## Ten Year Power Plant Site Plan

**20 1**  **5**

**- 20**  **2 4** 

**Submitted To:**

**Florida Public Service Commission** 

**Miami, Florida April**  **20 1**  **5 (This page is intentionally left blank.)** 

### Table of Contents

List of Figures and Tables

................................ ................................ ................................ ............ iii

List of Schedules

................................ ................................ ................................ .......................... i v

Overview of the Document

................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 1

List of Abbreviations

................................ ................................ ................................ ..................... 3
Executive Summary

................................ ................................ ................................ ...................... 5

I. Description of Existing Resources

................................ ................................ .............. 1 3

A. FPL

- Owned Resources

................................ ................................ ..................... 1 5 B. Capacity and Energy Power Purchases

................................ ......................... 19 C. Demand Side Management (DSM)

................................ ................................ .... 24

II. Forecast of Electric Power Demand

................................ ................................ ............. 2 7

A. Overview of the Load Forecasting Process

.......... .................................. 29 B. Comparison of FPL’s Current and Previous Load Forecasts

....................... 30 C. Long

- Term Sales Forecasts

................................ ................................ ............. 31 D. Net Energy for Load

................................ ................................ .......................... 34 E. System Peak Forecasts

................................ ................................ .................... 3 5 F. Hourly Load Forecast

................................ ................................ ....................... 37 G. Uncertainty .................................................................................

....... 37 H. DSM

................................ ................................ ................................ ..................... 38

III. Projection of Incremental Resource Additions

................................ ........................... 4 7

A. FPL’s Resource Planning

................................ ................................ ................. 49 B. Projected Incremental Resource Additions /Changes in the Resource Plan

................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 5 9 C. Discussion of the Projected Resource Plan and Issues Impacting FPL’s Resource Planning Work........................

................................ ........... 59 D. Demand Side Management (DSM)

................................ ................................ .......... 66 E. Transmission Plan

................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 68 F. Renewable Resources

................................ ................................ ................................ 75 G. FPL’s Fuel Mix and Fuel Price Forecasts

................................ ........................ 82

IV. Environmental and Land Use Information

................................ ................................ . 1 15

A. Protection of the Environment

................................ ................................ ...... 1 17 B. FPL’s Environmental Policy

................................ ................................ ........... 1 18 C. Environmental Management

................................ ................................ .......... 1 20 D. Environmental Assurance Program

................................ .............................. 1 21 E. Environmental Communication and Facilitation

................................ ......... 1 21 F. Preferred and Potential Sites

................................ ................................ ......... 1 22 Preferred Sites

................................ ................................ ................................ .. 122 1. Preferred Site # 1

- Port Everglades Plant , Broward County

........... 1 23 2. Preferred Site # 2

- Babcock Ranch Solar Energy Center , Charlotte County

................................ ................................ .................... 1 28 3. Preferred Site # 3

- Citrus Solar Energy Center, DeSoto County

..... 1 31

Florida Power & Light Company i4. Preferred Site # 4

- Manatee Solar Energy Center, Manatee County

................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 1 33 5. Preferred Site # 5

- Lauderdale Plant Peaking Facilities, Broward County

................................ ................................ ..................... 136 6. Preferred Site # 6

- Ft. Myers Plant Peaking Facilities, Lee County

................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 1 40 7. Preferred Site # 7

- Okeechobee Site, Okeechobee County

.............. 1 44 8. Preferred Site # 8

- Turkey Point Plant, Miami

- Dade County

............. 1 48 Potential Sites for Generating Options

................................ .......................... 156 9. Potential Site # 1

- Hendry County

................................ ....................... 1 56 10. Potential Site # 2

- Martin County

................................ ......................... 1 57 11. Potential Site # 3

- Putnam Plant Site, Putnam C ounty

.................. 158

V. Other Planning Assumptions and Information

................................ .............................. 213

Introduction

................................ ................................ ................................ ................... 215

Discussion Item #1

................................ ................................ ................................ . 215

Discussion Item #2

................................ ................................ ................................ . 216

Discussion Item #3

................................ ................................ ................................ . 216

Discussion Item #4

................................ ................................ ................................ . 217

Discussion Item #5

................................ ................................ ................................ . 217

Discussion Item #6

................................ ................................ ................................ . 218

Discussion Item #7

................................ ................................ ................................ . 218

Discussion Item #8

................................ ................................ ................................ . 218

Discussion Item #9

................................ ................................ ................................ . 219

Discussion Item #10

................................ ................................ ................................ . 220

Discussion Item #1 1

................................ ................................ ................................ . 220

Discussion Item #12

................................ ................................ ................................ . 221

Florida Power & Light Company ii

### List of Figures and Tables

Table ES

- 1 Projected Capacity & Firm Purchase Power Changes

................................ ... 1 1
Figure I.A.1 FPL Generating Resources by Location ( Map)

................................ ............... 1 6

Table I.A.1 Capacity Resource by Unit Type

................................ ................................ ..... 1 7
Figure I.A.2 FPL Substation & Transmission System Configuration (Map)

..................... 18

Table I.A.3 Purchas e Power Resources by Contract

................................ ......................... 21

Table I.B.1 FPL’s Firm Purchased Power Summer MW

................................ ................... 22

Table I.B.2 FPL’s Firm Purchased Power Winter MW

................................ ........................ 2 3
Figure III.A.1 Overview of FPL’s IRP Process

................................ ................................ ........ 50

Table III. E .1 List of Proposed Power Lines

................................ ................................ .......... 69

Table IV.E.1 20 1 4 FPL Environmental Outreach Activities

................................ ............... 1 21

Preferred Sit e # 1

- Port Everglades Maps

................................ ..................... 1 61
Preferred Site # 2

- Babcock Maps

................................ ................................ . 1 67 Preferred Site # 3

- Citrus Maps

................................ ................................ ...... 1 71 Preferred Site # 4

– Manatee Maps

................................ ................................ . 1 75 Preferred Site # 5

– Lauderdale Maps

................................ ............................ 1 79
Preferred Site # 6

– Ft. Myers Maps

................................ .............................. 185
Preferred Site # 7

– Okeechobee Maps

................................ .......................... 191
Preferred Site # 8

– Turkey Point Maps

................................ ......................... 195 Potential Site # 1

- Hendry Maps

................................ ................................ .... 201 Potential Site # 2

– Martin Maps

................................ ................................ ..... 205 Potential Site # 3

– Putman Maps

................................ ................................ ... 209

Florida Power & Light Company iii

### List of Schedules

Schedule 1 Existing Generating Facilities

................................ ................................ ........... 2 5

Schedule 2.1 History and Forecast of Energy Consumption & Number of C ustomers by Customer Class (Rural & Residential)

................................ .... 39

Schedule 2.2 History and Forecast of Energy Consumption & Number of Customers by Customer Class (Industrial)

................................ ..................... 40

Schedule 2.3 History and Forecast of Energy Consumption & Number of Customers by Customer Class (Sales for Resale)

................................ ......... 41

Schedu le 3.1 History and Forecast of Summer Peak Demand

................................ ............. 4 2

Schedule 3.2 History and Forecast of Winter Peak Demand

................................ ................ 4 3

Schedule 3.3 History and Forecast of Annual Net Energy for Load GWh

........................... 4 4

Schedule 4 Previous Year Actual and Two

- Year Forecast of Retail Peak Demand and Net Energy for Load (NEL) by Month

................................ ........ 4 5

Schedule 5 Fuel Requirements

................................ ................................ ............................. 90

Schedule 6.1 Energy Sources

................................ ................................ ................................ .. 91

Schedule 6.2 Energy Sources % by Fuel Type

................................ ................................ ...... 92

Schedule 7.1 Forecast of Capacity, Demand , and Scheduled Maintenance at Time of Summer Peak

................................ ................................ ........................ 93

Schedule 7.2 Forecast of Capacity, Demand , and Scheduled Maintenance at Time of Winter Peak

................................ ................................ ........................... 94

Schedule 8 Planned and Prospective Generating Facility Additions and Changes

....... 9 5

Schedule 9 Status Report and Specifications of Proposed Generating Facili ties

.......... 97

Schedule 10 Status Report and Specifications of Proposed Transmission Lines

......... 105

Schedule 11.1 Existing Firm and Non

- Firm Capacity & Energy by Primary Fuel Type

- Actuals for the Year 2014

................................ ................................ .............. 113

Schedule 11. 2 Existing Non

- Firm Self

- Service Renewable Generation Facilities

- Actuals for the Year 2014

................................ ................................ .............. 113

Florida Power & Light Company iv

### Overview of the Document

C hapter 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 (Site Plan) . This Site P lan should include an estimate of the utility’s future electric power generating needs, a projection of how th ese estimated generating n eeds could be met, and disclosure of information pertaining to the utility’s preferred and potential power plant s ites. Th e information contained in this Site
Plan is compiled and presented in accordance with R ules 25

- 22.070, 25

- 22.071, and 25

- 22.072, Florida Administrative Code (F

. A

. C

. ).

Site Plans are long

- term planning documents and should be viewed in this contex t. A Site Plan contains
uncertain forecasts and tentative planning information . Forecasts evolve, and all planning information 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, at the appropriate time.

This Site Plan document is based on Florida Power & Light Company’s (FPL ’s ) integrated resource planning (IRP) analyses that were carried out in 2014 and that were on

- going in the first Q uarter of 201 5

. The forecasted information presented in this plan addresses the years 201 5 through 202 4

.

T his document is organized in the fo llowing 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 transm ission system.



### Chapter II

– Forecast of Electric Power Demand FPL’s load forecasting methodology, and the resulting forecast of seasonal peaks and annual energy usage, is presented in Chapter II. Included in this discussion is the projected significant im pact of federal and state energy efficiency codes and standards.



### Chapter III

– Projection of Incremental Resource Additions This chapter discusses FPL’s integrated resource planning ( IRP ) process and outlines FPL’s projected resource additions, especially new power plants, based on FPL’s IRP work in 201 4 and early 201 5

. This chapter also discusses a number of factors or issues that either ha ve changed, or may change
, the resource plan presented in this S ite Plan. Furthermore , this chapter discusses FPL’s p revious and planned

Florida Power & Light Company 1demand side management ( DSM ) efforts, the projected significant impact of the combined effects of FPL’s DSM plans and state/federal energy efficiency codes and standards, FPL’s previous and planned renewable energy efforts, projected tr ansmission planning additions, and FPL’s fuel cost forecast ing
proces s es

.



### Chapter IV

– Environmental and Land Use Information This chapter discusses environmental information as well as P referred and P otential site locations for additional electric genera tion facilities.



