DOCSLIB.ORG

Florida Power & Light Company, Ten Year Power Plant Site Plan 2016

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Florida Power & Light Company, Ten Year Power Plant Site Plan 2016 Ten Year Power Plant Site Plan 2016 – 2025 (This page is intentionally left blank.) Ten Year Power Plant Site Plan 2016-2025 Submitted To: Florida Public Service Commission April 2016 (This page is intentionally left blank.) Table of Contents List of Figures and Tables ............................................................................................................ iii List of Schedules .......................................................................................................................... iv Overview of the Document ........................................................................................................... 1 List of Abbreviations ..................................................................................................................... 3 Executive Summary ...................................................................................................................... 5 Chapter I. Description of Existing Resources .......................................................................... 11 A. FPL-Owned Resources ..................................................................................... 13 B. Capacity and Energy Power Purchases ......................................................... 17 C. Demand Side Management (DSM) .................................................................... 22 Chapter II. Forecast of Electric Power Demand ....................................................................... 25 A. Overview of the Load Forecasting Process .......... …………………………….27 B. Comparison of FPL’s Current and Previous Load Forecasts ....................... 28 C. Long-Term Sales Forecasts ............................................................................. 29 D. Net Energy for Load (NEL) ............................................................................... 32 E. System Peak Forecasts .................................................................................... 33 F. Hourly Load Forecast ....................................................................................... 36 G. Uncertainty ……………………………………………………………………… ....... 36 H. DSM ..................................................................................................................... 37 Chapter III. Projection of Incremental Resource Additions .................................................... 45 A. FPL’s Resource Planning ................................................................................. 47 B. Projected Incremental Resource Additions/Changes in the Resource Plan ................................................................................................... 56 C. Discussion of the Projected Resource Plan and Issues Impacting FPL’s Resource Planning Work…………………… ........................................... 56 D. Demand Side Management (DSM) ................................................................... 62 E. Transmission Plan ............................................................................................. 66 F. Renewable Resources ....................................................................................... 72 G. FPL’s Fuel Mix and Fuel Price Forecasts ........................................................ 80 Chapter IV. Environmental and Land Use Information ......................................................... 115 A. Protection of the Environment ...................................................................... 117 B. FPL’s Environmental Policy ........................................................................... 119 C. Environmental Management .......................................................................... 120 D. Environmental Assurance Program .............................................................. 121 E. Environmental Communication and Facilitation ......................................... 122 F. Preferred and Potential Sites ......................................................................... 122 Preferred Sites .................................................................................................. 123 1. Preferred Site # 1 - Babcock Ranch Solar Energy Center, Charlotte County .................................................................................... 123 2. Preferred Site # 2 - Citrus Solar Energy Center, DeSoto County ..... 126 i 3. Preferred Site # 3 - Manatee Solar Energy Center, Manatee County ..................................................................................................... 128 4. Preferred Site # 4 - Lauderdale Plant Peaking Facilities, Broward County ..................................................................................... 131 5. Preferred Site # 5 - Ft. Myers Plant Peaking Facilities, Lee County ..................................................................................................... 134 6. Preferred Site # 6 - Okeechobee Site, Okeechobee County .............. 137 7. Preferred Site # 7 - Turkey Point Plant, Miami-Dade County ............. 140 Potential Sites .................................................................................................. 145 8. Potential Site # 1 - Alachua County ...................................................... 145 9. Potential Site # 2 - Hendry County ............ ………………………………146 10. Potential Site # 3 - Martin County ......................................................... 147 11. Potential Site # 4 - Miami-Dade County... ........... ………………………148 12. Potential Site # 5 - Putnam County..……………………….……………..149 13. Potential Site # 6 - Volusia County……………………………………..