Florida Power & Light Company

Florida Power & Light Company

FPL

April 3, 2006

VIA HAND DELIVERY

M.

Blanca S. Bayo, Director

Division of the Commission Clerk and Administrative Services

Florida Public Service Commission

Betty Easley Conference Center

2540 Shumard Oak Boulevard

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0850

Re:

2006

-

2015

Ten Year Site Pian

Dear Ms. Bayo,

In accordance with Chapter 186 (Section 186.801

-

Ten Year Plans) of the

Florida Statues, enclosed for filing are twenty-five (25) copies of Florida Power &

Light Company's 2006

-

If you have any questions, please

do

not hesitate to contact me.

Sincerely,

Regulatory Affairs Analyst

(305) 552-44 1 6

an FPL Group company

Ten Year Power Plant Site Plan

2006

=

2015

Ten Year Power Plant Site Plan

2006-2015

Submitted

To:

Florida Public

Service Commission

Miami, Florida

April, 2006

(This page is intentionally left blank.)

Table of Contents

List of

Figures and Tables

............................................................................................................

...

111

List

of

Schedules

............................................................................................................................ v

Overview of the Document

...........................................................................................................

i

List of Abbreviations

......................................................................................................................

3

Executive Summary

.......................................................................................................................

5

1

.

Description of Existing Resources

...............................................................................

11

A

.

FPL-Owned Resources

.....................................................................................

6

.

Firm Capacity Power Purchase

13

........................................................................

18

C

D

.

Non-Firm (As Available) Energy

.......................................................................

.

Demand Side Management (DSM)

21

....................................................................

21

II

.

Forecast of Electric Power Demand

.............................................................................

27

A

B

.

Long-Term Sales Forecasts

.

Net Energy for Load

.............................................................................

30

..........................................................................................

32

C

.

System Peak Forecasts

....................................................................................

33

D

.

Hourly Load Forecast

........................................................................................

34

111

.

Projection of Incremental Resource Additions

...........................................................

43

A

.

FPL’s Resource Planning

B

C

D

.

Incremental Resource Additions

.

.................................................................................

45

.

Demand Side Management (DSM)

E

.

Transmission Plan

F

.

Renewable Resources

............................................................................

Issues Impacting FPL’s Recent Planning Work

.........................................

..........................................................................

.......................................................................................................

................................................................................................

51

54

58

63

67

G

.

FPL’s Fuel Mix and Price Forecasts

.................................................................

70

IV

.

Environmental and Land Use Information

.................................................................

101

A

.

Protection of the Environment

......................................................................

103

6

C

.

FPL’s Environmental Statement

.

Environmental Management

....................................................................

104

...........................................................................

104

D

.

Environmental Assurance Program

..............................................................

105

E

F

.

Environmental Communication and Facilitation

1

.

Preferred Site # 1

4

.

Potential Site # 2

5

.

Potential Site # 3

6

.

Potential Site # 4

7

.

Potential Site # 5

8

.

Potential Site # 6

9

.

Potential Site # 7

10

.

Potential Site # 8

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

Turkey Point

Andytown

.................................................

......................................................

Cape Canaveral

Desoto

Ft

.

Myers

Lauderdale

Martin

....................................................

............................................................

Port Everglades

..........................................

119

........................................

...........................................................

.......................................................

............................................

105

.

Preferred and Potential Sites

.........................................................................

106

106

2

.

Preferred Site

#

2

-West County Energy Center

.......................

113

3

.

Potential Site #

1

-

-

Riviera

...........................................................

121

122

122

123

124

125

Florida Power & Light Company

i

_ _ v.

Other Planning Assumptions and Information

Introduction

........................................................................

Discussion Item #1

Discussion Item #2

Discussion Item #3

...........................................

173

..................................................................................................

173

.......................................

.....

...............

.......

.

................

.

..............

174

..............................................

....

......... ..........................

... ..

........

175

Discussion Item #4

Discussion Item #5

Discussion Item #6

..................................................................................................

175

..,.

...............

...................

. ..... .

.............................

.

.........

. ......... ....

176

..................................................................................................

176

Discussion Item #7

Discussion Item #8

Discussion Item

#9

..................................................................................................

176

..................................................................................

...

.............

177

..................................................................................................

178

Discussion Item #10

..................................................................................................

178

Discussion Item #11

Discussion Item #12

..................................................................................................

181

Florida Power &

Light Company

11

(I

a r(

4

4

(I

a

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4 a

4

(I

1

a a a

5

9 a a a

(I

e a

0

0

0

a

(I

0

a

List of Figures and Tables

Table ES.l

Figure I.A.l

Table I.A.1

Figure I.A.2

Figure l.A.3

Table I.B.1

Table 1.8.2

Table I.C.1

Figure III.A.l

Table III.B.l

Table III.D.l

Table lll.D.2

Table III.E.l

Table IV.E.l

Projected Capacity Changes and Reserve Margins for FPL

............................

9

Capacity Resources (Map)

.................................................................................

14

Capacity Resource b y Unit Type

......................................................................

15

FPL Substation & Transmission System Configuration (Map)

......................

16

FPL Interconnection Diagram

...........................................................................

17

FPL’s Firm Purchased Power Summer MW

....................................................

19

FPL’s Firm Purchased Power Winter MW

........................................................

20

As-Available Energy Purchases From Non-Utility Generators in

2005

.........

21

Overview of FPL’s IRP Process

........................................................................

46

Projected Capacity Changes for FPL

...............................................................

53

FPL’s Summer MW Reduction Goals for DSU

................................................

60

FPL’s Additional Summer MW of DSM

.............................................................

62

List of Proposed Power Lines

...........................................................................

63

2005 FPL Environmental Outreach Activities

................................................

105

Turkey Point

.........................................................................................

127

Proposed Facilities Layout Map

.................................................

129

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Map & Legend

...........................

130

Map of Site and Adjacent Area

...................................................

131

West County Energy Center

............................................................................

133

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Map & Legend

...........................

135

Proposed Facilities Layout Map

.................................................

136

Map of Site and Adjacent Area

...................................................

137

Potential Sites

Andytown

-

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Map

.....................

139

Cape Canaveral

-

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Map

..................

143

Desoto

-

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Map

.....................

147

Florida Power

&

Light Company

...

I l l

Ft. Myers

-

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Map

.....................

151

Lauderdale

-

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Map

...................

155

Martin

-

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Map

...................

159

Port Everglades

-

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Map

................

163

Riviera

-

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Map

.....................

167

List

of

Schedules

Schedule 1

Existing Generating Facilities

...........................................................................

23

Schedule 2.1

History and Forecast of Energy Consumption

8

Number of Customers by Customer Class

......................................................

35

Schedule 2.2 History and Forecast of Energy Consumption &

Number of Customers b y Customer Class

......................................................

36

Schedule 2.3 History and Forecast of Energy Consumption 8

Number of

Customers by Customer Class

......................................................

37

Schedule 3.1 History and Forecast of Summer Peak Demand

(Base Case)

........................................................................................................

38

Schedule 3.2 History and Forecast of Winter Peak Demand

(Base Case)

.......................................................................................................

.39

Schedule 3.3 History and Forecast of Annual Net Energy for

Load GWH (Base Case)

......................................................................................

40

Schedule 4 Previous Year Actual and Two-Year Forecast of Retail Peak

Demand and Net Energy for Load b y Month

...................................................

41

Schedule 5

Fuel Requirements

.............................................................................................

73

Schedule 6.1

Energy Sources

..................................................................................................

74

Schedule 6.2 Energy % by Fuel Type

......................................................................................

75

Schedule 7.1 Forecast of Capacity, Demand and Scheduled Maintenance at

Time of Summer Peak

........................................................................................

76

Schedule 7.2 Forecast of Capacity, Demand and Scheduled Maintenance at

Time of Winter Peak

...........................................................................................

77

Schedule 8

Planned and Prospective Generating Facility Additions and Changes

........

78

Schedule 9

Status Report and Specifications of Proposed Generating Facilities

..........

80

Schedule 10

Status Report and Specifications of Proposed Directly Associated

Transmission Lines

............................................................................................

90

Florida Power &

Light

Company

V

(This page is intentionally left blank.)

Florida Power

&

Light

Company

vi

a a a a

(I

a a a

(I

a d a a a a a a

4 a

4

4 a

(I

a

1

(I

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

(I

a d d

Overview

of

the Document

Chapter 186, Florida Statutes, requires that each electric utility in the State of Florida with a minimum existing generating capacity of

250 megawatts (MW) must annually submit a Ten Year

Power Plant Site Plan. This plan includes an estimate of the utility’s electric power generating needs, a projection of how those needs will be met, and a disclosure of information pertaining to the utility’s preferred and potential power plant sites. This information is compiled and presented in accordance with rules 25-22.070, 25-22.071, and 25-22.072, Florida Administrative Code

(FAC).

This Ten Year Power Plant Site Plan (Site Plan) document is based on Florida Power & Light

Company’s (FPL) integrated resource planning (IRP) analyses that were carried out in 2005 and that were on-going in the first quarter of 2006. The forecasted information presented in this plan addresses the 200&2015 time frame.

Site Plans are long-term planning documents and should be viewed in this context. A Site Plan contains tentative information, especially for the latter years of the ten-year time horizon, and is subject to change at the discretion of the utility. Much of the data submitted

is

preliminary in nature and is presented in a general manner. Specific and detailed data will be submitted as part of the Florida site certification process, or through other proceedings and filings.

This document is organized in the following manner:

Chapter I

-

Description of Existing Resources

This chapter provides an overview of FPL’s current generating facilities. Also included is information on other FPL resources including purchased power, demand side management, and

FPL’s transmission system.

Florida

Power

& Light

Company

1

Chapter II

-

Forecast of Electric Power Demand

FPL’s load forecasting methodology, and its forecast of seasonal peaks and annual energy usage, is presented in Chapter 11.

Chapter

111

-

Projection

of

Incremental Resource Additions

This chapter discusses FPL’s IRP process and outlines FPL’s projected resource additions, especially new power plants, as determined in FPL’s IRP work in 2005 and early

2006.

Chapter IV

-

Environmental and Land Use Information

This chapter discusses environmental information as well as preferred and potential site locations for additional electric generation facilities.

Chapter V

-

Other Planning Assumptions and Information

This chapter addresses twelve “discussion items” which pertain to additional specific information that is to be included in a Site Plan filing.

Florida

Power & Light Company

2

FPL

List

o f Abbreviations

Reference

Unit Type

Fuel Type

Fuel

Transportation

Abbreviation

BIT cc

CT

Bituminous Coal

Combined Cycle

Combustion Turbine

GT

Gas Turbine

IC

NP

Internal Combustion

Nuclear Power

Definition

Next Planned Generating Unit

Supercritical Pulverized Coal

NPGU

SCPC

ST

UR

BIT

F02

Steam Unit

Uranium

Bituminous Coal

#1, #2 or Kerosene Oil (Distillate)

F06

LNG

NG

No

Pet

No

#4,#5,#6

Oil (Heavy)

Liquified Natural Gas

Natural Gas

None

Petroleum Coke

None

Pipeline

UniffSite Status

I-IRailroad

TK

WA

OT

Truck

Water

Other

Planned Unit

Other

V

P.U.

Proposed for repowering

Regulatory approval received but not under construction

Under construction, less than or equal to 50% Complete

Under construction, more than 50% Complete

Per Unit

Florida Power

& Light Company

3

Executive Summary

Florida Power & Light Company’s (FPL) 2006 Ten Year Power Plant Site Plan (Site Plan) addresses FPL’s plans to increase its electric generation capability as part of its efforts to meet its projected incremental resource needs for the 2006-201 5 time period.

In response to strong population growth, FPL’s total generation capability is required to increase significantly during the 2006-2015 time period as shown in Table ES.l. The table reflects FPL’s planned changes to existing generation units (due to unit overhauls, etc.), scheduled changes in the delivered amounts of purchased power, and the planned additions of new generating units.

Although not explicitly shown in this table, FPL’s demand side management (DSM) resources are included. These resources incorporate the approved DSM Goals (that are assumed to be implemented on schedule) and additional DSM (identified in late 2005/early 2006) scheduled to be implemented in 2006 through 2008.

During the summer of 2005, FPL experienced a season with a significant number

of

peak demand events, several of which exceeded the forecasted peak demand for the year. Further investigation and review identified that population growth above that forecasted was the primary driver for this increased peak demand. In November of incorporating these changes. The updated load forecast resulted in earlier and greater resource needs, with the first year of resource need moving forward to 2006 from 2009 (as had been identified in the

2005

Site Plan). In response to this emergent need, FPL is implementing additional cost-effective DSM and securing new near-term firm power purchases. It is expected that the combination of these new power purchases and additional DSM will effectively meet the incremental capacity need in 2006 and 2007, and will significantly reduce FPL‘s 2008 resource needs. FPL’s remaining 2008 resource needs will

be

met by either additional near-term purchases, capacity increases to FPL’s existing units, by the construction of one unsited new combustion turbine (CT) or some combination of all of these alternatives.

Florida Power

& Light Company

5

In 2007, FPL will be adding a new (1,144 Summer MW) combined cycle (CC) unit at its existing

Turkey Point plant site. This unit was selected as the best option after comparison to other FPL construction alternatives and outside proposals received in response to an RFP that FPL issued in August 2003. This capacity addition was approved by the Florida Public Service Commission

(FPSC) on June 18, 2004. FPL’s application for certification under the Florida Electric Power

Plant Siting Act was approved by the Governor and Siting Board on February 7, 2005.

FPL currently projects to meet its 2009 and 2010 capacity needs with the addition of two highly efficient 1,219 Summer MW CC units identified as West County Energy Center Units # l and #2

(West County Units #1 and # 2). The first of these units is scheduled to come in service in June

2009 and the second is scheduled to come in service in June 2010. These units were selected after comparing them to bids received in response to an RFP issued by FPL in September 2005 that requested bids for firm capacity in the 2009-2011 time frame. The addition of these units, which is needed to maintain system reliability, was shown to be more than $750 million (CPVRR) more cost-effective than other altematives received in response to the RFP. The units will effectively address the pressing need for generation located in southeast Florida to meet regional growth. As a result of their location, these units help to reduce transmission losses for the entire system. Additionally, using state of the art technology, these units will significantly increase the overall generation efficiency of the system which will result in using less fuel to produce each megawatt hour of electricity. FPL recently has filed a petition for a Determination of Need for these two units.

A

decision from the FPSC is expected before the end of 2006.

The addition of West County Units #1 and #2 will meet FPL’s 2009 and 2010 capacity needs; however as a result of the updated load forecast, a resource need for 201 1 will remain. FPL will seek to address this 2011 need with additional cost-effective DSM, power purchases, capacity increases to FPL’s existing units, construction of new CTs or a combination of these resources.

For purpose of this planning document, FPL projects the construction of two unsited CTs.

Florida

Power 8 Light

Company 6

FPL plans to meet the need in years 2012 and 2013 with two new supercritical pulverized coal

(SCPC) units. These units are scheduled to be in service by June 2012 and June 2013, respectively.

A

site for these two co-located, advanced coal units has not yet been selected; however, FPL is investigating suitable locations that will be identified in an addendum to this Site

Plan, expected by June 1, 2006. These planned increases in electric generation capability will allow FPL to continue to maintain system reliability and integrity at a reasonable cost, and to increase fuel diversity.'

FPL is currently examining a variety of options to meet the remaining portion of the 2014 and

201

5

need including: additional

DSM,

new/extended purchases and capacity enhancements to existing FPL units.

Also

under consideration is the construction of CT's or smaller CC units that could be designed to facilitate a conversion to coal gasification operation. For purposes of this planning document, FPL projects the construction of one additional unsited CT in 2014, one additional unsited CT in 2015, and one unsited 2x1 CC in 2015; any of which could be converted to coal gasification when the technology is shown to meet reliability and cost-effectiveness standards. The amount of capacity needed and the technologies that would ultimately be chosen to meet the need for these years will be based on FPL's ongoing review

of

technology, environmental requirements, regulation and economic factors and will not be restricted to a single technology.

FPL's ongoing planning efforts remain influenced by two recurrent issues. Those two issues are:

1)

maintaining an appropriate balance between load and generating capacity located in

Southeast Florida; and 2) maintaining and enhancing fuel diversity in the FPL system. The addition of West County Units #1 and #2 will help maintain a balance of generation located within reasonable proximity to the increasing load in the Southeast area, as well as contribute to the overall system reliability. The significant weather events of 2004 and 2005 have underscored the

'

Repowering of existing FPL sites remains an altemative to new construction and FPL will continue to examine this, and other options including solid fuel

options.

Florida Power

&

Light

Company

7

value of a balanced fuel supply as it impacts both fuel supply reliability and system fuel costs.

FPL continues to actively pursue advanced technology coal generation

as

the most certain alternative to measurably increase fuel diversity within the Site Plan planning horizon. FPL also has begun the steps to investigate the next generation of nuclear generation facilities. FPL is involved in several industry consortiums and has held extensive discussions with the leaders in the design, construction and operation segments of the nuclear industry to obtain an updated view of the issues surrounding adding nuclear generation in Florida. Many uncertainties remain at this early stage. However, while the feasible horizon for new nuclear generation is beyond the planning horizon of this Site Plan, FPL is actively pursuing the possibility of new nuclear generation.

Florida

Power

8

Company

8

Table ES.l: Projected Capacity Changes and Reserve Margins

for

FPL

('I

2006

Pm]ected Capacity Changes end Reserve Megins for

FPL

(')

Net Canacltv Chanaes w winter" Summer!

Changes to Existing QF Purchases

"'

Changes to existing Units

FPL Reserve Mamin

(%i

m r

25.9%

Summer

19.5%'''

2007

2008

Changes to Non-QF Purchases'5'

Turkey Point Unit #5

(''

Changes to existing Units

Changes to Non-QF Purchases'"

Changes to existing Units

Turkey Point Unit

#5

")

Unsited Combustion Turbine

Changes to Non-QF Purchases'5'

2009 Changes to Existing QF Purchases

('I

Changes to Non-QF Purchases

15)

West county Unit #I

Unsited Combustion Turbine

('I

West County Unit #I 201 0

Changes to Existing QF Purchases

('I

West W n t y Unit #2

(I'

Changes to Non-QF Purchases'5'

201

I West County Unit #2

Is'

Unsited 2x0 Simple Cyde CT

('I

Changes to Existing QF Purchases

"I

2012

Changes to Non-QF Purchases'5'

Supercritical Pulverized coal Unit

# I

Unsited 2x0 Simple Cyde CT

2013

2014

2015

Changes to Non-QF Purchases supercritical Pulverized coal Unit #

I

Supercritical Pulverized Coal Unit # 2

Changes to Non-QF Purchases

Supercritical Pulverized Coal Unit # 2

""')

Unsited l x 0 Simple Cyde CT

('I

Unsited I x 0 Simple Cyde CT

")

Unsited l x 0 Simple Cyde CT

''I

24.2%

26.6%

23.6%

25.0%

28.5%

27.9%

28.6%

29.9%

27.3%

21.3%

1 9.3%"'

21.4%

20.9%

19.7%"'

20.3%

21.3%

1 9.7%'8"9'

19.7ohW

VI

Unsited 2x1 Combined Cycle

(')

TOTALS

=

5,289 5,669

I )

Additional information about these resulting resewe margins and capacity changes are found on Schedules 7

8

8

respectively.

!)Wintar values are values for January of year shown.

I)

Summer values are vaiues for August of year shown.

These are fin capacity and energy contracts with %en 8 Small Power Producers. See Table I.B.l for more details.

These are firm capacity purchases from Non-QF facilities. See Tables I.D.1 and Table

I.D.2

for more details.

i)

All

new unit additions are scheduled lo

be

in-sewice in

June of the year shown. Consequently. they are included in the Summer resewe margin calculation for the in-sewica year and in both the Summer and Winter

resewe

margin calwlations for subsequent years.

')

FPL is currently in the process of selecting a sita(s) for these advanced technology coal units. FPL expects to announce the selected [email protected]) by June 2006.

I ) FPL resewe margin values are shown to include what is committed or firmly planned. FPL will continue to pursue the most cost effective alternatives available to meet the then forecasted need with a 20% reserve margin, such as DSM resources that may be added in intervening years or additional purchases.

I)

FPL will continue to pursue development of technologies, such as SCPC or IGCC to meet the needs in these later years.

Florida

Power

& Light Company

9

(This page is lejl intentionally blank.)

Florida

Power

& Light Company 10

a

113

(I

4

4

(I

4

4

4

4

4

(I

4

A

CHAPTER

I

Description of

Existing Resources

Florida Power &

Light Company

11

1. Description

of

Existing Resources

FPL’s service area contains approximately 27,650 square miles and has a population of approximately 8.5 million people. FPL served an average of 4,318,739 customer accounts in thirty-five counties during 2005. These customers were served from a variety of resources including: FPL-owned fossil and nuclear generating units, non-utility owned generation, demand side management, and interchange/purchased power.

LA.

FPL-Owned Resources

The existing FPL generating resources are located at fourteen generating sites distributed geographically around its service territory and also include partial ownership of one unit located in Georgia and two units located in Jacksonville, FL. The current generating facilities consist of four nuclear steam units, three coal units, eleven combined cycle units, seventeen fossil steam units, forty eight combustion gas turbines, one simple cycle combustion turbine, and five diesel units. The location of these units is shown on

Figure I.A.l and in Table I.A.1.

FPL’s bulk transmission system is comprised of 6,470 circuit miles of transmission lines.

Integration of the generation, transmission, and distribution system is achieved through

FPL’s

542

substations in Florida.

The existing FPL system, including generating plants, major transmission stations, and transmission lines, is shown on Figure I.A.2. In addition, Figure I.A.3 shows FPL’s interconnection ties with other utilities.

Florida Power & Light Company

13

Location/

Map Key

Plant Name

Number Summer

of

Units

MW

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

I

J

K

L

M

Turkey Point

St.

Lucie

Manatee

Fort Myers

Cutler

Lauderdale

Port Everglades

Riviera

Martin

Cape Canaveral

Sanford

Putnam

SJRPP

**

Scherer

I**

2

3

2

2

2

4

2

5

1

4a

4

2

3

2

2

2,171

1,553

2,727

1,767

170 a59

1,200

556

3.649

798

2,042

494

232

639

Internal Combustion Turbines

5

12

-

FPL Generation

=

89 20.777

*

**

***

Represents FPL's ownership share: St. Lucie nuclear: 100% unit 1,

85%

unit 2; SJRPP coal:

20% of two units

SJRPP

=

St. John's River Power Park

The Scherer unit is located in Georgia and is not shown on this map

Collier

Figure

I.A.l:

Capacity Resources by Location (as of December 31,2005)

Florida Power & Light

Company

14

Table I.A.1: Capacity Resource by Unit Type

(as

of December 31,2005)

Nuclear

Turkey Point

St. Lucie **

Total Nuclear

Unit Type/ Plant Name

Combined-Cvcle

Lauderdale

Martin

Martin

Sanford

Putnam

Fort Myers

Manatee

Total Combined Cycle

Combustion Turbines

Fort Myers

'

Total Combustion Turbines

Locat ion

Dania, FL

Indiantown,FL lndiantown ,FL

Lake Monroe, FL

Palatka, FL

Fort Myers, FL

Parrish.FL

Number of Units

Summer

-

2

2

1

2

2

1

1

11

Gadoil

Gas

GaslOil

Gas

GaslOil

Gas

Gas

859

899

1,107

1,904

494

1,441

1,107

7,ai i

Fort Myers, FL

Florida City, FL

Hutchinson Island. FL

1

1

2

2

4

GaslOil 326

326

Nuclear

Nuclear

1,386

1,553

2,939

Scherer

Total Coal Steam

OillGas Steam

Cape Canaveral

Cutler

Manatee

Martin

Port Everglades

Riviera

Sanford

Turkey Point

Total OillGas Steam

Gas

Turblnes[GT)/Diesels(lC1

Lauderdale (GT)

Port Everglades (GT)

Fort Myers (GT)

Turkey Point (IC)

Total Gas TurbineslDiesels

Total Units:

Total Net Generating Capability:

Jacksonville, FL

Monroe County, Ga

Cocoa. FL

Miami, FL

Parish, FL

Indiantown,FL

Port Everglades, FL

Riviera Beach, FL

Lake Monroe, FL

Florida City, FL

Dania, FL

Port Everglades, FL

Fort Myers, FL

Florida City, FL

2

1

3

24

12

12

5

53

89

2

2

2

2

4

2

1

2

17

Each unit consists of two combustion turbines totaling approximately

300

MW.

Represents FPL's ownership share: St. Lucie nuclear 100% unit I, 2: SJRPP coal:

20%

of

two

units

Coal

Coal

OillGas

Gas

OillGas

OillGas

OillGas

OillGas

OillGas

OillGas

GaslOil

Gas/Oil

Oil

Oil

232

639

a71

840

420

648

12

1,920

20,777

798

170

1,620

1,643

1,200

556

138

785

6,910

Florida Power & Light Company

15

I

L E G E N D

c

L

E

Clewiston

F K C Florida Keys Coop

F

P

L

Florida Power

8

Light

F

T p Ft. Pierce

G V L Gainesville

G c s

Green Cove Springs

H S T Homestead

J

B H Jacksonville Beach

J

E A Jadtsonville Electric Authorib

K E Y KeyWest

L W U LakeWoN,

N S B New Smyma Beach

PEF Progress Energy Florida

E

C

Seminole Electric Cooperativc

s c

S Southern Companies

S T K Starke

T

E C Tampa Electric Company

V E R VeroBeach

0

System

Figure I.A.3:

FPL Interconnection Diagram

Florida Power & Light Company

17

1.B Firm

Capacity

Power

Purchases

Purchases From Qualifying Facilities

(QF):

Firm capacity power purchases are an important part of FPL’s resource mix. FPL currently has contracts with five cogeneration/small power production facilities to purchase firm capacity and energy.

A cogeneration facility is one which simultaneously produces electrical and thermal energy, with the thermal energy (e.g., steam) being used for industrial, commercial, or cooling and heating purposes. A small power production facility is one which does not exceed

80

MW (unless it is exempted from this size limitation by the Solar, Wind, Waste, and Geothermal Power Production Incentives Act of 1990) and uses as its primary energy source (at least 50%) solar, wind, waste, geothermal, or other renewable resources.

Purchases from Utilities:

Purchased power remains an important part of FPL’s resource mix. FPL has a Unit

Power Sales (UPS) contract to purchase 931 MW, with a minimum of 381 MW, of coal- fired generation from the Southern Company (Southern) through May, 201 0. In January

2005, the Commission approved a new firm purchase contract with Southern that will result in FPL receiving 930 MW from June 2010 through the end of 2015. This capacity will be supplied by Southern from a mix of gas-fired and coal-fired units.