### Chapter V

– Other Planning Assumptions and Information This chapter addresses twelve “discussion items” which pertain to additional information that is included in a Site Plan filing.

Florida Power & Light Company 2**FPL List of Abbreviations** 

**Used in FPL Forms** 

**Reference Abbreviation**  **Definition**

Unit Type CC Combined Cycle CT Combustion Turbine GT Gas Turbine ST Steam Unit (Fossil or Nuclear) PV Photovoltaic

Fuel Type NUC Uranium BIT Bituminous Coal FO2 #1, #2 or Kerosene Oil (Distilla te) FO6 #4,#5,#6 Oil (Heavy) NG Natural Gas No None Solar Solar Energy SUB Sub Bituminous Coal Pet Petroleum Coke

Fuel Transportation No None PL Pipeline RR Railroad TK Truck WA Water

Unit/Site Status OT Other
L Regulatory approval pending. Not under construction
P Planned Unit
T Regulatory approval received but not under construction U Under construction, less than or equal to 50% Complete
V Under construction, more than 50% Complete Other ESP Electrostatic Precipitators

Florida Power & Light Company 3**(This page is left intentionally blank.)**

Florida Power & Light Company 4

### Executive Summary

Florida Power & Light Company’s (FPL ’s ) 201 5 Ten Year Power Plant Site Plan (Site Plan) presents FPL’s
current plans to augment and enhance its electric generation capability (owned or purchas ed) as part of its
efforts to meet FPL’s projected incremental resource needs for the 201 5

- 202 4 time period. By design, the primary focus of this document is on projected supply side additions; i.e. , electric generation capability and
the sites for these additions . The supply side additions discussed in this document are resources projected
to be needed , based on FPL’s load forecast, after accounting for FPL’s demand side management (DSM)
resource additions

. N ew DSM Goals for FPL for the time period 2015 through 2024 were set in November
2014 by the Florida Publ i c Service Commission (FPSC) . Consequently, the level of DSM additions
reflected in the 201 5 Site Plan is consistent with these newly approved DSM Goals. DSM is discussed
later in this summary and i n Chapter s II and III.

In addition, FPL’s load forecast accounts for a significant amount of efficiency that results from f ederal and state energy efficiency codes and standards

. The projected impacts of the se codes and standards are directly accounted f or in FPL’s load forecast and are discussed in Chapter II

.

The resource plan presented in FPL’s 201 5 Site Plan contains both similarities and differences when compared to the resource plan presented in FPL’s 201 4 Site Plan

. There are a number of factors that have
either contributed to the differences between the resource plan presented in th is Site Plan and the resource plan that was previously presented in FPL’s 201 4 Site Plan
, or which may influence FPL’s on

going resource planning efforts

. These factor s could result in future changes to the resource plan presented in this document . A brief discussion of these similarities , differences, and factors is provided
below

. Additional information regarding these topics is presented in Chapter s II and III.



### I. Similarities Between the Current Resource Plan and the Resource Plan Previously
Presented in FPL’s 201 4 Site Plan:

There are three key similarities between the current resource plan presented in this document and the resource plan that was discussed in th e 201 4 Site Plan.

Similarity # 1 : Modernizations of Existing Power Plant Sites.

As discussed in previous Site Plans, FPL has been in the process of modernizing several existing power plant sites during the last few years

. These modernizations consist of replacing old existing steam generating units with modern, highly efficient combined cycle (CC) generating units. The modernization s

Florida Power & Light Company 5of FPL’s existing Cape Canaveral and Riviera Beach plant site s w ere completed in 2013 and 2014
, respectively. The last of the previously approved modernization projects, th e modernization of FPL’s existing Port Everglades plant site
, is underway and projected to be completed in 2016.

Similarity # 2 : Specific generating units are projected to be retired and/or converted to

s ynchronous condenser operation.

In the last several years, FPL has retired a number of older, less efficient generating units including: Sanford Unit 3, Cutler Units 5 & 6, Cape Canaveral Units 1 & 2, Riviera Beach Units 3 & 4, and Port Everglades Units 1

– 4. In addition, Turkey Point Unit 2 has been converted to operate in synchronous condenser mode to provide voltage support for the transmission system in Southeastern Florida.

This trend is projected to continue. As discussed in FPL’s 2014 Site Plan, Putnam Units 1 & 2 were retired
at the end of 2014. In addition, similar to the earlier conversion of Turkey Point Unit 2, FP L projects that Turkey Point Unit 1 will be converted to run in synchronous condenser mode starting in 2016.

Similarity # 3: A nu mber of older gas turbine peaking units are projected to be retired and replaced with modern combustion turbine peaking units.

In FPL’s 2014 Site Plan, FPL projected that it would retire all of its existing gas turbine (GT) units in Broward County at its Lauderdale and Port Everglades sites (a decrease in peaking generating capacity of 1,260 MW) and partially replace this peaking capacity with the installation of 5 new combustion turbine (CT) units at the Lauderdale site (an increase of 1,005 MW) . These ch anges were projected to be completed in 201 9 . Th ese change s to FPL’s generating system w ere based on concerns regarding
whether the older, existing GTs would allow FPL to be able to meet the new EPA 1

- hour standards for nitrogen dioxide and sulfur dioxide. Economic a nalyses now indicate that it is cost

- effective to retire and replace a number of the existing GTs at an earlier date

. Based on these analyses , FPL currently projects
the retirement of a number of its existing GTs , including : 22 of 24 GTs at the Lauderdale site, all 12 GTs at the Port Everglades site, and 10 of 12 GTs at the Fort Myers plant site. Two of the existing GTs at the Lauderdale site, and two of the existing GTs at the Ft. Myers site, will be retained for black start capability. In conju nction with the retirement of these peaking units, FPL is adding a number of new
, larger , and more
efficient CTs: 5 at the Lauderdale site and 2 at the Fort Myers site. Also, the two existing CTs at the Fort Myers site will undergo capacity upgrades. In t otal, the net effect of the GT retirements, plus new/upgrade d CTs, is a net reduction of approximately 40 MW in net peaking capability. All of these changes are projected to be completed by the end of 201 6

.

Florida Power & Light Company 6

### I I. Differences Between the Current Resource Plan and the Resource Plan Previously
Presented in FPL’s 201 4 Site Plan:

There are four key differences between the current resource plan presented in this document and the resource plan previously presented in the 201 4 Site Plan. These differences are di scussed below in chronological order as they pertain to FPL’s current resource plan.

Difference # 1 : FPL no longer projects that it will serve Vero Beach’s electrical load.

Difficulties in the negotiations among the parties involved have led FPL to no lo nger project that it will
serve Vero Beach’s electrical load as ha d been assumed in FPL’s most recent Site Plans and load
forecasts. This factor results in a reduction of FPL’s forecasted load. To the extent circumstances change
and a consummation of the s ale once again seems likely, FPL will reincorporate this load into its forecast.

Difference # 2 : FPL’s power purchase agreement with Cedar Bay will be terminated in 2015.

FPL anticipates terminating its existing power purchase agreement for 250 MW of coa l

- fired capacity from the Cedar Bay generating facility at the end of August 2015 as a result of a Purchase and Sale Agreement between FPL and Cedar Bay Generating Company, L.P . FPL would then own the unit starting on September 1, 2015 . FPL currently antic ipates that it will not need the unit for economic purposes after 2016 and, if that proves to be the case, would retire the unit at that time. FPL filed for FPSC approval of the Purchase and Sale Agreement in the first quarter of 2015.

Difference # 3 : FP L will approximately triple its solar generating capacity by the end of 2016.

FPL will be adding three new photovoltaic (PV) facilities by the end of 2016. Each of the PV facilities will be approximately 74 .5 MW (nameplate rating, AC). As a result, FPL’s solar generation capacity will increase from its current 110 MW to approximately 33 3 MW. The new PV installations are projected to be
sited in Manatee, Charlotte, and DeSoto counties. The economics of these specific PV projects are aided by the fact that the sites are located close to existing electric infrastructure
, including tranmission lines and
electric substations , and by the fact that bringing these solar facilities into service prior to the end of 2016 will allow the facilities to take advantage of the current 30% investment tax credit that is scheduled to be reduced to 10% beginning in 2017.

Florida Power & Light Company 7Difference # 4 : The projected in

- service dates of FPL’s planned two new nuclear units, Turkey Point 6 & 7, have now been moved outside of the 10

- year repo rting period of this document.

In recent Site Plans, the earliest p ractical deployment dates for the new Turkey Point 6 & 7 nuclear unit
were id entified as 2022 and 2023
, and these two dates were used as the projected in

- service dates for
these units

. H owever, in the second half of 2014, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) issued a new schedule for completing its review of FPL’s Combined Operating License Application (COLA) for Turkey Point 6 & 7. The NRC’s new schedule now projects that its review w ill not be completed until late 2016 . As a consequence of the NRC delay, and the impacts of the recently amended Florida nuclear cost recovery (NCR) statute, FPL now projects that the earliest practical deployment dates for Turkey Point 6 & 7 will fall
out side of the 10

- year time period of 2015 through 2024 that is addressed in this Site Plan document. However, emissions

- free, baseload capacity and energy from nuclear power remains an important part of FPL’s resource plans. For that reason, Chapter IV provi des detailed information regarding the Turkey
Point site for these two new nuclear units.



### I I I

. Factors Which Have Impacted, or Which Could Impact , FPL’s Resource Plan :

In addition to these key similarities an d differences, there are a number of factors which have impacted
, or which may impact , FPL’s resource plan. Six (6) such factors are summarized in the text below and these are presented in no particular order

. T hese factors , and/or their corresponding impacts on FPL’s resource plan, are further disc ussed in Chapter s II and III

.

The first and second of these factors are on
- going system concerns that FPL has considered in its resource planning work for a number of years

. The first factor is the objective to maintain/enhance fuel diversity in the FPL system . Diversity is sought both in terms of the types of fuel utilized by FPL and how these fuels are supplied to FPL. ( Related to the fuel diversity objective, FPL also seeks to enhance the efficiency with which it uses fuel to generate electricity. ) The second factor is the need to maintain a balance between lo a d and generating capacity in Southeast ern Florid a , particularly in Miami

- Dade and
Broward c ounties

. This balance has both reliability and economic implications for FPL’s system.

