DOCSLIB.ORG

William P. Cox Senior Attorney Florida Power & Light Company 700

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
William P. Cox Senior Attorney Florida Power & Light Company 700 William P. Cox Senior Attorney Florida Power & Light Company 700 Universe Boulevard Juno Beach, FL 33408-0420 (561) 304-5662 (561) 691-7135 (Facsimile) Email: [email protected] April 1, 2021 -VIA ELECTRONIC FILING- Adam Teitzman Commission Clerk Florida Public Service Commission 2540 Shumard Oak Blvd. Tallahassee, FL 32399-0850 RE: Docket No. 20200000-OT Florida Power & Light Company and Gulf Power Company’s 2021-2030 Ten Year Power Plant Site Plan Dear Mr. Teitzman: Please find enclosed for electronic filing Florida Power & Light Company and Gulf Power Company’s 2021-2030 Ten Year Power Plant Site Plan. If there are any questions regarding this transmittal, please contact me at (561)304-5662. Sincerely, /s/ William P. Cox William P. Cox Senior Attorney Fla. Bar No. 00093531 Enclosures cc: Donald Phillips, Division of Engineering Damien Kistner, Division of Engineering Florida Power & Light Company 700 Universe Boulevard, Juno Beach, FL 33408 Ten Year Power Plant Site Plan 2021 – 2030 (This page is intentionally left blank.) Ten Year Power Plant Site Plan 2021-2030 Submitted To: Florida Public Service Commission April 2021 (This page is intentionally left blank.) Table of Contents List of Figures, Tables, and Maps ............................................................................................... iv List of Schedules .......................................................................................................................... vi Overview of the Document ........................................................................................................... 1 List of Abbreviations Used in Forms ........................................................................................... 3 Executive Summary ...................................................................................................................... 5 Chapter I. Description of Existing Resources .......................................................................... 17 I.A. FPL System: ................................................................................................................... 19 I.A.1. Description of Existing Resources .................................................................... 19 I.A.2. FPL - Owned Resources .................................................................................... 19 I.A.3. FPL - Capacity and Energy Power Purchases ................................................. 23 I.A.4. FPL - Demand Side Management (DSM) ........................................................... 27 I.A.5. Utility Demand-Side Management – A Look Ahead ………………………….... 27 I.A.6. Existing Generating Units in FPL’s Original Service Area …………………… 29 I.B. Gulf System: .................................................................................................................. 32 I.B.1. Description of Existing Resources .................................................................... 32 I.B.2. Gulf - Owned Resources .................................................................................... 32 I.B.3. Gulf - Capacity and Energy Power Purchases ................................................. 36 I.B.4. Gulf - Demand Side Management (DSM) ........................................................... 40 I.B.5 Existing Generating Units in Gulf’s Original Service Area ............................. 41 Chapter II. Forecast of Electric Power Demand ....................................................................... 43 II.A. Overview of the Load Forecasting Process .............. …………………………….45 II.B. Customer Forecasts .............................................................................................. 46 II.C. Energy Sales Forecasts ....................................................................................... 47 II.D. Net Energy for Load (NEL) ................................................................................... 52 II.E. System Peak Forecasts ........................................................................................ 53 II.F. Hourly Load Forecast ........................................................................................... 57 II.G. Uncertainty ............................................................................................................. 57 II.H. DSM ......................................................................................................................... 58 Chapter III. Projection of Incremental Resource Additions .................................................... 75 III.A. FPL’s Resource Planning .................................................................................... 77 III.B. Projected Incremental Resource Changes in the Resource Plan .................... 87 III.C. Discussion of the Resource Plan and Issues Impacting Resource Planning Work ………………………………………………………………… ........... 89 III.D. Demand Side Management (DSM) ..................................................................... 