In addition, FPL has contracts with the Jacksonville Electric Authority (JEA) for the purchase of 381 MW (Summer) and 390 MW (Winter) of coal-fired generation from the

St.

John’s River Power Park (SJRPP) Units No. 1 and No.

2.

(FPL also has ownership interest in these units. The ownership amount is reflected in FPL’s installed capacity

Other Purchases:

FPL has other firm capacity purchase contracts through 2009 with

a

variety of Non-QF suppliers. These purchases are generally near-term in nature. Table I.B.l presents the

Summer and Table 1.8.2 represents the Winter MW resulting from all firm purchased power contracts discussed above through the year

201 5.

Florida Power & Light Company

18

Table I.B.l:

FPL's

Firm Purchased Power Summer MW

I. Purchases from

QPr:

II. Purchaser from Utiliies:

111. Mher Purchaser!

-

-

2006

Summer PurchasesTotal M W = 3407

I

2007

I

2008

I

2009

I

2010

I

2011

I

2012

I

2013

I

2014

I

2015

I

2995

I

2995

I

2839

I

2109

I

2064

I

1%

I

1906

I

1906

I

1908

Florida Power & Light Company

19

1.

Purchases from

QFr:

Table

I.B.2:

FPL's Firm Purchased

Power

Winter MW

Winter Purchases Total MW

=

Florida Power & Light Company

20

1.C

Non-Firm (As Available) Energy Purchases

FPL purchases non-firm (as-available) energy from several cogeneration and small power production facilities. Table I.C.1 shows the amount of energy purchased in 2005 from these facilities.

Georgia Pacific

Elliot

Putnam

Palm Beach

Paper By-product

Natural Gas

2194

7105

7,340

120

I.D. Demand Side Management

(DSM)

FPL’s DSM activities continue what has been FPL’s practice since 1978 of encouraging cost-effective conservation and load management. FPL’s DSM efforts through 2005 have resulted in a cumulative Summer peak reduction of approximately 3,519

MW

at the generator and an estimated cumulative energy saving of 33,981

G W H

FPL‘s new DSM Goals for the 2005-2014 timeframe were approved by the Florida Public

Service Commission (Commission)

on

August 9, 2004. FPL’s DSM Plan (with which FPL will meet the approved DSM Goals) was approved by the Commission on February 9,

2005 except for the Buildsmart and Residential Conservation Services programs. These two programs received Commission approval on January 10, 2006.

Due to the changes in FPL’s resource needs resulting from FPL’s updated (November

2005) load forecast previously mentioned in the Executive Summary, FPL is currently planning a number of modifications to its existing DSM programs that will result in additional DSM MW reduction capability above what was projected in the approved DSM

Florida Power & Light Company

21

Plan. FPL will seek approval of these program modifications during the second quarter of

2006. To-date, FPL has developed a projection for additional cost-effective DSM that can be implemented in 2006 through 2008. The schedule for new generation additions presented in this document are based on the implementation of these additional

DSM

MW through 2008. FPL will continue to analyze the potential for additional cost-effective

DSM for 2009-on in its ongoing resource planning work in 2006.

Florida Power & Light Company 22

P a g e l o f 3

Schedule 1

Plant Naw cape Canaveral

Unit

1

2

Existing Generating Facilities

As of December 31,2005

(3) (4)

(5)

( 6 )

!&alQ!l

Unit

CI)

(8)

(9)

All.

(10) (11)

Pri.

&

Fud

Fud

Canmerual Expected

Fuel Transport Days

E&

In-Smce

Retirement

MmWYea r MonttvYear

B m r d County

19t24S136F

ST Fo6

ST F 0 6

NO WA PL Unknow

Apr-65

NG

WA PL Unknow

M a y e

Unkncm

U n k n w

la!!

8w.100

402.050

402,050

403

403

Cutler

F m Myers

Lauddale

Manatee

5

6

&mi Dade County

27/55S/40E

ST

NG NO PL

No

Unknorm NW-54

ST

NG

No

PL No U n M Jul-55

Unknown

U n k n w

B L Q Q

75,030

161,500 lzIi

67

109

Lee County

W43SR5E

2

3 A B B

1-12

CC

NG No PL

No

Unknown June2

CT NG F02 PL PL U n k m

GT FOZ NO PL

No

UnkKnsn

J w d l

May-74

Unknown

Unknown

Unknown

zBp39p

1.701.890

376.380

744,120

LE!9

1,610

380

769

4

5

1-12

13-24

Brcmard

County

30/50Y42E

CC

NG F02 PL PL Unknown

May93

CC NG F02 PL PL Unknorm Jun-93

GT NG F 0 2 PL PL U n k ”

Aug‘lO

GT NG F02 PL PL Unknorm Aug-72

1,873,968

Unknown

Unknown

U n k n w

Unknown

526.250

526,250

410.734

410,734

Manatee

W n t y

18/33y20E

465

464

509

509

1

2

3

2SLm

2 S . l

ST FC+ NO WA PL Unknown 03-76

ST F06 NG WA PL Unknown

Dec-TI

CC

NG No PL

No

Unknown J u n G

Unknown

Unknown

U n k n w

863.300

863.300

1,224.51 0

817

617

1,197

w

zfia

399

399

m

65

105

2

1.441

326

€48

430

429

420

420

.

810

81 0

1,107 l/Tnese ratings are peak capability.

Florida Power & Light Company

23

Plant

N a p

Unil

NQ.

Martin

1

2

3

4

8

Schedule

I

(3)

LQ”

Mamn County

Existing

Generating Facilities

As

of

December

31,2005

(4) (5)

(6)

Mil Fuel

pri.

Bu,

CI)

(8)

(9)

An.

(10) (11)

Fuel Fud

Commercial Expected

Transport Days In-Serdce

Retirement

&. &

MonthPfear MonttdYeaC

(1 2)

G ” . d X

Nameplate

!GY

4.31 7.51Q

ST FO6 NG PL PL Unknown k - 8 0

ST FO6 NG PL PL Unknown

Jun-81

CC

NG

No

PL NO

Unknown Feb94

CC

NG No

PL

No Unknown

Apr-94

CC NG

F02 PL PL Unknown

Jun-01

Unknom

U n k ”

U n k ”

Unkncmn

Unlvlovm

934.530

934,506

612.000

612.000

1,224,510

(13)

(14)

Net Capability I/

Winter

w

Summer

w

a

830

829

471

472

1.197

2.549

828

815

449

450

1.107

P a t Everglades

Putnam

Riviera

City

of Hdlptcd

2350W42E 1,710,304

1

2

3

4

1.12

ST FO6 NG WA PL Unknown JundO

ST F 0 6 NG WA PL Unknorm

Apr-61

ST

FO6 NG WA PL Unknown Jul-54

ST FO6 NG WA PL Unknown

Apr.65

GT NG F02 PL PL Unknown Aug-71

Unlvlovm

Unknwm

Unkmnnr

U n k m

Unkncmn

247.775

247,775

402,051)

402.050

410.734

3

4

1

2

Putnam County

16I10SR7E

CC

NG F02 PL WA Unknown Apr-78

CC

NG F02 PL WA Unknorm Aug-77

Unknow

Unkncmn

MJQB

290.004

290.004

Gty

of

W w e a

Beach

X342S443E

ST FO6 NG WA PL Unknown J u n e

ST FO6 NG WA PL Unknown

Mr.63

620.&10

U n k m u n k ”

310,420

310,420

220

220

582

390

509

282

286

274

286

219

219

377

385

4x)

3%

245

249

272

284

Sanford

3

4

5

Vdusia County

1 W19Y30E

ST F06 NG WA PL Unknown May-59

CC NG

No

PL No Unknown

Ocl-03

CC NG

No

PL No Unknown Jun-02

Unknom

Unknom

Unknorm

2.534.050

156.250

1 , l e a . m

1,188,900

2222

142

1.045

1,045

1/

These ratings are peak capability

2oi.2

158

952

952

Florida

Power

& Light

Company 24

D

B

D

B

B

D

B

B

B

B

B

B

B

B

D

D

B

B

B

B

B

B

D

B

B

D

B

B

B

B

B

B

B

B

B

B

B

D

B

B

D

D

B

L

Schedule 1

Florida Power

& Light Company

25

P a g e 3 d 3

St.

Johns River

P w r Y

St. Luue

1

2

[XIMI

County

(Rpc4)

BIT BIT Pet RR WA

Unknown Mar47

BIT BIT Pet RR WA Unk”

May48

U n k ”

U n k ”

2

135.918

135.918

130

112

1

2

St.

Lwie

Carnty

1 W 4 1 E

4/

1,573,775

NP UR

NP UR

No

TK

No

Unknown

May76

U n k ”

850,oOO

No

TK No Unknown

Jun-83

UnlvKmn

723,775

853

726

232

127

105

839

714

T h e y Pant

I

2

3

4

1-5

Mi”

Eade

County

27/57S/40E

2.536.138

ST FC6

NG WA PL

U n k n m

ST

FC6

NG WA PL

U n k r ”

Ap-67

ApaS

NP UR

NP UR

IC

F02

Unknrmn

Unknom

402.050

402,050

No

TK

No

Unknovm

NOv.72

Unknrmn

760,000

No

TK

No

UnkKmn

Jun-73

U n k m

759.900

No

TK

No

UnkKmn

Dec-67

Unknrmn

12.138

2.237

388

403

717

717

12

385

400

693

693

12

Total System as of Decmnber

31,2005

=

22,099

M . 7 n

1/

These ratings are peak capatwlity

21

meSe

8

Ught Company’s share

d

Merer

Unit No 4 adjusted

fw

t r a n m i ~ ~ o n

Y

The net capablity ratings repesent Flcnda Power

8

Lght

Compaofs

share

of St Johns Rver

Park Unit

No

1 and No 2 exduding

Jacksonulle Electnc AuUmty

(JEA)

share

of 80°h

41 Total capablity

is

@53“

MW

Capabilities

shcm r e p m e t FPL‘s

share of the unlt and exclude the Oliando utilities Cwnmrsslon (OUC)

and

Flonda Mimapal Pcmer Agency (FMPA) annlnned portion

d

(This page is lei? intentionally blank.)

Florida

Power & Light Company

26

D

D

@

e

D

@

D

0

I)

D

D

0

I

B

B

B

B

0

0

D

0

CHAPTER II

Forecast of

Electric Power Demand

Florida

Power

& Light

Company 27

Florida

Power

&

Light Company

(This page is left intentionally blank.)

I

D

D

B

D

B

B

D

D

B

D

B

B

B

B

B

B

D

D

D

D

D

B

D

D

B

D

B

D

B

B

D

B

B

B

B

B

D

B

B

B

B

D

B

II.

Forecast of Electric Power Demand

Long-term (20-year) forecasts of sales, net energy for load (NEL), and peak loads are developed on an annual basis for resource planning work at FPL. These forecasts are a key input to the models used to develop the Integrated Resource Plan. The following pages describe how forecasts are developed for each component of the long-term forecast: sales, NEL, and peak loads.

The primary drivers to develop these forecasts are demographic trends, weather, economic conditions, and prices of electricity. In addition, the resulting forecasts are an integration of economic evaluations, inputs of local economic development boards, weather assessments from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

( N O M ) ,

and inputs from FPL’s own customer service planning areas. In the area of demographics, population trends by county, plus housing characteristics such as housing starts, housing size, and vintage of homes are assessed.

Forecasts for electric usage in the residential and commercial classes include end-use information such as appliance saturation studies, efficiencies, and intensity of energy

use. In addition to these inputs, residential forecasts also make use of household characteristics such as ages of members in households, number of members in households, and income distributions.

The projections for the national and Florida economy are obtained from Global Insight.

Population projections for the counties served by FPL are obtained from the Bureau of

Economic and Business Research (BEBR) of the University of Florida. In addition, FPL actively participates with local development councils and universities to obtain their assessments of the local economy, specifically

in

the area of expansion of new businesses and retention of the current business base. These inputs are quantified and qualified using statistical models in terms of their impact on the future demand for electricity.

Weather is always a key factor that affects the company’s sales and peak demand.

Weather variables are used in the forecasting models for energy sales and peak demand.

There are two sets of weather variables developed and used in forecasting models:

1.

2.

Cooling and Heating Degree-Days are used to forecast energy sales.

Temperature data is used to forecast Summer and Winter peaks.

Florida

Power

8. Light Company

29

The Cooling and Heating Degree-Days are used to capture the changes in the electric usage of weather-sensitive appliances such as air conditioners and electric space heaters. A composite temperature hourly profile is derived using hourly temperatures across FPL's service territory (Miami, Ft. Myers, Daytona Beach, and West Palm Beach are the locations from which temperatures are obtained) weighted by regional energy sales. This composite temperature is used to derive Cooling and Heating Degree-Days which are based on starting point temperatures of 72OF and 66OF, respectively. Similarly, composite temperature and hourly profile of temperature are used for the Summer and

Winter peak models.

LA.

Long-Term Sales Forecasts

Long-term forecasts of electricity sales were developed for each revenue class for the forecasting period of 2005-2024 and are adjusted to match the Net Energy for Load

(NEL) forecast. The results of these sales forecasts for the years 2006-2015 are presented in Schedules 2.1

-

2.3 which appear at the end of this chapter. Econometric models are developed for each revenue class using the statistical software package

MetrixND. The methodologies used to develop energy sales forecasts for each jurisdictional revenue class and Net Energy for Load forecast are outlined below.

1.

Residential Sales

Residential electric usage per customer is estimated by using a regression model which contains the real residential price of electricity, real Florida personal income, Cooling and

Heating Degree-Days as explanatory variables. The price of electricity plays a role in explaining electric usage since electricity, like all other goods and services, will be used in greater or lesser quantities depending upon its price. To capture economic conditions, the model includes Florida's real personal income. The degree of economic prosperity can, and does, affect residential electricity sales. The impact of weather is captured by the Heating Degree-Days and, two weighted variables for cooling degree days accounting for cooling degree days from the previous month are also included as an explanatory variable. The degree of economic prosperity can, and does, affect residential electricity sales. Residential energy sales are forecast by multiplying the residential use per customer forecast by the number of residential customers forecasted. The long-term annual model is similar except that Florida real per capita in included as an economic

Florida

Power & Light

Company 30 a a

(I

a a a

4

4 a

4 a

(I

4

4

4

4

(I

a a a

4 a a a a a a a

4

4

4

4 a

4

4

4

4

4

4

(I

4

4

I) e

D

I

D

I)

B

B

I)

D

B

D

D

B

B m

8

b

0

D

B m

D

D

D

D

D

B

B

D

explanatory variable rather than Florida total personal income.

Also

the annual model includes annual cooling degree days.

2. Commercial Sales

The commercial sales forecast is also developed using a regression model. Commercial sales are a function of the following variables: Florida’s real personal income, commercial real price of electricity, two variables for Cooling Degree-Days weighted for previous month and current month, and an autoregressive term. The long-term model is similar, except annual cooling degree days is used as explanatory weather variable as opposed to weighted monthly cooling degree days. In addition the long term model does not include an autoregressive term. Florida’s real personal income is used to capture the economic activity in FPL’s service territory. The price of electricity is also included as an explanatory variable in the model because it has an impact on customer usage. Cooling

Degree-Days are used to capture weather-sensitive load in the commercial sector.

3. Industrial Sales

The industrial sales forecast is also developed using a regression model. Industrial sales are a function of lagged industrial sales, the real price of electricity, Cooling Degree-

Days, a dummy variable for outliers, and an autoregressive term. The price of electricity is also included as an explanatory variable in the model because it has an impact

on

customer usage. The Cooling Degree-Day term is included to capture the weather- sensitive load in the industrial class. The Long term model consists of real price of electricity and Florida’s manufacturing employment.

4.

Other Public Authority Sales

At

present, this class consists of sports fields and one government account. The forecast for this class is based on historical knowledge of its characteristics.

5.

Street & Highway Sales and Railroad & Railways Sales

The forecast for street and highway sales is developed by first assuming a constant use per customer and then multiplying that value by the number of projected customers. The forecast of sales to railroad & railways is based on historical knowledge of its characteristics. This class consists of Miami-Dade County’s Metrorail system.

Florida Power 8 Light Company

31

6. Sales for

Resale

Sales for resale (wholesale) customers are composed of municipalities and/or electric cooperatives. These customers differ from jurisdictional customers in that they are not the ultimate users of the electricity they buy. Instead, they resell this electricity to their own customers.

Currently, there are four customers in this class: the Florida Keys Electric Cooperative

(Florida Keys), City Electric System of the Utility Board of Key West, Florida (City of Key

West), Miami-Dade County, and the Florida Municipal Power Agency (FMPA). Sales to the Florida Keys are forecasted using a regression model. Forecasted sales to the City of Key West are based on assumptions regarding their contract demand and expected load factor. Miami-Dade County sells 60 MW to Progress Energy. Line losses are billed to Miami-Dade under a wholesale contract. FMPA has contracted for delivery of 75 MW from FPL through October, 2007.

7. Total Sales

Sales forecasts by revenue class are summed to produce a total sales forecast. After an estimate of annual total sales is obtained, an expansion factor is applied to generate a forecast of annual Net Energy for Load (NEL).

1I.B. Net Energy for Load

An annual econometric model is developed to produce a net energy for load (NEL) forecast. The key inputs to the model are: the real price of electricity, Heating and

Cooling Degree-Days, Florida Non-Agricultural Employment, and an autoregressive term.

The monthly model is similar, except the economic variables utilized are Florida’s real personal income and a dummy variable for February. The first year of the forecast is developed from a daily model which consists of similar explanatory variables as monthly model except includes variables for weekends and holiday. The forecasts thereafter for the following four years are obtained from the short-term monthly model. Forecasts for subsequent years are generated using the growth rates from the annual model.

Once an annual NEL forecast is obtained using the above-mentioned methodology, the results are then compared for reasonableness to the NEL forecast generated using the

Florida

Power

& Light

Company

32

total sales forecast. The sales by class forecasts previously discussed are then adjusted to match the NEL from the annual NEL model.

The forecasted NEL values for 2006

-

2015 are presented in Schedule 3.3 that appears at the end of this chapter.

1I.C. System Peak Forecasts

The rate of absolute growth in FPL system load has been a function of a growing customer base, varying weather conditions, continued economic growth, changing patterns

of

customer behavior (including an increased stock of electricity-consuming appliances), and more efficient heating and cooling appliances. FPL developed the peak forecast models to capture these behavioral relationships.

The forecasting methodology of Summer, Winter, and monthly system peaks is discussed below. The forecasted values for Summer and Winter peak loads for the years

2006-2015 are presented in Schedules 3.1 and

3.2 7.1

and 7.2.

System Summer Peak

The Summer peak forecast is developed using an econometric model. The variables included in the model are the price of electricity, Florida real personal income, average temperature and a heat buildup weather variable consisting of the sum of the cooling degree hours during the peak day and three prior days. The model below is based on

Summer peak load per customer. The Summer peak load per customer value is multiplied by total customers to derive FPL’s system Summer peak.

System Winter Peak

Like the system Summer peak model, this model is also an econometric model. The model consists of

two

weather-related variables: the square of the minimum temperature on the peak day, heating degree hours for the prior day as well as for the morning of the winter peak day. In addition, Florida real personal income is a variable used in the model. The model below is based on Winter peak load per customer. The Winter peak load per customer value is multiplied by total customers to derive FPL’s system Winter peak.

Florida

Power

& Light

Company

33

Monthly Peak

Forecasts

Monthly peaks for the 2005-2024 period are forecasted to provide information for the scheduling of maintenance for power plants and fuel budgeting. The forecasting process is basically the same as for the monthly NEL forecast and consists of the following actions: a. Develop the historical seasonal factor for each month by using ratios of historical monthly peaks to seasonal peaks (Summer

=

April-October, Winter

= November-March.) b. Apply the monthly ratios to their respective seasonal peak forecast to derive the peak forecast by month. This process assumes that the seasonal factors remain unchanged over the forecasting period.

1I.D.

The

Hourly Load

Forecast

Forecasted values for system hourly load for the period 2005-2024 are produced using a

System Load Forecasting "shaper" program. This model uses sixteen years of historical

FPL hourly system load data to develop load shapes for weekdays, weekend days, and holidays. These daily load shapes are ranked and used with forecasted monthly peaks,

NEL, and calendars in developing an hourly forecast. The model allows calibration of hourly values where the peak is maintained or where both the peak and minimum load- to-peak ratio is maintained.

Florida

Power &

Light

Company

34 a a a a

0

a

(I

a a

4

4

4 a

4

4 a

(I

a a a a a a a a a a a a

I a a a d a

(I

(I

4

4

4 a

4

1

I

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

B

D

D

D

B

D

D

D

D

B

B

B

B

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D b

B

D

D

D

D

6

B

D

B

D

Schedule

2.1

History and Forecast of

Energy Consumption

And Number of

Customers by Customer Class

(7) (8) (9)

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

201 1

2012

2013

2014

2015

Year

19%

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

P o w lation'

Members per

Household

GWH"

Rural 8 Residential

Average'" Average

K W H

Customers

Consumption

Per Customer

6,948,951

7,105,592

7,249,627

7,412,744

7,603,964

7,754,846

7,898,628

8,079.316 a,247,442

8,469,602

2.20

2.21

2.22

2.22

2.23

2.22

2.21

2.21

2.20

2.21

41,302

41,849

45.482

44,187

46,320

47,588

50,865

53,485

52,502

54,348

3,152,625

3,209,298

3,266,011

3,332,422

3,414,002

3,490,541

3,566,167

3,652,663

3,744,9 1 5

3,828,374

13,101

13,040

13,926

13,260

13.568

13,633

14,263

14,643

14,020

14,196

GWH"

31,211

32,942

34.618

35,524

37,001

37,960

40.029

41,425

42,064

43,468

8,638,053

8,808,004

8,975,540

9,138,039

9,298,715

9,456,660

9,609,275

9,758,884

9,907,794

10,056,605

2.21

2.21

2.21

2.21

2.21

2.21

2.21

2.21

2.21

2.21

56,541

57,995

60,255

62,322

64,299

65,762

67,240

68,811

70,206

71,546

3,910,167

3,985,164

4,060,181

4,133, I 8 1

4,205,546

4,275,556

4,343,167

4,409.366

4,475,348

4,541,033

14,460

14,553

14,840

15,079

15,289

15,381

15,482

15,606

15,687

15,756

Population represents only the area served by FPL.

**Actual energy sales include the impacts of existing conservation. Forecasted energy sales do not include the impact of incremental conservation.

***Average

No.

Customers is the annual average of

the

twelve month values.

44,236

46,430

49,095

51,195

53,188

54,552

55,995

57,536

59,194

60,887

481,993

492,462

502,802

512,943

522,916

531.830

540,464

548.937

557,395

565.826

380.860

388,906

396,749

404,942

41 5,295

426,573

435,313

444,650

458,053

469,973

Commercial

Average"'

No. of

Customers

Average

K W H

Consumption

Per Customer

81,949

84,703

87,255

87,725

89,096

88,989

91,955

93,163

91,832

92,490

91,777

94,281

97,643

99.806

101,714

102,574

103,605

104,813

106,197

107,607

Florida

Power

& Light

Company 35

Schedule 2.2

History and Forecast of Energy Consumption

And Number of Customers by Customer Class

(1 0) (11) (72) (1 3) (14) (1

5) (76)

1996

1997

1998

1999

2ooo

GWH **

3,792

3.894

3,951

3,948

3,768

Industrial

Average"'

No. o f

Customers

Average KWH

Consimption

Per Customer

14,783

14,761

15.126

16.040

16,410

25651 1

263,603

261,206

246,135

229,616

Railroads

&

Railways

GWH

83

85

81

79

81

Street

&

Lighting

368

383

373

473

408

Other

Sales to

Public

Authorities

GWH

577

702

625

465

381

2001

2W2

2003

2004

2005

4,091

4.057

4,004

3,964

3,913

15,445

15,533

17,029

18,512

20,392

264,875

261,186

235,128

21 4,139

191.873

86

89

93

93

95

41 9

420

425

413

424

67

63

64

58

49

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

3,926

3.904

3.922

3,936

3,945

21,315

20,574

19.936

19.421

19,042

184,173

189,743

196,711

202,680

207.186

96

96

96

96

96

468

485

501

51 7

534

50

50

50

50

50

201 1

2012

2013

2014

2015

3,916

3,891

3,862

3,821

3.772

18,987

18,842

18,825

18,859

18,936

206.259

206.509

205,142

232.607

199,176

96

96

96

96

96

545

555

566

577

587

50

50

50

50

50

**Actual energy sales include existing conservation. Forecasted energy sales do not indude the impact of

"* incremental conservation.

Average No.of Customers is the annual average of the hvelve month values.

**+.

GWH Coi. (16)

=

Col. (4)

+

Col. (7)

+

Col. (10)

+

Col.

(13) + Col. (14) + Col. (15).

Total""

Sales to

Ultimate

Consumers

GWH

..

77.334

79.855

85.130

84.676

87,960

90,212

95,523

99,496

99,095

102,296

105,316

108,959

113,918

118,116

122,111

124,920

127,827

130,920

133,942

136.938

Florida

Power

&

Light

Company

36

Schedule 2.3

History and Forecast of Energy Consumption

And Number of Customers by Customer Class

(17) (18) (19)

(20)

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

201 1

2012

2013

2014

2015

Sales for

Resale

GWH

1,353

1.228

1,326

953

970

970

1,233

1,511

1,53?

1,506

1.545

1,522

1,066

1,082

1,098

1.098

1,096

1.098

1.098

1.098

Utility

Use 8

Losses

-

6,306

5.771

6,206

5,829

7,059

7,222

7.443

7.386

7.464

7,498

8,104

8,339

8,736

9,013

9,310

9,522

9,742

9,976

10,204

10.430

Net'""

Energy

For

Load

GWH

'*

84,993

86.853

92.662

91,458

95.989

98.404

104,199

106,393

108,091

111,301

114,965

118,820

123.720

126.21 1

132,519

135,540

138.666

141,993

145,244

148.466

2,722

2,792

2,879

3,029

3,156

3,263

3,368

3,472

3,576

3,679

Average ***

No. of

Other

Customers

Total Average*",*-*

Number of

Customers

2,480

2,520

2.584

2,605

2,694

3,553,746

3,615,485

3,680,470

3,756,009

3,848.401

3,935,281

4.019.805

4.1 17.221

4,224,509

4,321,895

4,416.737

4,501,569

4,586,391

4,669,120

4,751,183

3,750

3,819

3,887

3,955

4,022

4,830,124

4,906,292

4,981,014

5,055,556

5,129,818

**Actual energy sales include existing conservation.

Forecasted

energy sales do not include the impact of incremental conservation and agrees to

Col.