The third factor is also a system concern that FPL has considered in its resource planning for several years. This factor addresses system reliability and focuses upon the desirability of maintaining an appropriate balance of DSM and supply resources from a system reliabil ity perspective. FPL addresses this through the use of a 10% generation

- only reserve margin (GRM) reliability criterion in its resource planning work to complement its other two reliability criteria: a 20% total reserve margin criterion for
Summer and Wint er, and a n annual 0.1 day/year loss

- of

- load

- probability (LOLP) criterion. Together, these three criteria allow FPL to address this specific concern regarding system reliability in a comprehensive

manner.

Florida Power & Light Company 8The fourth factor is the significant and increasing impact that federal and state energy efficiency codes and standards are having on FPL’s projected demand and energy load forecasts. The incremental impacts of these energy efficiency codes and standards during the 2015 through 2024 time period are projecte d to
reduce FPL’s forecasted Summer peak load by more than 2,000 MW, and reduce annual energy consumption by more than 6,800 GWh, by 2024 . In addition, this mandated energy efficiency significantly reduces the potential for cost

- effective energy efficiency that might otherwise have been obtained through FPL’s DSM programs.

The fifth factor is the increasing cost competitiveness of utility

- scale PV facilities due to the continued
decline of the cost of PV modules. U tility

- scale PV facilities are the most e conomical way to utilize PV technology and the declining costs of PV modules have resulted, for the first time, in utility scale PV now being competitive on FPL’s system at specific, highly advantaged sites. As a result, FPL’s current resource plan present ed in this year’s Site Plan includes approximately 22 3 MW (nameplate
, AC) of new PV facilities at three specific sites that offer particular cost advantages. T he projected new PV facilities are also presented in Table ES

– 1 at the end of this executive su mmary.

The sixth factor is environmental regulation , particularly the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) proposed Clean Power Plan issued in June 2014. The intent of the Clean Power Plan is to set carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) emission limits for each st ate. The EPA is scheduled to issue final rules and emission limits
in June 2015 (several months after this Site Plan is filed) . The current draft rules call for each state to submit its compliance plan by June 2016 (although a delay of at least one year is possible). FPL’s resource planning work will account for the CO 2 limits as they are finalized and FPL expects to be actively engaged in the development of Florida’s statewide compliance plan.

Each of these factors will continue to be examined in FPL’ s on
- going resource planning work during the
rest of 201 5 and in future years.

Table ES

- 1 presents a current projection of major changes to specific generat ing units and firm capacity purchases for 201 5

– 202 4

. Although this table does not specifically id entif y the impacts of projected DSM
additions on FPL’s resource needs and resource plan, FPL’s projected DSM additions that are consistent
with its new DSM Goals have been fully accounted for in the resource plan presented in this Site Plan

.

In addition, t his table shows the addition of an FPL CC unit in 2019. This potential new unit represents
FPL’s most economic self

- build generation option for 2019 and i t appears in this table and this Site Plan as a placeholder for that year

. In March 2015 , FPL issued a capacity request for proposals (RFP) that solicited proposals from interested parties for generation that could supply firm , dispatchable capacity starting in mid

- 2019. Proposals are due in May 2015 . At that time, FPL and an independent evaluator will

c onduct separate reviews of proposals received in response to the RFP and of FPL’s potential self

- build

Florida Power & Light Company 9CC unit. At the conclusion of the analyses, FPL will file for a determination of need , or approval of cost
recovery, from the Florida Public Service Comm ission for the generation option(s) that was determined in these analyses to be the best selection for FPL’s customers beginning in 2019.

Florida Power & Light Company 10

### Table ES

- 1: Projected Capacity & Firm Purchase Power Changes

Summer Summer Reserve Year * Projected Capacity & Firm Purchase Power Changes MW Date Margin ** 2015 Turkey Point (22) January-15 Fort Myers (5) January-15 Lauderdale GT (8) January-15 Lauderdale GT (8) January-15 Port Everglades GT (8) January-15 Palm Beach SWA - additional firm capacity 70 June-15 Martin (3) June-15 Scherer (9) June-15 Total of MW changes to Summer firm capacity: 6 26.7% 2016 Cedar Bay -PPA retirement (250) October-15 Cedar Bay -FPL Ownership 250 October-15 UPS Replacement (928) December-15 Fort Myers 2 37 June-16 Fort Myers GTs 1 -10 (540) June-16 Lauderdale GTs 1- 12 (412) June-16 Martin 2 June-16 Port Everglades Next Generation Clean Energy Center 1,237 June-16 Sanford 3 June-16 Total of MW changes to Summer firm capacity: (601) 21.3% 2017 Babcock Solar Energy Center (Charlotte) *** 38 September-16 Citrus Solar Energy Center (DeSoto) *** 38 September-16 Manatee Solar Energy Center *** 38 September-16 Lauderdale GTs 13- 22 (343) October-16 Turkey Point Unit 1 synchronous condenser (396) October-16 Port Everglades GTs (412) December-16 Cedar Bay (250) December-16 Lauderdale GTs - 5 CT 1,155 December-16 Fort Myers GTs - 2 CT 462 December-16 Fort Myers 3A&B - upgraded 50 December-16 Martin 2 January-17 Sanford 1 January-17 Sanford 4 January-17 Turkey Point #5 23 June-17 Manatee 4 June-17 Total of MW changes to Summer firm capacity: 415 20.9% 2018 Unspecified Short-Term Purchase 207 May-18 Turkey Point Nuclear Unit #3 20 June-18 Turkey Point Nuclear Unit #5 3 June-18 Total of MW changes to Summer firm capacity: 227 20.0% 2019 Unspecified Short-Term Purchase (207) September-18 SJRPP suspension of energy (382) 2 nd Quarter Turkey Point Nuclear Unit #4 20 June-19 Okeechobee Next Generation Clean Energy Center **** 1,622 June-19 Total of MW changes to Summer firm capacity: 1,053 22.8% 2020 --- --- --- Total of MW changes to Summer firm capacity: 0 21.3% 2021 Eco-Gen PPA firm capacity 180 January-21 Cape Next Generation Clean Energy Center 88 June-21 Total of MW changes to Summer firm capacity: 268 22.0% 2022 Riviera Beach Next Generation Clean Energy Center 86 June-22 Total of MW changes to Summer firm capacity: 86 20.9% 2023 Unsited CC 1,317 June-23 Total of MW changes to Summer firm capacity: 1,317 24.4% 2024 --- --- --- Total of MW changes to Summer firm capacity: 0 22.2%

* Year shown reflects when the MW change begins to be accounted for in Summer reserve margin

calculations.

** Winter Reserve Margins are typically high than Summer Reserve Margin. Winter Reserve Margin are shown

on Schedule 7.2 in Chapter III.

*** MW values shown represent the firm capacity assumption for each 74.5 MW nameplate (AC) PV facility.

  The Okeechobee generating is FPL's best self-build option for 2019. During 2015 it will be evaluated versus

Florida Power & Light Company 11** (This page is left intentionally blank.)**

Florida Power & Light Company 12

## CHAPTER I
Description of Existing Resources

Florida Power & Light Company 13**(This page is left intentionally blank.)**

Florida Power & Light Company 14

### I. Description of Existing Resources

FPL’s service area contains approximately 27,650 square miles and has a population of approximately 9.1 million people. FPL serve d an average of 4,708,829 customer accounts in 35 counties during 2014. These customers were served by a variety of resources including: FPL

owned fossil

- fuel, renewable, and nuclear generating units, non

- utility owned generation, demand side management (D SM), and interchange/purchased power.



### I.A. FPL

- Owned Resources

The existing FPL generating resources are located at 14 generating sites distributed geographically around its service territory, plus one site in Georgia (partial FPL ownership of one unit) and one site in Jacksonville, Florida (partial FPL ownership of two units). As of December 31, 2014, FPL’s electrical generating facilities consisted of: four nuclear units, three coal units, 15 combined cycle (CC) units, five fossil steam units, 48 combu stion gas turbines, two simple cycle combustion turbines, and two photovoltaic facilities 1 . The locations of these 79 generating units are shown on Figure I.A.1 and in Table I.A.1.

FPL’s bulk transmission system, including both overhead and underground l ines, is comprised of 6,888 circuit miles of transmission lines. Integration of the generation, transmission, and distribution system is achieved through FPL’s 596 substations in Florida.

The existing FPL system, including generating plants, major transmi ssion stations, and transmission lines, is shown on Figure I.A.2.

1 FPL also has one 75 MW solar thermal facility at its Martin plant site. This facility does not generate electricity as the ot he r units mentioned above do. Instead, it produces steam that reduces the use of fossil fuel to produce steam for electricity generatio n.

Florida Power & Light Company 15

### Figure I.A.1: Capacity Resources by Location (as of December 31, 2014 )

Florida Power & Light Company 16

### Table I.A.1: Capacity Resource by Unit Type (as of December 31, 2014 )

Number Summer Unit Type/ Plant Name Location of Units Fuel MW

Nuclear St. Lucie 1/ Hutchinson Island, FL 2 Nuclear 1,821 Turkey Point Florida City, FL 2 Nuclear 1,632 Total Nuclear: 4 3,453

Coal Steam Scherer Monroe County, Ga 1 Coal 643 St. John's River Power Park 2/ Jacksonville, FL 2 Coal 254 Total Coal Steam: 3 897

Combined-Cycle Fort Myers Fort Myers, FL 1 Gas 1,436 Manatee Parrish, FL 1 Gas 1,143 Martin Indiantown, FL 3 Gas 2,073 Sanford Lake Monroe, FL 2 Gas 2,010 Cape Canaveral Cocoa, FL 1 Gas/Oil 1,210 Lauderdale Dania, FL 2 Gas/Oil 884 Riviera Beach City of Riviera Beach, FL 1 Gas/Oil 1,212 Turkey Point Florida City, FL 1 Gas/Oil 1,192 West County Palm Beach County, FL 3 Gas/Oil 3,657 Total Combined Cycle: 15 14,817

Oil/Gas Steam Manatee Parrish, FL 2 Oil/Gas 1,618 Martin Indiantown,FL 2 Oil/Gas 1,649 Turkey Point Florida City, FL 1 Oil/Gas 396 Total Oil/Gas Steam: 5 3,663

Gas Turbines(GT) Fort Myers (GT) Fort Myers, FL 12 Oil 648 Lauderdale (GT) Dania, FL 24 Gas/Oil 840 Port Everglades (GT) Port Everglades, FL 12 Gas/Oil 420 Total Gas Turbines/Diesels: 48 1,908

Combustion Turbines Fort Myers Fort Myers, FL 2 Gas/Oil 319 Total Combustion Turbines: 2 319

PV DeSoto 3/ DeSoto, FL 1 Solar Energy 25 Space Coast 3/ Brevard County, FL 1 Solar Energy 10 Total PV: 2 35

Total System Generation as of December 31, 2013 = 79 25,092 System Firm Generation as of December 31, 2013 = 25,072

1/ Total capability of St. Lucie 1 is 981/1,003 MW. FPL's share of St. Lucie 2 is 840/860. FPL's ownership share of St. Lucie

Units 1 and 2 is 100% and 85%, respectively. 2/ Capabilities shown represent FPL's output share from each of the units (approx. 92.5% and exclude the Orlando Utilities

Commission (OUC) and Florida Municipal Power Agency (FMPA) combined portion of approximately 7.44776% per unit. Represents FPL's ownership share: SJRPP coal: 20% of two units). 3/ Approximately 46% of the 25 MW of PV at DeSoto, and 32% of the 10 MW of PV at Space Coast, are considered as firm

generating capacity for Summer reserve margin purposes.