96 III.E. Transmission Plan .............................................................................................. 101 III.F. Renewable Resources and Storage Technology ............................................. 131 III.G. Fuel Mix and Fuel Price Forecasts ................................................................... 145 Chapter IV. Environmental and Land Use Information ......................................................... 239 Florida Power & Light Company and Gulf Power Company i 2021 Ten Year Site Plan IV.A. Protection of the Environment ......................................................................... 240 IV.B. Environmental Organization Contributions .................................................... 241 IV.C. Environmental Communication and Facilitation ............................................ 242 IV.D. Environmental Policy ........................................................................................ 242 IV.E. Environmental Management ............................................................................. 244 IV.F. Environmental Assurance Program ................................................................ 244 IV.G. Preferred and Potential Sites ........................................................................... 245 IV.G.1. Preferred Sites ....................................................................................... 246 1. Preferred Site # 1 - Discovery Solar Energy Center, Brevard County ...................................................................................................... 248 2. Preferred Site # 2 - Orange Blossom Solar Energy Center, Indian River County ..................................................................................................... 249 3. Preferred Site # 3 - Sabal Palm Solar Energy Center, Palm Beach County ..................................................................................................... 250 4. Preferred Site # 4 - Fort Drum Solar Energy Center, Okeechobee County ..................................................................................................... 251 5. Preferred Site # 5 - Willow Solar Energy Center, Manatee County ..................................................................................................... 252 6. Preferred Site # 6 - Manatee Battery Storage Center, Manatee County ..................................................................................................... 253 7. Preferred Site # 7 - Sunshine Gateway Battery Storage Center, Columbia County.................................................................................... 254 8. Preferred Site # 8 - Echo River Battery Storage Center, Suwannee County ..................................................................................................... 255 9. Preferred Site # 9 – Gulf Clean Energy Center Unit 8, Escambia County ..................................................................................................... 256 10. Preferred Site # 10 – Blue Springs Solar Energy Center, Jackson County ..................................................................................................... 257 11. Preferred Site # 11 – Cotton Creek Solar Energy Center, Escambia County ..................................................................................................... 258 12. Preferred Site # 12 – Ghost Orchid Solar Energy Center, Hendry County ..................................................................................................... 259 13. Preferred Site # 13 – Sawgrass Solar Energy Center, Hendry County ..................................................................................................... 260 14. Preferred Site # 14 – Sundew Solar Energy Center, St. Lucie County .................................................................................................................. 261 15. Preferred Site # 15 – Immokalee Solar Energy Center, Collier County ..................................................................................................... 262 16. Preferred Site # 16 – Grove Solar Energy Center, Indian River County ..................................................................................................... 263 17. Preferred Site # 17 – Elder Branch Solar Energy Center, Manatee County ..................................................................................................... 264 18. Preferred Site # 18 – Dania Beach Clean Energy Center Unit 7, Broward County ....................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Solar Power in Florida