(2) on Schedule 3.3.

-* Average No.of Customers is the annual average of the twelve month values.

***" GWH Col. (19)

=

Col. (16)

+

Col. (17)

+

Col. (18). Actual NEL include the impacts of existing conservation and agrees to Col.

(8) on schedule 3.3.

=

Col.

(5)

Col. (8) + Col. (11)

+

Col.

(20)

Florida Power

&

Light

Company

37

(1 )

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

Year

19%

1997

1998

1999

2000

(2)

Total

1 6 . W

16,613

17.897

17,615

17.808

18.754

19,219

19,668

20.545

22.361

21.916

22,543

23,179

23.782

24,375

Schedule 3.1

History and

Forecast of

Summer Peak

Demand:

Base

Case

(3) (4)

(5)

(6) (7) (8)

(9)

(10)

Wholesale

364

380

426

169

161

Res. L m d Residential

U

L m d

cn

Net Firm

Retail IntwptiMe Management Conservation MaMgement Conservation Demand

15,700

16,233

17,471

17,446

17.647

0

0

0

0

0

525

582

628

673

719

339

440

526

592

645

422

435

458

452

467

297

343

385

420

451

15,117

15,596

16.811

16.490

16,622

268

271

201

206

21 1

169

261

253

258

263

18.585

18.958

19,415

20.287

22,098

21,648

22,272

22.978

23,576

24,164

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

737

770

761

783

790

799

926

962

984

1001

87

128

172

218

267

697

755

793

847

895

488

489

577

588

600

619

688

724

744

755

481

517

554

578

61 1

49

79

105

122

133

17,523

17.960

18.310

19,174

19,465

20.361

20.722

21,216

21,714

22.218

201 1

2012

2013

2014

2015

24,915

25,474

26,079

26,642

27,263

Historical Values (1996

-

2005):

21 1

21 1

21 1

211

21 1

24.704

25,263

25.868

26,431

27,052

0

0

0

0

0

1,020

1,040

1.062

1,086

1,095

318

371

425

481

500

767

779

791

803

807

144

154

164

174

178

22,665

23,130

23.637

24,098

24,684

Cd

(2)

-

C d

(4) are actual values for histoncal summer

peaks

As

such, lhey inaxperate the effects of tonsewaticm (Cd 7

8

Col 9). and may w o r p r a t e the effects of load cmtrd if load control was operated

on

these peak days Therefwe.

Cd

(2)

represents the actual Net

Firm Demand

Cd (5)

-

Cd (9)for 1996 thrwgh 2005 represent actual DSM capabilihes starlmg from Januaty 1988 and are annual (12mmIh) values

Note that the values for FPL's former

IntmpbMe

Rate

are incapoated into Coi (8)

wtdch

also indudes Busmess On Call (BOC) and

Cmmercial

flndustnal

Demand

Reductim (CDR)

W ( 5 )

- col(9) for year

2004

are

'esomated

actuals' and are A!iguSt values

Cd

( I O ) represents a HYPOTHETICAL 'Net Finn Demanf if the load contrd values had definitely

been exerased

on

the peak

Cd

(IO) is denved by the formula Col (10)

=

Col (2)

-

Cot (6)

-

Col(8)

Projected Values (2006

-

2015):

-

Cd.(4) rep-esent FPL's forecasted peak w/o incremental tonsemtion

of

cumulaOYe load control. The effects of m ~ e r v a t i o n prior to 2W4

are

incaporated into the load forecast.

Cd. (5)

-

Cd. (9) represent all incremental msmatim and cumulative lcad contrd. These valws are prqectec August values and the

CmSerYation

-lues are based

on

projections with a 1 m 0 4 starting pant for use with the 2004 load

fwesast.

Cd . (10) represents a 'Net

Firm

Demand' which accounts for all

o(

the incremental conservation and assumes ail of the l m d contrd is implemented

on

the peak. Cd. (10)

IS denved

by using the famula:

Cd.

=

Col.

-Cd.

(5)

-

col.

(6)

-

Cd.

(7)

-

Cd. (8)

-

Cd. (9).

Florida

Power &

Light Company

38

(1)

Year

1 W 9 7

1997i9.9

1998/99

1999/00

2oo0101

2001102

2002J03

200304

200405

2005/06

2006/07

2007/08 m e 4 0 9

2009/10

201 0/11

2011/12

2012/13

2015114

2014115

(2)

Total

16,490

13.060

16.802

17,057

18.199

17,597

20,193

14,752

18,108

19,683

22,294

22.753

23,245

23,714

24,155

Schedule 3.2

History and Forecast of Winter Peak Demand:Base Case

(3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8)

Firm

Wholesale

626

239

149

142

150

Retail

15.864

12,821

16.653

15,915

18,049

(9) (10)

Res. Load Residential

U

Load

U

Interruptible Management Consemtion Management Consewahon

0

0

0

0

0

570

641

692

741

791

31 1

369

404

434

459

417

426

446

438

448

139

151

164

176

183

Net

Firm

Demand

15,495

11.993

15.664

15.878

16,960

145

246

21 1

225

225

228

231

161

166

171

17,452

19,944

14,541

17,883

19,450

22.066

22,522

23,084

23.548

23,984

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

81 1

847

857

862

870

964

1,001

1,042

1,062

1,084

500

546

570

583

600

58

85

113

139

167

457

453

532

542

550

605

631

656

663

669

196

206

230

233

240

20

28

38

42

47

16,329

18,890

13,363

16,704

17,424

20,647

21.007

21,395

21.807

22,188

24,597

25,061

25.561

26.244

171

171

171

171

24,426

24.890

25,390

26,073

0

0

0

0

1,107

1.133

1,160

1.189

194

222

249

275

676

683

690

696

52

57

62

67

Historical

Values

(1996B7

-

200W06):

Col. (2)

-

Col.

(4) are actual

-lues

fw

histwical wmter peaks. As such, they incorporate the effects of conservallon

(Cd.

7

8

Col.

9), and may incorpwate the effects of lDad mtrd if load antrol was operated

on

these p e a k days

Therefore, Col. (2)

represents

Firm

Demand

Col. (5)

-

Cd.(9) f w 1996/97 through 2009C6 represent actual DSM capabilities starting from January 1988 and are annual (12month) values

Note that the values for

FPL's former IntwpQble Rate are inCMpMated into Col. (8). which also i n d u d s Business On Call (BOC) and

CommerciaVlndusttial Demand Reduction (CDR).cOl.(5)

-

CoL(9) for year 2004105 are 'estimated actuals' and are January d u e s .

Col. (10) represents a HYPOTHETICAL 'Net Finn Demand' if the load control values had definitely been

exemsed a,

Col.

(10) is derived by the famula: Col. (10)

=

-

Cd. (6)

-

Cd.

22.568

22,967

23,400

24,017

Projected Values

(2006M7- 2014/15):

Col (2)

-

cd

(4) represent

FPL's forecasted

p e a k

w/o incremental conservation

or

wmulatiw

load

controi The

effects

of conservation implemented pnor lo 2004 are incorpwated into the load forecast

Col (5)

-

C d (9) represent all incremental conservation and cumulative load control These values are projected January values and the consembon mlues are based

on

piqedions wth a 112004 starting pant for use

mth

the 2004 load forecast

C d (10) represents a 'Net

Firm

Demand' which accounts for all of the incremental conservation and assumes all

of

Me load contrd is implemented on the peak Col (10)

IS denved by using the formula Col (10)

=

C d (2)

-

Col (5)

-

Col (6). Cd (7). C d (8).

Col

(9)

Florida

Power & Light

Company

39

(1)

Year

1996

1937

1998

1999

2000

(2)

Schedule 3.3

History and Forecast of Annual Net Energy for Load

-

GWH:

Base

Case

n,

(3) (4)

( 5 )

(6)

(8)

Total

Residential C/I

Conservation Conservatlcm Retail sale5 f w

Resale

GWH

(9)

UtilityUse Net Energy aLmses

Load

F W L ~ FX~W(%)

87,007

89.243

95,318

94.365

99.097

97 1

1.213

1.374

1,542

1,674

1.043

1,177

1.282

1,365

1,434

85,654

88.01 5

93,932

93,412

93.127

1,353

1,228

1,326

953

970

6.306

5,771

6.206

5.829

7,059

84,993

86,853

92.662

91.458

95.989

60.2%

59.7%

59.1%

59.3%

61.4%

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

101.739

107,755

112.160

112,031

115.440

114.965

118,820

123.720

128,211

132.519

1.789

1,917

2.008

2.106

2,205

148

234

325

423

526

1,545

1,639

1,759

1.834

1.934

84

153

192

217

228

1W,768

106,522

110.648

110,500

113.933

113,420

117,298

12.654

127,129

131,421

970

1.233

1.51 1

1.531

1,536

1.545

1,522

1.066

1,082

1,098

7,222

7,443

7.386

7.464

7.498

8.104

8.339

8.735

9,013

9,310

90.404

104.193

108,393

108.091

111,301

114,733

118.433

123.203

127,571

131.765

59.9%

61.9%

62.9%

59.9%

58.9%

59.9%

602%

60.8%

61.5%

62.1%

201 1

2012

2013

2014

2015

155,540

138.666

141,993

145.244

148.466

Historical Values (I996

-

2005):

632

742

856

972

1,021

238

249

260

272

278

134,443

137,569

140,696

144,146

147,368

1,098

1,098

1.098

1,098

1,098

9,522

9,742

9,976

10.204

10,430

134.670

137,675

140.877

144.OOO

147.1 67

62.1 %

62.0%

62.2%

62.2%

62.2%

Col. ( 2 ) represents denved Total Net Energy

For

Load w/o DSW. The values are calculated using

the

f m u l a :

Cd.

= Col. (3) + Cd. (4)

+

Co1.(3)

& Cd.(4) for 1996 thnwgh 2005 are DSM values stanjng In January 19BB and are annual (1 2-month) values.Cd. (3) and

'estimated actuals' and are also annual (12-month) values. The the total GWH reductions actually experienced

each

year

,

Cd. (5) &

Cd.

of Net Energy For Load in C d (2) into Retail and Wholesale

Col. (9) is calwlated using

Cd.

from this

page

and

Cd.

fonnuh:

Cd.

= ((03.

/

((Co.(2)

*

8760)

Projected Values

(2006

-

2015):

Cd. (2) represents

Net

Energy for

Load w/o DSM values. The

values

are m c t e d from Schedule 2.3. Col. (19).

Cd.

(3) &

Cd.

MlueS

ot

the reduction

M

Sales fmm incremental consemtion and are mid-year (€-"th) values. The

effects

of cmservabon implemented priw to 2004 are incorporated into the load forecast.

Col. (5) &

Cd.

are a breakdown of Net Energy Fw Load in Col ( 2 ) , into Retail and Wholesale.

Col. (8) NEL projected values s h a m here

0

of conservation in

Cd. Cd.

Therefore, these NEL values do not match vlcse s h m m schedule 2.3 because thase

values

do not account fa- incremental conservation.

Coi. (9) is calculated using Cd. (2) from this page and Cd. (2). Totar. from Schedule 3.1.

W.

(9)

=

((W.

Adjustments are made for

leap

years.

Florida Power &

Light

Company 40

Schedule 4

Previous Year Actual and Two-Year Forecast of

Retail Peak Demand and

Net

Energy for Load

(NEL) by Month

JUL

AUG

SEP

OCT

NOV

DEC

TOTALS

Month

JAN

FEE

MAR

APR

MAY

JUN

14.738

16,747

16,534

19,303

20,388

21,611

22,361

20,731

20,176

16,346

15.068

ACTUAL

Total

Peak Demand

MW

NEL

GWH

18,108 8,062.406

7,029,844

8.247,459

6,274,067

9,246,124

10,390,767

11,519,030

11,869.036

11.334,797

9,268,267

6,283.616

7,775.355 l l l , 3 W . 7 6 8

(4)

2006'

FORECAST

Total

Peak Demand

MW

(5)

NEL

GWH

21,792 8,499.7 14

17.964

16,949

18,245

20,240

21,064

21.468

21,916

21,273

19,793

18.471

18.857

7,723,932

8,609,537

8,997.943

9,548.023

10,713,354

10,887.249

11,303,053

11,072,657

9,772,296

9.106.983

8,730,477

114,965,218

20.820

21,668

22,085

22,543

21.682

20,360

18,852

19,245

FORECAST

Total

Peak Demand

MW

NEL

GWH

22,294

8,729.836

18.378

17,340

18,767

0.1 13,972

8.778,122

9,143,792

10,064,433

11,055.940

11,512,493

11,677,199

11,367.714

10,202,113

9,162,626

9,011,423

118,819,664

*

Forecasted Peaks

8

NEL

do not include the impacts

of cumulative load management and incremental consemtion and are consistent with

d u e s shown in

Col. (19) of Schedule 2.3 and Col (2)

of

Schedule 3.3.

Florida

Power

8

Light

Company 41

(This page is left intentionally blank.)

Florida

Power & Light Company

42

4

4

4

CHAPTER 111

Projection of

Incremental

Resource

Additions

Florida Power & Light Company

43

(This page is left intentionally blank.)

4

4

Florida Power

&

Light Company 44

111.

Projection of Incremental Resource Additions

1II.A

FPL's Resource Planning:

FPL developed an integrated resource planning (IRP) process in the early 1990's and has since utilized the process to determine when new resources are needed, what the magnitude of the needed resources are, and what type of resources should be added.

The timing and type of potential new power plants, the primary subjects of this document, are determined as part of the IRP process work. This section discusses how FPL applied this process in its

2005 and early

2006 resource planning work.

Four Fundamental Steps of FPL's Resource Planning:

There are 4 fundamental "steps" to FPL's resource planning. These steps can be described as follows:

Step 1: Determine the magnitude and timing of

FPL's new resource needs;

Step

2:

Identify which resource options and resource plans can meet the determined magnitude and timing of FPL's resource needs

(i.e., identify competing options and resource plans);

Step

3:

Determine the economics for the total utility system with each of the competing options and resource plans; and,

Step4: Select a resource plan and commit, as needed, to near-term options.

Figure

III.A.l

graphically outlines the 4 steps.

Florida

Power & Light Company

45

Fundamental

IRP S t e m

(1)

Determine the magnitude and timing of FPL's new

E S O U r t e needs

Load forecast update bases reliability analyses

I - - .

(2) Identify competing resource options and resource plans

M i c h can mee the determined magnitude and timing of FPL's resource needs

Feasibility analyses of individual DSM options

Feasibility analyses of new capacity

Packaging of

DSM options

Identify resource plans for system economic

-11.

(3) Determine total system economics of competing options/ resource plans

-11.

(4) Finalize

FPL's

Integrated

Resource Plan

&commit to near-term options

Start

System economic analyses of new capacity options

System economic analyses of competing

Finalize FPL's

Integrated

Resource Plan

Timetable for Process

(Normal time period: approx.

6-7 months)

Figure

III.A.l:

Overview

of

FPL's IRP Process

to near-term

Completion

Florida Power &

Light Company

46 a

Step 1: Determine the Magnitude and Timing

of FPL’s New Resource Needs:

The first of these four resource planning steps, determining the magnitude and timing of

FPL’s resource needs, is essentially a determination of the amount of capacity or megawatts (MW) of load reduction, new capacity additions, or a combination of both load reduction and new capacity additions that are needed. Also determined in this step is when the MW are needed to meet FPL’s planning criteria. This step is often referred to as a resource adequacy or reliability assessment for the utility system.

Step 1 typically starts with an updated load forecast. Several databases are also updated in this first fundamental step, not only with the new information regarding forecasted loads, but also with other information that is used in many of the fundamental steps in resource planning. Examples of this new information include: delivered fuel price projections, current financial and economic assumptions, and power plant capability and reliability assumptions. FPL also includes key assumptions regarding three specific resource areas:

(1) near-term construction capacity additions, (2) short-term, firm capacity purchase additions, and (3) short-term and long-term DSM implementation.

The first of these assumptions is based on

FPL’s ongoing engineering and construction activities to add near-term capacity. These construction activities involve a new CC unit at FPL’s Turkey Point site scheduled to come in-service by mid-2007. FPL selected this capacity option after conducting an RFP during 2003. The addition was approved by the

FPSC in June of 2004 and the Governor and Siting Board approved certification of the plant location, construction, and operation of the new CC unit in February, 2005.

The second of these assumptions involves short-term, firm capacity purchase additions.

These firm capacity purchases are from a combination of utility and independent power producers. Several new near-term firm capacity purchases are now projected in this year’s Site Plan. Details, including the annual total capacity values for these purchases are presented in Tables I.B.l and 1.8.2. These purchased capacity amounts were incorporated in FPL’s recent resource planning work.

The third of these assumptions involves DSM. Since 1994, FPL’s resource planning work has assumed that the DSM MW called for in FPL’s approved DSM Goals is achieved per plan in its analyses. This was again the case in FPL’s most recent planning work, as its new DSM Goals that address the years 2005 through 2014, and that were approved by the FPSC in August 2004, are assumed to be achieved per plan.

Florida Power &

Light

Company

47

FPL realized significant load growth in 2005. When this growth was reviewed it was determined that population growth beyond that forecast was responsible for the change.

As a result, the load forecast was updated in November 2005. At that time, the amount and timing of cost-effective DSM was reviewed resulting in the identification of an additional 309 MW of Summer demand reduction capability. This additional DSM capability can be implemented with additional program signups through 2008, plus modifications to existing programs. These additional MW of DSM were also accounted for prior to making projections of new construction additions that are discussed in this document.

These key assumptions, plus the other updated information, are then applied in the first fundamental step: the determination of the magnitude and the timing of FPL’s resource needs. This determination is accomplished by system reliability analyses which are typically based on a dual planning criteria of a minimum peak period reserve margin of

20% (FPL applies this to both Summer and Winter peaks) and a maximum losssf-load probability (LOLP) of 0.1 day per year. Both of these criteria are commonly used throughout the utility industry.

Historically, two types of methodologies, deterministic and probabilistic, have been employed in system reliability analysis. The calculation of excess firm capacity at the annual system peaks (reserve margin) is the most common method, and this relatively simple deterministic calculation can be performed on a spreadsheet. It provides an indication of the adequacy of a generating system’s capacity resources compared to its native load during peak periods. However, deterministic methods do not take into account probabilistic-related elements such as the impact of individual unit failures. For example: two 50 MW units which can be counted on to run 90% of the time are more valuable in regard to utility system reliability than is one 100 MW unit which can also be counted on to run

90%

of the time. Probabilistic methods also recognize the value of being part of an interconnected system with access to multiple capacity sources.

For this reason, probabilistic methodologies have been used to provide an additional perspective on the generation resource adequacy of a generating system. There are a number of probabilistic methods that are being used to perform system reliability analyses. Of these, the most widely used is loss-of-load probability or LOLP. Simply stated, LOLP is an index of how well a generating system may be able to meet its demand (i.e., a measure of how often load may exceed available resources). In contrast to reserve margin, the calculation of LOLP looks at the daily peak demands for each

Florida

Power

&

Light

Company

year, while taking into consideration such probabilistic events as the unavailability of individual generators due to scheduled maintenance or forced outages.

LOLP is expressed in units of the "number of times per year" that the system demand could not be served. The standard for LOLP accepted throughout the industry is a maximum of 0.1 day per year. This analysis requires a more complicated calculation methodology than does the reserve margin analysis. LOLP analyses are typically carried out using computer software models such as the Tie Line Assistance and Generation

Reliability (TIGER) program currently used by FPL.

The result of the first fundamental step of resource planning is a projection of how many new

MW of resources are needed to meet both reserve margin and LOLP criteria, and thus maintain system reliability, and of when the MW are needed. Following the significantly higher loads experienced during the summer of 2005, FPL's peak load forecast was revised upwards in November 2005 as discussed in Chapter II.

Consequently, FPL's projected capacity needs have both accelerated and increased in magnitude. Information regarding the timing and magnitude of these resource needs is used in the second fundamental step: identifying resource options and resource plans that can meet the determined magnitude and timing of FPL's resource needs.

Step 2: Identify Resource Options and Plans That Can Meet the Determined

Magnitude and Timing

of FPL's

Resource Needs:

The initial activities associated with this second fundamental step of resource planning generally proceed concurrently with the activities associated with Step 1. During Step 2, feasibility analysis of new capacity options are conducted to determine which new capacity options appear to be the most competitive on FPL's system. These analyses also establish capacity size (MW) values, projected construction/permitting schedules, and operating parameters and costs.

The individual new capacity options are then "packaged" into different resource plans which are designed to meet the system reliability criteria. In other words, resource plans are created by combining individual resource options

so

that the timing and magnitude of

FPL's new resource needs are met. The creation of these competing resource plans is typically carried out using dynamic programming techniques.

Florida Power

& Light Company

49

At the conclusion of the second fundamental resource planning step, a number of different combinations of new resource options (Le., resource plans) of a magnitude and timing necessary to meet FPL’s resource needs were identified. These resource plans were then compared on an economic basis to determine FPL’s most cost-effective self build alternative.

In 2005, FPL issued a Request for Proposals (RFP) seeking proposals for firm capacity additions in 2009-201 1. FPL received five such proposals in response to this solicitation

(one proposal was subsequently withdrawn by its bidder). These options were also analyzed in FPL’s resource planning work as alternatives to FPL’s most cost-effective self build alternative.

Step 3: Determining the Total System Economics:

At the completion of fundamental steps 1 & 2, the most viable new resource options have been identified, and these resource options have been combined into a number of resource plans which meet the magnitude and timing of FPL’s resource needs. The stage is set for comparing the system economics of these resource plans. In its 2005 resource planning work, FPL performed much of this work of combining resource options into resource plans using the EGEAS (Electric Generation Expansion Analysis System) computer model from the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI). The EGEAS model was also used to perform much of the basic economic analyses of the resource plans.

For various analyses, including the analyses of proposals received in response to FPL’s

RFP, FPL also applied the P-MArea production cost model to develop a more detailed perspective of the production costs for the various resource plans developed in the

EGEAS model. The P-MArea model is the model used by FPL to develop the Fuel Cost

Budget and to conduct other production cost-related analyses including the detailed economic analysis of RFP proposals.

In 2005, FPL also utilized several other models in its resource planning work. For DSM analyses, FPL used its DSM cost-effectiveness model; an FPL spreadsheet model utilizing the FPSC’s approved methodology for analyzing the cost-effectiveness of individual DSM measures/programs, and its non-linear programming model for analyzing the potential for lowering system peak loads through additional load management capacity.

Florida

Power & Light Company

50

The basic economic analyses of the competing resource plans focus on total system economics. The standard basis for comparing the economics of competing resource plans is their relative impact on FPL’s electricity rate levels, with the intent of minimizing

FPL’s leveled system average rate (Le., a Rate Impact Measure or RIM methodology).

However, in cases such as existed for much of FPL‘s most recent planning work in which the DSM contribution was assumed as a given and the only competing options were new generating units and purchase options, comparisons of competing resource plans’ impacts on electricity rates and on system revenue requirements are equivalent.

Consequently, the competing options and plans were evaluated on a cumulative present value system revenue requirement basis that includes the system capital and operating costs of the new capacity options and existing FPL units.

Step

4:

Finalizing FPL’s Current Resource Plan

The results of the previous three fundamental steps were used to develop the future generation plan. This plan is presented in the following section.

I

I I.

B

Incremental Resource

Additions

FPL’s

projected incremental generation capacity additionslchanges for 2006 through

2015 are depicted in Table III.B.l (the planned

DSM

additions are shown separately in

Tables III.D.l and llLD.2). These capacity additionslchanges result from a variety of actions including: changes to existing units (which are frequently achieved as a result of plant component replacements during major overhauls), changes in the amounts of purchased power being delivered under existing contracts as per the contract schedules or by entering into new purchase contracts, implementation of additional cost-effective

DSM, and by projected construction of new generating units.

As

shown in Table III.B.l, the capacity additions are largely made up of committed new construction, new purchases, and proposed self-build alternatives. (The additional DSM

MW are not presented in this table but have been accounted for prior to making these new capacity option projections.) The new construction contribution includes the addition of a new CC unit in 2007 at FPL‘s Turkey Point site and the planned addition of new CC units in 2009 and 2010 at the West County Energy Center site. FPL

is also

projecting additional firm capacity power purchase contributions for the 2006 through 2009 time period. These purchases, combined with the Turkey Point and West County Energy

Center construction projects (plus the additional cost-effective DSM MW), address FPL’s

Florida Power & Light Company

51

resource needs for 2006 through 2010 with the exception of 2008. The 2008 need

is

partially addressed by these resource additions.

FPL anticipates addressing its remaining 2008 need with additional purchases/leases, enhancements to its existing units, and/or the construction of one CT. For purposes of this planning document, FPL projects the construction of one unsited CT.

FPL’s resource need for 201 1 will be addressed with additional cost-effective DSM, power purchases, capacity increases to FPL’s existing units, or by construction of new

CTs. For purposes of this planning document, FPL projects the construction of two unsited CT’s.

FPL projects the construction of two new advanced technology coal units; one each in

2012 and 2013. These two units will use supercritical pulverized combustion technology in concert with an advanced emissions control suite to meet FPL’s resource needs for

2012 and 2013 and greatly enhance FPL’s fuel diversity. The amount of capacity needed and the technologies that would ultimately be chosen to meet the need for these years will be based on FPL’s ongoing review of technology, environmental requirements, regulation and economic factors and will not be restricted to a single technology.

For addressing its 2014 and 2015 resource needs in this planning document, FPL projects the construction of one unsited CT in 2014, one unsited CT in 2015, and one unsited 2x1 CC any of which could be converted to coal gasification once the technology is able to meet reliability and cost-effectiveness standards.