Florida Power & Light Company 17

### Figure I.A.2: FPL Substation and Transmission System Configuration

Florida Power & Light Company 18

### Description of Existing Resources

I.B Capacity and Energy Power Purchases

Firm Capacity: Purchases from Qualifying Facilities (QF) Firm capacity power purchases are an important part of FPL’s resource mix. FPL currently has
contracts with seven qualifying facilities; i.e., cogeneration/small power production facilities, to purchase firm capacity and energy during the 10

- year reporting period of this Site Plan. Thi s is shown in Table I.A.3, Table I.B.1, and Table I.B.2.

A cogeneration facility is one that simultaneously produces electrical and thermal energy, with the thermal energy (e.g., steam) used for industrial, commercial, or cooling and heating purposes. A small power production facility is one that 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 solar, wind, waste, geothermal, or other renewab le resources as its primary
energy source.



### Firm Capacity: Purchases from Utilities FPL has a Unit Power Sales (UPS) contract to purchase 928 MW from the Southern Company (Southern) through the end of December 2015. This capacity is being supplied by Sout hern from a mix of gas

- and coal

- fired units.

In addition, FPL has contracts with the Jacksonville Electric Authority (JEA) for the purchase of
382 MW (Summer) and 389 MW (Winter) of coal

- fired generation from the St. John’s River Power Park (SJRPP) Unit s No. 1 and No. 2. However, due to Internal Revenue Service (IRS) regulations, the total amount of energy that FPL may receive from this purchase is limited. FPL currently assumes, for planning purposes, that this limit will be reached in the second quarte r of 2019. Once this limit is reached, FPL will be unable to receive firm capacity and energy from these purchases. (However, FPL will continue to receive firm capacity and energy from its ownership portion of the SJRPP units.)

These purchases are shown i n Table I.A.3, Table I.B.1, and Table I.B.2. FPL’s ownership interest in the SJRPP units is reflected in FPL’s installed capacity shown on Figure I.A.1, in Table I.A.1,
and on Schedule 1.

Florida Power & Light Company 19

### Firm Capacity: Other Purchases FPL has two other firm capacity pur chase contracts with non

- QF, non

- utility suppliers. These contracts with the Palm Beach Solid Waste Authority were previously listed as QFs. However, the
addition of a second unit in 2015 will cause both units to no longer meet the statutory definition of a QF. Therefore, these contracts are listed as “Other Purchases” following the estimated in

service date of the new unit. Table I.B.1 and I.B.2 present the Summer and Winter MW, respectively, resulting from these contracts under the category heading of Ot her Purchases.



### Non

- Firm (As Available) Energy Purchases FPL purchases non

- firm (as

- available) energy from several cogeneration and small power production facilities. Table I.A.3 shows the amount of energy purchased in 2014 from these
facilities

.

Florida Power & Light Company 20

### Firm Capacity Purchases (MW) Location Summer (City or County) Fuel MW I. Purchase from QF's: Cogeneration/Small Power Production Facilities Cedar Bay Generating Company Duval Coal (Cogen) 250 Indiantown Cogen LP Martin Coal (Cogen) 330 Broward South Broward Solid Waste 4 Broward North Broward Solid Waste 11 Palm Beach SWA - extension Palm Beach Solid Waste 40 Total: 635

II. Purchases from Utilities UPS from Southern Company Various Georgia Coal/Gas 928 SJRPP Jacksonville Coal 382 Total: 1,310

1,945

Non-Firm Energy Purchases (MWH)

Project County Fuel Energy (MWH) Delivered to FPL in 2014 Okeelanta (known as Florida Crystals and New Hope P Palm Beach Bagasse/Wood 87,690 Broward South* Broward Solid Waste 93,548 Broward North* Broward Solid Waste 57,806 Waste Management Renewable Energy* Broward Landfill Gas 34,265 Waste Management - Collier County Landfill* Broward Landfill Gas 24,928 Tropicana Manatee Natural Gas 7,172 Georgia Pacific Putnam Paper by-product 8,606 Rothenbach Park (known as MMA Bee Ridge)* Sarasota PV 286 First Solar* Dade PV 409 Customer Owned PV & Wind Various PV/Wind 1,505 INEOS Bio* Indian River Wood 325 Miami Dade Resource Recovery* Dade Solid Waste 146,417 *These Non-Firm Energy Purchases are renewable and are reflected on Schedule 11.1, rows 8 and 9, column 6. Total Net Firm Generating Capability: Table 1.A.3: Purchase Power Resources by Contract (as of December 31, 2014)

Florida Power & Light Company 21

### Tab le I.B.1: FPL's Firm Purchased Power Summer MW

I. Purchases from QF's Cogeneration Small Power Production Facilities Contract Start Date Contract End Date 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024
Broward South 01/01/93 12/31/26 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 Broward South 01/01/95 12/31/26 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 Broward South 01/01/97 12/31/26 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 Broward North 01/01/93 12/31/26 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 Broward North 01/01/95 12/31/26 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 Broward North 01/01/97 12/31/26 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 Cedar Bay Generating Co. 01/25/94 08/31/15 250 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Indiantown Cogen L.P. 12/22/95 12/01/25 330 330 330 330 330 330 330 330 330 330 U.S.EcoGen Clay 2/ 01/01/21 12/31/49 0 0 0 0 0 0 60 60 60 60 U.S.EcoGen Okeechobee 2/ 01/01/21 12/31/49 0 0 0 0 0 0 60 60 60 60 U.S.EcoGen Martin 2/ 01/01/21 12/31/49 0 0 0 0 0 0 60 60 60 60 595 345 345 345 345 345 525 525 525 525

II. Purchases from Utilities Contract Start Date Contract End Date 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 UPS Replacement 06/01/10 12/31/15 928 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SJRPP 3/ 04/02/82 2 nd Qtr/2019 382 382 382 382 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,310 382 382 382 0 0 0 0 0 0

1,905 727 727 727 345 345 525 525 525 525

III. Other Purchases Contract Start Date Contract End Date 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024

Palm Beach SWA - Extension 1/ 01/10/12 04/01/32 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 Palm Beach SWA - Additional 06/01/15 04/01/32 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 Unspecified Purchases 4/ 05/01/18 09/30/18 0 0 0 207 0 0 0 0 0 0 110 110 110 317 110 110 110 110 110 110

1,420 492 492 699 110 110 110 110 110 110

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2,015 837 837 1,044 455 455 635 635 635 635 Summary of FPL's Firm Capacity Purchases: Summer MW (for August of Year Shown)

1/ When the second unit comes into commercial service at the Palm Beach SWA, neither unit will meet the standards to be a small power producer, and it will then be accounted for under "Other Purchases" 2/ The EcoGen units will enter service in 2019, however firm capacity will only be delivered starting in 2021.

4/ These Unspecified Purchases are short-term purchases for the summer of 2018 that are included for resource planning purposes. No decision regarding such purchases is needed at this time. Total "Non-QF" Purchases = Total of QF and Utility Purchases = QF Purchases Subtotal:

Utility Purchases Subtotal:

Other Purchases Subtotal:

Summer Firm Capacity Purchases Total MW:

3/ Contract end date shown for the SJRPP purchase does not represent the actual contract end date. Instead, this date represents a projection of the earliest date at which FPL's ability to receive further capacity and energy from this purchase could be suspended due to IRS regulations.

Florida Power & Light Company 22

### Table I.B.2: FPL's Firm Purchased Power Winter MW

I. Purchases from QF's Cogeneration Small Power Production Facilities Contract Start Date Contract End Date 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024
Broward South 01/01/93 12/31/26 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 Broward South 01/01/95 12/31/26 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 Broward South 01/01/97 12/31/26 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6 Broward North 01/01/93 12/31/26 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 Broward North 01/01/95 12/31/26 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 Broward North 01/01/97 12/31/26 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 Cedar Bay Generating Company 01/25/94 08/31/15 250 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Indiantown Cogen L.P. 12/22/95 12/01/25 330 330 330 330 330 330 330 330 330 330 Palm Beach SWA - extension 1/ 01/10/12 04/01/32 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 U.S.EcoGen Clay 2/ 01/01/21 12/31/49 0 0 0 0 0 0 60 60 60 60 U.S.EcoGen Okeechobee 2/ 01/01/21 12/31/49 0 0 0 0 0 0 60 60 60 60 U.S.EcoGen Martin 2/ 01/01/21 12/31/49 0 0 0 0 0 0 60 60 60 60 595 345 345 345 345 345 525 525 525 525

II. Purchases from Utilities Contract Start Date Contract End Date 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 UPS Replacement 06/01/10 12/31/15 928 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SJRPP 3/ 04/02/82 2 nd Qtr/2019 389 389 389 389 389 0 0 0 0 0 1,317 389 389 389 389 0 0 0 0 0

1,912 734 734 734 734 345 525 525 525 525

III. Other Purchases Contract Start Date Contract End Date 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024

Palm Beach SWA - Extension 1/ 01/10/12 04/01/32 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 Palm Beach SWA - Additional 06/01/15 04/01/32 0 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 40 110 110 110 110 110 110 110 110 110

1,357 499 499 499 499 110 110 110 110 110

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 1,952 844 844 844 844 455 635 635 635 635 Summary of FPL's Firm Capacity Purchases: Winter MW (for January of Year Shown)

Winter Firm Capacity Purchases Total MW: Other Purchases Subtotal:

Total "Non-QF" Purchases =

3/ Contract end date shown for the SJRPP purchase does not represent the actual contract end date. Instead, this date represents a projection of the earliest date at which FPL's ability to receive further capacity and energy from this purchase could be suspended due to IRS regulations. QF Purchases Subtotal:

Utility Purchases Subtotal:

Total of QF and Utility Purchases =

1/ When the second unit comes into service at the Palm Beach SWA, neither unit will meet the standards to be a small power producers, and will then be accounted for under "Other Purchases" 2/ The EcoGen units will enter service in 2019, however firm capacity will only be delivered starting in 2021.