    Solar Power in Florida September 20, 2016 Shelly Whitworth Renewable Program Manager Tampa Electric Company Background: Florida’s Regulatory Environment • Scope of comprehensive regulation of investor-owned electric utilities by the Florida Public Service Commission (FPSC) – Rates – Reliability – Territorial boundaries – Quality of service – Conservation/DSM – Safety • PW Ventures Decision (1988) – Florida Supreme Court clarified that only electric utilities are allowed to sell electricity at retail – The sale of electricity to a single retail customer makes the provider a public utility subject to FPSC regulation – Court ruled that sales of electricity outside the FPSC’s jurisdiction would lead to uneconomic duplication of facilities • Duke Energy Decision (2000) – Florida Supreme Court rules that non-utility entities could not access the State of Florida’s power plant siting process – The court clarified that the Power Plant Siting Act and the Florida Energy Efficiency and Conservation Act were not intended to authorize the determination of need for a power plant with output that is not fully committed to serving retail load • Relevance to solar: 3rd party sales of power at retail are prohibited in Florida Solar Potential Florida is called the “Sunshine State” • Solar Energy Industries Association ranks Florida 3rd for rooftop solar potential • NREL ranks Florida 8th for rooftop solar potential and 9th for overall solar energy potential • Florida has lots of sunshine, but lots of clouds, too, unlike southwestern states Policies Favoring
    [Show full text]
  • 20 Management's Report on Internal Control Over Financial Reporting 21 Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Fi
    FINANCIAL REVIEW SOUTHERN COMPANY AND SUBSIDIARY COMPANIES 2004 ANNUAL REPORT 20 Management’s report on internal control over 42 Consolidated statements of income financial reporting 43 Consolidated statements of cash flows 21 Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting 44 Consolidated balance sheets Firm–Internal Control over Financial Reporting 46 Consolidated statements of capitalization 22 Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting 48 Consolidated statements of common stockholders’ equity Firm–Consolidated Financial Statements 48 Consolidated statements of comprehensive income 23 Management’s discussion and analysis of results 49 Notes to financial statements of operations and financial condition 74 Selected consolidated financial and operating data 2000-2004 MANAGEMENT’S REPORT ON INTERNAL CONTROL OVER FINANCIAL REPORTING Southern Company’s management is responsible for establishing financial reporting as of December 31, 2004. Deloitte & Touche and maintaining an adequate system of internal control over finan- LLP’s report, which expresses unqualified opinions on management’s cial reporting as required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and assessment and on the effectiveness of Southern Company’s internal as defined in Exchange Act Rule 13a-15(f). A control system can control over financial reporting, is included herein. provide only reasonable, not absolute, assurance that the objectives of the control system are met. Under management’s supervision, an evaluation of the design and effectiveness of Southern Company’s internal control over financial reporting was conducted based on the framework in Internal David M. Ratcliffe Control–Integrated Framework issued by the Committee of Sponsor- Chairman, President, and Chief Executive Officer ing Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO).
    [Show full text]
  • Workshop Transcript
    1 1 BEFORE THE FLORIDA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION 2 DOCKET NO. UNDOCKETED 3 In the Matter of 4 RENEWABLE PORTFOLIO STANDARD (RPS). 5 ___________________________________/ 6 7 ELECTRONIC VERSIONS OF THIS TRANSCRIPT ARE 8 A CONVENIENCE COPY ONLY AND ARE NOT THE OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT OF THE HEARING. 9 THE .PDF VERSION INCLUDES PREFILED TESTIMONY. 10 11 12 PROCEEDINGS: WORKSHOP 13 14 BEFORE: CHAIRMAN MATTHEW M. CARTER, II COMMISSIONER LISA POLAK EDGAR 15 COMMISSIONER KATRINA J. McMURRIAN COMMISSIONER NANCY ARGENZIANO 16 COMMISSIONER NATHAN A. SKOP 17 DATE: Friday, July 11, 2008 18 19 TIME: Commenced at 9:30 a.m. Concluded at 3:17 p.m. 20 21 PLACE: Betty Easley Conference Center Joseph P. Cresse Hearing Room 148 22 4075 Esplanade Way Tallahassee, Florida 23 24 REPORTED BY: MARY ALLEN NEEL, RPR, FPR 25 2 1 I N D E X 2 PAGE 3 OPENING REMARKS BY CHAIRMAN CARTER 3 4 DISCUSSION OF 2008 AMENDMENTS TO 366.92, F.S. 7 5 PRESENTATIONS BY INTERESTED PARTIES: 6 STEVE ADAMS, Florida Energy and Climate Commission 12 CHRISTY HERIG, Solar Electric Power Association 14 7 CHRISTOPHER MAINGOT, Solar Coalition 30 MICHAEL DOBSON, FREPA 35 8 MARK SINCLAIR, Clean Energy Group 45 GUS CEPERO, Florida Crystals 60 9 CLAY BETHEA, Buckeye Florida 71 MICHELLE CURTIS, Buckeye Florida 76 10 JOHN WILSON, Southern Alliance for Clean Energy 92 ERIC DRAPER, Audobon of Florida 103 11 MIKE BRANCH, Smurfit-Stone Forest Resources 116 VICKI GORDON KAUFMAN, for Wheelabrator 120 12 RENE SILVA, Florida Power & Light 128 BILL ASHBURN, Tampa Electric Company 131 13 BOB McGEE, Gulf Power Company 134 BOB NIEKUM, Progress Energy Florida 143 14 DISCUSSION OF DRAFT DATA REQUEST 148 15 PUBLIC COMMENT: 16 MIKE TWOMEY, for AARP 152 17 ROY RATNER, Atlas Solar Innovations 158 JOE TRESHLER, Covanta Energy 164 18 DISCUSSION OF SCHEDULING, POST-WORKSHOP 167 19 COMMENTS, AND PROCEDURAL MATTERS 20 CLOSING REMARKS BY THE COMMISSIONERS 171 21 CERTIFICATE OF REPORTER 181 22 23 24 25 3 1 P R O C E E D I N G S 2 CHAIRMAN CARTER: Good morning to everyone.
