is
preliminary, procedural or intermediate in nature, may request:
1) reconsideration within 10 days pursuant to Rule 25-22.038(2),
Florida Administrative Code, if issued by a Prehearing Officer; 2)
reconsideration within 15 days pursuant to Rule 25-22.060, Florida
Administrative Code, if issued by the Commission; or 3) judicial
review by the Florida Supreme Court, in the case of an electric,
gas or telephone utility, or the First District Court of Appeal,
in the case of a water or wastewater utility.
A motion for
reconsideration shall be filed with the Director, Division of
Records and Reporting, in the form prescribed by Rule 25-22.060,
Florida Administrative Code.
Judicial review of a preliminary,
procedural or intermediate ruling or order is available if review
of the final action will not provide an adequate remedy.
Such
review may be requested from the appropriate court, as described
above, pursuant to Rule 9.100, Florida Rules of Appellate
Procedure.