Florida Power & Light Company 23

### I. C Demand Side Management (DSM) FPL has sought out and implemented cost

- effective DSM programs since 1978. These programs
include a number of cons ervation/energy efficiency and load management initiatives. FPL’s DSM efforts through 2014 have resulted in a cumulative Summer peak reduction of approximately 4,793 MW at the generator and an estimated cumulative energy saving of approximately 70,997
G igawatt

- hour (GWh) at the generator. After accounting for reserve margin requirements, FPL’s DSM efforts through 2014 have eliminated the need to construct the equivalent of approximately 14 new 400 MW generating units. New DSM Goals for FPL for the 201 5 through 2024 time period were set by t he FPSC in November 2014. The new DSM Goals are discussed in Chapter III.

Florida Power & Light Company 24Page 1 of 2

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14)
Alt. Actual/ Fuel Fuel Commercial Expected Gen.Max. Unit Unit Fuel Transport. Days In-Service Retirement Nameplate Winter Summer Plant Name No. Type Pri. Alt. Pri. Alt. Use Month/Year Month/Year KW MW MW

Cape Canaveral Brevard County 19/24S/36E 1,295,400 1,355 1,210
3 CC NG FO2 PL TK Unknown Apr-13 Unknown 1,295,400 1,355 1,210

DeSoto 2/ DeSoto County 27/36S/25E 25,000 25 25
1 PV Solar Solar N/A N/A Unknown Oct-09 Unknown 25,000 25 25

Fort Myers Lee County 35/43S/25E 2,653,800 2,553 2,403
2 CC NG No PL No Unknown Jun-02 Unknown 1,721,490 1,491 1,436
3 CT NG FO2 PL TK Unknown Jun-03 Unknown 188,190 352 319
1-12 GT FO2 No TK No Unknown May-74 Unknown 744,120 710 648

Lauderdale Broward County 30/50S/42E 1,873,968 1,884 1,724
4 CC NG FO2 PL PL Unknown May-93 Unknown 526,250 483 442
5 CC NG FO2 PL PL Unknown Jun-93 Unknown 526,250 483 442
1-12 GT NG FO2 PL PL Unknown Aug-70 Unknown 410,734 459 420
13-24 GT NG FO2 PL PL Unknown Aug-70 Unknown 410,734 459 420

Manatee Manatee County 18/33S/20E 2,951,110 2,871 2,761
1 ST FO6 NG WA PL Unknown Oct-76 Unknown 863,300 819 809
2 ST FO6 NG WA PL Unknown Dec-77 Unknown 863,300 819 809
3 CC NG No PL No Unknown Jun-05 Unknown 1,224,510 1,233 1,143

Martin Martin County 29/29S/38E 4,317,510 3,866 3,722
1 ST FO6 NG PL PL Unknown Dec-80 Unknown 934,500 829 823
2 ST FO6 NG PL PL Unknown Jun-81 Unknown 934,500 832 826
3 CC NG No PL No Unknown Feb-94 Unknown 612,000 489 469
4 CC NG No PL No Unknown Apr-94 Unknown 612,000 489 469
8 3/ CC NG FO2 PL TK Unknown Jun-05 Unknown 1,224,510 1,227 1,135

Port Everglades City of Hollywood 23/50S/42E 410,734 459 420
1-12 GT NG FO2 PL PL Unknown Aug-71 Unknown 410,734 459 420

Riviera Beach City of Riviera Beach 33/42S/432E 1,295,400 1,344 1,212
5 CC NG FO2 PL WA Unknown Apr-14 Unknown 1,295,400 1,344 1,212

1/ These ratings are peak capability. 2/ Approximately 46% of the 25 MW (Nameplate, AC) PV facility at DeSoto is considered as firm generating capacity for Summer reserve margin purposes and 0% is considered as firm capacity for Winter reserve margin purposes. 3/ Martin Unit 8 is also partially fueled by a 75 MW solar thermal facility that supplies steam when adequate sunlight is available, thus reducing fossil fuel use. Location Schedule 1

Existing Generating Facilities

As of December 31, 2014

Net Capability 1/

Florida Power & Light Company 25Page 2 of 2

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14)
Alt. Actual/ Fuel Commercial Expected Gen.Max. Unit Unit Fuel Transport Days In-Service Retirement Nameplate Winter Summer Plant Name No. Location Type Pri. Alt. Pri. Alt. Use Month/Year Month/Year KW MW MW

Sanford Volusia County 16/19S/30E 2,377,720 2,200 2,010
4 CC NG No PL No Unknown Oct-03 Unknown 1,188,860 1,100 1,005
5 CC NG No PL No Unknown Jun-02 Unknown 1,188,860 1,100 1,005

Scherer 2/ Monroe, GA 680,368 651 643
4 ST SUB No RR No Unknown Jul-89 Unknown 680,368 651 643

Space Coast 3/ Brevard County 13/23S/36E 10,000 10 10
1 PV Solar Solar N/A N/A Unknown Apr-10 Unknown 10,000 10 10

St. Johns River Duval County
Power Park 4/ 12/15/28E (RPC4) 271,836 260 254
1 ST BIT Pet RR WA Unknown Mar-87 Unknown 135,918 130 127
2 ST BIT Pet RR WA Unknown May-88 Unknown 135,918 130 127

St. Lucie 5/ St. Lucie County 16/36S/41E 1,743,775 1,863 1,821
1 ST Nuc No TK No Unknown May-76 Unknown 1,020,000 1,003 981
2 ST Nuc No TK No Unknown Jun-83 Unknown 723,775 860 840

Turkey Point Miami Dade County 27/57S/40E 3,380,960 3,322 3,220
1 ST FO6 NG WA PL Unknown Apr-67 Unknown 402,050 398 396
3 ST Nuc No TK No Unknown Nov-72 Unknown 877,200 839 811
4 ST Nuc No TK No Unknown Jun-73 Unknown 877,200 848 821
5 CC NG FO2 PL TK Unknown May-07 Unknown 1,224,510 1,237 1,192

West County Palm Beach County 29&32/43S/40E 4,100,400 4,005 3,657
1 CC NG FO2 PL TK Unknown Aug-09 Unknown 1,366,800 1,335 1,219
2 CC NG FO2 PL TK Unknown Nov-09 Unknown 1,366,800 1,335 1,219
3 CC NG FO2 PL TK Unknown May-11 Unknown 1,366,800 1,335 1,219 Total System Generating Capacity as of December 31, 2014 6/ = 26,668 25,092 System Firm Generating Capacity as of December 31, 2014 7/ = 26,633 25,072

1/ These ratings are peak capability. 2/ These ratings relate to FPL's 76.36% share of Plant Scherer Unit 4 operated by Georgia Power, and represent FPL's 73.923% owernership share available at point of interchange. 3/ Approximately 32% of the 10 MW (Nameplate, AC) PV facility at Space Coast is considered as firm generating capacity for Summer reserve margin purposes and 0% is considered as firm capacity for Winter reserve margin purposes. 4/ The net capability ratings represent Florida Power & Light Company's share of St. Johns River Park Units 1 and 2, excluding the Jacksonville Electric Authority (JEA) share of 80%. 5/ Total capability of St. Lucie 1 is 981/1,003 MW. FPL's share of St. Lucie 2 is 840/860.FPL's ownership share of St. Lucie Units 1 and 2 is 100% and 85%, respectively, as shown above. FPL's share of the deliverable capacity from each unit is approx. 92.5% and exclude the Orlando Utilities Commission (OUC) and Florida Municipal Power Agency (FMPA) combined portion of approximately 7.448% per unit. 6/ The Total System Generating Capacity value shown includes FPL-owned firm and non-firm generating capacity. 7/ The System Firm Generating Capacity value shown includes only firm generating capacity. Fuel Existing Generating Facilities

As of December 31, 2014

Net Capability 1/ Schedule 1

Florida Power & Light Company 26

## CHAPTER II

Forecast of Electric Power Demand

Florida Power & Light Company 27**(This page is left intentionally blank.)**

Florida Power & Light Company 28

### II. Forecast of Electric Power Demand

II. A. Overview of the Load Forecasting Process

At FPL, long

- term forecasts of sales, net energy for load (NEL), and peak loads typically are developed on an annual basis for resource planning work. FPL developed new long

- term forecasts in late 2014 that replaced the previous long

- term load forecasts used by FPL during 2014 in much of its resource planning work and which were presented in FPL’s 2014 Site Plan. These new load forecasts are utilized throughout FPL’s 2015 Site Plan and are a key input to the models used to develop FPL’s integrated resource plan.

The following pages describe how forecasts are developed for each component of the long

- term forecast including: sales, NEL, and peak loads. Consistent with past forecasts, the primary drivers to develop these forecasts include economic conditions and weather.

The projections for the national and Florida economies are obtained from IHS Global Insight, a leading economic forecasting firm. Population projections are obtained from the Florida Legislature’s Office of Economic and Demographic Research (EDR). These projections are developed in conjunction with the Bureau of E conomic and Business Research (BEBR) of the University of Florida. 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 FPL’s energy sales and peak demand. Three sets of weather variables are developed and used in FPL’s forecasting models: :

1. Cooling degree

- hours based on 72 o F, winter heating degree

- days based on 66 o F, and heating degree

- days based on 45 o F are used to forecast energ y sales.
2. The maximum temperature on the peak day and the build

- up of cooling degree

- hours prior to the peak are used to forecast Summer peaks

. 3. The minimum temperature on the peak day and the build

- up of heating degree

- hours
based on 66 o F on the morning of the peak are used to forecast Winter peaks

.

The cooling degree

- hours and winter 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. Heating degree

- days based on 45 o F are used to capture heating load resulting from sustained periods of unusually cold weather that are not fully captured by heating degree

- days based on 66 o F. A composite hourly temperature profile is derived using hourly temperatures a cross FPL’s service territory. Miami, Ft. Myers, Daytona Beach, and West Palm Beach are the locations where temperatures are obtained. In developing the composite hourly profile, these regional

Florida Power & Light Company 29temperatures are weighted by regional energy sales. The result ing composite temperature is used to derive projected cooling and heating degree

- hours and heating degree

- days. Similarly, composite temperature and hourly profiles of temperatures are used to calculate the weather variables used in the Summer and Winter p eak models

.