    [Show full text]
  • Hb 2417, Hd2 Neil Abercrombie Governor Department of Business, Richard C
    HB 2417, HD2 NEIL ABERCROMBIE GOVERNOR DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS, RICHARD C. LIM ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT & TOURISM DIRECTOR MARY ALICE EVANS DEPUTY DIRECTOR No.1 Capitol District Building, 250 South Hotel Street, 5th Floor, Honolulu, Hawail96813 Telephone: (808) 586-2355 Mailing Address: P.O. Box 2359, Honolulu, Hawaii 96804 Fax: (808) 586-2377 Web site: www.hawaii.gov/dbedt Statement of REVISED 3/20/12 RICHARD C. LIM Director Department of Business, Economic Development, and Tourism before the SENATE COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENT Tuesday, March 20, 2012 2:50PM State Capitol, Senate Conference Room 225 in consideration of HB2417 HD 2 Proposed SDI RELATING TO RENEWABLE ENERGY. Chair Gabbard, Vice English, and Members of the Committee. The Department of Business, Economic Development, and Tourism (DBEDT) opposes HB2417 Proposed SD 1, which removes the Renewable Energy Technology System Tax Credit cap and changes the incentive structure for utility scale systems to a ten year production credit. DBEDT supports the HD2 version of this measure and requests that version be passed instead. The proposed SD 1 is likely to increase costs to the State and create conditions for a spike in short-term growth that may not be in the best long-term interests of the State. Assuming that solar capacity follows recent trends and doubles to 70 MW in 2012 for non-utility scale projects, and that an additional 67 MW of utility scale projects are completed within the next several years, the proposed SDI would cost the State roughly $597 million. This scenario
    [Show full text]
  • Investing in Failure How Large Power Companies Are Undermining Their Decarbonization Targets
    Investing in Failure How Large Power Companies Are Undermining their Decarbonization Targets Prepared for Majority Action, March 9, 2020 Authors: Bruce Biewald, Devi Glick, Jamie Hall, Caitlin Odom, Cheryl Roberto, Rachel Wilson CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................... II 1. PURPOSE OF THE REPORT .................................................................................... 1 2. THE THREE COMPANIES PRODUCE 4 PERCENT OF ECONOMY-WIDE U.S. CO2 EMISSIONS ...... 1 3. THE COMPANIES HAVE AMBITIOUS DECARBONIZATION GOALS FOR 2030 AND 2050 .......... 7 4. DESPITE COMMITMENTS, THERE IS LITTLE PROGRESS .................................................. 8 4.1. The companies’ Status Quo Planning processes are not adequate .....................................9 4.2. The companies are not retiring aging and uneconomic coal plants fast enough ................ 11 4.3. The companies are unduly focused on traditional fossil generation to replace the coal assets they are retiring ................................................................................................... 20 4.4. The companies are underutilizing and underinvesting in renewables and distributed alternatives ................................................................................................................... 25 4.5. The companies’ grid modernization efforts are not equal to the task............................... 36 4.6. The companies’ corporate engagement is not aligned with decarbonization
    [Show full text]