Florida

Power

&

Light

Company

52

Table

III.B.l:

Projected Capacity Changes for

FPL

('I

Projected Capacity Changes and Reserve Margins for

FPL

Ir)

Net

CaDac

Ifv Chanaes

MbV2

--

N

--

2 0 0 6

2 0 0 7

2 0 0 8

2 0 0 9

201 0

201

I

2012

201 3

2014

201

5

Changes to Existing QF Purchases

(')

Changes to existing Units

Changes to Non-QF Purchases(5'

Turkey Point Combined Cyde

#5

(')

Changes to existing Units

Changes to Non-QF Purchases(5)

Changes to existing Units

Turkey Point Unit #5 I ' (

Unsited Combustion Turbine

('I

Changes to Non-QF

purchase^'^)

Changes to Existing QF Purchases

(4)

Changes to Non-QF Purchases"'

West County Unit

#I

(')

Unsited Combustion Turbine

('I

West County Unit #'I

(6)

Changes to Existing QF Purchases

('I

West County Unit

#2

(6)

Changes to Non-QF Purchases'')

West County Unit

#2

(')

Unsited 2x0 Simple Cycle CT")

Changes to Existing

QF

Purchases

(41

Changes to Non-QF Purchases(5) supercritical Pulverized coal Unit # I

Unsited 2x0 Simple Cycle CT")

Changes to Non-QF [email protected])

Supercritical Pulverized Coal Unit #

I

( ' ) ( I )

Supercritical Pulverized Coal Unit #

2

(6)(7)

Changes to Non-QF Purchases(5)

Supercritical Pulverized coal Unit #

2

(')(')

Unsited l x

0 Simple Cycle CT

(')(')

Unsited

l x

0 Simple Cycle CT

(') (')

Unsited

l x

0 Simple Cycle CT

(')

I ' (

Unsited

2x1

Combined Cycle

(')

('I

TOTALS

=

I )

2)

Additional information about these resuiting

reserve

margins and capacity changes are fwnd on Schedules 7 8

8 respectively.

Winter values are values for January of year shown.

3) Summer values are values for August of year shown.

4)

These are firm capacity and energy contracts with Cogen 8 Small Power Producers. See Table

1.6.1

for more details.

5)

These are firm

capauty

purchases from Non-QF facililies. See Tables

I.D.1

and Table

I.P.2

for more details.

5)

All new unit additions are Scheduled to

be in-service in June of the year shown. Consequently, they are included in the Summer reserve margin calculation for the in-service year and in both the Summer and Winter reserve margin calculations for subsequent years.

7) FPL is cunently in the process of selecting a

[email protected])

for these advanced technology coal units. FPL expects to announce the selected site(s) by June

2006.

3) FPL reserve margin values are shown to include what

is committed or firmly planned. FPL will continue to pursue the most cost effective alternatives available to meet the then forecasted need with a 20% reserve margin, such as

DSM resources that may

be

added in intervening years or additional purchases.

3) FPL will continue to pursue development oftechnologies, such as SCPC or IGCC to meet the needs in these later years.

Florida

Power &

Light

Company

53

1II.C

Issues

Impacting FPL’s Recent Planning

Work

FPL’s 2005 and early 2006 planning efforts have continued to address two issues that were identified in previous Site Plans as being items of on-going importance. Those two issues are: (1) the need to address the imbalance between regional load and generating capacity located in southeast Florida, and (2) the desire to maintain and enhance

a

balanced fuel supply in the FPL system.

1. Southeast Imbalance

There currently is an imbalance between regionally installed generation and peak load in southeast Florida. A significant amount of energy required in the southeast Florida region during peak periods is provided through the transmission system from plants located outside the region. Based on the forecast for continued load growth in this region, the imbalance between generation and load is projected to increase unless additional generation capacity is periodically located within this region.

FPL’s prior planning work concluded that either additional installed capacity in this region or transmission capacity capable of delivering additional electricity from outside the region would be required to address this imbalance. Delivering additional electricity from outside the region incurs both increased transmission-related costs (system integration equipment, losses, and impact to operating costs) and the costs of additional capacity that would be built outside of the region. The evaluation conducted as part of FPL’s

Request for Proposals (RFP) process determines the most cost-effective means to meet

FPL’s needs by considering all cost components of FPL’s next planned generating unit

(NPGU) and alternative options, including transmission-related costs. The locations of the

NPGU, and the locations of proposed units included in the alternative option combinations, contribute to the transmission-related costs determined in the evaluation.

The results of the RFP evaluations confirm that because of the existing imbalance, generating units located in the southeast Florida region contribute significantly lower transmission-related costs than do those located outside the region.

Partly because of the lower transmission-related costs resulting from their location,

#2

were evaluated as the most cost- effective options to meet FPL’s 2007 and 2009-201 0 capacity needs, respectively.

Adding Turkey Point Unit #5 will significantly reduce the imbalance between generation and load in southeast Florida. However, assuming no other resources are added, the

Florida

Power &

Light

Company

54

imbalance is projected to redevelop within several years because of the continued load growth of approximately 250-300 MW per year in this region. Therefore, the southeast

Florida imbalance is a recurring factor in the calculation of transmission-related costs which are an integral part of the evaluation of new capacity additions. This was again the case in FPL's 2005 RFP, which resulted in the identification of West County Units #1 and

#2 as the most cost effective alternatives to meet the need of a growing system. The RFP analysis showed that the West County units offered significantly lower transmission related costs in comparison to other proposals evaluated. Based on the current load forecast and system resources the combined effect of the Turkey Point Unit

#5

and the

West County Units #1 and #2 unit additions (assuming an affirmative Determination of

Need is granted for West County Units #1 and #2) would substantially mitigate the imbalance issue until near the end of the ten year planning horizon addressed in this Site

Plan.

2. Balanced Fuel SUDD~V.

FPL also has taken positive steps in 2005 to address the issue of fuel diversity in the FPL system on a number of fronts. Once a resource need is established, and after accounting for all reasonably available, cost-effective DSM alternatives, FPL recognizes that there are many resource options that can contribute to fuel diversity. The following discusses the key activities FPL has undertaken to develop resources that are not reliant on oil or natural gas as the primary fuels.

In March 2005, FPL presented its analysis of the benefits and risks of adding advanced technology coal generation to the FPL System. The

Report on Clean Coal Generation

(Coal Study) was presented to the FPSC summarizing FPL's findings. Based on the assumptions at the time these findings showed that, while there are uncertainties surrounding the costs of coal-fueled generation, significant cost and fuel reliability benefits may be obtained by adding advanced technology coal generation. During 2005,

FPL and its customers were subjected to a volatile natural gas and oil commodity market.

The long-term future price expectation for these fuels has risen, increasing the value offered by advanced technology coal generation above that documented in the Coal

Study. Understandably, FPL maintains its pursuit of two new supercritical pulverized coal units with advanced emission control technology, one each in 2012 and 2013.

In September 2005, FPL issued a two-part RFP. Part I solicited proposals to address

FPL's 2009-2011 capacity needs and this solicitation was open to all fuel-types and

Florida Power &

Light Company

55

technologies. These proposals were received on November 9, 2005. Only natural gas- fired generation or utility system-based capacity was offered in response to Part I of the

RFP. Part

II of the RFP identified that FPL plans to request proposals in 2006 limited to fuel diverse generation alternatives for its 2012-2014 capacity needs. FPL held a meeting in December 2005 with interested parties to identify issues of concern and encourage market interest in the process. As part of its development efforts in 2005, FPL attempted but was unsuccessful in its petition for a zoning variance in St. Lucie County to accommodate a selected site for an advanced technology coal plant. Because of the significant economic and reliability benefits offered by advanced technology coal generation, FPL continues to actively pursue other sites for advanced technology coal plant and will make every effort to bring two units into service in 2012 and 2013, respectively.

During early 2005, FPL completed an RFP for Liquified Natural Gas (LNG) supply by concluding that no proposal offered economic benefits that warranted entering into a long-term supply arrangement necessary to support such a facility. FPL’s view remains that LNG can be an effective means to add fuel supply diversity to FPL, and the company will continue to investigate the feasibility of such projects in the coming years.

FPL has maintained an interest in pursuing Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle

(IGCC) technology. In the past year, FPL has worked with the industry’s leading IGCC developers to explore creative means that might bring this technology to FPL’s customers. This effort is focused on resolving reliability and cost uncertainty and demonstrating that addition of the technology will benefit our customers. FPLs planned capacity for 2014 and 2015 in this Site Plan are such that they could support an IGCC technology alternative, should these areas of uncertainty be resolved by 2008.

During 2005 and early 2006, 9 major US utilities have announced an intent to pursue new nuclear generation facilities. FPL has begun the process to review the prospect for new nuclear generation and the advisability of initiating significant financial commitments in the face of schedule, cost and regulator uncertainties. FPL believes that being an active participant in this process is necessary in order to preserve new nuclear generation as a viable alternative in maintaining a balanced fuel supply. Therefore, FPL will be taking the necessary steps in the near future to preserve new nuclear generation as an option for enhancing fuel diversity in the FPL system.

Florida Power &

Light

Company

56

FPL also has been involved in activities in 2005 to investigate adding or maintaining renewable resources as a part of its generation supply. These activities include discussions with existing facilities aimed at maintaining or extending current agreements.

Additionally, FPL is actively investigating a site for a demonstration wind generation project on the East coast of Florida. The project is estimated to be in the 10 MW range and may be on-line as early as

2007.

FPL maintains its interest in new and developing technologies, such as solar photovoltaic and ocean current turbine technology. FPL supports pilot projects in solar photovoltaic technology throughout its system helping to provide platforms to refine the technology and reduce its cost. The common outlook for renewable technologies is that they may become more cost-effective over the next ten years and may be feasible additions to provide some diversity to the system fuel supply.

FPL shares, with others, the objective of fostering the development and operation

of

additional cost-effective renewable sources of generation. Based upon available information, however, FPL does not believe that renewable resources are likely to contribute more than a modest amount to satisfying the annual electric load growth in

FPL’s territory.

In the future, FPL will continue to identify and evaluate alternatives that may maintain or enhance fuel diversity in its capacity resource mix including purchasing power from coal- fired facilities when such power becomes available. FPL also plans to maintain the ability to utilize fuel oil at those existing units that have that capability, although price factors currently limit the expected use of these facilities.

Florida Power & Light Company

57

1II.D

Demand Side Management

(DSM)

1. Currently Approved Programs and Goals:

FPL’s currently approved

DSM

programs are summarized as follows:

Residential Conservation Service:

This is an energy audit program designed to assist residential customers in understanding how to make their homes more energy-efficient through the installation of conservation measureslpractices.

Residential Buildinn Envelope:

This program encourages the installation of energy- efficient ceiling insulation and reflective roofs in residential dwellings that utilize whole- house electric air conditioning.

Duct Svstem Testinn and Repair:

This program encourages demand and energy conservation through the identification of air leaks in whole-house air conditioning duct systems and by the repair of these leaks by qualified contractors.

Residential Air Conditioning:

This is a program to encourage customers to purchase higher efficiency central cooling and heating equipment.

Residential Load Manaaement (On-Call):

This program offers load control of major appliances/household equipment to residential customers, in exchange for monthly electric bill credits.

New Construction (BuildSmart):

This program encourages the design and construction of energy-efficient homes that cost-effectively reduce coincident peak demand and energy consumption.

Residential

Low

Income Weatherization:

This program addresses the needs of low- income housing retrofits by providing monetary incentives to various housing authorities, including weatherization agency providers (WAPS), and non-weatherization agency providers (non-WAPS). These incentives are used by the housing authorities to leverage their funds to increase the overall energy efficiency of the homes they are retrofitting.

Florida Power

8 Light Company

58

(I

(I

a a

(I

(I

(I

1

(I

a

(I

a

(I

a a a a a a a a

(I

a a a a a a

(1

(I

a a a a a

(I

a

(I

(I

a a a a

Business Enerav Evaluation:

This program encourages energy efficiency in both new and existing commerciallindustrial facilities by identifying

DSM

opportunities and providing recommendations to the customer.

Commercialllndustrlal Heatinn. Ventilatinn. and Air Conditioninn:

This program encourages the use of high-efficiency heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) systems in commerciaVindustrial facilities.

CommerciaUlndustrial Efficient Liahtinn:

This program encourages the installation of energy-efficient lighting measures in commercial/industriaI facilities.

Business Custom Incentive:

This program encourages commercial/industriaI customers to implement unique energy conservation measures or projects not covered by other FPL programs.

CommerciaUlndustrial Load Control:

This program reduces peak demand by controlling customer loads of 200

kW

or greater during periods of extreme demand or capacity shortages, in exchange for monthly electric bill credits. (This program was closed to new participants in 2000).

CommerciaUlndustrial Demand Reduction:

This program, which started in 2002, is similar to the Commercialllndustrial Load Control program mentioned above in continuing the objective to reduce peak demand by controlling customer loads of 200 kW or greater during periods of extreme demand or capacity shortages in exchange for monthly electric bill credits.

CommerciaUlndustrial Buildinn Envelope:

This program encourages the installation of energy-efficient building envelope measures, such as rooflceiling insulation and reflective roof coatings for commercial/industrial facilities.

Business On Call:

This program offers load control of central air conditioning units to both small non-demand-billed and medium demand-billed commerciallindustrial customers in exchange for monthly electric bill credits.

Florida Power & Light Company

59

FPL’s approved DSM Goals for summer

MW reduction from these programs are presented in Table IlI.D.1.

Cumulative

-

2005

Summer MW

74

2006

Goal

142

2007

2008

212

287

2009

2010

201

1

2012

201

3

2014

366

448

532

708

802

Table III.D.l:

FPL’s

Summer

MW

Reduction Goals for

DSM

(At the

Meter)

2.

Table III.D.l reflects FPL’s DSM Goals for 2005-2014 as approved by the Florida Public

Service Commission in June, 2004. These annual cumulative values assume a 1/1/05 starting point.

Research and Development

FPL continues to support research and development activities. Historically, FPL has performed extensive

DSM

research and development. FPL will continue such activities, not only through its Conservation Research and Development program, but also through individual research projects. These efforts will examine a wide variety of technologies that build on prior FPL research where applicable and will expand the research to new and promising technologies as they emerge.

Conservation Research and Development Program

FPL’s Conservation Research and Development Program is designed to evaluate emerging conservation technologies to determine which are worthy of pursuing for program development and approval. FPL has researched a wide variety of technologies such as condenser coil cleaner and coating, ultraviolet lights for evaporator coils, Energy

Recovery Ventilators (ERV), fuel cell demonstrations, C 0 2 ventilation control, two-speed air handlers, and duct plenum repair. Many of the technologies examined have resulted in enhancements to existing programs or the development of new programs such as

~ ~~ ~

Florida Power

8.

Light

Company

60

(I

(I

(I

(I

(I

4

(I

(I

(I

(I

(I

(I

(I

(I

(I

(I

1

(I

(I

J

(I

(I

a

(I

(I

(I

(I

(I

(I

(I

(I

(I

(I

(I

(I

(I

(I

a

(I

(I

(I

(I

(I

m m

I)

I)

D

I)

B

D

D

D

D

B

B

B

B

I)

B

B

B

B

B

B

B

D

D

D

D

I

D

D

Residential New Construction, Commercialllndustrial Building Envelope, and Business

On Call.

Green Power Pricina Research Proiect

Under this project, FPL is examining the feasibility of purchasing tradable renewable energy credits generated from new renewable resources including solar-powered technologies, biomass energy, landfill methane, wind energy, low impact hydroelectric energy, and/or other renewable sources. Residential customers who participate are charged higher premiums for purchasing the tradable renewable energy credits associated with electric energy generated by these sources.

Development of the Green Pricing program was completed and filed with the FPSC in

August 2003. As part

of

this process, a supply contract was put into place that allows

FPL to match supply with demand for green energy. Tradable renewable energy credits are used to supply the renewable benefits required of this project. The FPSC approved the program on December 2,2003 with program implementation the first quarter of 2004.

As of yearend 2005, FPL had over 23,000 project participants.

On Call Incentive Reduction Pilot

In March 2003, FPL received FPSC approval to perform a pilot for its On Call Program.

Under the pilot FPL is offering to new participants a residential load control service similar to the On Call Program at a reduced incentive level. The offering of this pilot is allowing

FPL to test its market research data and gauge whether FPL can repackage its current residential load control service, minimize customer attrition, achieve current goals for residential load control, and, ultimately, change On Call incentive levels without damaging FPL system reliability.

3.

Business Green Enerav Research Proiect

As mentioned above, FPL currently has a R&D project addressing residential customer acceptance of green energy. In an attempt to determine business customer acceptance of green pricing rates,

FPL

is investigating if it is feasible to design and implement a

Green Energy Program that addresses these customer segments.

Additional

DSM

Contributions

FPL’s updated load forecast previously discussed in Chapter II, and the corresponding acceleration and growth in FPL’s projected resource needs previously discussed in this chapter, will enable FPL to cost-effectively implement additional DSM above what is

Florida Power & Light

Company

projected in FPL's approved

DSM

Plan. FPL will petition the FPSC starting in the second quarter of 2006 for approval of modifications to a number of its existing DSM programs that will enable FPL to achieve additional cost-effective DSM MW. The projected additional peak load reduction impacts of these DSM program modifications, which includes both new program measures and increased program signups, is presented in

Table lll.D.2

Additional

2009

Table lll.D.2:

FPL's

Additional Summer MW of DSM

FPL's analyses of these additional DSM contributions has focused to-date on addressing

FPL's near-term (2006-2008) capacity needs. Program implementation that occurs between the summer of 2008 and the end of 2008 are shown as a "carryover" impact to the summer of 2009. On-going analyses will continue to examine the potential for additional cost-effective DSM contributions for subsequent years 2009-on.

Florida Power & Light

Company

62 a

(I

4

(I

4

(I

(I

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

(I

4

4

4

1

4

4

4

4 a

4 a

1

1

1

1

1

4

1

1 a

4 d

4

1

1

4

1

1II.E Transmission Plan

The transmission plan will allow for the reliable delivery of the required capacity and energy for FPL's retail and wholesale customers. The following table presents certain of

FPL's proposed future additions of 230 kV and 500

kV

bulk transmission lines including those corresponding to proposed generating facilities and those that must be certified under the Transmission Line Siting Act.

(1

1

(2)

(3)

Line

Ownership

Terminals

(TO)

Terminals

(From)

FPL

FPL

FPL

FPL

Collier

('1

St. Johns

Manatee

Eve

Orange

River

Pringle

Bobwhite

Sweatt

#3 order certdying the corridor was issued

on July 19 of 2oW.

(4)

Line

Length

(5) (6)

Commercial Nominal

InServlce

CKT. Miles

Date

(MolYr)

Voltage

(kv)

54

26

30

25

DeC-06

De008

Dee1

1

Jun-12

230

230

230

230

Table

III.E.l:

List

of

Proposed Power Lines

(7)

Capacity

( M A )

759

759

,

1190

759

In addition, there will be transmission facilities needed to connect several of FPL's committed and projected capacity additions to the system transmission grid. These transmission facilities for the committed capacity additions at FPL's existing Turkey Point plant and for the projected capacity additions

at

the West County Energy Center site areas are described below.

Since the projected capacity additions for 2008, and for 2011 through 2015, are as-yet unsited, or their transmission facility needs can only be determined after sites for earlier units are determined, no transmission facilities information is provided for these units.

This information will be provided in the 2006 Site Plan Addendum for the 2012 and 2013 advanced technology coal projects when sites have been selected.

Florida Power &

Light Company

63

W

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

B

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

B

B

D

B m

D

B

D m

I)

D

I)

0

0

:uo!jqsqnS

'I

1.

111.E.2Transmission Facilities for West County Unit #I

The work required to connect West County Energy Center Unit #1 projected to be added in 2009 with the FPL grid is projected to be as follows:

Substation:

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

Build new collector yard containing two collector busses with 5 breakers to connect the four CT's and one steam turbine.

Construct

two

string busses to connect the collector busses and main switchyard to Corbett 230 kV Substation.

Add five main step-up transformers (4-225 MVA, 1-560 MVA), one for each CT and one for the steam turbine.

Add a new Bay #4 with 3 breakers at the Corbett 230 kV main switchyard.

Connect one string buss from the collector yard and relocate the Alva 230 kV terminal from

Bay #3

to new Bay #4.

Connect second collector string buss to Bay #3.

Add relays and other protective equipment.

II. Transmission:

1. No upgrades expected to be necessary at this time.

Florida Power 8 Light Company

65

lll.E.3

Transmission Facilities for West

County

Unit #2

The work required to connect West County Energy Center Unit #2 projected to be added in 2010 with the FPL grid is projected to be as follows:

1.

Substation:

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

Build new collector yard containing

two

collector busses with 4 breakers to connect the three CT’s, and one ST.

Construct

two

string busses to connect the collector busses and main switchyard

to

Corbett 500kV Substation.

Add four main step-up transformers (3-370 MVA, 1- 580 MVA) one for each CT, and one for the S i .

At Corbett Sub, install one breaker and relocate Martin

#2

500 kV line from Bay

2 s to Bay 2N. Install one West County 500 kv string bus into Bay 2s.

At Corbett Sub, install one breaker and second West County 500 kV string bus into Bay 1s.

Add relays and other protective equipment.

II. Transmission:

1. No upgrades expected

to

be necessary at this time.

Florida Power Light

Company

66

(I

4

4

4

1

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4 a

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4 a

4 q

4

4

4

4

4

I)

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

B

B

B

B

B

B

B

D

I)

B

B

D

B

D

I)

D

B

D

B

B

0

I)

D

B

0

I

B

B

B

D

B b b

D

B

1II.F. Renewable

Resources

FPL has been the leading Florida utility in examining ways to utilize renewable energy technologies to meet its customers’ current and future needs. FPL has been involved since 1976 in renewable energy research and development and in facilitating the implementation of various technologies.

FPL assisted the Florida Solar Energy Center (FSEC) in the late 1970’s in demonstrating the first residential solar photovoltaic (PV) system east of the Mississippi. This PV installation at FSEC’s Brevard County location was in operation for over 15 years and provided vatuable information about PV performance capabilities on both a daily and annual basis in Florida. FPL later installed a second PV system at the FPL Flagami substation in Miami. This 10-Kilowatt (KW) system was placed into operation in 1984.

(The system was removed in 1990 to make room for substation expansion after the testing of this PV installation was completed.)

For a number of years, FPL maintained a thin-film PV test facility located at the FPL

Martin Plant Site. The FPL PV test facility was used to test new thin-film PV technologies and to identify design, equipment, or procedure changes necessary to accommodate direct current electricity from PV facilities into the FPL system. Although this testing has ended, the site is now the home for

PV

capacity which was installed as a result of FPL’s recent Green Pricing effort (which is discussed on the following page).

In terms of utilizing renewable energy sources to meet its customers’ needs, FPL initiated the first and only utility-sponsored conservation program in Florida designed to facilitate the implementation of solar technologies by its customers. FPL’s Conservation Water

Heating Program, first implemented in 1982, offered incentive payments to customers choosing solar water heaters. Before the program was ended (due to the fact that it was not cost-effective), FPL paid incentives to approximately 48,000 customers who installed solar water heaters.

In the mid-l98O’s, FPL introduced another renewable energy program. FPL’s Passive

Home Program was created in order to broadly disseminate information about passive solar building design techniques which are most applicable in Florida’s climate. As part of this program, three Florida architectural firms created complete construction blueprints

Florida Power

8

Light

Company

67

for 6 passive homes with the assistance of the FSEC and FPL. These designs and blueprints were available to customers at a low cost. During its existence, this program was popular and received a

U.S. Department of Energy award for innovation. The program was eventually phased out due to a revision of the Florida Model Energy

Building Code (Code). This revision was brought about in part by FPL‘s Passive Home

Program. The revision incorporated into the Code one of the most significant passive design techniques highlighted in the program: radiant barrier insulation.

In early 1991, FPL received approval from the Florida Public Service Commission to conduct a research project to evaluate the feasibility of using small PV systems to directly power residential swimming pool pumps. This research project was completed with mixed results. Some of the performance problems identified in the test may be solvable, particularly when new pools are constructed. However, the high cost of PV, the significant percentage of sites with unacceptable shading, and various customer satisfaction issues remain as significant barriers to wide acceptance and use of this particular solar application.

More recently, FPL has analyzed the feasibility of encouraging utilization of PV in another, potentially much larger way. FPL’s basic approach does not require all of its customers to bear PVs high cost, but allows customers who are interested in facilitating the use of renewable energy the means to do so. FPL’s initial effort to implement this approach allowed customers to make voluntary contributions into a separate fund that

FPL used to make PV purchases in bulk quantities. PV modules were then installed and delivered PV-generated electricity directly into the FPL grid. Thus, when sunlight is available, the PV-generated electricity displaces an equivalent amount of fossil fuel- generated electricity.

FPL’s basic approach, which has been termed Green Pricing, was initially discussed with the FPSC in 1994. FPL’s efforts to implement this approach were then formally presented to the FPSC as part of FPL’s DSM Plan in 1995 and FPL received approval from the

FPSC in 1997 to proceed. FPL began the effort in 1998 and received approximately

$89,000 in contributions (that significantly exceeded the goal of $70,000). FPL purchased the PV modules and installed them at FPLs Martin Plant site.

Florida

Power &

Light Company

68

FPL initiated two new renewable efforts in 2000. FPL's first new initiative in 2000 was the

Green Energy Project. The objectives of this Project were to: determine customer interest in an on+oing renewable energy program, determine their price responsiveness and views on the different renewable technologies, and identify potential renewable energy supply sources that would meet the forecasted customer demand for this type of product.

FPL both conducted customer research and issued a Request for Proposals (RFP) in

2001 to solicit proposals to potentially supply energy only

(MWH) from new renewable sources. This Project formed the basis for

FPL's existing Green Power Pricing Research

Project, and then led to FPL's Business Green Energy Research Project, that are discussed in Section lli.D.2.

The second effort initiated in 2000 was FPL's Photovoltaic Research, Development, and

Education Project. This demonstration project's objectives were to: increase the public awareness of roof tile PV technologies, provide data to determine the durability of this technology and its impact on FPL's electric system, collect demand and energy data to better understand the coincidence between PV roof tile system output and FPL's system peaks (as well as the total annual energy capabilities of roof tile PV systems), and

assess

the homeowner's financial benefits and costs of PV roof tile systems. This project was completed in 2003.

FPL has also facilitated renewable energy projects (facilities which burn bagasse, waste

wood,

municipal waste, etc.). Firm capacity and energy and as-available energy have been purchased by FPL from these developers. (Please refer to Tables l.B.l,l.B.2, and

Table I.C.1).

Additionally, FPL is actively investigating a site for a demonstration wind generation project on the East Coast of Florida. The project is estimated to be in the 10 MW range and may be on-line as early as renewable technologies such as ocean current turbine technology.

Florida

Power &

Light Company

69

1II.G FPL’s Fuel Mix and Fuel Price Forecasts

1.