### II. B. Comparison of FPL’s Current and Previous Load Forecasts While reflecting some fluctuations by year, FPL’s current load forecast is generally in line with the load forecast previously presented in its 2014 Site Plan. Three primary facto rs drive the current load forecast: projected population growth, the performance of Florida’s economy, and energy efficiency codes and standards. An additional fourth factor, which represents a change in assumptions from the 2014 Site Plan, pertains to FPL ’s previously planned acquisition of the City of Vero Beach’s electric system.

In early 2013, FPL came to an agreement with the City of Vero Beach to purchase the City’s electric system. This agreement was approved by the City’s voters on March 12, 2013. FPL projected in its 2014 Site Plan that it would begin serving Vero Beach’s electric load in January 2015. Accordingly, NEL, customers, and peaks for Vero Beach from 2015 through 2023 were
included in FPL’s load forecasts in its 2014 Site Plan. However , lack of progress among negotiating parties has resulted in uncertainty regarding whether FPL will provide, or when it can begin providing, Vero Beach’s electric load. As a result, FPL’s current load forecast does not
include electric service to Vero Bea ch.

The customer forecast is based on recent population projections as well as the actual levels of customer growth experienced historically. Population projections are derived from the EDR’s July 2014 Demographic Estimating Conference. This forecast is generally consistent with previous forecasts indicating steady growth in Florida’s population. On a percentage basis, the projected rates of population growth are expected to be somewhat below the state’s long

- term historical averages. However, the absol ute increases in population are projected to be significant. The state’s population is expected to reach 20 million by 2016 and exceed 22 million by 2023. Overall, the state’s population is expected to increase by approximately three million between 2014 and
2024.

FPL customer growth is expected to mirror the overall level of population growth in the state. From 2014 through 2024 the total number of customers is projected to increase at an annual rate of 1.3% resulting in a cumulative increase of more than 670,000 customers. By 2019, the total number of customers served by FPL is expected to exceed five million. By 2024, the total number of FPL customers is expected to reach approximately 5.4 million.

Florida Power & Light Company 30The economic projections incorporated into FPL’s l oad forecast are provided by IHS Global Insight. IHS Global Insight projects solid growth in the Florida economy with relatively healthy increases in employment and income levels from 2015 through 2019. This firm projects particularly robust growth for th e professional and business services, trade, tourism, and healthcare industries. Consistent with past projections, economic growth in the later years of the forecast is expected to moderate slightly.

Estimates of savings from energy efficiency codes and s tandards are developed by ITRON, a leading expert in this field. These estimates include savings from federal and state energy efficiency codes and standards, including the 2005 National Energy Policy Act, the 2007 Energy Independence and Security Act, and the savings resulting from the use of compact fluorescent
bulbs and light

- emitting diodes (LEDs) 2 . The impact of these savings began in 2005 and their cumulative impact on the Summer peak is expected to reach 3,568 MW by 2024, the equivalent of an approxi mately 12% reduction in what the forecasted Summer peak load for 2024 would have been without these codes and standards. The cumulative impact on NEL from these savings is expected to reach 11,405 GWH over the same period while the cumulative impact on the Winter peak is expected to be 2,022 MW by 2024. This represents a decrease of approximately 8% in the forecasted NEL for 2024 and an 8% reduction in forecasted Winter peak load for 2024.

Consistent with the forecast presented in FPL’s 2014 Site Plan, th e total growth projected for the
ten

- year reporting period of this document is significant. The Summer peak is projected to increase to 26,771 MW by 2024, an increase of 3,836 MW over the 2014 actual Summer peak. Likewise, NEL is projected to reach 133,276 GWH in 2024, an increase of 17,308 GWH from the
actual 2014 value.



### II.C. Long

- Term Sales Forecasts Long

- term forecasts of electricity sales were developed for the major revenue classes and are adjusted to match the NEL forecast. The results of these sale s forecasts for the years 2015 through 2024 are presented in Schedules 2.1

- 2.3 that 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 deve lop energy sales forecasts for each jurisdictional
revenue class and NEL forecast are outlined below.

2 Note that in addition to the fact that these energy efficiency codes and standards lower the forecasted load, these standards also lower the potential for efficiency gains that would otherwise be available through utility DSM programs.

Florida Power & Light Company 311. Residential Sales
Residential electric usage per customer is estimated by using an econometric model. Residential sales are a function of the following variables: cooling degree

- hours, winter heating degree

- days, twelve

- month average Consumer Price Index for Energy, and Florida real per capita income weighted by the percent of the population that is employed. The impact of weather is captured by the cool ing degree

- hours and winter heating degree

- days. The impact energy prices have on electricity consumption is captured through the Consumer Price Index for Energy variable. As energy prices rise, less disposable income is available for all goods and servi ces, including electricity. To capture economic conditions, the model includes a composite variable based on Florida real per capita income and the percent of the state’s population that is employed. Residential energy sales are forecasted by multiplying t he projected residential use per customer by the projected number of residential customers.

2. Commercial Sales
The commercial sales forecast is also developed using econometric models. The commercial class is forecast using three separate models, based on customer size, including: small accounts (less than 20 kW of demand), medium accounts (21 kW to 499 kW of demand), and large accounts (demand of 500 kW or higher). Commercial sales are driven by economic and weather variables. Specifically, the small commercial sales model utilizes the following variables: Florida real per capita income weighted by the percent of the population that is employed, cooling degree

- hours, heating degree

- hours, lagged cooling degree

- hours, the Consumer Price Index, dummy va riables for the month of December and for the specific months of January 2007 and November 2005, and an autoregressive term. The medium
commercial sales model utilizes the same variables as the small commercial model with the exception of a January heatin g degree

- day term rather than the heating degree

- hours term. The large commercial sales model utilizes the following variables: Florida real per capita income, cooling degree

- hours, heating degree

- hours, lagged cooling degree

- hours, dummy
variables for th e month of December and for the specific months of January 2007 and November 2005, and an autoregressive term. Cooling degree

- hours, heating degree

- hours,
and the one

- month lag of cooling degree

- hours are used to capture weather

- sensitive load in
the comm ercial sector.

3. Industrial Sales
Like the commercial class, the industrial class is forecast using three separate models, based on customer size. The industrial class is comprised of three distinct groups: small accounts (less than 20 kW of demand), mediu m accounts (21 kW to 499 kW of demand), and large accounts (demands of 500 kW or higher). The small industrial sales model utilizes the

Florida Power & Light Company 32following variables: Florida real household disposable income, cooling degree

- hours, heating degree

- hours, and autoregre ssive terms. The medium industrial sales model utilizes the following variables: Florida real Gross State Product, the Consumer Price Index, cooling degree

- hours, January heating degree

- days, dummy variables for the specific months of February 2005 and Nov ember 2005, and autoregressive terms. The large industrial sales model utilizes the following variables: cooling degree

- hours, Florida Gross State Product for manufacturing, the Consumer Price Index, the employee to population ratio, and dummy
variables fo r the specific months of October 2004 and November 2004

.

4. Railroad and Railways Sales and Street and Highway Sales
This class consists solely of Miami

- Dade County’s Metrorail system. The projections for railroad and railways sales are based on a historical moving average

.

The forecast for street and highway sales is developed by first developing a trended use per customer value, then multiplying this value by the number of forecasted customers.

5. Other Public Authority Sales
This class consists of a sports field rate schedule, which is closed to new customers, and one government account. The forecast for this class is based on its historical usage
characteristics.

6. Total Sales to Ultimate Customer
Sales forecasts by revenue class are summed to produce a tot al sales forecast.

7. Sales for Resale
Sales for resale (wholesale) customers are composed of municipalities and/or electric co

operatives. These customers differ from jurisdictional customers in that they are not the ultimate users of the electricity they b uy. Instead, they resell this electricity to their own customers. There are currently seven customers in this class: Florida Keys Electric Cooperative, Lee County Electric Cooperative, New Smyrna Beach, Wauchula, Winter Park, Blountstown, and Seminole Elec tric Cooperative 3

.

Beginning in May 2011, FPL began providing service to the Florida Keys Electric Cooperative under a long

- term full requirements contract. FPL previously served the Florida Keys under a

3 FPL continues to evaluat e the possibility of serving the electrical loads of other entities at the time this Site Plan is being prepared. Because th ese possibilit ies are still being evaluated, the load forecast presented in this Site Plan does not include th ese potential load s

.

Florida Power & Light Company 33partial requirements contract. The sales to Florida Keys Electric Cooperative are based on
customer

- supplied information and historical coincidence factors.

Lee County contracted with FPL for FPL to supply a portion of the Lee County load through 2013, then to serve the entire Lee County load beginning in 2014. This contract began in January 2010. Forecasted NEL for Lee County is based on an econometric model utilizing the following variables: cooling and heating degree

- hours, January heating degree

- days, real disposable household income, and autoregressiv e term s

.

FPL sales to New Smyrna Beach began in February 2014 and will continue through
December 2017.

FPL’s sales to Wauchula began in October 2011 and will continue through December 2016.

Sales to Winter Park began in January 2014 and will continue th rough December 2016.

Blountstown became an FPL wholesale customer in May 2012 under a contract that expires in April 2017.

FPL sales to Seminole Electric Cooperative are based on delivery of 200 MW that began in
June 2014 and continues through May 2021

.



### II.D. Net Energy for Load (NEL)
An econometric model is developed to produce a NEL per customer forecast. The inputs to the model include Florida real per capita income weighted by the percent of the population that is employed, and a proxy for energy prices. The model also includes several weather variables including cooling degree

- hours and heating degree

- days by calendar month, and heating degree

days based on 45o F. In addition, the model also includes a variable for energy efficiency codes
and sta ndards. A dummy variable is included for the specific month of November 2005. There are also two autoregressive terms in the model.

The energy efficiency variable is included to capture the impacts from major codes and standards, including those associat ed with the 2005 National Energy Policy Act, the 2007 Energy Independence and Security Act, and savings resulting from the use of compact fluorescent bulbs and LEDs. The estimated impact from these codes and standards includes engineering estimates and any resulting behavioral changes. The impact of these savings began in 2005 and their cumulative impact on NEL is expected to reach 11,405 GWH by 2024. This represents an approximately 8% reduction in what the forecasted NEL for 2024 would have been absence t hese

Florida Power & Light Company 34codes and standards. From the end of 2014, the incremental reduction through 2024 is expected to be 6,808 GWH. An additional adjustment is made due to the impact of incremental distributed generation not otherwise included in the forecast. The adju stment to the forecast due to distributed generation begins in 2014 and is expected to reduce the NEL forecast by 444 GWH by
2024

.