  • Global CCUS Projects
    2021 Global CCUS projects Overview of existing and planned CCUS facilities 19 10 11 20 1 18 23 2 24 22 3 25 28 6 4 9 27 26 13 17 29 14 5 21 30 2 15 16 34 12 20 8 1 4 18 28 7 3 5 32 6 9 19 10 13 29 12 21 16 16 14 25 27 19 23 8 15 20 10 26 25 33 14 11 26 22 7 24 36 11 31 21 17 35 9 12 15 30 17 22 18 1 2 1 5 13 3 4 23 Number of projects by region 24 AFRICA 2 projects 4 ASIA PACIFIC 27 projects 1 5 1 7 3 8 CENTRAL AND SOUTH AMERICA 1 project 2 2 EUROPE 30 projects 6 27 MIDDLE EAST 5 projects NORTH AMERICA 36 projects Source: Global CCS Institute and IOGP data 19 10 11 20 1 18 23 2 24 22 3 25 28 6 4 9 27 26 13 17 29 14 5 21 30 2 15 16 34 12 20 8 1 4 LOCATION PROJECT NAME PROJECT TYPE INDUSTRY DESCRIPTION CO2 CAPTURED/ STARTING DATE STATUS OF PARTICIPANTS IOGP MEMBERS 18 28 7 3 5 32 6 9 19 YEAR (OPERATION) THE PROJECT INVOLVED 10 13 29 12 21 16 16 14 25 27 19 23 8 15 20 10 26 25 33 14 11 Australia Gorgon Carbon Industrial capture Natural gas Reservoir carbon dioxide vented from the Acid 3.4-4 Mtpa 2019 Operational Chevron (The Gorgon Project is Chevron, Shell, 26 22 7 24 36 11 31 21 17 35 9 12 Western Australia Dioxide Injection processing Gas Removal Units at the Gorgon gas processing operated by Chevron Australia and ExxonMobil 15 30 17 22 18 1 2 1 plant on Barrow Island are captured, compressed, is a joint venture of the Australian 5 13 3 4 23 transported by pipeline and injected over 2km below subsidiaries of Chevron (47.3%), the earth’s surface into the Dupuy Formation ExxonMobil (25%), Shell (25%), Osaka Gas (1.25%), Tokyo Gas (1%) and
    [Show full text]
  • Policy Outlook for Carbon Capture in the 2020S
    Policy Outlook for Carbon Capture in the 2020s NARUC Subcommittee on Clean Coal and Carbon Management / NARUC-DOE Carbon Capture, Utilization, and Storage Partnership JUNE 9, 2021| 2 – 3 PM (ET) WELCOME Commissioner Ellen Nowak Wisconsin Public Service Commission Vice Chair of the NARUC-DOE Carbon Capture, Utilization, and Storage Partnership and NARUC Subcommittee on Clean Coal and Carbon Management 2 SPEAKERS • Madelyn Morrison, External Affairs Manager, Carbon Capture Coalition • Emeka Richard Ochu, Research Associate, Center on Global Energy Policy, Columbia University • Angelos Kokkinos, Associate Deputy Assistant Secretary, Office of Clean Coal and Carbon Management, Office of Fossil Energy and Carbon Management, U.S. Department of Energy 3 Policy Outlook for Carbon Capture in the 2020s NARUC Subcommittee on Clean Coal and Carbon Management / NARUC-DOE Carbon Capture, Utilization, and Storage Partnership Wednesday, June 9, 2021 Madelyn Morrison External Affairs Manager Carbon Capture Coalition Unprecedented National Coalition in U.S. Energy & Climate Policy Goal: Economywide deployment of the full suite of carbon management options— carbon capture, removal, transport, utilization and storage—to reduce emissions, foster domestic energy and industrial production, and support high-wage jobs. Climate, jobs and energy/industrial benefits unite diverse interests in a common purpose Over 80 members, including companies, unions and environmental To learn more and view our NGOs complete membership list, visit www.carboncapturecoalition.org
    [Show full text]
  • The Impact of Local Permitting on the Cost of Solar Power