…149 Chapter V. Other Planning Assumptions and Information ................................................... 217 ii List of Figures and Tables Table ES-1 Projected Capacity & Firm Purchase Power Changes ................................... 10 Figure I.A.1 Capacity Resources by Location (as of December 31, 2015) ........................ 14 Table I.A.1 Capacity Resource by Unit Type (as of December 31, 2015) ....................... 15 Figure I.A.2 FPL Substation & Transmission System Configuration ................................ 16 Table I.B.1 Purchase Power Resources by Contract (as of December 31, 2015) ........... 19 Table I.B.2 FPL’s Firm Purchased Power Summer MW ................................................... 20 Table I.B.3 FPL’s Firm Purchased Power Winter MW........................................................ 21 Figure III.A.1 Overview of FPL’s IRP Process ........................................................................ 48 Table III.E.1 List of Proposed Power Lines .......................................................................... 67 Table IV.E.1 2015 FPL Environmental Outreach Activities ............................................... 122 Preferred Site # 1 - Babcock Maps ................................................................. 151 Preferred Site # 2 - Citrus Maps ...................................................................... 157 Preferred Site # 3 – Manatee Maps ................................................................. 163 Preferred Site # 4 – Lauderdale Maps ............................................................ 169 Preferred Site # 5 – Ft. Myers Maps .............................................................. 175 Preferred Site # 6 – Okeechobee Maps .......................................................... 181 Preferred Site # 7 – Turkey Point Maps ......................................................... 187 Potential Site # 1 – Alachua County Maps .................................................... 193 Potential Site # 2 – Hendry County Maps ...................................................... 197 Potential Site # 3 – Martin County Maps ........................................................ 201 Potential Site # 4 – Miami-Dade County Maps .............................................. 205 Potential Site # 5 – Putnam County Maps ..................................................... 209 Potential Site # 6 – Volusia County Maps ...................................................... 213 iii List of Schedules Schedule 1 Existing Generating Facilities As of December 31, 2015 ............................... 23 Schedule 2.1 History and Forecast of Energy Consumption & Number of Customers by Customer Class ......................................................................... 38 Schedule 2.2 History and Forecast of Energy Consumption & Number of Customers by Customer Class (Continued) ................................................... 39 Schedule 2.3 History and Forecast of Energy Consumption & Number of Customers by Customer Class (Continued) ................................................... 40 Schedule 3.1 History and Forecast of Summer Peak Demand (MW) ................................... 41 Schedule 3.2 History and Forecast of Winter Peak Demand (MW) ...................................... 42 Schedule 3.3 History and Forecast of Annual Net Energy for Load (GWh) ........................ 43 Schedule 4 Previous Year Actual and Two-Year Forecast of Retail Peak Demand and Net Energy for Load (NEL) by Month ........................................ 44 Schedule 5 Fuel Requirements (for FPL Only) .................................................................... 89 Schedule 6.1 Energy Sources .................................................................................................. 90 Schedule 6.2 Energy Sources % by Fuel Type ...................................................................... 91 Schedule 7.1 Forecast
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]
  • Restoring Southern Florida's Native Plant Heritage
    A publication of The Institute for Regional Conservation’s Restoring South Florida’s Native Plant Heritage program Copyright 2002 The Institute for Regional Conservation ISBN Number 0-9704997-0-5 Published by The Institute for Regional Conservation 22601 S.W. 152 Avenue Miami, Florida 33170 www.regionalconservation.org [email protected] Printed by River City Publishing a division of Titan Business Services 6277 Powers Avenue Jacksonville, Florida 32217 Cover photos by George D. Gann: Top: mahogany mistletoe (Phoradendron rubrum), a tropical species that grows only on Key Largo, and one of South Florida’s rarest species. Mahogany poachers and habitat loss in the 1970s brought this species to near extinction in South Florida. Bottom: fuzzywuzzy airplant (Tillandsia pruinosa), a tropical epiphyte that grows in several conservation areas in and around the Big Cypress Swamp. This and other rare epiphytes are threatened by poaching, hydrological change, and exotic pest plant invasions. Funding for Rare Plants of South Florida was provided by The Elizabeth Ordway Dunn Foundation, National Fish and Wildlife Foundation, and the Steve Arrowsmith Fund. Major funding for the Floristic Inventory of South Florida, the research program upon which this manual is based, was provided by the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation and the Steve Arrowsmith Fund. Nemastylis floridana Small Celestial Lily South Florida Status: Critically imperiled. One occurrence in five conservation areas (Dupuis Reserve, J.W. Corbett Wildlife Management Area, Loxahatchee Slough Natural Area, Royal Palm Beach Pines Natural Area, & Pal-Mar). Taxonomy: Monocotyledon; Iridaceae. Habit: Perennial terrestrial herb. Distribution: Endemic to Florida. Wunderlin (1998) reports it as occasional in Florida from Flagler County south to Broward County.