The forecast was also adjusted for the additional load estimated from hybrid vehicles, beginning in 2014, which resulted in an increase of approximately 616 GWH by the end of the ten

- year reporting period. The forecast was further adjusted for the incremental load resulting from FPL’s economic development riders which began in 2014 and this incremental load is projected to g row to 242 GWH before leveling off in 2020

The NEL forecast is developed by first multiplying the NEL per customer forecast by the projected total number of customers and then adjusting the forecasted results for the expected changes in load resulting fro m hybrid vehicles, new wholesale contracts, distributed generation, and FPL’s economic development riders. Once the NEL forecast is determined, total billed sales are computed using a historical ratio of sales to NEL. The sales by class forecasts discussed previously are then adjusted to match the total billed sales. The forecasted NEL values for 2015 through 2024 are presented in Schedule 3.3 which appears at the end of this chapter.



### II.E. System Peak Forecasts
The rate of absolute growth in FPL system peak load has been a function of the size of the customer base, varying weather conditions, projected economic conditions, changing patterns of customer behavior, and more efficient appliances and lighting. FPL developed the peak forecast models to capture these behavioral relationships. In addition, FPL’s peak forecast also reflects changes in load expected as a result of changes in wholesale contracts, distributed generation, and the expected number of hybrid vehicles.

The savings from energy efficienc y codes and standards incorporated into the peak forecast include the impacts from the 2005 National Energy Policy Act, the 2007 Energy Independence and Security Act, and the use of compact fluorescent light bulbs and LEDs. The impact from these energy ef ficiency standards began in 2005 and their cumulative impact on the Summer peak is expected to reach 3,568 MW by 2024. This reduction includes engineering estimates and any resulting behavioral changes. This reduction also represents significant energy eff iciency that is not funded by FPL’s customers through the Energy Conservation Cost Recovery Clause.

The cumulative 2024 impact from these energy efficiency codes and standards effectively reduces FPL’s Summer peak for that year by approximately 12%. Fro m the end of 2014, the projected

Florida Power & Light Company 35incremental impact on the Summer peak from these energy efficiency codes and standards is projected to be a reduction of 2,035 MW through 2024. By 2024, the Winter peak is expected to be reduced by 2,022 MW as result of t he cumulative impact from these energy efficiency
standards since 2005. On an incremental basis, net of the reduction already experienced through
201 4 , the impact on the Winter peak from these energy efficiency standards is expected to reach 1,321 MW in 2 02 4

.

The forecast also was adjusted for additional load estimated from hybrid vehicles which is projected to be an increase of approximately 173 MW in the Summer and 86 MW in the Winter by
the end of the ten

- year reporting period. The incremental impact of distributed generation results in an expected decrease of approximately 105 MW in the Summer and a negligible reduction in the Winter by the end of the ten

- year reporting period. The incremental impact from distributed generation is based on forecasted increases in rooftop photovoltaic (PV) installations not otherwise reflected in the load forecast. The ratio of the expected Summer Peak MW reduction relative to the installed nameplate MW (DC) capacity is appropriately 34% for residential PV
installation s and appropriately 37% for commercial PV installations. The ratio of the expected Winter Peak MW reduction to installed nameplate MW (DC) capacity is close to 0% for both
residential and commercial PV installations.

The forecasting methodology of Summe r, Winter, and monthly system peaks is discussed below. The forecasted values for Summer and Winter peak loads for the years 2015 through 2024 are presented at the end of this chapter in Schedules 3.1 and 3.2, and in Chapter III in Schedules 7.1
and 7.2.

1. System Summer Peak
The Summer peak forecast is developed using an econometric model. The variables included in the model are the price of gasoline (lagged one month), Florida real household disposable income, cooling degree

- hours two days prior to the pe ak day, the maximum temperature on the day of the peak, a variable for energy efficiency standards, and a dummy variable for the year 1990. The model is based on the Summer peak contribution per customer which is multiplied by total customers. This product is then adjusted to account for the expected changes in loads resulting from hybrid vehicles, new wholesale contracts, distributed generation, and FPL’s economic development riders to derive FPL’s system Summer peak.

2. System Winter Peak
Like the system S ummer peak model, this model also is an econometric model. The model
consists of two weather

- related variables: the minimum temperature on the peak day and heating degree

- hours for the prior day squared. The model also includes two dummy

Florida Power & Light Company 36variables; one for Winter peaks occurring on weekends and one for the year 1994. Also included in the model are a variable for housing starts per capita, and an autoregressive term. The forecasted results are adjusted for the impact of energy efficiency standards. The model
is based on the Winter peak contribution per customer which is multiplied by the total number of customers. This product then is adjusted for the expected changes in loads resulting from hybrid vehicles, new wholesale contracts, distributed generation, an d FPL’s economic development riders

.

3. Monthly Peak Forecasts The forecasting process for monthly peaks consists of the following steps :

a. The forecasted annual summer peak is assumed to occur in the month of August which historically has accounted for m ore annual summer peaks than any other month.

b. The forecasted annual winter peak is assumed to occur in the month of January which historically has accounted for more annual winter peaks than any other month.

c. The remaining monthly peaks are foreca sted based on the historical relationship between the monthly peaks and the annual summer peak.



### II.F. Hourly Load Forecast
Forecasted values for system hourly load for the period 2015 through 2024 are produced using a System Load Forecasting “shaper” pro gram. This model uses years of historical FPL hourly system load data to develop load shapes for weekdays, weekend days, and holidays. The model generates a projection of hourly load values based on these load shapes and the forecast of monthly peaks and e nergy.



### II.G. Uncertainty Uncertainty is inherent in the load forecasting process. This uncertainty can result from a number of factors, including unexpected changes in consumer behavior, structural shifts in the economy, and fluctuating weather conditio ns. Large weather fluctuations, in particular, can result in significant deviations between actual and forecasted peak demands. The load forecast is based on average expected or normal weather conditions; i.e. a 50% probability (or P50) forecast. An
extr eme P90 cold weather event, however, can add an additional 3,000 MW to the Winter Peak and an extreme P90 hot weather event can add an additional 800 MW to the Summer Peak.

Florida Power & Light Company 37In order to address uncertainty in the forecasts of aggregate peak demand and NEL , FPL first evaluates the assumptions underlying the forecasts. FPL takes a series of steps in evaluating the input variables, including comparing projections from different sources, identifying outliers in the series, and assessing the series’ consistency w ith past forecasts. As needed , FPL reviews
additional factors that may affect the input variables.

Uncertainty is also addressed in the modeling process. Econometric models generally are used to forecast the aggregate peak demand and NEL. During the mo deling process, the relevant statistics (goodness of fit, F

- statistic, P

- values, mean absolute deviation (MAD), mean absolute percentage error (MAPE), etc.) are scrutinized to ensure the models adequately explain historical
variation. Once a forecast is de veloped, it is compared with past forecasts. Deviations from past forecasts are examined in light of changes in input assumptions to ensure that the drivers underlying the forecast are well understood. Finally, forecasts of aggregate peak demand and
NEL ar e compared with the actual values as these become available. An ongoing process of variance analyses is performed. To the extent that the variance analyses identify large unexplained deviations between the forecast and actual values, revisions to the econo metric model may be considered.

The inherent uncertainty in load forecasting is addressed in different ways in regard to FPL’s overall resource planning and operational planning work. In regard to FPL’s resource planning work, FPL’s utilization of a 20% total reserve margin criterion, a Loss

- of

- Load

- Probability (LOLP) criterion of 0.1, and a 10% generation

- only reserve margin criterion, are designed to maintain reliable electric service for FPL’s customers in light of forecasting (and other) uncertainty. In addition, banded forecasts of the projected Summer peak and net energy for load are produced based on an analysis of past forecasting variances. In regard to operational planning, a banded forecast for the projected Summer and Winter peak days is devel oped based on historical weather variations. These bands are then used to develop similar bands for the monthly peaks.



### II.H. DSM
The effects of FPL’s DSM energy efficiency programs implementation through August 2014 are
assumed to be embedded in the act ual usage data for forecasting purposes. The following are accounted for as “line item reductions” to the forecasts as part of the IRP process: the impacts of incremental energy efficiency that FPL has implemented in the September 2014 through
December 201 4 time period, incremental energy efficiency that FPL plans to implement in the future based on the new DSM Goals set for FPL by the FPSC in November 2014, and the cumulative and projected incremental impacts of FPL’s load management programs. After making these adjustments to the load forecasts, the resulting “firm” load forecast is then used in FPL’s IRP work as shown in Chapter III in Schedules 7.1 and 7.2

.

Florida Power & Light Company 38(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9)

Members Average Average kWh Average Average kWh per No. of Consumption No. of Consumption Year Population Household GWh Customers Per Customer GWh Customers Per Customer

2005 8,469,602 2.21 54,348 3,828,374 14,196 43,468 469,973 92,490 2006 8,620,855 2.21 54,570 3,906,267 13,970 44,487 478,867 92,901 2007 8,729,806 2.19 55,138 3,981,451 13,849 45,921 493,130 93,121 2008 8,771,694 2.20 53,229 3,992,257 13,333 45,561 500,748 90,987 2009 8,732,591 2.19 53,950 3,984,490 13,540 45,025 501,055 89,860 2010 8,762,399 2.19 56,343 4,004,366 14,070 44,544 503,529 88,464 2011 8,860,158 2.20 54,642 4,026,760 13,570 45,052 508,005 88,685 2012 8,948,850 2.21 53,434 4,052,174 13,187 45,220 511,887 88,340 2013 9,025,275 2.20 53,930 4,097,172 13,163 45,341 516,500 87,786 2014 9,122,932 2.19 55,202 4,169,028 13,241 45,684 525,591 86,919

Historical Values (2005 - 2014):

Col. (2) represents population only in the area served by FPL.

Col. (4) and Col. (7) represent actual energy sales including the impacts of existing conservation. These values are at the meter.

Col. (5) and Col. (8) represent the annual average of the twelve monthly values.