FPL’s

Fuel Mix

Until the mid-l980’s, FPL relied primarily on a combination of oil, natural gas, and nuclear energy to generate electricity with significant reliance on oil-fired generation. In the early

1980’s FPL began to purchase “coal-by-wire.” In 1987, coal was first added to the fuel mix through FPL’s partial ownership and additional purchases from the St. Johns River

Power Park (SJRPP). This allowed FPL to meet its customers’ energy needs with a more diversified mix of energy sources. Additional coal resources were added with the partial acquisition (76%) of Scherer Unit #4 in 1989. Starting in 1997, petroleum coke was added to the fuel mix as a blend stock with coal at SJRPP.

The trend in recent years has been a steady increase in the amount of natural gas that is used by FPL to provide electricity due, in part, to the introduction of highly efficient and cost-effective combined cycle generating units. This planning document shows a slowing of that trend as FPL’s plans have realized the benefits of efficient gas-fired generation but also recognize that adding natural gas-fired additions exclusively would, in the long term, create an unbalanced generation portfolio. FPL projects the addition of a new gas-fired unit in 2007 at Turkey Point and new gas-fired units at West County in 2009 and 2010.

These units will provide highly efficient generation that will benefit the entire FPL system by reducing transmission related costs, mitigate the load to generation imbalance in the southeast portion of the system and dramatically improve the overall system generation efficiency. FPL plans to compliment these additions with

two

advanced technology coal units in 2012 and 2013, respectively. The addition of coal-fueled generation will provide fuel supply diversity and assist in stabilizing fuel cost volatility through diversification.

FPL’s future resource planning work will remain focused on identifying and evaluating alternatives that would maintain or enhance FPL’s long-term fuel diversity. These fuel diversity-enhancing alternatives may include: the purchase of power from new coal- based facilities, obtaining access to diversified sources of natural gas such as LNG, and preserving FPL’s ability to utilize fuel oil at its existing units. The evaluation of the feasibility and cost-effectiveness of these, and other possible alternatives, will be an ongoing part of future planning cycles.

Florida

Power

& Light

Company

70

I

B

B

B

1 b

D b

D

D

D

D

D

D

I

D

D

I

B

D

D

B

D

B

D

D

B

D

B

B

D

B

B

B

B

B

D b

D

D b

D b b

FPL’s current use of various fuels to supply energy to customers, plus a projection of this

“fuel mix” through 2015 based on the resource plan presented in this document, is presented in Schedules 5 , 6.1, and 6.2 later in this chapter.

2. Fuel Price Forecasts

FPL’s long-term oil price forecast assumes that worldwide demand for petroleum products will grow moderately throughout the planning horizon. Non-OPEC crude oil supply is projected to increase as new and improved drilling technology and seismic information will reduce the cost of producing crude oil and increase both recoveries from existing fields and new discoveries. However, the rate of increase in non-OPEC supply is projected to be slower than that of petroleum demand, resulting in an increase in OPEC’s market share throughout the planning horizon. As OPEC gains market share, prices for crude oil and petroleum products are projected to increase.

FPL’s natural gas price forecast assumes that domestic demand for natural gas will grow throughout the planning horizon, primarily due to increased requirements for electric generation. Domestic natural gas production will slowly decline as new and improved drilling technology and seismic information and resulting new finds will only reduce the projected rate of decline in the overall domestic resource base. The rate of decline in domestic natural gas production is projected to be offset by the anticipated increase in

U.S.

imports from Canada during the next decade, with the development of the

MacKenzie Delta region, and the continued increase in re-gasified Liquefied Natural Gas

(LNG) imports over the planning horizon. Further enhancement in domestic supply is assumed with the development and delivery of the proven natural gas reserves on the

North Slope of Alaska sometime in the next decade.

As

demand for natural gas in Florida grows, it is anticipated that the Gulfstream pipeline will fill existing capacity, and along with the Florida Gas Transmission (FGT) pipeline system, expand beyond current capacity to meet the growing requirements of the State of

Florida. When coupled with the new Cypress Pipeline from the Elba Island, Georgia LNG

Re-gasification Terminal to FGT and the potential for a additional re-gasified LNG

Terminal, there is expected to be sufficient natural gas supply for FPL‘s customers and the State of Florida’s continued needs.

Florida Power & Light Company

FPL’s coal price forecast assumes an ample supply of domestic coal, and the availability of imported coal, to meet a gradual but steady increase in U S . demand in the electric generation sector over the planning horizon. The coal price forecast for FPL‘s existing coal plants at SJRPP and Plant Scherer assume the continuation of the existing mine- mouth and transportation contracts until expiration, along with the purchase of spot coal, to meet generation requirements. FPL’s petroleum coke price forecast assumes that the petroleum industry will continue to add coke production facilities in the U.S., as well as in the Caribbean Basin, in order to maximize refinery production of light products. This trend will continue to result in sufficient availability of petroleum coke, at delivered prices significantly below delivered coal prices, to support a gradual, but steady growth in the demand for petroleum coke in the U S . electric utility industry.

In order to support the proposed coal requirements in the 2012 and 2013 time period,

FPL is currently exploring the opportunities for a competitive coal and petroleum coke delivery system. This effort includes the opportunity for competing rail service from

Central Appalachia to Florida, a waterborne receiving facility on both the east and west coasts of Florida, and competing rail service from these potential ports to the solid fuel site. A highly competitive coal and petroleum coke delivery network is essential to ensure both the lowest cost and most reliable fuel supply to FPL’s customers.

Florida

Power

& Light Company

72

Schedule 5

Fuel

Requirements

"

(1) Nuclear

(2) Coal

(3) Residual (FO6)- Total

(4)

Steam

(5) Distillate (FO2F Total

(6) Steam

(7) cc

(8)

CT

(9)

Natural

Gas -Total

(10) S t e m

(11) cc

(12) CT

Trillion BTU 252

235

264 254 269 265 264 268 265 264

268 265

1,000TON 3,319 3,098

3,%3 3,751 4,086 4,044

3.757 4,041 5,194 7,665

8,528

8,770

1,MMBEL 31,250 30,217

1,DM)BBL 31,250

30,217

22,292 21,358 18,188 9,484

5,841

6,188 4,957

4,037 4,022

22.292 21.358 18,188 9,484 5,841 6,188 4,957 4,037

4,022

1,MMEEL 406

1,MMBBL

65

1.000BBL 321

1.OOOBBL

0

344

0

194

150

37

0

35

2

20

0

12

8

53

0

43

10

70

0

0

10

15

0

0

15

13

0

0

13

0

0

0

0

6

0

0

6

0

0

0

0

3,480

3,480

0

0

0

0

1 , W M C F 311.057 345.851 390,582 417,682 452,403 537,775 602,318 626,362 625,394 610,206 M)8,704 636,225

1,000MCF 51,792 44,167

1

,ooO

1,000MCF 6,573

5,608

28.713 28,922 26,501 66.298 79,330 71,405 58,759 68,380

361,019

56,227 53,792

387.077

424,440 470.259 521,024 547.784 555,975 526,485 533,778 556,639

850

882 1,462 1,217 1,965 7,173 10,664 15,341 18,699 25,795

1/ Reflects

fuel

requirements for FPL only

21

Source: A

Schedules.

Florida

Power & Light

Company

73

~ s a u r c e s

Actual

” u”

(1)

AnnualEnecgy

lntenhange 21

GWH 10,258 10.221 10,938 11,103 11,286 11,268 9,844

8,556

8.545 8.539

8 . W

8,085

(2) Nuclear

(3) Coal

(4) Residual(FO6) -Total

(5) Steam

GWH 23,013

GWH 6,315

GWH 19,709

GWH 19.709

21,406

5,765

19,069

19,069

24,025 23,198 24,537 24,111 24,042 24,467 24,192 24,043 24,467 24,121

6,710 7,052 7,627 7,610 7,117

14.628 14,016 11,907 6,340 3,921

14.628 14,016 11,907 6,340 3,921

7.603 11,208 18,167 20,743 21,174

4,153 3,333 2,717 2,703 2,341

4.153 3,333 2,717 2,703 2,341

(6) Dislillate(FO2) -Total

(7) Steam

(8)

cc

(9) CT

(10) NaturalGas -Total

(11)

(12) steam cc

(13) CT

GWH

GWH

GWH

GWH

200

0

57

143

GWH 40,970

GWH 4,918

GWH 35,490

GWH 562

186

0

123

63

47.114

4,253

42.422

439

2 6

0

2

1

5

1

0

4

9

3

3

3 8

0

3

5

4

0

0

4

6

0

0

6

5

0

0

5

0

0

0

0

2

0

0

2

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

52,913 57,082 61,810 72,458 81,700

85,553

85.784 a , m g 83,160 86,847

2,784 2,803 2,563 6,510 7,793 7,024 5,778 6,726 5.524 5,284

50,052 54,202 59,112

77 77 135

65,836

111

73,735

172

77,854 7 8 . W 74.695

676

1,023

1,466

75,843 79.085

1,733 2,478

(14) Other

3/

GWH 7,625 7.541

- -

Net Energy

For L o a d 4 GWH 108,091 111,301

5,494

5,968

5,998 5,761 5.136 4,334 4,613 4,520 4.528 4,599

- - - - - - - - - -

114,733 118.433 123.2W 127,571 131,765 134,670 137,675 140,677 144,ooO 147,167

I/ Source: A

Schedules

2/ The pmjected fgwes

are

based on estimated energy purchases from SJRPP and the Sodhem Canpanles

3

41

Represents a fwecst of energy

expeaed

to be purchased f”

other

P w e r Sales

Net

Energy For Load is also shown in

Cdumn 8 on Schedule 3 3.

4

(I

a

(I

(I

(I

a

4

4 a

4

Florida Power 8

Light

Company 74

(I

4

(I

4

1

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

Schedule 6 2

Energy K by Fuel Type

A a a l

EnemvSourcs

(1)

Amual Energy

lntenhange 2/

% 9 5 9.2 9 5 9 4 9 2 8 8

7 5

6 4

6.2

6 1

5 8

5 5

(2)

Nuclear

0'6

21 3 19 2 20 9 1 9 6 19 9

18 9 1 8 2 1 8 2 17.6 '17 1 17 0 1 8 4

(3) Coal

(4)

Residual (FOS) -Total

( 5 )

S t e m

%

%

%

5 8

182

182

5 2

17 1

17 1

5 8

12 7

12 7

6 0

11 8

11 8

6 2

9 7

9 7

6 0

5 0

5 0

5 4

3 0

3 0

5 6

3 1

3 1

8.1

2.4

2.4

12 9 i 9

1 9

1 4 4

1 9

1 9

14 4

1 6

1 6

(6)

Distillate (F02)

-Total

(7) Steam

(8)

cc

(9)

CT

(1 0) Natural Gas

-Total

(11)

Steam

(12)

cc

(13)

CT

%

%

%

%

%

%

%

k

0 2

0 0

0 1

0 1

379

4 5

32 8

0 5

0 2

0 0

0 1

0 1

42 3

3 8

381

0 4

00

0 0

0 0

0 0

4 6 1

2 4

43 6

0 1

0 0

0 0

0 0

0 0

4 8 2

2 4

45 8

0 1

0 0

0 0

0 0

0 0

5 0 2

2.1

48 0

0 1

0 0

0 0

0 0

0 0

5 6 8

5 1

51 6

0 1

0 0

0 0

0 0

0 0

62 0

5 9

560

0 1

0 0

0 0

0 0

0 0

6 3 5

5 2

57 8

0 5

0.0

0.0

0.0

0.0

62.3

4.2

57.4

0.7

00

0 0

0 0

0 0

5 8 8

4 8

53 0

1 0

0 0

0 0

0 0

0 0

57 7

3.8

52

7

1.2

0 0

0 0

0 0

0 0

59 0

3 6

53

7

1 7

(14)

Other

3

% 7.1

1 w

6.8

1w

4 8 5 0 4 9

4 5 3 9 3 2

1w

1 w 100

1w

loo

1w

1/

Source: A Schedules.

2/

The projected figures are based

on estimated energy purchasm from SJRPP and the Southem Companies.

31

Repsentt a

fwecast d energy expected to

be purchased

from

Qualitying Facillties,

Independent

Pwer Producers

etc.

3 4 3 2 3 1 3.1

1w

100 loo 1w

Florida

Power

8,

Light

Company

75

Schedule 7.1

Forecast of

Capacity, Demand, and Scheduled

Maintenance At T h e Of Summer

Peak

Year

F i n

Total Firm Firm Total Total

Installed IlCapacity Capacity Firm Capacity Peak 3/

Summer

Peak

Reserve

Margin Before Scheduled

Reserve

Margin After

Capacity Import Export QF Available

M l y m M W M W

2/

Demand

-

DSM

41 Demand Maintenance 5/ Maintenance Maintenance

61

MW

MW

% o f p e a k

MW

% o f P e a k

2006 20,919 2,669

2007 22.139 2,257

2008 22,311 2,257

2009 23,530 2,152

2010 24,749 1,469

2011 25,069 1,469

2012 25,919 1,311

2013 26,769 1,311

2014 26,929 1,311

2015 27,642 1,311

0 738 24,326

0 738 25,134

0

738 25,306

0 687 26,369

0 640 26,858

0 595 27,133

0 595 27,825

0 595 28,675

0

0

595

595

28,835

29,548

21,916 1,555 20,361 3,965

22,543

1,821 20.722 4,412

23,179 1,963 21,216 4,090

23,782 2,068 21,714 4,655

24,375 2,158 22,217 4,641

24,915 2.250 22,665 4,468

25,474 2,344 23,130 4,695

26,079

2,442

23,637

5,038

26,642

2,544 24,098

4,737

27,263

2,579 24,684 4,864

19.5

21.3

19.3

21.4

20.9

19.7

20.3

21.3

19.7

19.7

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

3,965

4,412

4,090

4,655

4,641

4,468

4,695

5,038

4,737

4,864

19.5

21.3

19.3

21.4

20.9

19.7

20.3

21.3

19.7

19.7

be

in-service by June 1st are considered to be available to meet Summer peak loads which are forecasted to

occur

during Augusl of the yea indicated.

All values are Summer net

MW.

show for FPL‘s unit capabilrty for the Summer

of

2006

is

an

updated

projectbn

frwn the value used in FPL’s 2005 analyses.

21

Total Capacity Available =

CoL(2)

+ CoL(3)

-

Co1.(4) + CoL(5).

3/ These forecasted values reflect the Most Likely forecast “mwt DSM.

4/

DSM

MW show7

represent cumulative load management capability plus incremental conservation from

1/2M)5.0n

for use with the

2005 load forecad.

They are not included in total additional resources

but

reduce the peak load upon Wich Reserve Margin calculations

are based.

5/

Margin (%) Before Maintenance

=

Col.(lO)

I

cOL(9)

6/

Margin

(Oh)

After Maintenance

= cOi.(13)

/

Cd.(S)

Florida Power & Light Company

76

Schedule 7.2

Famcast of Capacity, Demand, and Scheduled

Maintenance At Time of Winter Peak

Total Firm Firm Total Total

Installed

1/

Capacity Capacity F i n Capacity Peak 3/

Firm

Winter Reserve

Peak Margin Before Scheduled

Reserve

Margin After

Capability Import Export QF Available 2/ Demand DSM 4/ Demand Maintenance 5/ Maintenance Maintenance 61

&&y MW

MW

&y

MW MW

MW

%&Peak

W

MW

%ofpeak

2005106 22,304 2,467

2006/07 22,373

2,540

2007108 23,558 2.288

2008109 23,739

2009110 25,074

1,962

1,501

0

0

0

0

0

738 25,509 21,792 1,535 20,257 5,252 25.9

738 25,651 22,294 1,647 20,647 5,004 24.2

738 26,584 22,753 1,746 21,007 5,577 26.5

738 26,439

23,245 1.850 21,395 5,044

23.6

687 27.262 23.714 1,907 21,807 5,455 25.0

0

0

0

0

0

5,252

5,004

25.9

24.2

5,577

5,044

26.5

23.6

5,455 25.0

2010111 26.409

2011/12 26.771

201U13 27,626

2013/14 28.481

1,500

1,500

1,320

1.320

2014115 28,662 1,320

0

0

0

0

0

595 28,504 24,155 1,967 22,188 6,316 28.5

595 28,866 24,597 2,029

22.568 6,298

27.9

595 29,541 25,061 2,094 22,967 6,574 28.6

595 30,396 25,561 2,161 23,400 6,996 29.9

595 30,577 26,244 2.227 24,017 6,560 27.3

0

0

0

0

0

6,316 28.5

6.298 27.9

6,574

6,996

6,560

28.6

29.9

27.3

Capaaty

addrtlons

and thaws

pfqected

to be in-sewice by January

1 st are Consld%red to be available to meet

Winter peak loads which are fOreCaSl to occur during

January of

the seconb'

year indicated All values are

Winter net

MW

51 Total

Capacriy Availabk = Col(2)

+

Cod (3)

-

Col

(4)

+

Col

(5)

3/

These forecasted values reflect

the Most

Likely forecast

wlthoul

DSM

The DSM

MW

s h o w represent

wmulative load management cepabilny plus incremental

conservation

from 1/200hn for

use mth the

2005

load forecast

Sf

T h e y

are not included in total addltmal resoumas but reduce the peak bad

upon which Reserve

Magin calculations ars based

Margin

(%) Before

Maintenance

=

Col(10)

/

Col(9)

6/

Margin

(%) After

Maintmance = Col(13)

I

Col(9)

Florida Power 8.

Light Company

77

P a g e l o f 2

schedule 8

Planned

And

Pmqmdva oanar(rtlng

Facility

Additiolw

And Changes lppp

Cape C M W W ~

Cape CanaveraI

cu(ler

k r * r

F t

Myers

F t Myers

F t

Myen

M m l w

Manaln

M.mn

M”

M”

pt

E w g l a d p

Pl

Everdades

R EmOlrdm

Pumam

wna

S n f c r d

Sanford

SIRPP

TuRey POim

Pl

Emgl.dar

Manaln

M.”UIN

M a t h

Sshcra

T h e y

Poht

cc

2ow

Cape C a n m m l

P l

E v e r g l a k

U n r d e d

1x0 SimpC Cyde CT

Turkey Pant CC

2009

Wled 1-

Simple

Cyde

CT

WnlCoumyCombinedCyde

4

1

3

4

5

2

1

3

4

1

3

1

2

5

6

2

3 A & 0

1-12

1

2

1

0revardCounly

0revardCounly

hlarruDa&Cwnty

kliamDafbCounty

LeeCounty

Lcetounty

LceCounly

ManstcaCanty

ManalwCDunty

MarbnCwnty

M a m C o m l y

M s I U I C ~ R I ,

C i y o f H d y w x d

W o f H d y w c d

C t y o f H d y m c d

PubamCann, c * o t R ” B e a , s h

vohm.courny v o ~ a c o u m y

CUMlGnlnty

M i w ” e b C a m l y

ST

ST

ST

ST

cc

CT

GT

ST

ST

ST

cc cc

ST

ST

ST cc

ST cc cc

BIT

ST

NO

FO6

NG

NO

BIT

FO6

FO6

NO

N t

Fog

F06

FO6

Fog

FO6 ffi

NG

NG

NO

F02

FW

FO6

NG WA

PL U n l m a

NG

No

WA

PL U n h a

PL

No

U n h a

No

No

PL N o

U n h a

PL

No

U n h a

F 0 2

PL

PL

Unhan

No

PL No

Unhan

NO

WA PL Unhan

NO

NG

No

WA

PL

PL

PL

Unhan

PL

Unman

No

Unhan

No

PL

No

Unhan

NO

ffi

No

WA

WA

WA

PL

Unlman

PL

Unlmm

PL Unlman

FO2

No

PL WA U n b ”

WA PL

Unlman

No PL No Unbnan

No

PL

No Unhan

P e l C o b RR WA

Unknan

No

WA PL Unhowl h - 0 6

Unl”

402.00

6

U n h o r m 402,050

h - 0 6 Un-

74.5W

h - 0 6

U n k “

h - 0 6

U n k ”

&m46 U n k ”

1 6 1 . W

1,775.380

375,700

Jun-06

Jun-06

Jun-06

Jun-06

Jun-06

Jun-06

) u n a hn-06

Jun-06

Jun-06

J u n e

kn-06

Am46

U n M 7U,120 h - w

Unl”

Jun-06

U n k ”

863.240

863,y)o

U n k ” 934,SoO

U n M 612.000

U n k “ 612.000

Unknom 247.775

U n k n a 402.050

U n k “ 402.050

Unknmn

29o.W

U n k n a 310120

U n k a I.lM,gw

U n k n a 1.1sd.gw

Unl” 135.8i8

Unknorm 402050

(5)

7

3

33

8

4

16

(6)

(7)

6

24

24

-

8

12

4

14

10

10

16

22

2 0 0 ( i C h w A d T & a k

206

2

4

5

3

I

2 city of

mmwd

Manelw County

Manatee County

Ma* Counly

Hwree.

OA

Miami Dadc County

ST

F06

ST

F06

ST

FO6

ST

FO6

BIT

CC

BIT

NO

No

NG

No

WA

PL

WA

PL

WA

PL

NG PL PL

No

F 0 2

RR No

PL

PL m A n 4 7

Unhan

kn-07

Unknnow, 402.050

U n k n a

W , 3 W

m Jun-07 Unknam

863,300

U ” h a n

Jan45

luun-07

U n h a n

Jun-07

h - 0 7

U n k o m l 934,500

U n k ”

U n k ”

Bo.266

l P 3 , W O

n # l C h ~ A d l i t U a r r T c t r l :

8

15

16

7

24

-

n

8

15

16

19

19

1 , l U

la1

OT

OT

OT

OT

OT

U

1

1

5

Brevrrd

County my

O f

Mhcd

Unl”

Miami

D&

County

ST

F06

ST

Fob

CT

NO

CC

NO

NG WA PL

NG WA PL

F02

F02

PL

PL

PL

PL

U n h a n

hn-Cd

LWmrm

402.050

U n h a n

J44n.M

Jan47

J a m

A n 4 8

Jun-07 hkww 247,775

U n k m U n h a m

Wnam

1223.000

3

1

-

1.181

2ooo C h ~ A d d l t i m T O h l :

1.188

4

8

160

-

172

1

Unbwrm

PalmBeashCwnty

CT

NO

CC

NG

FOZ

F02

PL

PL

Jan47

PL

PL

Jan47

Jm-Cd

JunOO

W m U n h a m

U n k m

U n h a n

181

-

P

-

1,219

P

2 O W c h ~ A d d l t i o n r T o t . l :

181

1 2 I S

OT

OT

P

U

(61

17)

6

22

22

(5) a

3

33

-

-

-

(7)

8

12

4

14

-

-

22

13

I 4 2

OT or or

OT

OT

07

OT

OT

OT

01

OT

OT

OT

OT

OT

OT

OT

OT

OT

01

OT

Florida

Power 8 Light Company

78

wed

covnty combined cy& wed

Calnty

combined

cyde

1 P d m B e a c h C a n t y CC

2 P d m B c K h C a n t y CC

No m;

FO2

FOP

PL PL

Jan47

PL PL

Jan48

P

P

I

2

2

P.lm&achCwaty

Unlmwm

1

Unknnorm

TaA'

CC NO

CT

No

F02

FO2

PL PL Jan-

PL

PL

Jan-10

CT NG

BIT BIT

F02

N O

PL

PL

Jan-IO

RR

No

Jan-

Jw-10

Jm-11

U n h n

Unlmovm

Unlmwm

Unbwm

7.335

-

-

320

t20

P

P

Jm-11

Jm.12

m2

U n h n U n b ~

%2

Unlmoul

Unlmnorm

0unP.yMdlaan

Teal:

-

-

850

T

TSA a

TEA *

BIT

BIT

BIT BIT

No

No

RR

RR

No

Jan-

No Jan48

P

P

-

Unaled 1x0 Simp

Cy*

CT

Unrited 1x0 S i

Cyde CT

W W c w n b i X d C y d e

2

TBA'

Unl"

BIT

CT

BIT

NO

No

F02

RR

No J a M

PL

PL Jan-13

U n k "

Unknnorm

U n k "

CT

CT

CC

No

No

Nc

F02

FOZ

FO2

PL

PL

Jam13

PL

PL

Jan-14

Ft

PL Jan-13 h - 1 4

Unkrmvm

Unlmwm

Am-15

Am-15

Unlmoul

Unhwm

U n W

Unhnorm

* O ( ( Q m g . . l * d d l l b n r T M 1 ) 1 -

181

-

P

P

-

160

553

?I3

P

P

P

Florida

Power

&

Light Company

79

Page 1 of

10

Schedule 9

Status

ReDort

and Smclficatlons of Prormsed

Generatina Facilitieg

(1)

Plant Name and Unit Number:

Turkey Point Combined Cycle Unit #

5

(2)

Capacity

a. Summer b. Winter

(3)

Technology Type:

1,144 MW

1,181 MW

Combined Cycle

(4) AnticIpated Construction Timing

a. Field construction startdate: b. Commercial In-service date:

(5)

Fuel

a. Primary Fuel b. Alternate Fuel

2005

2007

Natural Gas

Distillate

(6)

Air Pollutlon and

Control

Strategy:

Natural Gas. Dry Low No, Combustors, SCR

0.001

5%

S.

Distillate, 8 Water Injection on Distillate

Cooling Tower

(7) Cooling Method:

(8)

Total

Site

Area:

(9)

Construction

Status:

(1 0)

CerUflcatlon Status:

(1 1)

11,000

U

Certified

Certified

Acres

Under Construction, less than or equal to 50% complete

(1 2)

Projected Unit Performance Data:

Planned Outage Factor (POF):

Forced Outage Factor (FOF):

Equivalent Availability Factor (EAF):

Resulting Capacity Factor (%):

Average Net Operating Heat Rate (ANOHR):

Base Operation

75F,1OO0h

2%

1%

97% (Base & Duct Firing Operation)

Approx. 97% (First Base Operationyear)

6,835 BtukWh (Base Operation)

(1 3) Projected

Unit Financial Data

*,*.

Book Life (Years):

Total Installed Cost (2007 $kW):

Direct Construction Cost ($kW):

AFUDC Amount ($kW):

Escalation

($kW):

Fixed 0 8 M ($kW -Yr.): (2007 $kW-Yr)

Variable 08M ( W H ) : (2007 $/MWH)

K

Factor:

25 years

507

10.06

0.13

1.5699

$ k W values are based on Summer capacity.

**

Fixed

O&M

cost includes capital replacement, but not firm gas transportation costs.

NOTE: Total installed cost includes gas expansion, transmission interconnection and integration, escalation. and AFUDC.