    The Impact of Local Permitting on the Cost of Solar Power How a federal effort to simplify processes can make solar affordable for 50% of American homes January 2011 Endorsed by: Alteris Renewables Namaste Solar Sullivan Solar Power American Solar Electric PetersenDean Sun Chariot Solar Acro Energy Real Goods Solar Sunetric Corbin Solar REC Solar Sunlight Solar Energy Greenspring Energy RevoluSun SunTrek Solar groSolar Sierra Club Trinity Solar HelioPower SolarTech Verengo Solar Plus Mainstream Energy SolSource The Vote Solar Initiative Mercury Solar Systems The full report is available as a free download at www.sunrunhome.com/permitting. Contents Executive Summary ........................................................................................ 1 Note from SunRun ......................................................................................... 2 The impact of local permitting on the cost of solar power ............................. 3 Local permitting costs $2,516 per installation ............................................ 6 Streamlined permitting will benefit jurisdictions ......................................... 7 Launching the Residential Solar Permitting Initiative ................................... 9 The prize: grid parity for more than half of American homes .................... 11 Appendix ..................................................................................................... 12 Appendix A: Methodology ......................................................................... 13 Appendix B: Data .....................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • How Does Your State Make Electricity? by NADJA POPOVICH DEC
    How Does Your State Make Electricity? By NADJA POPOVICH DEC. 24, 2018 America isn’t making electricity the way it did two decades ago: Natural gas has edged out coal as the country’s leading generation source … … and renewables like wind and solar have made small yet speedy gains. But, each state has its own story. In Nevada, natural gas surpassed coal as the top source of electricity generation in 2005, earlier than in many other states. Coal’s role in the state’s power mix has continued to decline since then. In Iowa, wind power has taken off over the past decade. It now makes up nearly 40 percent of the electricity produced in the state. But in West Virginia, coal still fuels nearly allelectricity generation. Overall, fossil fuels still dominate electricity generation in the United States. But the shift from coal to natural gas has helped to lower carbon dioxide emissions and other pollution. Last year, coal was the main source of electricity generation for 18 states, down from 32 states in 2001. But experts warn that a shift to natural gas alone won’t be enough to curb emissions and avoid dangerous global warming. “Switching from coal to gas is a fine thing to do in the short run, but it’s not a solution in the longer run,” said Severin Borenstein, Director of the Energy Institute at the University of California, Berkeley’s Haas School of Business. “Gas still produces a lot of greenhouse gases. We can’t stay on gas and solve this problem. Ultimately we’re going to have to go to much lower or zero-carbon sources.” We charted every state’s electricity generation mix between 2001 and 2017 using data from the United States Energy Information Administration.
    [Show full text]
  • Ten Year Power Plant Site Plan 2019 – 2028 (This Page Is Intentionally Left Blank.)