    [Show full text]
  • A Management Plan for the J.W. Corbett Wildlife Management Area
    A Management Plan for the J.W. Corbett Wildlife Management Area 2015-2025 Palm Beach County, Florida Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission 620 South Meridian Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1600 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK A Management Plan For The J.W Corbett Wildlife Management Area Palm Beach County, Florida Owned by the Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund Managed by the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission May 2015 Approved Thomas Eason Director, Division of Habitat and Species Conservation THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK LAND MANAGEMENT PLAN EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Lead Agency: Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC) Common Name of Property: J.W.Corbett Wildlife Management Area Location: Palm Beach County, Florida Acreage Total: 60,478 Acres Acreage Breakdown: Land Cover Classification Acres Percent of Total Area Basin marsh 1,395 2.29% Depression marsh 13,752 22.56% Dome swamp 2,189 3.59% Hydric hammock 65 0.11% Mesic flatwoods 16,867 27.68% Mesic hammock 319 0.52% Ruderal, agriculture 1,361 2.23% Ruderal, canal/ditch 400 0.66% Ruderal, clearing/regeneration 694 1.14% Ruderal, developed 71 0.12% Ruderal, road 28 0.05% Ruderal, utility corridor 1,177 1.93% Strand swamp 11,772 19.32% Wet flatwoods 9,253 15.18% Wet prairie 1,603 2.63% *GIS-calculated acreage for land cover classification varies slightly from actual total acreage. Lease/Management Agreement No.: 2606 (Appendix 13.1) Use: Single Management Responsibilities: Multiple X Agency FWC Responsibilities
    [Show full text]
  • Groundwater Contamination and Impacts to Water Supply
    SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT March 2007 Final Draft CCoonnssoolliiddaatteedd WWaatteerr SSuuppppllyy PPllaann SSUUPPPPOORRTT DDOOCCUUMMEENNTT Water Supply Department South Florida Water Managemment District TTaabbllee ooff CCoonntteennttss List of Tables and Figures................................................................................v Acronyms and Abbreviations........................................................................... vii Chapter 1: Introduction..................................................................................1 Basis of Water Supply Planning.....................................................................1 Legal Authority and Requirements ................................................................1 Water Supply Planning Initiative...................................................................4 Water Supply Planning History .....................................................................4 Districtwide Water Supply Assessment............................................................5 Regional Water Supply Plans .......................................................................6 Chapter 2: Natural Systems .............................................................................7 Overview...............................................................................................7 Major Surface Water Features.................................................................... 13 Kissimmee Basin and Chain of Lakes ...........................................................
    [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]
  • 06/23/2017, Letter from US FWS Vero Beach to NRC Regarding Proposed
    United States Department of the Interior FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE South Florida Ecological Services Office 1339 20” Street Vero Beach, Florida 32960 June 23, 2017 Alicia Williamson Oflice of New Reactors U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001 Service CPA Code: 04EF2000-2009-FA-0 180 Service Consultation Code: 04EF2000-2009-F-0098 Date Received: September 29, 2016 Consultation Initiation Date: February 8,2017 Project: Combined License for Turkey Point Nuclear Plant, Units 6 and 7 County: Miami-Dade Dear Ms. Williamson: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) has received the Nuclear Regulatory Commission’ (NRC) letter dated September 29, 2016, requesting formal consultation for their licensing of Florida Power and Light (FPL) to construct two new nuclear power units (Units 6 and 7) and associated infrastructure at their Turkey Point Power Plant, and new transmission towers and lines located west and north of power plant site (Project). This document transmits the Servic&s biological opinion based on our review of the proposed Project located in Miami-Dade, Florida. and its effects on the endangered Everglade snail kite (Rostrhamus sociabilisplumbeus; snail kite) and Florida panther (Puma concolor coryi; panther), and the threatened American crocodile (Crocodylus acutus; crocodile) and its critical habitat, as well as the eastern indigo snake (Drymarchon corals couperi; indigo snake), red knot (Dendroica kirilandil), and wood stork (Mycieria americana). It also provides the Service’s concurrences for the NRC’s determination that the Project may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect the federally listed species listed in Table I. This document is submitted in accordance with section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended in 1998 (Act) (87 Stat.
    [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]
  • The Delicate Relationship Between Southeast Florida's Inland
    The Delicate Relationship Between Southeast Florida’s Inland, Intracoastal, and Atlantic Ocean Littoral Zone, Native Waters. South Florida’s Geographic & Geologic History (65.5 Million Years Ago – 10,000 Years Ago) Florida as we know it began to take shape deep under sea during the Cenozoic Era near 65.5 million years ago. (D.E.P. Web) As dead creatures settled beneath the water over millions of years, their skeletons formed a limestone base. (D.E.P. Web) Limestone is a sedimentary rock, primarily composed of calcium carbonate, in Florida’s case organic sedimentary limestone formed as calcium carbonate shells and skeletons of deceased animals lithified into limestone. (Geo. Web) Limestone which underlies all of Florida can be dissolved by slightly acidic rain water, over millions of years, pore spaces opened and sink holes and other karst features such as springs and air caves formed. (D.E.P. Web) During the Late Oligocene Epoch around 25 million years ago, Florida’s reefs began to form; at the end of this period, around 23 million years ago, sea levels dropped and the land mass of Florida rose above sea level, Florida will never be completely submerged under water again. (D.E.P. Web) At the start of the Miocene Epoch around 23 million years ago, water level fluctuated depositing sands and clays across Florida, the Appalachians were also uplifted during this time moving, and grand deposits of phosphorite accumulated on Florida land, many fossils including those of the megalodon were deposited at this time. (D.E.P. Web) In the Pliocene Epoch around 5 million years ago, North America and South America were connected and the Gulf of Mexico was formed, limestone and shell beds formed in south Florida, and the largest variety of molluscan faunas on earth accumulated in southwest Florida.
    [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]