Florida

Power

81

Company

80

Page

2

Schedule

9

Status Report and Specifications of PrODOSed Generating Facilities

(1)

Plant Name and Unit Number:

Unsited Simple Cycle Combustion Turbine

(2)

Capacity

a. Summer b. Winter

160 MW

181 MW

(3)

Technology Type:

Combustion Turbine

(4)

Anticipated Construction Timing

a. Field construction start-date: b. Commercial In-service date:

2007

2008

(5)

Fuel

a. Primary Fuel b. Alternate Fuel

Natural Gas

Distillate

(6) Air Pollution and Control Strategy:

Dry Low No, Bumers, Natural Gas 0.0015% S.

Distillate and Water Injection on Distillate

Air Coolers

(7) Cooling Method:

(8)

Total Site Area:

(9)

Construction

Status:

(10)

Certification Status:

392

P

P

Acres

(Planned)

(Planned)

(1 1)

Status with Federal Agencies:

(12)

Projected Unit Performance Data:

Planned Outage Factor (POF):

Forced Outage Factor (FOF):

Equivalent Availability Factor (EAF):

Resulting Capacity Factor

(%):

Average Net Operating Heat Rate (ANOHR):

Base Operation 75F,

100%

2.0%

1

.O%

97%

Approx. 10% (First Year Operation)

10,400 BtulkWh

(13)

Projected Unit Financial Data

*,-

Book Life (Years):

Total Installed Cost (2008 $/kW):

Direct Construction Cost

($/kW):

AFUDC Amount ($/kW):

Escalation

($/kW):

Fixed

O&M ($kW -Yr$ (2008 $kW-Yr)

Variable O&M ($IMWH): (2008

$IMWH)

K Factor:

P (Planned)

25 years

522

8.72

0.81

1.8084

$/kW values are based on Summer capacity.

** Fixed

O&M

cost includes capital replacement.

NOTE: Total installed cost includes escalation and AFUDC only.

Transmission interconnection and transmission integration

costs

are not included.

Florida Power

&

Light Company

81

Page 3 of 10

Schedule 9

Status ReDort and Swifications of Proposed Generatlna Facilities

(1)

Plant Name and Unit Number.

West County Energy Center Combined Cycle Unit # 1

(2)

Capacity

a. Summer

b. Winter

1,219 MW

1,335 MW

(3)

Technology Type:

Combined Cycle

(4)

Anticipated Construction Timing

a. Field construction start-date: b. Commercial In-service date:

2007

2009

(5) Fuel

a. Primary Fuel

b.

Alternate Fuel

Natural Gas

Distillate

(6)

Air Pollution and Control Strategy:

Natural Gas, Dry

Low

No, Com bustors, SCR

0.0015% S. Distillate, &Water Injection on Distillate

(7) Cooling Method:

(8)

Total Site Area:

(9)

Construction Status:

(1

0) Certtfication Status:

220

P

P

Cooling Tower

Acres

(Planned)

(Planned)

(11)

Status with Federal Agencies:

P (Planned)

(12)

Projected Unit Performance Data:

Planned Outage Factor (POF):

Forced Outage Factor (FOF):

Equivalent Availability Factor (EAF):

Resulting Capacity Factor (%):

Average Net Operating Heat Rate (ANOHR):

Base Operation 75F, 100%

2.1%

1.1%

96.8% (Base & Duct Firing Operation)

Approx. 97% (First Year Base Operation)

6,582 Btu/kWh (Base Operation)

(13)

Projected Unit Financial Data

*,-

Book Life (Years):

Total Installed Cost (2009 $/kW):

Direct Construction Cost ($/kW):

AFUDC Amount ($/kW):

Escalation ($/kW):

Fixed O&M ($/kW -Yr.): (2009 $kW-Yr)

Variable O&M ($/MWH): (2009 $/MWH)

K

Factor:

25 years

565

11.65

0.138

1.5834

$/kW values are based on Summer capacity.

**

Fixed O&M cost includes capital replacement, but not firm gas transportation costs.

NOTE: Total installed cost includes gas expansion, transmission interconnection and integration, escalation, and AFUDC.

Florida Power

&

Light Company

82

Page

4

Schedule 9

Status Report and Specifications of Proposed Generating Facilities

(1)

Plant Name and Unit Number:

West County Energy Center Combined Cycle Unit

#

2

(2)

Capacity*

a. Summer

b. Winter

1,219 MW

1,335 MW

(3)

Technology Type:

(5) Fuel

a. Primary Fuel b. Alternate Fuel

Combined Cycle

(4) Anticipated Constructlon Timing

a. Field construction start-date: b. Commercial In-service date:

2008

2010

Natural Gas

Distillate

(6)

Air Pollution and Control Strategy:

(7)

Cooling Method:

(8)

Total Site Area:

(9) Construction Status:

220

P

Natural Gas, Dry Low No, Com bustors, SCR

0.0015%

S.

Cooling Tower

Acres

(Planned)

(1

0) Certification Status:

(1 1)

Status

with Federal Agencies:

P

P

(Planned)

(Planned)

(12)

Projected Unit Performance Data:

Planned Outage Factor (POF):

Forced Outage Factor (FOF):

Equivalent Availability Factor (EAF):

Resulting Capacity Factor (%):

Average Net Operating Heat Rate (ANOHR):

Base Operation 75F, 100%

2.1%

1.1%

96.8% (Base & Duct Firing Operation)

Approx.

94%

(First Year Base Operation)

6,582 Btu/kWh (Base Operation)

(1 3)

Projected Unit Financial Data

I

Book Life (Years):

Total Installed Cost (2010 $/kW):

Direct Construction Cost ($/kW):

AFUDC Amount ($/kW):

Escalation ($/kW):

Fixed O&M ($/kW -Yr.): (2010 $kW-' ,)

Variable O&M ($/MWH): (2010 $IMWH)

K Factor:

25 years

519

10.11

0 . 1 3

1.5873

* $/kW values are based on Summer capacity.

* Fixed O&M cost includes capital replacement, but not firm gas transportation costs.

NOTE: Total installed

cost

includes gas expansion, transmission interconnection and integration, escalation, and AFUDC.

(Note: Costs shown are based on the constuction of Unit 1 first.)

Florida Power & Light Company

83

Page

5 of

10 schedule 9

Status

Remrt and SDecifications of ProDosed Generatirm Facilities

(1) Plant Name and Unlt Number:

Unsited 2x0 Simple Cycle Combustion Turbine

(2) Capacity a. Summer b. Winter

(3) Technology

Type:

320

362

(4) Anticipated Construction Timing a. F e M construction stattdate: b. Commercial In-service date:

MW

Mw

Combustion Turbine

2010

201 1

(5) Fuel a. Primary Fuel b. Aitemate Fuel

(6) Alr Pollution and Control Strategy:

Natural Gas

Distillate

Dry Low No, Burners, Natural Gas 0.001 5% S. Distillate and Water Injection on Distillate

(7) Cooling

Method:

(8) Total Site Area:

(9) Construction

Status:

0)

Status:

(1 1) Status with

Federal Agencies:

Air Coolers

Uknown Acres

P (Planned)

P (Planned)

P (Planned)

(12) Projected Unlt Performance Data:

Planned Outage Factor (POF):

Forced Outage Factor (FOF):

Equivalent Availability Factor (EAF):

Resulting Capacity Factor (%):

Average Net Operating Heat Rate (ANOHR):

Base Operation 75F, 100%

(13) Projected Unlt Financial Data

.,"

Book Life (Years):

Total Installed Cost (201 1

$kW):

Direct Construdion Cost ($/kW):

AFUDC Amount ($kW):

Escalation

($kW):

Fixed

O&M

($/kW -Yr.): (201 1 $kW-Yr)

Variable

O&l

($/MWH): (201 1 $/MWH)

K Factor:

2.0%

1

.O%

97%

Approx. 10% (First Year Operation)

10,400 BtukWh

25 years

562

9.35

0.97

1.6397

$ k W values are based on Summer capacity.

Fixed 0 8 M cost includes capital replacement.

NOTE: Total installed cost includes escalation and AFUDC only.

Gas expansion,transmission interconnection, transmission integration costs are not included.

~ ~~~

Florida Power &

Light Company

B

B

B

B

B

B

B

B

B u m

B u

B

0

0

I) m

B

B

D

B

B

I m

B

B

B

B

B

B

B

B

I)

B

Page 6 of 10

Schedule 9

Status Rewrt and Specifications of Proposed Generatinq Facilities

(1)

Plant Name and Untt Number:

Supercritical Pulverized Coal Unit # 1

(2) Capacity

a. Summer b. Winter

850 MW

855 MW

(3)

Technology Type:

Supercritical Steam Generator

(4)

Anticipated Construction Timing

a. Field construction startdate: b. Commercial In-service date:

2008

2012

(5)

Fuel

a. Primary Fuel b. Akemate Fuel

Coal

NIA

(7)

Air Pollution and Control Strategy:

Cooling Method:

Low No, Bumers, Over-fired Air, SCR, Baghouse

Wet Flue Gas Desulfurization, Wet Electric

Static Precipatator

Cooling Tower

(8)

Total Site Area:

(9)

Construction Status:

(1

0)

Certiflcatlon

Status:

3,000

P

P

Acres

(Planned)

(Planned)

(1 1)

Status with Federal Agencies:

P (Planned)

(1 2)

Projected Unit Performance Data:

Planned Outage Factor (POF):

Forced Outage Factor (FOF):

Equivalent Availability Factor (EAF):

Resulting Capacity Factor (%):

Average Net Operating Heat Rate (ANOHR):

Base Operation 75F,100%

4.0%

4.0%

92%

Approx. 90% (First Year Operation)

8,600 BtukWh

(13)

Projected Unit Financial Data

*,*

Book Life (Years):

Total Installed Cost (2012 $/kW):

Direct Construction Cost ($lkW):

AFUDC Amount ($kW):

Escalation ($/kW):

Fixed O&M ($/kW -Yr.): (2012 $kW-Yr)

Variable

0 8 M

($/MWH): (2012$/MWH)

K Factor:

40

years

2,355

38.07

1.384

1.661 6

* $/kW values are based on Summer capacity.

** Fixed OBM cost includes capital replacement.

NOTE: Total installed cost includes escalation and AFUDC only.

Transmission interconnection and transmission integration costs are not included.

Florida Power

8 Light Company

85

Page 7 of 10

Schedule 9

Status ReDort and Speciflcations of ProDosed Generatlnn Facilities

(1)

Plant Name and Unit Number:

Supercritical Pulverized Coal Unit # 2

(2) Capacity a. Summer b. Winter

850 MW a55

Mw

(3)

Technology Type:

Supercritical Steam Generator

(4)

Anticipated Construction Timlng

a. Field construction start-date:

b.

Commercial In-service date:

2008

2013

(5) Fuel

a. Primary Fuel b. Altemate Fuel

Coal

N/A

(6)

Air Pollution and Control Strategy:

(7)

Cooling Method:

(8)

Total Site Area:

(9)

Construction Status:

(IO)

Certification Status:

Status

with Federal Agencies:

3,000

P

P

P

Low No, Burners, Over-fired Air, SCR, Baghouse

Wet Flue Gas Desulfurization, Wet Electric

Static Precipatator

Cooling Tower

Acres

(Planned)

(Planned)

(Planned)

(1 2)

Projected Unit Perfonnance Data:

Planned Outage Factor (POF):

Forced Outage Factor (FOF):

Equivalent Availability Factor (EAF):

Resulting Capacity Factor (%):

Average Net Operating Heat Rate (ANOHR):

Base Operation 75F,IOO%

4.0%

4.0%

92%

Approx. 90% (First Year Operation)

8,600 Btu/kWh

(1 3)

Projected Unit Financial Data

*,**

Book Life (Years):

Total

Installed

Cost

(2013 $/kW):

Direct Construction Cost ($/kW):

AFUDC Amount ($/kW):

Escalation ($/kW):

Fixed

O&M

($/kW -Yr.): (2013 $kW-Yr)

Variable

O&M

($/MWH): (2013 $/MWH)

K

Factor:

40 years

1,732

28.60

*

$/kW values are based on Summer capacity.

**

Fixed O&M cost includes capital replacement.

NOTE:

Total installed

cost

includes escalation and AFUDC only.

Transmission interconnection and transmission integration

costs

are not included.

Florida Power & Light Company

a

(I

(I

Y a

I a

4

(I

a a a a a a a a

4 a

4

4 a

4 a a

4

I

4

4 a a

(I

a

4

4

4

(I

a a a

(I

a

4

I,

B

B

D m

R

0

B

D

#

B

D

R

B

D

D

B

B

B

B

B

B

B

B

B

#

I)

1)

0

0

0

0

m

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

Page

8

of 10

Schedule

9

Status Rewort and Speclflcations of Proposed Generatina Facilities

(1)

Plant Name and Unit Number:

Unsited 1x0 Simple Cycle Combustion Turbine

(2)

Capacity

a. Summer b. Winter

(3)

Technology Type:

160 MW

181 MW

Combustion Turbine

(4)

Anticipated Construction Timing

a. Field construction startdate: b. Commercial In-service date:

(5)

Fuel

a. Primary Fuel b. Alternate Fuel

201 3

2014

Natural Gas

Distillate

(6)

Air Pollution and Control Strategy:

Dry Low

No,

Burners, Natural Gas 0.0015% S. Distillate and Water Injection on Distillate

Air Coolers

(7)

Cooling Method:

(8)

Total Site Area:

(9) Construction Status:

Unknown Acres

P (Planned)

(IO)

Certification Status:

(1 1)

Status

with Federal Agencies:

P

(Planned)

P (Planned)

(12)

Projected Unit Performance Data:

Planned Outage Factor (POF):

Forced Outage Factor (FOF):

Equivalent Availability Factor (EAF):

Resulting Capacity Factor

(%):

Average Net Operating Heat Rate (ANOHR):

Base Operation

75F,

100%

2.0%

97%

Approx. 15% (First Year Operation)

10,400 Btu/kWh

Projected Unit Financial Data

*,-

Book Life (Years):

Total Installed Cost (2014 $/kW):

Direct Construction Cost ($/kW):

AFU DC Amount

($/kW)

:

Escalation

($/kW):

Fixed 0&M ($/kW -Yr.): (2014 $kW-Yr)

Variable

O&M

($/MWH): (2014 $/MWH)

K Factor:

25 years

689

10.11

1.05

1.7323

$/kW values are based on Summer capacity.

** Fixed 0 & M cost includes capital replacement.

NOTE: Total installed cost includes escalation and AFUDC only.

Gas expansion,transmission interconnection, transmission integration

costs

are not included.

Florida Power & Light Company

87

Page 9 of 10

Schedule 9

Status Report and SDeciRcations of Proposed Generatinn Facilities

(1)

Plant Name and Unit Number:

Unsited 1x0 Simple Cycle Combustion Turbine

(2)

Capacity

a. Summer b. Winter

160 MW

181 MW

(3)

Technology Type:

Combustion Turbine

(4)

Anticipated Construction Timing

a. Field construction start-date: b. Commercial In-service date:

2014

201

5

(5)

Fuel

a.

Primary Fuel b. Altemate Fuel

Natural Gas

Distillate

(6)

(7)

(8)

Alr Pollution and Control Strategy:

Cooling Method:

Total Site Area:

Dry

Low No, Burners, Natural Gas 0.0015% S. Distillate and Water Injection on Distillate

Air Coolers

Unknown Acres

(9) Construction

Status:

(1 0)

Certification Status:

P

P

(Planned)

(Planned)

(1 1)

Status wlth Federal Agencies:

P (Planned)

(12)

Projected Unit Performance Data:

Planned Outage Factor (POF):

Forced Outage Factor (FOF):

Equivalent Availability Factor (EAF):

Resulting Capacity Factor (%):

Average Net Operating Heat Rate (ANOHR):

Base Operation 75F, 100%

2.0%

97%

Approx. 15% (First Year Operation)

10,400 Btu/kWh

(13)

Projected Unit Financial Data

*,*

Book Life (Years):

Total Installed Cost (2015 $/kW):

Direct Construction Cost ($/kW):

AFUDC Amount ($/kW):

Escalation ($/kW):

Fixed O&M ($/kW -Yr.): (2015 $kW-Yr)

Variable O&M ($/MWH): (2015 $/MWH)

K Factor:

25 years

71

0

10.37

1.10

1.7252

$/kW values are based on Summer capacity.

** Fixed 0&M cost includes capital replacement.

NOTE: Total installed cost includes escalation and AFUDC only.

Gas expansion, transmission interconnection, transmission integration costs are not included.

Florida Power & Light Company a8

(I

a a

4 a a a

(I

a a

(I

II

0

0

a

0

a a a a

(I

4

4

4

4

(I

4

4

4

4

1

a a a

(I

a a

(I

(I

a a a

(I

Page 10 of 10 schedule

9

Status Remrt and Smcifications of Pro~ased

F

(1)

Plant

Name and Unit Number: Unsited 2xlCombined Cycle

(2)

(3)

Capacity

a. Summer b. Winter

Technology Type:

553 MW

610 MW

Combined Cycle

(4)

Anticipated Construction Timing

a. Field construction startdate: b. Commercial In-service date:

201 3

201 5

(5) Fuel a. Primary Fuel b. Alternate Fuel

(6)

Air Pollution and Control Sbategy:

Natural Gas

Distillate

Dry

Low

No, Burners, SCR, Natural Gas, 0.0015% S. Distillate and Water Injection on Distillate

Cooling Tower

(7)

Cooling Method:

(8)

TotalSiteArea:

(9)

Construction Stbus:

Certlfication Status:

11,300

P

Acres

(Planned)

P (Planned)

(1 I )

Status

with Federal Agencies:

P (Planned)

( I 2)

Pro]ected Unit Performance Data:

Planned Outage Factor (POF):

Forced Outage Factor (FOF):

Equivalent Availability Factor (EAF):

Resulting Capacity Factor (%):

Average Net Operating Heat Rate (ANOHR):

Base Operation 75F,l 00%

2.0%

1

.O%

97%

Approx. 70% (First Year Operation)

6,835 BtukWh

(1

3) Projected Unit Financial Data

*,"

Book Life (Years):

Total Installed Cost (2015 $/kW):

Direct Construction Cost ($/kW):

AFUDC Amount

Escalation ($/kW):

Fixed O&M (VkW -Yr.): (2015 $kW-Yr)

Variable OBM ($/MWH): (2015 $/MWH)

K Factor:

$kW values are based on Summer capacty.

"

0 8 M cost includes capital replacement.

25 years

1,218

11.71

0.17

1.5900

NOTE: Total installed cost includes escalation and AFUDC only.

Florida

Power

PI

Light Company

89

W

B

D

D

D

D

B

B

B

D

B

D

D

D

D

D

D

D b

B

B

B

B

B

B

B

B

B

B

B

B

B

B

B

D

B

D

B

B

B

B

Schedule

10

Status Report and Specifications

of

Proposed Transmission Lines

Unsited Combustion Turbine in

2008

No

projection of a

new

transmission line(s) can

be

made until a site is selected for this unit.

Florida

Power

&

Light Company 91

Schedule 10

Status Report and Specifications of Proposed Transmission Lines

West

County

Energy Center Unit

#I

The proposed new West County Energy Center Unit #1 that is projected to come in-service in

2009 does not require any "new" transmission lines.

Florida

Power

& Light

Company

92

(I

4

(I

4 a

(I

a

4

(I

(I

Schedule

10

Status

Report and Specifications of Proposed Transmission Lines

West

County Energy Center Unit

#2

The proposed new West County Energy Center Unit #2 that is projected to come in-service in

201 0 does not require any "new" transmission lines.

Florida

Power

8

93

Schedule

10

Status Report and Specifications of Proposed Transmission Lines

Two Unsited Combustion Turbine Units in

2011

No projection of a new transmission line(s) can be made until a site is selected

for

these units.

Florida

Power

& Light

Company 94 a a a

(I

(I

a a

(I

a a a a a a a a a a a a

4 a

4

(I

4 a

4

4

4

(I

a

(I

4

4

4

4 a

1

4

I a a

Schedule

10

Status Report and Specifications of Proposed Transmission Lines

Supercritical Pulverized Coal Unit # I in 2012

No projection of a new transmission line(s) can be made until a site is selected for this unit.

Florida

Power 8 Light

Company

95

Schedule

10

Status Report and Specifications of Proposed Transmission Lines

Unsited Combustion Turbine in 2014

No projection

of

a new transmission line(s) can

be

made until a site

is

selected for this unit.

Florida Power &

Light

Company

97

Schedule 10

Status

Report and Specifications of Proposed Transmission Lines

Unsited Combustion Turbine in 2015

No projection of

a

new transmission line(s) can

be

made until a site is selected for this unit.

Florida Power

& Light Company

98 a a

(I

(I

4 a

4

4

4

Q a

4 a a a

4

(I

a a a a a a

4 a

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4 a a a a a a

Schedule

I O

Status

Report and Specifications of Proposed Transmission

Lines

Unsited Combined Cycle Unit in

2015

No projection of a new transmission line(s) can be made until a site is selected for this unit.

~~

Florida Power & Light Company

~

99

(This page is left intentionally blank.)

Florida

Power & Light

Company

100

CHAPTER IV

Environmental and Land Use Information

Florida Power

& Light Company 101

(This page is left intentionally blank.)

Florida

Power & Light

Company 102

IV.

Environmental and Land Use Information

1V.A Protection of the Environment

FPL operates in a sensitive, temperatehub-tropical environment containing a number of distinct ecosystems with many endangered plant and animal species. Population growth in our service area is continuing, which heightens competition for air, land, and water resources that are necessary to meet the increased demand for generation, transmission, and distribution of electricity. At the same time, residents and tourists want unspoiled natural amenities, and the general public has an expectation that large corporations such as FPL will conduct their business in an environmentally responsible manner.

FPL has been recognized for many years as one of the leaders among utilities for our commitment to the environment. Our environmental leadership has been heralded by many outside organizations. In 2004 FPL Group earned a first place ranking among U S . power companies and second globally in a report from the World Wildlife Fund for voluntary commitments to limit COP emissions. This commitment was made to support initiatives to better manage utility impacts on climate change through use of greenhouse gas emission reductions and improvements in energy efficiency. The report stated that this was "primarily due to the company's leadership in developing wind energy and their commitment to dramatically improve their efficiency". As a further demonstration of FPL's efforts in sustainability the EPA and the Department of Energy awarded FPL for its

Sunshine Energy Program which allows customers to choose environmentally friendly electricity produced from biomass, wind and solar sources. FPL was also recently awarded its fourth number one rating of major electric utilities surveyed in an environmental assessment conducted by Innovest, an independent advisory group. In recognition of its success in executing a strategy to become a clean energy provider harnessing primarily clean and renewable fuels while also boosting shareholder value,

FPL Group, Inc. was named in June 2003 as the winner of the Edison Award, the electric power industry's highest honor by the Edison Electric Institute.

FPL was awarded Edison Electric Institute's National Land Management Award for our stewardship of 25,000 acres surrounding our Turkey Point Plant. FPL won the Council for Sustainable Florida's award for our sea turtle conservation and education programs at our St. Lucie Plant. In 2001, FPL was awarded the 2001 Waste Reduction and Pollution

Prevention Award from the Solid Waste Association of North America. FPL received the

2001 Program Champion Award from the Environmental Protection Agency's Wastewise

Florida

Power & Light Company

103

Program. The Florida Department of Environmental Protection named FPL a “Partner for

Ecosystem Protection” for our emission-reducing “repowering” projects at our Fort Myers and Sanford Plants. Finally, FPL has been recognized by numerous federal and state agencies for our innovative endangered species programs which include such species as manatees, crocodiles, and sea turtles.

IV.6

FPL’s Environmental Statement

To reaffirm its commitment to conduct business in an environmentally responsible manner, FPL developed an Environmental Statement in 1992 to clearly define the

Company’s position. This statement reflects how FPL incorporates environmental values into all aspects of the Company’s activities and serves as a framework for new environmental initiatives throughout the Company. The FPL environmental statement further establishes a long-term direction of environmental initiatives throughout the

Company. FPL’s Environmental Statement is:

It is the Company’s intent to continue to conduct its business in an environmentally responsible manner. Accordingly, Florida Power

& Light

Company will:

0

0

0

0

0

Comply with the spirit and intent, as well as the letter of, environmental laws, regulations, and standards.

Incorporate environmental protection and stewardship as an integral part of the design, construction, operation, and maintenance of our facilities.

Encourage the wise use of energy to minimize the impact on the environment.

Communicate effectively on environmental issues.

Conduct periodic self-evaluations, report performance, and take appropriate actions.

1V.C Environmental Management

In order to implement the Environmental Statement, FPL established an environmental management system to direct and control the fulfillment of the organization’s environmental responsibilities. A key component of the system is an Environmental

Assurance Program that is discussed below. Other components include: executive

Florida Power

& Light

Company

104

(I

4

(I

4

4

4

(I

a

(I

I a

4

I a

4

4

4

4

4

(I

a

4 a a

I

4

(I

a a

4

4

4 a

4

4

4

4

4

(I

I

4

4

management support and commitment, written environmental policies and procedures, delineation of organizational responsibilities and individual accountabilities, allocation of appropriate resources for environmental compliance management (which includes reporting and corrective action when non-compliance occurs), environmental incidenffemergency response, environmental risk assessment/management, environmental regulatory development and tracking, and environmental management information systems.

1V.D

Environmental Assurance Program

FPL's Environmental Assurance Program consists of activities which are designed to evaluate environmental performance, verify compliance with Company policy

as

well as with legal and regulatory requirements, and communicate results to corporate management. The principal mechanism for pursuing environmental assurance is the environmental audit. An environmental audit may be defined as a management tool comprising a systematic, documented, periodic, and objective evaluation of the performance of the organization and of the specific management systems and equipment designed to protect the environment. The environmental audit's primary objectives are to: facilitate management control of environmental practices and assess compliance with existing environmental regulatory requirements and Company policies.

1V.E

Environmental Communication and Facilitation

FPL is involved in many efforts to enhance environmental protection through the facilitation of environmental awareness and in public education. Some of FPL's 2005 environmental outreach activities are noted in Table IV.E.1,

Table IV.E.l: 2005 FPL Environmental Outreach Activities

Visitors to Manatee Park

Number of "visits" to FPL's Environmental Website

Number of pieces of Environmental literature distributed

(All numbers are approximations.)

I

I

150,000

839.000

I

>120,000

I

I

Florida

Power & Light

Company

105

1V.F

Preferred and Potential Sites

Based upon its projection of future resource needs, FPL has identified two preferred and eight potential sites for future generation additions. Preferred sites are those locations

. . where FPL has conducted significant reviews and taken action to site generation.