    Ten Year Power Plant Site Plan 2019 – 2028 (This page is intentionally left blank.) Ten Year Power Plant Site Plan 2019-2028 Submitted To: Florida Public Service Commission April 2019 (This page is intentionally left blank.) Table of Contents List of Figures and Tables............................................................................................................ iii List of Schedules ........................................................................................................................... v Overview of the Document ........................................................................................................... 1 List of Abbreviations ..................................................................................................................... 3 Executive Summary ...................................................................................................................... 5 Chapter I. Description of Existing Resources .......................................................................... 15 A. FPL-Owned Resources ..................................................................................... 16 B. Capacity and Energy Power Purchases ......................................................... 20 C. Demand Side Management (DSM) .................................................................... 24 Chapter II. Forecast of Electric Power Demand ....................................................................... 27 A. Overview of the Load Forecasting Process .......... …………………………….29
    [Show full text]
  • Political Barriers to Distributed Generation Solar in the Sunshine State
    POLITICAL BARRIERS TO DISTRIBUTED GENERATION SOLAR IN THE SUNSHINE STATE by Debra Taylor A Thesis Submitted to the Faculty of The Wilkes Honors College in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Bachelor of Science in Environmental Science Wilkes Honors College of Florida Atlantic University Jupiter, FL August 2017 POLITICAL BARRIERS TO DISTRIBUTED GENERATION SOLAR IN THE SUNSHINE STATE by Debra Taylor This thesis was prepared under the direction of the candidate’s thesis advisor, Dr. William O’Brien, and has been approved by the members of her supervisory committee. It was submitted to the faculty of The Honors College and was accepted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Bachelor of Science in Environmental Sciences. SUPERVISORY COMMITTEE: ____________________________ Dr. William O’Brien ____________________________ Dr. Kanybek Nur-tegin ____________________________ Dean Dr. Ellen Goldey, Wilkes Honors College __________ Date ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS First and foremost, I’d to thank my academic/thesis/life advisor, Dr. William O’Brien. Without his assistance, encouragement and dedicated involvement in every step of this process, this paper would never have been accomplished. I would like to thank you, from the bottom of my heart, for your patience, support and understanding over these past two years. I would also like to sincerely thank Dr. Wairimũ Njambi, who challenged me to keep pushing through every obstacle, assuring me that the struggle is both the process and the reward. Your mentorship and inspirational teaching style made my experience at the Honors College truly unforgettable. I am forever grateful for your kindness and encouragement. A special thank you to Dr.
    [Show full text]
  • 2016 Ten-Year Site Plans of Florida’S Electric Utilities
    APPENDIX A REVIEW OF THE 2016 TEN-YEAR SITE PLANS OF FLORIDA’S ELECTRIC UTILITIES NOVEMBER 2016 Ten-Year Site Plan Comments State Agencies Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission- General Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission- Gulf Department of Environmental Protection Regional Planning Councils Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council Water Management Districts Southwest Florida Water Management District St. Johns Water Management District Local Governments Charlotte County Environmental Groups Southern Alliance for Clean Energy Sierra Club 1 2 June 21, 2016 Moniaishi Mtenga Division of Engineering Public Service Commission Florida Fish 2540 Shumard Oak Boulevard and Wildlife Tallahassee, FL 32399-0850 Conservation [email protected] Commission Commissioners RE: 2016 Ten-Year Power Plant Site Plans Brian Yablonski Chairman Tallahassee Dear Mr. Mtenga: Aliese P. “Liesa” Priddy Vice Chairman Immokalee Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC) staff has reviewed the 2016 Ten- Ronald M. Bergeron Year Power Plant Site Plans submitted to the Public Service Commission (PSC). We will be Fort Lauderdale providing comments on the Gulf Power Company (GULF) Ten-Year Site Plan in a subsequent Richard Hanas letter. However, we are submitting this letter to notify you that we have reviewed the following Oviedo plans and have no comments regarding fish and wildlife resources: Bo Rivard Panama City Charles W. Roberts III Gainesville Regional Utilities (GRU) Tallahassee Orlando Utilities Commission (OUC) Robert A. Spottswood City of Tallahassee Utilities (TAL) Key West Jacksonville Energy Authority (JEA) Florida Municipal Power Agency (FMPA) Florida Power and Light Company (FPL) Executive Staff Seminole Electric Cooperative (SEC) Nick Wiley Executive Director Lakeland Electric (LAK) Eric Sutton Tampa Electric Company (TECO) Assistant Executive Director Duke Energy Florida (DEF) Jennifer Fitzwater Chief of Staff We appreciate the opportunity to review the Ten-Year Site Plans, as provided by the PSC.
    [Show full text]