Potential sites are those sites that have attributes that support the siting of generation and are under consideration as a location for future generation. Some of these sites are currently in use as existing generation sites and some are not. The identification of a

"Potential" site does not indicate that FPL has made a definitive decision to pursue generation (or generation expansion in the case of an existing generation site) at that location, nor does this designation indicate that the size or technology of generator has been determined. These preferred and potential sites are discussed in separate sections below.

IV.F.l Preferred Sites

FPL identifies two preferred

si.s

in this Site Plan: the existing Turkey Point plant site, and the West County Energy Center adjacent to the existing Corbett FPL substation.

The Turkey Point site is the location for a capacity addition that FPL is committed to make in mid

-

2007. The West County Energy Center site is the projected location for capacity additions FPL is proposing to make in 2009 and

2010.

The capacity addition at the Turkey Point site has been approved by the FPSC. FPL has petitioned the FPSC for approval of the West County Energy Center additions. A decision is expected by the FPSC later this year.

The two preferred sites are discussed below.

Preferred Site

# 1 : Turkey Point Plant, Miami-Dade County

The Turkey Point Plant site is located on the west side of Biscayne Bay, 25 miles south of Miami. The site is directly on the shoreline of Biscayne Bay and is geographically located approximately

9 miles east of Florida City on Palm Drive. Public access to the plant site is limited due to the nuclear units located there. The land surrounding the site

Florida Power

&

Light

Company

106

is owned by FPL and acts as a buffer zone. The site is comprised of two nuclear units and two conventional boiler, fossil units, the cooling canals, an FPL-maintained natural wildlife area, and wetlands that have been set aside as the Everglades Mitigation Bank

(EMB).

Units #1 and #2 are fossil fuel generating plants with approximate generating capacity of

400

MW each. Unit #1 was completed in 1967 and Unit #2 in 1968. Units

#3

and #4 are nuclear generating units with approximate generating capacity of 700 MW each. Unit

#3

was completed in 1972 and Unit #4 in 1973. Turkey Point also has five diesel peaking units that in total produce approximately 12 MW. These units are primarily used to provide emergency power, but occasionally run during the Summer to provide power during peak load demands.

The Site for the new Turkey Point Unit #5, a "4-on-1" combined cycle electrical generating unit, is within the existing FPL Turkey Point facility property, located on

Biscayne Bay in Miami-Dade County, Florida. The Site is adjacent to the existing fossil

Units

#I northwest of

Units #1 and #2 as well as mangrove wetlands north of the facility. a. and b. U S . Geoloaical Survev IUSGS) Map and Proposed Facilities Layout

A USGS map of the Turkey Point plant site, plus a map of the general layout of the proposed generating facilities at the site, are found at the end of this chapter. c. Map of Site and Adiacent Areas

An overview map of the site and adjacent areas is also found at the end of this chapter. d. Existing Land Uses of Site and Adiacent Areas

A major portion of the site consists of a self-contained cooling canal system that supplies water to condense steam used by the existing units' turbine generators. The canal system consists of

36

interconnected canals each five miles long,

200 feet wide and approximately four feet deep. The remaining developed area of the site is where the two fossil steam generating units and 5 diesel generators are located. South of and adjacent to the fossil plant are the two nuclear generating units. Further to the south,

Florida

Power

&

Light

Company

107

wetlands have been set aside as part of the Everglades Mitigation Bank (EMB) in an effort to restore these areas to historical plant communities and hydrological function.

e. General Environment Features On and In the Site Vicinity

1. Natural Environment

The majority of the Site was undeveloped dwarf red mangrove swamp, tidally inundated with waters from Biscayne Bay. Along with the dominant red mangroves, buttonwood is a common canopy component, along with occasional white mangrove. Only a few individual black mangroves were observed within the Site. Biscayne Bay is a shallow, subtropical bay supporting seagrasses, sponges, coral reefs, and a variety of marine life.

2. Listed Species

The construction and operation of Unit #5 is not expected to adversely affect any rare, endangered, or threatened species. Listed species known

to

occur in the nearby Biscayne National Park that could potentially utilize the Site include the peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus), wood stork (Mycteria americana), American crocodile (Crocodylus acutus), mangrove rivulus

(Rivulus marmoratus), roseate spoonbill (Ajaja ajaja), limpkin (Aramus guarauna), little blue heron (Egretta caerulea), snowy egret (Egretta thula),

American oystercatcher (Haematopus palliates), least tern (Stema antillarum), brown pelican (Pelicanus occidentalis), the white ibis (Eudocimus albus), and bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus).

No bald eagle nests are known to exist in the vicinity of the Site. The federally listed, endangered

American Crocodile thrives at the Turkey Point site, primarily in and around the southern end of the cooling canals which lie south of the proposed project area. The entire site is considered crocodile habitat due to the mobility of the species and use of the site for foraging, traversing and basking. FPL manages a program for the conservation and enhancement of the American crocodile.

A

project-specific crocodile management plan has been developed for construction of Unit #5.

Florida

Power

8

108

3. Natural Resources of Renional Sianificance Status

Significant features in the vicinity on the Site include Biscayne National Park, the Miami-Dade County Homestead Bayfront Park, and the Everglades

National Park. The portion of Biscayne Bay adjacent to the Site

is

included within the Biscayne National Park, comprised of several miles of shoreline north of the Turkey Point facility extending offshore approximately 12 nautical miles. Biscayne National Park contains 180,000 acres, approximately 95% of which is open water interspersed with over 40 keys. The Biscayne

National Park headquarters is located approximately 2 miles north of the

Turkey Point plant, adjacent to the Miami-Dade County Homestead Bayfront

Park, which contains a marina and day use recreational facilities.

4. Other significant Features

FPL is not aware of any other significant features of the site.

f. Desinn Features and Mitiaation Options

Additional generating capacity is being added to the site for operation beginning in

2007 to meet projected FPL system capacity needs. The new generating unit will consist of four new

C T s and four new HRSG's and a new steam turbine that will comprise Turkey Point Unit #5. Natural gas delivered via the existing pipeline

is

the primary fuel type for this unit (with ultra low sulfur light oil serving as a backup fuel).

Natural gas-fired facilities are among the cleanest, most efficient technologies currently available.

Mitigation for unavoidable wetland impacts related to construction of Unit #5 includes: on-site hydrologic improvements to enhance existing wetlands, restoration and preservation of areas overgrown with exotic plant species, creation of an on-site lagoon, transfer of some mangrove dominated lands to South Florida Water

Management District and Biscayne National Park, and also the purchase of mitigation credits from the EMB, which is in the same drainage basin. The capture and reuse of plant process water and rainwater, plus the use of a cooling tower will minimize thermal discharges to the cooling canals. The facility already encompasses several preserved areas where wildlife is abundant.

Florida Power & Light Company

109

g.

Local Government future Land Use Designations

Local government future land use plan designates most of the site as IU-3 "Industrial,

Unlimited Manufacturing District." There are also areas designated GU

-

"Interim

District." Designations for the surrounding area are primarily GU

-

"Interim District."

h.

Site Selection Criteria Process

For the past several years, a number of

FPL's existing power plant sites have been considered as potentially suitable sites for new or repowered generation. The Turkey

Point plant has been selected as a preferred site due to consideration of various factors including system load, an imbalance in the South Florida region between load and generating capacity, and economics. Environmental issues are an important factor at this site. However, the other deciding factors outweigh them. FPL will minimize environmental impacts and mitigate where impacts are unavoidable.

i.

Water Resources

Unique to Turkey Point Plant is the self-contained cooling canal system that supplies water to condense steam used by the plant's turbine generators. The canal system consists of 36 interconnected canals each five miles long, 200 feet wide and approximately four feet deep. The system performs the same function as a giant radiator. The water is circulated through the 153-mile maze of canals in a two-day journey, ending at the plant's intake pumps. During the slow journey down the canals, the water cools as much as 15 degrees

j.

Geolonical Features of Site and Adiacent Areas

FPL's Turkey Point site is underlain by approximately 13,000 feet of sedimentary rock strata. The strata that extends to approximately 500 feet forms the Biscayne aquifer.

The basement complex in this area consists of Paleozoic igneous and metamorphic rocks about which little is known due to their great depth.

Overlying the basement complex to the ground surface are sedimentary rocks and deposits that are primarily of marine origin. Below a depth of about 400 feet these rocks are predominantly limestone and dolomite. Above 400 feet the deposits are largely composed of sand, silt, or clay. The Tamiami formation is named for deposits

Florida Power 8

Light

Company

110

composed principally of white cream-colored calcareous sandstone, sandy limestone, and beds and pockets of quartz sand. In the Turkey Point area, the Key Largo limestone is present.

The Floridan Aquifer, located approximately 1,100 feet below the land surface, is a confined aquifer. The Floridan Aquifer system is composed entirely of carbonate rocks, except for minor evaporates. The water in the carbonate rock aquifer is more highly mineralized.

k. Proiected Water Quantities for Various

The additional quantity of water for industrial processing is estimated to be

150

gallons per minute (gpm) for plant process and service water. Water for this type of use would be supplied by an existing county water system. The current plant water treatment system, which provides treated water for use in Units #1 and

#2

boilers, would be expanded. Cooling water for new Unit

#5

will be processed through a cooling tower. FPL will use approximately

14

million gallons per day (mgd) of water from the Floridan Aquifer as the source of makeup water used by the cooling tower.

1.

Water SUDD~V

This additional capacity at the site will utilize the cooling tower for the dissipation of heat from the cooling water. The existing water treatment system at the plant, which provides treated water for use in the Unit #l #2 boilers will be expanded to provide treated water for new Unit. The Floridan Aquifer will supply the makeup cooling water.

m. Water Conservation Stratenies Under Consideration

A plan to treat and recycle equipment wash water, boiler blowdown, and equipment area runoff for use as service water would reduce ground water consumption. FPL anticipates this site will be designed and classified as a wastewater zero discharge site following the completion of the expansion project.

Florida

Power 8 Light

Company

n. Water Discharaes and Pollution Control

Heated water discharges are dissipated using the existing once through cooling water system and the cooling canal system. Unit #5 cooling water will be processed through a cooling tower which will dissipate the heat prior to discharge to the cooling canal system. Non-point source discharges are collected and reused. Treating and recycling equipment wash water, boiler blow-down, and equipment area runoff helps to minimize industrial discharges. Storm water runoff is collected and used to recharge the surficial aquifer via a stormwater management system. Design elements have been included to capture suspended sediments. Various facility permits mandate various sampling and testing activities, which provide indication of any pollutant discharges.

The facility employs a Best Management Practices (BMP) plan and Spill Prevention,

Control and Countermeasure (SPCC) plan to control the inadvertent release of pollutants.

0 .

Fuel Deliverv, Storase, Waste DisDosal, and Pollution Control

The site is already serviced by multiple fuel delivery facilities. There is currently a pipeline that supplies natural gas to the facility. The facility also has oil capabilities through on-site storage tanks and accessibility to barge deliveries. The additional capacity will utilize the existing pipeline with the addition of compression system(s).

An above ground storage tank for the ultra-low sulfur light oil backup fuel will be added. The backup fuel for Unit

#5 will be delivered to the site by truck.

p. Air Emissions and Control Systems

The use of clean fuels and combustion controls will minimize air emissions from this unit and ensure compliance with applicable emission limiting standards. Using clean fuels minimizes emissions of sulfur dioxide (SO2), particulate matter and other fuel- bound contaminates. Combustion controls similarly minimize the formation of nitrogen oxides (NO,), and the combustor design will limit the formation of carbon monoxide and volatile organic compounds. When firing natural gas, NO, emissions will be controlled using dry-low NO, combustion technology and selective catalytic reduction (SCR). Water injection and SCR will be used to reduce NO, emissions during operations when using the ultra-low sulfur light oil as backup fuel. These

Florida

Power & Light Company 112

design alternatives constitute the Best Available Control Technology for air emissions, and minimize such emissions while balancing economic, environmental, and energy impacts. Taken together, the design of Turkey Point Unit

#5

will incorporate features that will make it one of the most efficient and cleanest power plants in the State of Florida.

q.

Noise Emissions and Control Svstems

A field survey and impact assessment of noise expected to be caused by unit construction at the site indicated that construction noise would be below current noise levels for the residents nearest the site. Noise from the operation of the new unit will also be within allowable levels. Similar natural gas-fired facilities in Broward and

Martin counties have been constructed and operated without exceeding allowable noise levels.

r.

Status of Amtications

FPL filed the Site Certification Application (SCA) for the Turkey Point Plant Unit

#5

with the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) on November

14,

2003, and received Site Certification by the Governor and Cabinet in February 2005.

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers issued a federal Dredge and Fill permit in

February 2005. FDEP issued the Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) air permit in February

2005. FPL acquired all permits and authorizations needed, and commenced construction in spring 2005 with an anticipated, in-service date of mid

2007.

Preferred Site #

2: West Countv Enerav Center, Palm Beach County

FPL has identified the property adjacent to the existing Corbett Substation property in unincorporated western Palm Beach County as a preferred site for the addition of new generating capacity. The preferred site was selected for the addition of a new greenfield combined cycle natural gas power plant project with ultra-low sulfur oil as a backup fuel. The existing site is an area accessible to both natural gas and electrical transmission through existing structures or through additional lateral connections.

The proposed facility would use clean burning natural gas as the primary fuel and state-of-the-art combustion controls.

Florida Power

8

113

a. and b. U S . Geological Survev (USGS) Map and Proposed Facilities Lavout

A USGS map of the West County Energy Center site, plus a map of the general layout of the proposed generating facilities at the site, are found at the end of this chapter.

c.

MaD of Site and Adiacent Areas

An overview map of the site and adjacent areas is also found at the end of this

chapter.

d.

Existing Land Uses of Site and Adiacent Areas

The land on the site is currently inactive but was previously dedicated to industrial and agricultural use. The site has been excavated, back-filled, and totally re-graded to an elevation approximately 10

ft.

above surrounding land surface. No structures are present on the site and vegetation is virtually non-existent.

e. General Environment Features On and In the Site Vicinity

1. Natural Environment

The plant site has been significantly altered by the construction and operation of a limestone mine where vegetation had been cleared and removed. The surrounding land use is predominantly sugar cane agriculture and limestone mining.

FPL’s

existing Corbett substation

is located north of

the site. The Arthur

R.

Marshall Loxahatchee National Wildlife Refuge is located to the south of the proposed site.

2. Listed Species

Construction and operation of new units at the site is not expected to affect any rare, endangered, or threatened species. Wildlife utilization of the property is minimal as a result of the mining activities. Common wading birds can be observed on areas adjacent to and occasionally within the property.

The property is adjacent to areas that have been identified as potential habitat for wood stork.

~ _ _ _ _

Florida Power

8

Light

Company

114

3. Natural Resources of Regional Significance Status

The construction and operation of a gas-fired combined cycle generating facility at the proposed location is not expected to have any adverse impacts on parks, recreation areas, or environmentally sensitive lands including the

Arthur R. Marshall Loxahatchee National Wildlife Refuge which lies south

of

the proposed location. It is not anticipated that construction will result in wetland impacts under federal, state or local agency penitting criteria.

4.

Other Significant Features

FPL is not aware of any other significant features of the site.

f. Design Features and Mitigation Options

The design option is to construct two new

1,200

Mw

(approximate) units each consisting of three new CT’s and three new HRSG’s and a new steam turbine.

These units are scheduled to be in-service in mid-2009 and 2010. Natural gas delivered via pipeline is the primary fuel type for this unit with ultra-low sulfur light oil serving as a backup fuel. Natural gas-fired facilities are available nearby and are among the cleanest, most efficient technologies currently available. g. Local Government Future Land Use Designations

Local government future land use designation for the project site is “Rural

Residential” according to the Palm Beach County Future Land Use Map.

Designations for the area under the Palm Beach County Unified Land Development

Code classified the project site and surrounding area as Special Agricultural District.

The site has been granted conditional use for electrical power facilities under a

General Industrial zoning district.

Florida Power

& Light

Company

115

h. Site Selection Criteria Process

The site has been selected as a preferred site due to consideration of various factors including system load and economics. Environmental issues were not a deciding factor since this site does not exhibit significant environmental sensitivity or other environmental issues. This site is considered permittable.

i. Water Resources

The existing adjacent surface water canals and available ground water resources are potential sources for potable and service water for the proposed units. Adjacent to the site, hydro storage water conservation areas may be created through development of the site as a limestone mine. Use of water from the upper andlor lower Floridan Aquifer is also considered a feasible alternative as potential backup sources of water for operation of the proposed units.

j.

Geolonical Features of Site and Adiacent Areas

The site is underlain by approximately

13,000 feet of sedimentary rock strata. The basement complex in this area consists of Paleozoic igneous and metamorphic rocks about which little is known due to their great depth.

Overlying the basement complex to the ground surface are sedimentary rocks and deposits that are primarily marine in origin. Below a depth of about 400 feet these rocks are predominantly limestone and dolomite. Above 400 feet the deposits are largely composed of sand, silt, clay, and phosphate grains. The deepest formation in

Palm Beach County on which significant published data are available is the Eocene

Age Avon Park. Limited information is available from wells penetrating the underlying

Oldsmar formation. The published information on the sediments comprising the formations below the Avon Park Limestone is based on projections from deep wells in Okeechobee, St. Lucie, and Palm Beach Counties.

k.

Proiected Water Quantities for Various Uses

The estimated quantity of water required for industrial processing for both units is approximately 450 gallons per minute (gpm) for uses such as process water and service water. Approximately 20 million gallons per day (mgd) in total of cooling

~

Florida

Power & Light Company 116

(I

a

(I

(I

(I

(I

(I

(I

4

4

4

4

(I

4

4

4

4

1

(I

(I

(I

(I

(I

I

(I

a a a a a a a a a a a a a a

(I

(I

a

(I

water for the two proposed units would be cycled through the addition of cooling towers. Water quantities needed for other uses such as potable water are estimated to be approximately 35,000 gallons per day (gpd).

1.

Water SUPP~V

The proposed units will use available surface or ground water as the source of cooling water for the cooling towers. The cooling towers will also act as a heat sink for the facility process water. Such needs for cooling and process water will comply with the existing South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) regulations for consumptive water use.

m.

Water Conservation Stratenies Under Consideration

Impacts on the surficial aquifer would be minimized and used only for potable water.

Water will be obtained from the Floridan Aquifer as a source of cooling water as a backup supply. In addition, the entire plant site will capture and reuse process water whenever feasible and manage stormwater in such a manner as to recharge the surficial aquifer.

n. Water Discharnes and Pollution Control

Heated water discharges will be dissipated in the cooling towers. Blow down from the cooling towers will be injected into the boulder zone of the Floridan Aquifer. Non-point source discharges are not an issue since there will be none at this facility. Industrial discharges will be minimized by treating and recycling equipment wash water, boiler blowdown water, and equipment area runoff. Storm water runoff will be collected and used to recharge the surficial aquifer via a storm water management system. Design elements will be included to capture suspended sediments. The facility will employ a

Best Management Practices (BMP) plan and Spill Prevention, Control, and

Countermeasure (SPCC) plan to control the inadvertent release of pollutants.

0 .

Fuel Deliverv. Storaae, Waste DisRosal. and Pollution Control

The site is not located near an existing natural gas transmission pipeline that is capable of providing a sufficient quantity of gas. Upgrades of existing pipelines andlor lateral connections to other pipelines will be necessary for supply of natural

Florida

Power 8

Light

Company

117

gas. Ultra-low sulfur distillate fuel oil would be received by truck and stored in above- ground storage tanks to serve as backup fuel for the new units.

p. Air Emissions and Control Svstems

The use of clean fuels and combustion controls will minimize air emissions from these units and ensure compliance with applicable emission limiting standards.

Using clean fuels minimizes emissions of sulfur dioxide (SOz), particulate matter and other fuel bound contaminates. Combustion controls similarly minimize the formation of nitrogen oxides (NO,), and the combustor design will limit the formation of carbon monoxide and volatile organic compounds. When firing natural gas, NO, emissions will be controlled using dry-low NO, combustion technology and selective catalytic reduction (SCR). Water injection and SCR will be used to reduce NO, emissions during operations when using ultra-low sulfur light oil as backup fuel. These design alternatives constitute the Best Available Control Technology for air emissions, and minimize such emissions while balancing economic, environmental, and energy impacts. Taken together, the design of the West County Energy Center units will incorporate features that will make them among the most efficient and cleanest power plants in the State of Florida.

q.

Noise Emissions and Control Svstems

Noise expected to be caused by unit construction at the site is expected to be below current noise levels for the residents nearest the site. Noise from the operation of the new unit will be within allowable levels.

r. Status of Applications

A

Site Certification Application (SCA) for the construction and operation of the West

County Energy Center project under the Florida Electrical Power Plant Siting Act was filed on April 14, 2005. A Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) permit application and an Underground Injection Control permit application were also submitted to the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) at the same time. FDEP issued a Class I Underground Injection Control Exploratory Well permit on January 11, 2006. A petition for approval of a Determination of Need for both

West County Energy Center units was filed with the FPSC on March 13, 2006. A

Draft PSD Air Permit was issued by FDEP on March 1,2006.

Florida

Power

&

Light

Company 118

~

(I

a

(I

a

(I

(I

(I

a a a

(I

(I

(I

a

(I

a a a a a

(I

(I

a a

(I

(I

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

(I

a

4

(I

4

4

4

IV.F.2

Potential Sites for Generatinq Options

Eight (8) sites are currently identified as "Potential Sites" for near-term future generation additions to meet FPL's capacity needs.* These sites have been identified as Potential

Sites due to considerations of location to FPL load centers, space, infrastructure, andlor accessibility to fuel and transmission facilities. These sites are suitable for different capacity levels and technologies.

Each of these potential sites offer a range of considerations relative to engineering and/or costs associated with the construction and operation of feasible technologies. In addition, each potential site has different characteristics that will require further definition and attention. For the purpose of estimating water requirements for each site, it was assumed that either one dual-fuel (natural gas and light oil) simple cycle combustion turbine or a natural gas-fired combined cycle unit would be constructed at the Potential

Sites. A simple cycle CT would require approximately 50 gallons per minute (gpm) for both process and cooling water (assuming air cooling). A combined cycle unit would require approximately

150

gpm for service and process water and approximately 14 million gallons per day (mgd) for cooling water.

Permits are presently considered to be obtainable for all of these sites, assuming measures can be taken to mitigate any particular site-specific environmental concerns that may arise. No significant environmental constraints are currently known for any of these eight sites. The Potential Sites briefly discussed below are presented in alphabetical order. At this time FPL considers each site to be equally viable.

Potential Site ## 1:

Andvtown Substation. Broward County

FPL

has identified the Andytown Substation property in western unincorporated Broward

County as a potential site for the addition of new generating capacity. Current facilities on-site include an electric substation. The existing site is an area accessible to both natural gas and electrical transmission through existing structures or through additional lateral connections.

' a number of other sites future generation additions. These include the remainder of FPL's existing generation sites.

as

possible sites

for

Florida Power

8

Light Company 119

i a,

c

Q m

c

0

v) m

c

.-

v) a,

5

Y-

O

v)

Q z

$

3 a

5

u-

0

-0

C

a, a,

5

c

m

U a3

U

-

0

.-

c

a, a, n tn e a c m a,

-

3

C

E

C

.-

C

Lu

U

C

m u) a, tn

3

U

C

m

4 ci

U

C

m n a,

5

b

Y- v) a, v)

3

U

C

-

a,

E

C

.-

5

!e

c

C

a,

0

.-

-0

C

lu

v) a,

2

v)

c

0

m v)

c

0

m

.-

2

2

k

@

E

x

C

m

c

0

G

U- s

m

c

m

U

c

a,

? !!

a,

>

U m

0 c

U a,

c

0

a,

Q

X a,

c

g vj

.-

0

a,

Q v)

U a,

C

a,

c

m

5

i a,

c

Q

0 e

0

.-

u) a,

5

rc

0

v)

Q z

(3

v)

3 a

5

u-

0

U

C

a, a,

5

e

m

U

C

3

2

1 u)

E

c

.-

>

C

Lu u)

2

3

CI

m

Q)

-

m

U

c

U

C

m u)

Q) v)

3

U

C

m

-I

ti

U

C

m n

I adjacent to the site is dedicated to light commercial and residential use. There are no significant environmental features on the site.

FPL would use existing on-site wells or

local

gray water, and the existing once-through cooling water system. We believe these sources would provide sufficient water for either simple cycle or combined cycle generation.

Potential Site #

3:

Desoto

County

Greenfield Site

This site is a "Greenfield" undeveloped site located on a 13,500 acre property in unincorporated Desoto County. The site is adjacent to portions of the Peace River.

There are no current facilities

on

the site. The City of Arcadia is located southwest of the Desoto site.

a. U.S. Geological Survev IUSGS) Map

A USGS map of the site is found at the end of this chapter.

b.

and c. Land

Uses

and Environmental Features

The land on the site is currently dedicated to agricultural use (sod farming, cattle grazing, and truck crops). Developed portions of the adjacent properties are primarily agricultural (sod farms, citrus groves and cattle grazing). Undeveloped portions include mixed scrub with some hardwoods and a few isolated wetlands.

d. and e. Water Quantities and Supply Sources

The primary sources for water would either be groundwater from the upper and lower

Floridan Aquifer or if available and practicable, a local source of gray water. We believe these sources would provide sufficient water for either simple cycle or combined cycle generation.

~~ ~~

Florida

Power

& Light Company

Potential Site # 4:

Fort

Mvers Plant Site, Lee County

This site is located on FPL’s existing 460-acre Fort Myers property. The existing facilities on the site include one 1,440 MW (approximate) combined cycle unit, 12 gas turbines, each with an approximate capacity of

54

MW, and 2 combustion turbines, each with an approximate capacity of 160 MW.

a. U.S. Geoloaical Survev IUSGS) Mae

A USGS map of the Fort Myers plant site is found at the end of this chapter.

b. and c. Land Uses and Environmental Features

The land on the site is currently dedicated to industrial use with surrounding grassy and landscaped areas. Much of the site has recently been used for direct construction activities. The adjacent land uses include light commercial and retail to the east of the property, and some residential areas located toward the west. Mixed scrub with some hardwoods can be found to the east and further south.

d. and e. Water Quantities and Supplv Sources

The available water source is the Caloosahatchee River and the available groundwater source is the sandstone aquifer. We believe these sources would provide sufficient water for either simple cycle or combined cycle generation.

Potential Site # 5: Lauderdale Plant, Broward County

The Lauderdale site is located in Eastern Broward County approximately 5 miles inland from Dania Beach and less than 2 miles west of Ft. Lauderdale International Airport. The site is bounded on the south by Dania Cutoff Canal, the east by SW

North by 1-595.

The existing 1,680 MW of generating capacity at FPL’s Lauderdale site occupies a portion of the approximately 210 acres that are wholly owned by FPL. The generating capacity is made up of two combined cycle units (Units #4 and

#5).

The site also is home to 24 simple cycle gas turbine (GT) peaking units of 30 MW (approximate) each. The

GT’s are part of the Gas Turbine Power Park that is made up of 24 GT’s at the

Florida

Power & Light Company 122

0

0

e

0

0

a a a a a

0

0

0

4

4 a a

4 a a

4 a

4

4 a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a

0

D

D

D

D

D

B

B

B

B

I)

D

B

D

B

I)

B

B

B

B

D

B

D

D

D

B

B

D

I)

D

D

I

B

B

D

D

B

Lauderdale Plant site and the twelve GTs at the Port Everglades site. The GT's are capable of firing either natural gas or liquid fuel. The site is considered as suitable for the construction and operation of simple cycle peaking utilizing liquid or natural gas fuels. a.

A USGS map of the site is found at the end of this chapter.

b. and c. Land Uses and Environmental Features

The existing power plant facilities are located on approximately

130

acres. The existing site has been in use since the

1920's

and is adjacent to a county resource recovery project. To the north of the power plant is an area of mixed uplands with a scattering of small wetlands.

d.

and e. Water Quantities and SUDD~V

Existing groundwater or the municipal water supply could be used for industrial process and makeup water. We believe these sources would provide sufficient water for either simple cycle or combined cycle generation.

Potential Site

#

6:

Martin Plant, Martin

County

The Martin site is located approximately 40 miles northwest of West Palm Beach, 5 miles east of Lake Okeechobee, and 7 miles northwest of lndiantown in Martin County, Florida.

The site is bounded on the west by the Florida East Coast Railway (FEC) and the adjacent South Florida Water Management District (SRNMD) L-65 Canal, on the south by the

St.

Lucie Canal (C-44 or Okeechobee Waterway), and on the northeast by

SR 710

and the adjacent CSX Railroad.

The existing portion of the approximately 11,300 acres that are wholly owned by FPL. The generating capacity is made up of two steam units (Units #I units (Units

#3,

#4, and

M).

The site includes a 6,800-acre cooling pond (6,500 acres of water surface and

300

acres of dike area) and approximately

300

acres for the existing power plant units and related facilities.

Florida

Power &

Light Company

123

a. U S . Geological Survev (USGS) Map

A USGS map for the site is found at the end of this chapter.

b. and c. Land Uses and Environmental Features

A major portion of the site consists of a 6,800-acre cooling pond. The existing power plant facilities are located on approximately 300 acres. To the east of the power plant there is an area of mixed pine flat wood with a scattering of small wetlands. To the north of the cooling pond there is a 1,200-acre area which has been set aside as a mitigation area. There is a peninsula of wetland forest on the West Side of the reservoir that is named the Barley Barber Swamp. The Barley Barber Swap encompasses 400 acres and is preserved as a natural area. There is also a 10- kilowatt (kW) photovoltaic energy facility at the south end of this site.

Surface water resources currently used at the Martin facility include the cooling pond which takes its water from the St. Lucie canal. The available ground water resource is the surficial aquifer system which

is

used as a source of potable and service water.

Both of these sources are available for use with any potential site expansion. We believe these sources would provide sufficient water for either simple cycle or combined cycle generation.

Potential Site #

7: Port Everqlades Plant, Broward County

This site is located on the 94-acre FPL Port Everglades plant site in Port Everglades,

Broward County. The site has convenient access to State Road

(SR)

595. A rail line is located near the plant. The existing plant consists of four steam boiler generating units: two 200 MW (approximate) and two 400 MW (approximate) sized units.

The four steam boilers are capable of firing residual fuel oil, natural gas, or a combination of both. The site also is home to twelve simple cycle gas turbine (GT) peaking units of 30

MW

(approximate) each. The GT’s are part of the Gas Turbine Power Park that is made up of 24 GT’s at the Lauderdale Plant site and the twelve GTs at the Port Everglades site. The GT’s are capable of firing either natural gas or liquid fuel.

Florida

Power 8 Light Company 124

(I

a

(I

d

(I

1

(I

a a a a a a

4

4

4

4

(I

a a a

(I

4

(I

a a a a a

(I

a a a a a a a a a a a a a a

D

D

B

D

B

v

D

B

D

D

D

D

B

D

D

B

B

B

B

D

B

D

D

B

D

B

B

D

B

B

D

D

D

D

B

B

D

D

B

D

D

D

D

B a. U.S. Geoloaical Survev IUSGS) MaD

A map of the site is found at the end of this chapter

b. and c. Land Uses and Environmental Features

The land on this site is primarily industrial. The adjacent land uses are port facilities and associated industrial activities, oil storage, cruise ships, and light commercial.

Cooling water could be drawn from the Intra-coastal Waterway. We believe this source would provide sufficient water for either simple cycle or combined cycle generation.

Potential Site

#

8: Riviera Plant. Palm

Beach County

This site is located on the FPL Riviera Plant property in Riviera Beach, Palm Beach

County. The site has direct access to a four-lane highway, US 1, and barge access is available. A rail line is located near the plant. The facility currently houses two operational

300 MW (approximate) steam boiler generating units and one retired 50

MW generating unit.

a. US. Geoloaical Survev (USGS) Map

A USGS map of the site is found at the end of this chapter.

b. and c. Land

Uses

and Environmental Features

The land on the site is primarily covered by the existing generation facilities with some open, maintained grass areas. Adjacent land uses include port facilities and associated industrial activities, as well as light commercial and residential development. The site is located on the Intra-coastal Waterway near the Lake Worth

Inlet.

Florida Power &

Light

Company

125

d. and e. Water Quantities and SUPP~V

The existing municipal water supply could be used for industrial processing water. industrial cooling water needs could be met using the existing once-through cooling water system. For once-through cooling water, FPL would continue to use Lake

Worth as a source of water. We believe these sources would provide sufficient water for either simple cycle or combined cycle generation.

IV.F.2 Potential Sites for Advanced Technoloqv Coal-Fired Generatinq Options

As previously discussed, FPL is in the process of analyzing the feasibility of advanced technology coal-fired generating options. FPL believes that the earliest such an option could be permitted and constructed is 2012. FPL‘s plans to pursue advanced technology coal-fired generation was set forth in its 2005 Request for Proposals (RFP) document issued in September 2005. Part I of the RFP solicited proposals for 2009-201 1 that led to

FPL’s plans to construct the two West County Energy Center units. Part II of the RFP describes FPL’s plans to solicit only those proposals that will add to a balanced fuel supply in meeting FPL’s 2012-2014 capacity needs. That solicitation is scheduled for later this year.

At the time this Site Plan is being prepared, FPL is analyzing potential sites for such options. Selection criteria for potential sites have been delineated in FPLs

Report

on

Clean Coal Generation

(March 2005). It is expected that this selection process will have progressed to a point that FPL will be able to share site specific information by June 1,

2006. An Addendum to the 2006 Site Plan will be developed that provides this information when it is available.

Florida

Power

& Light

Company

126

(I

I a

4

4

4

4 a

4

4

4

4

(I

(I

a

(I

a

(I

a a a a a

(I

a a a a a

(I

0

0

0

a a

0

0

0

a a a a

0

Environmental and Land Use Information:

S upplem

en I

In forma tion

Preferred Site: Turkey Point

Florida

Power

& Light Company 127

(This page is left intentionally blank.)

Florida

Power & Light Company

128

Florida Power

8

Light Company 129

.

"

_ .

.

.

Florida Power & Light Company 130

I

\

I

TURKEY PT PLANT SITE

SHOWING STRUCTURES

Figdre

BullainpJSuucturoI

Pimt Silo

B o u n d q

N

\ i i

\

! i

!

Florida

Power &

Light

Company

131

(This page is

left

intentionally blank.)

Florida

Power

& Light Company

132

Environmental and Land Use Information:

Supplemental Information

Preferred Site: West County Energy Center

Florida Power

8

Light

Company

133

(This page

is left

intentionally blank.)

Florida Power & Light Company 134

a a

A - i

t

.

-;-

Ik. a

.

..

,

...-

.

. . I

'*

T

U

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D

D b

Florida Power & Light Company 135

Q,

Y

G

F

v)

g - 0

e

Q.

Florida Power & Light Company

136

, ...

~

. . ,

. I . . " m a a

(I

(I

(I

(I

a a a a a a

(I

a a a a a a

(I

(I

(I

a

(I

(I

(I

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4 a

SFWMD STORAGE

PONDS

'A

,

I im

i l R S

PhdSi (100

ACRES)

7

I

I

I - -

-

-

CONS'RCICTION AREA

& SECOHD PHASE

/

/ /

CONSTAUCT~OH

AREA

West County

Energy Center

Potential Site

Layout

Florida Power & Light Company

137

(This page is left intentionally blank.)

Florida Power

8

Light Company

Environmental and Land Use Information:

Supplemental Information

Potential Site #?: Andytown

Florida Power &

Light

Company

139

(This page is left intentionally blank.)

Florida Power & Light Company 140

(I

(I

(I

S W 17214

3

4 V

!

Florida Power

8

Company

141

I

D

D

D

B

D

D

D

D

D

Environmental and Land

Us e In form a tion:

Supplemental lnformation

Potential Site

#2:

Cape Canaveral

Florida Power &

Light

Company

143

(This

page

is left infentionally blank.)

Florida Power Ei Light Company

144

L/

CANAVERAL

PLANT

SITE

SHOWING STRUCTURES

I figure

htldtngs)structurts

N

Rant

Sltr

Boundq o d

0 500 Fed

I

!

1

I i

Florida Power & Light Company

145

)-

(This p a g e is left intentionally blank.)

Florida Power

8

Light Company

146

4

Environmental and Land Use Information:

Supplemental In for ma tion

Potential Site #3: Desoto

Florida Power & Light Company

147

(This page is left intentionally blank.)

Florida Power & Light Company 148

Florida

Power

& Light Company

149

Desoto County Site

\

2,500 3,750 5,000

(This page is left intentionally blank.)

Florida Power

i

Light

Company 150

4 a a

Environmental and Land Use Information:

Supplemental Information

Potential Site

##4:

Ft.

Myers

Florida Power

8

Light Company

151

(This

p a g e

is left

intentionally

blank.)

Florida Power

&

Light Company

152

, -

I

I laad OOOP 0

(This page is left intentionally blank.)

Florida Power & Light Company

154

Environmental and Land Use Information:

Supplemen tal In for

ma

tion

Potential Site

#5;

Florida Power

& Light Company

155

(This page is left intentionally blank.)

Florida Power & Light

Company

156

SHOWING STRUCTLJRES

Figure

0

800 Feet

I

Page

(This page is left intentionally blank.)

Florida Power 8 Light Company

158

Environmental and Land Use Information:

Supplemental In forma tion

Potential Site

#6:

Martin

Florida Power & Light

Company

159

(This page is left intentionally blank.)

Florida Power & Light Company

160

Florida Power & Light Company

161

(This page is

left intentionally

blank.)

Florida

Power &

Light

Company

162

Environmental and Land Use In forma tion:

Supplemen tal In for

ma

tion

Potential Site #7:

Port

Everglades

Florida

Power &

Light

Company

163

(This p a g e is left intentionally blank.)

Florida Power &

Light

Company

164

T

Florida Power & Light Company

165

PORT EVERGLADES

PLANT SITE

AREA

Figure

Builaingc/svucturpr

0

Piant sita Boundary

N R 0 . 3 6

(This page is left intentionally blank.)

Florida Power & Light Company

166

Environmental and Land Use Information:

Supplemen tal In forma tion

Potential Site #8: Riviera Plant

Florida Power &

Light

Company

167

(This page is left intentionally blank.)

Florida Power &

Light

Company

168

I

I

I t m m

I

e

U

I

6

I

I

tl

1

1

I I

(This page is left intentionally blank.)

Florida Power & Light Company 170

a a

4 a

4

(I

a

4

(I

(I

4

4

4

CHAPTER V

Other Planning Assumptions & Information

Florida

Power &

Light

Company

171

(This page is left intentionally blank.)

Florida

Power & Light Company

172

Introduction

The Florida Public Service Commission (FPSC), in Docket No. 9601 11-EU, specified certain information that was to be included in an electric utility’s Ten Year Power Plant Site Plan filing. Among this specified information was a group of 12 items listed under a heading entitled ”Other Planning Assumptions and Information”. These 12 items basically concern specific aspects of a utility’s resource planning work. The FPSC requested a discussion or a description of each of these items.

These 12 items are addressed individually below as separate “Discussion Items”.

Discussion

Item

# 1:

Describe how any transmission constraints were modeled and explain the impacts

on

the plan. Discuss any plans for alleviating any transmission constraints.

FPL‘s resource planning work considers

two

types of transmission iimitationslconstraints.

External limitations deal with FPL’s ties to its neighboring systems. Internal limitations deal with the flow of electricity within the FPL system.

The external limitations are important since they affect the development of assumptions for the amount of external assistance which is available to the FPL system and the amount and price of economy energy purchases. Therefore, these external limitations are incorporated both in the reliability analysis and economic analysis aspects of resource planning. The amount of external assistance which is assumed to be available is based on the projected transfer capability to FPL from outside its system as well as historical levels of available assistance. In its reliability analyses, FPL models this amount of extemal assistance as an additional generator within FPL’s system which provides capacity in all but the peak load months. The assumed amount and price

of

economy energy are based on historical values and projections from production costing models.

Internal transmission limitations are addressed by identifying potential geographic locations for potential new units that may not adversely impact such limitations. The internal transmission limitations are also addressed by developing the direct costs for siting new units at different locations, and by, evaluating the cost impacts created by the new unithnit location combination on the operation of existing units in the FPL system. Both site- and system- related transmission costs are developed for each different unitlunit location option or groups of options.

Florida

Power

& Light Company

173

e e

FPL’s annual transmission planning work determines transmission additions needed to address limitations and to maintainlenhance system reliability. FPL’s transmission plans are presented in Section 1II.E.

Discussion Item

# 2:

Discuss the extent to which the overall economics of the plan were analyzed. Discuss how the plan is determined to be cost-effective. Discuss any changes in the generation expansion plan as a result of sensitivity tests to the base case load forecast.

FPL typically performs economic analyses of competing resource plans using as an economic criterion FPL’s levelized system average electric rates (i.e., a Rate Impact Measure or RIM approach). In addition, for analyses in which DSM levels are not changed, FPL uses the equivalent criterion of the cumulative present value of revenue requirements for the FPL system.2

During late 2005, the load forecast was revised upward to incorporate the observed increase in population growth and resulting increase in system demand. This increased forecast, compared to the base forecast used earlier in the year, allowed FPL to bracket a range of expected load growth and the corresponding changes to the generation plan. FPL’s response to the increased load was to address the near term needs (2006

-

2008) with

a

combination of increased DSM, available purchases and securing increased transmission capacity for existing purchases. FPL also identified a single CT in 2008 to meet the balance of the near term needs. In the event the load forecast is reduced, this

CT can be avoided or delayed. Should load increase, additional DSM, purchased power or additional self-build

CT’s may be added to maintain the reliability criteria.

2

FPL‘s basic approach in its

resource planning work is to base decisions on a lowest electric rate basis. However, when

DSM levels are considered a “given” in the analysis, the lowest rate basis and the lowest system revenue requirements basis are identical. in such cases (as in most of FPL‘s current resource planning work), FPL evaluates options on the simpler

-

to

-

calculate (but equivalent) lowest system revenue requirements basis.

Florida Power

& Light

Company 1 74

I) a

0

a a a a a

0

a a a a

@

a

0

a

0

a e e

@

a a a

(I

a a

(I

a

(I

a

1

Discussion

Item

#

3:

Explain and discuss the assumptions used to derive the base case fuel forecast. Explain the extent to which the utility tested the sensitivity of the base case plan to high and low fuel price scenarios. If high and low fuel price sensitivities were performed, explain the changes made to the base case fuel price forecast to generate the sensitivities. If high and low fuel price scenarios were performed as part of the planning process, discuss the resulting changes, if any, in the generation expansion plan under the high and low fuel price scenario. If high and low fuel price sensitivities were not evaluated, describe how the base case plan is tested for sensitivity to varying fuel prices.

The basic assumptions FPL used in deriving its base case or “Most Likely” fuel price forecast are discussed in Chapter Ill of this document.

FPL conducted an analysis of the comparative economics of a plan that included coal-fired generation compared to an all gas-fired plan. The results of the analysis were presented to the Commission in March, 2005. In this study FPL utilized high, low, and expected or “most likely” fuel cost forecasts to explore the relative system fuel cost differences between a clean coal plan and a plan that included all gas-fired generation additions. This approach allowed

FPL to examine the relative economics of these two different types of plans with fuel cost forecasts that varied the price difference between coal and natural gas. Significant changes occurred in long term fuel price forecasts as a result of the events of 2005. Since the natural gas

- coal price differential has increased compared to the forecast used in the 2005 Clean

Coal Study, it is expected that the economics for coal versus gas have significantly improved.

Discussion Item # 4:

Describe how the sensitivity of the plan was tested with respect to holding the differential between oillgas and coal constant over the planning horizon.

As

described above in the answer to Discussion Item

#3,

FPL used three fuel forecasts in the comparative economic analysis of clean coal generation. FPL held the coal prices constant, based on the most likely coal price forecast, and developed three natural gas price forecasts

(high, low, and expected). The low gas price sensitivity, when compared to the coal price forecast, results in an essentially fixed differential between natural gas prices and coal prices.

Florida Power & Light Company

175

Discussion

Item

#

5:

Describe how generating unit performance was modeled in the planning process.

The performance of existing generating units on FPL’s system was modeled using current projections for scheduled outages, unplanned outages, capacity output ratings, and heat rate information. Schedule 1 and Schedule

8

present the current and projected capacity output ratings of FPL’s existing units. The values used for outages and heat rates are generally consistent with the values FPL has used in planning studies in recent years.

In regard to new unit performance, FPL utilized current projections for the capital costs, fixed and variable operating 8 maintenance costs, capital replacement costs, construction schedules, heat rates, and capacity ratings for all construction options which were considered in the resource planning work. A summary of this information for the new capacity options

FPL

projects to add over the planning horizon is presented on the Schedule 9 forms

Discussion

Item

#

6:

Describe and discuss the financial assumptions used in the planning process. Discuss how the sensitivity of the plan was tested with respect to varying financial assumptions.

The key financial assumptions used in FPL’s most recent resource planning work were a

45%

debt and 55% equity FPL capital structure, projected debt cost of return of 11.75%. These assumptions resulted in a weighted average cost of capital of 9.57% and an after-tax discount rate of 8.37%. FPL did not test the sensitivity of its resource plan to varying financial assumptions.

Discussion

Item

#

7:

Describe in detail the electric utility’s Integrated Resource

Planning process. Discuss whether the optimization was based on revenue requirements, rates, or total resource cost.

FPL’s integrated resource planning (IRP) process is described in detail in Chapter Ill of this document.

The standard basis for comparing the economics of competing resource plans in FPL’s basic

IRP process is the impact of the plans on FPL’s electricity rate levels with the intent of minimizing FPL’s levelized system average rate (Le., a Rate Impact Measure or RIM approach). However, in its most recent planning work,

FPL utilized both a levelized system average rate perspective for its DSM Goals and DSM Plan work and the equivalent present

Florida

Power & Light Company

176

value of system revenue requirements perspective when evaluating options that did not result in changes to system DSM levels.

(As

discussed in response to Discussion Item # 2, both the electricity rate perspective and the cumulative present value of system revenue requirement perspective are identical when DSM levels are unchanged between competing plans.)

Discussion

Item #

8: Define and discuss the electric utility’s generation and transmission reliability criteria.

FPL uses two system reliability criteria in its resource planning work. One of these is a minimum

20%

Summer and Winter reserve margin. The other reliability criterion is a maximum of

0.1

days per year loss-of-load-probability (LOLP). These reliability criteria are discussed in Chapter Ill of this document.

In regard to transmission reliability, FPL has adopted transmission planning criteria that are consistent with the planning criteria established by the Florida Reliability Coordinating Council

(FRCC). The FRCC has adopted transmission planning criteria that are consistent with the planning criteria established by the North American Electric Reliability Council (NERC) in its

Planning Standards. FPL has applied these planning criteria in a manner consistent with

prudent utility practice. The

NERC Planning Standards are available on the internet

(httw//www.nerc.com).

In addition, FPL has developed a Facility Connection Requirements (FCR) document as well as a

Facilify Rating Methodology dowment that are also available

on the intemet

(http://floasis.siemens-asp.com/OASlS/FPUlNFO.HTM).

The normal voltage criteria for FPL stations is given below:

Voltacle Level

(kV)

69,115,138

230

500

Vmin

(P.u.)

0.9510.95

0.95/0.95

0.9510.95

Vmax

(P.u.)

1.05/1.07

1.06/1.07

1.07/1.09

There may be isolated

cases for which FPL may determine it prudent to deviate from the general criteria stated above. The overall potential impact on customers and the probability of an outage actually occurring, as well as other factors would influence the decision in such cases.

Florida Power

8

177

Discussion Item

#

9:

Discuss how the electric utility verifies the durability of energy savings for its DSM programs.

The impact of FPL’s DSM Programs on demand and energy consumption are revised periodically. Engineering models, calibrated with field-metered data, are updated when significant efficiency changes occur in the marketplace. Participation trends are tracked for all of the FPL DSM programs in order to adjust impacts each year for changes in the mix of efficiency measures being installed by program participants.

Survey data is collected from non-participants in order to establish the baseline efficiency.

Participant data is compared against non-participant data to establish the demand and energy saving benefits of the utility program versus what would be installed in the absence of the program. Finally, FPL is careful to claim only program savings for the average life of the installed efficiency measure. For these DSM measures which involve the utilization of load management, FPL conducts periodic tests of the load control equipment to ensure that it is functioning correctly.

Discussion Item #

10:

Discuss how strategic concerns are incorporated in the planning process.

Among the strategic or non-price factors FPL typically considers when choosing between resource options are the following: (1) fuel diversity; (2) technology risk; (3) environmental risk and (4) site feasibility.

Fuel diversity relates to two concepts, the diversity of sources of fuel (e.g., coal vs. oil vs. natural gas), and the diversity of supply for a single fuel source (for example alternative pipeline suppliers for natural gas). All other factors being equal, supply options that increase diversity in fuel source andlor supply would be favored over those that do not.

Technology risk is an assessment of the relative maturity of competing technologies. For example, a prototype technology which has not achieved general commercial acceptance has a higher risk than a technology in wide use and, therefore, is less desirable.

Environmental risk is an assessment of the relative environmental acceptability of different generating technologies and their associated environmental impacts. Technologies regarded as more acceptable from an environmental perspective for a plan are those which minimize

_ _ ~

Florida Power

& Light

Company 178

environmental impacts through highly efficient fuel use and state of the art controls (e.g. clean coal technologies versus conventional pulverized coal).

Site feasibility assesses a wide range of economic, regulatory and environmental factors related to successfully developing and operating the specified technology at the site in question. Projects that are more acceptable have sites with few barriers to successful development.

All of these factors play a part in FPL’s planning and decisions, including its decisions to construct capacity or to purchase power.

Discussion Item

#

11:

Describe the procurement process the electric utility intends to utilize to acquire the additional supply-side resources identified in the electric utility’s ten-year site plan.

As

has been previously discussed, elements of FPL’s capacity additions include the construction of new generating capacity at an existing site: Turkey Point. This generation construction project was selected after evaluating competing bids received in response to a

Request for Proposals (RFP) issued by FPL in mid-2003. The FPSC approved FPL’s decision to construct the new combined cycle unit at FPL’s existing Turkey Point site in June 2004.

Similarly, FPL’s projected capacity additions in 2009 and 2010 at the West County Energy

Center site were selected after comparing these units to four bids received in response to an

RFP issued in September 2005. FPL has petitioned the FPSC for approval of a Determination of Need

for

these units. A decision is expected before the end of the year.

The construction capacity additions projected in this document for 2011 and beyond will be conducted in a manner consistent with the Commissions Bid Rule.

Identification of self-build options for 2008 and for 201 1 beyond in FPL’s Site Plan is not an indication that FPL has pre-judged any capacity solicitation it may conduct. The identification of future capacity units is required of FPL and represents those altematives that appear to be

FPL’s best, most cost-effective self-build options at this time. FPL reserves the right to refine its planning analyses and to identify other self-build options. Such refined analyses have the potential to yield a variety of self-build options, some of which might not require an RFP. If an

Florida Power 81 Light Company

179

RFP is issued for supply-side resources,

FPL reserves the right to choose the best alternative for

its customers, even if that option is not an FPL self-build option.

Florida

Power

8 Light Company 180

Discussion

Item

# 12:

Provide the transmission construction and upgrade plans for electric utility system lines that must be certified under the Transmission Line Siting

Act (403.52

-

403.536, F. S.)

during the planning horizon.

Also,

provide the rationale for any new or upgraded line.

FPL plans to construct a new transmission line (by July 2006) that was certified under the

Transmission Line Siting Act (403.52403.536, F.S.). The new line will connect FPL’s

Orange River Substation to FPL’s Collier Substation (as shown on Table III.F.l). The final order certifying the corridor was issued on July 19 of 2004. The construction of this line is necessary to serve existing and future customers in the Collier and Lee County areas in a reliable and effective manner. FPL has identified the need for a new 230kV transmission line

(by December 2008) that requires certification under the Transmission Line Siting Act. The new line will connect FPL’s St. Johns Substation to FPL’s proposed Pringle Substation (also shown on Table III.F.l). The construction of this line is necessary to serve existing and future customers in the Flagler and St. Johns areas in a reliable and effective manner. FPL has identified the need for a new 230kV transmission line (by December 2011) that requires certification under the Transmission Line Siting Act. The new line will connect FPL’s Manatee

Substation to

FPL’s proposed Bobwhite Substation (also shown on Table III.F.l). The construction of this line is necessary to serve existing and future customers in the Manatee and Sarasota areas in a reliable and effective manner. Additionally, FPL has identified the need for a new 230kV transmission line (by June 2012) that requires certification under the

Transmission Line Siting Act. The new line will connect FPL’s future Eve Substation to FPL’s

Sweatt Substation (also shown on Table III.F.1). The construction of this line is necessary to serve existing and future customers in the Okeechobee and St. Lucie areas in a reliable and effective manner.

Florida

Power &

Light Company 181

(This page is left intentionally blank.)

Florida

Power

& Light Company

182

Was this manual useful for you? yes no
Thank you for your participation!

* Your assessment is very important for improving the work of artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project

Download PDF

advertisement

Languages