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9)

Members Average Average kWh Average Average kWh per No. of Consumption No. of Consumption Year Population Household GWh Customers Per Customer GWh Customers Per Customer 2015 9,306,139 2.20 57,634 4,230,063 13,625 45,958 532,023 86,384 2016 9,445,807 2.20 59,347 4,293,549 13,822 46,694 538,297 86,743 2017 9,586,474 2.20 60,613 4,357,488 13,910 47,162 544,230 86,659 2018 9,726,794 2.20 61,841 4,421,270 13,987 47,649 549,723 86,678 2019 9,866,497 2.20 62,967 4,484,771 14,040 48,078 554,918 86,640 2020 10,003,258 2.20 64,192 4,546,935 14,118 48,560 559,848 86,737 2021 10,137,730 2.20 65,090 4,608,059 14,125 48,581 564,581 86,048 2022 10,269,789 2.20 65,922 4,668,086 14,122 48,861 569,300 85,826 2023 10,400,493 2.20 66,903 4,727,497 14,152 49,225 573,828 85,784 2024 10,530,845 2.20 68,082 4,786,748 14,223 49,741 578,049 86,050

Projected Values (2015 - 2024):

Col. (2) represents population only in the area served by FPL.
Col. (4) and Col. (7) represent forecasted energy sales that do not include the impact of incremental conservation. These values are at the meter.

Col. (5) and Col. (8) represent the annual average of the twelve monthly values. Schedule 2.1 History of Energy Consumption And Number of Customers by Customer Class

And Number of Customers by Customer Class

Commercial Rural & Residential Rural & Residential Commercial

Forecast of Energy Consumption Schedule 2.1

Florida Power & Light Company 39(1) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14) (15) (16) Railroads Street & Sales to Sales to Average Average kWh & Highway Public Ultimate

No. of Consumption Railways Lighting Authorities Consumers Year GWh Customers Per Customer GWh GWh GWh GWh

2005 3,913 20,392 191,873 95 424 49 102,296 2006 4,036 21,211 190,277 94 422 49 103,659 2007 3,774 18,732 201,499 91 437 53 105,415 2008 3,587 13,377 268,168 81 423 37 102,919 2009 3,245 10,084 321,796 80 422 34 102,755 2010 3,130 8,910 351,318 81 431 28 104,557 2011 3,086 8,691 355,104 82 437 27 103,327 2012 3,024 8,743 345,871 81 441 25 102,226 2013 2,956 9,541 309,772 88 442 28 102,784 2014 2,941 10,415 282,398 91 446 24 104,389

Historical Values (2005 - 2014):

Col. (10) and Col.(15) represent actual energy sales including the impacts of existing conservation. These values are at the meter.

Col. (11) represents the annual average of the twelve monthly values.

Col. (16) = Col. (4) + Col. (7) + Col. (10) + Col. (13) + Col. (14) + Col. (15).

(1) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14) (15) (16) Industrial Railroads Street & Sales to Sales to Average Average kWh & Highway Public Ultimate

No. of Consumption Railways Lighting Authorities Consumers Year GWh Customers Per Customer GWh GWh GWh GWh 2015 2,929 11,265 260,033 91 461 22 107,096 2016 2,932 12,542 233,811 91 468 22 109,554 2017 2,914 13,496 215,931 91 473 22 111,275 2018 2,871 13,792 208,152 91 479 22 112,952 2019 2,820 13,687 206,006 91 483 22 114,461 2020 2,763 13,594 203,246 91 488 22 116,115 2021 2,696 13,455 200,356 91 492 22 116,971 2022 2,634 13,316 197,791 91 496 22 118,025 2023 2,566 13,138 195,327 91 499 22 119,307 2024 2,493 12,849 193,999 91 503 22 120,931

Projected Values (2015 - 2024):

Col. (10) and Col.(15) represent forecasted energy sales that do not include the impact of incremental conservation. These values are at the meter.

Col. (11) represents the annual average of the twelve monthly values.

Col. (16) = Col. (4) + Col. (7) + Col. (10) + Col. (13) + Col. (14) + Col. (15). Schedule 2.2 History of Energy Consumption And Number of Customers by Customer Class

Schedule 2.2 Industrial

And Number of Customers by Customer Class Forecast of Energy Consumption

Florida Power & Light Company 40(1) (17) (18) (19) (20) (21) Utility Net Average Sales for Use & Energy No. of Total Average Resale Losses For Load Other Number of Year GWh GWh GWh Customers Customers

2005 1,506 7,498 111,301 3,156 4,321,895 2006 1,569 7,909 113,137 3,218 4,409,563 2007 1,499 7,401 114,315 3,276 4,496,589 2008 993 7,092 111,004 3,348 4,509,730 2009 1,155 7,394 111,303 3,439 4,499,067 2010 2,049 7,870 114,475 3,523 4,520,328 2011 2,176 6,950 112,454 3,596 4,547,051 2012 2,237 6,403 110,866 3,645 4,576,449 2013 2,158 6,713 111,655 3,722 4,626,934 2014 5,375 6,204 115,968 3,795 4,708,829

Historical Values (2005 - 2014):

Col. (19) represents actual energy sales including the impacts of existing conservation.

Col. (19) = Col. (16) + Col. (17) + Col. (18). Historical NEL includes the impacts of existing conservation and agrees to Col. (5) on schedule 3.3. Historical GWH, prior to 2011, are based on a fiscal year beginning 12/29 and ending 12/28. The 2011 value is based on 12/29/10 to 12/31/11. The 2012-2014 values are based on calendar year.

Col. (20) represents the annual average of the twelve monthly values.

Col. (21) = Col. (5) + Col. (8) + Col. (11) + Col. (20).

(1) (17) (18) (19) (20) (21) Utility Net Average Sales for Use & Energy No. of Total Average Resale Losses For Load Other Number of Year GWh GWh GWh Customers Customers 2015 6,021 6,595 119,713 3,858 4,777,210 2016 6,126 6,727 122,407 3,906 4,848,294 2017 5,882 6,788 123,946 3,947 4,919,162 2018 5,629 6,852 125,433 3,987 4,988,771 2019 5,659 6,950 127,070 4,024 5,057,400 2020 5,700 7,036 128,851 4,058 5,124,436 2021 5,256 7,011 129,237 4,090 5,190,185 2022 4,955 7,097 130,077 4,118 5,254,820 2023 5,013 7,176 131,495 4,145 5,318,608 2024 5,073 7,271 133,276 4,170 5,381,815

Projected Values (2015 - 2024):

Col. (19) represents forecasted energy sales that do not include the impact of incremental conservation and agrees to Col. (2) on Schedule 3.3.

Col. (19) = Col. (16) + Col. (17) + Col. (18). These values are based on calendar year.

Col. (20) represents the annual average of the twelve monthly values.

Col. (21) = Col. (5) + Col. (8) + Col. (11) + Col. (20). Schedule 2.3 History of Energy Consumption And Number of Customers by Customer Class

Schedule 2.3 Forecast of Energy Consumption And Number of Customers by Customer Class

Florida Power & Light Company 41(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10)

Res. Load Residential C/I Load C/I Net Firm Year Total Wholesale Retail Interruptible Management Conservation Management Conservation Demand

2005 22,361 264 22,097 0 902 895 600 611 20,858 2006 21,819 256 21,563 0 928 948 635 640 20,256 2007 21,962 261 21,701 0 952 982 716 683 20,295 2008 21,060 181 20,879 0 966 1,042 760 706 19,334 2009 22,351 249 22,102 0 981 1,097 811 732 20,558 2010 22,256 419 21,837 0 990 1,181 815 758 20,451 2011 21,619 427 21,192 0 1,000 1,281 821 781 19,798 2012 21,440 431 21,009 0 1,013 1,351 833 810 19,594 2013 21,576 396 21,180 0 1,025 1,394 833 827 19,718 2014 22,935 955 21,980 0 1,010 1,444 843 840 21,082
Historical Values (2005 - 2014):
Col. (2) - Col. (4) are actual values for historical Summer peaks. As such, they incorporate the effects of conservation (Col. 7 & Col. 9), and may incorporate the effects of load control if load control was operated on these peak days. Therefore, Col. (2) represents the actual Net Firm Demand.
Col. (5) - Col. (9) represent actual DSM capabilities starting from January 1988 and are annual (12-month) values except for 2014 values which are through August.
Col. (10) represents a HYPOTHETICAL "Net Firm Demand" as if the load control values had definitely been exercised on the peak. Col. (10) is derived by the formula: Col. (10) = Col.(2) - Col.(6) - Col.(8).

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10)
August of Res. Load Residential C/I Load C/I Net Firm

Year Total Wholesale Retail Interruptible Management* Conservation Management* Conservation Demand

2015 23,286 1,231 22,054 0 1,020 46 862 25 21,334 2016 23,778 1,240 22,538 0 1,030 60 873 37 21,778 2017 24,252 1,186 23,066 0 1,040 71 885 50 22,206 2018 24,648 1,145 23,502 0 1,051 82 897 63 22,555 2019 25,045 1,149 23,896 0 1,061 94 909 77 22,904 2020 25,369 1,150 24,219 0 1,071 106 920 91 23,181 2021 25,497 953 24,544 0 1,082 118 932 106 23,260 2022 25,833 957 24,875 0 1,092 131 944 121 23,545 2023 26,286 965 25,321 0 1,102 144 956 136 23,948 2024 26,771 972 25,798 0 1,113 157 968 152 24,381
Projected Values (2015 - 2024):
Col. (2) - Col. (4) represent FPL's forecasted peak and does not include incremental conservation, cumulative load management, or incremental load management.
Col. (5) - Col. (9) represent cumulative load management, and incremental conservation and load management. All values are projected August values.
Col. (8) represents FPL's Business On Call, CDR, CILC, and Curtailable programs/rates.
Col. (10) represents a 'Net Firm Demand" which accounts for all of the incremental conservation and assumes all of the load control is implemented on the peak. Col. (10) is derived by using the formula: Col. (10) = Col. (2) - Col. (5) - Col. (6) - Col. (7) - Col. (8) - Col. (9).
* Res. Load Management and C/I Load Management include MW values of load management from Lee County and FKEC. Schedule 3.1 Forecast of Summer Peak Demand (MW) Schedule 3.1 History of Summer Peak Demand (MW)

Florida Power & Light Company 42(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10)

Firm Res. Load Residential C/I Load C/I Net Firm Year Total Wholesale Retail Interruptible Management Conservation Management Conservation Demand

2005 18,108 225 17,883 0 816 583 542 233 16,751 2006 19,683 225 19,458 0 823 600 550 240 18,311 2007 16,815 223 16,592 0 846 620 577 249 15,392 2008 18,055 163 17,892 0 868 644 636 279 16,551 2009 20,081 207 19,874 0 881 666 676 285 18,524 2010 24,346 500 23,846 0 895 687 721 291 22,730 2011 21,126 383 20,743 0 903 717 723 303 19,501 2012 17,934 382 17,552 0 856 755 722 314 16,356 2013 15,931 348 15,583 0 843 781 567 326 14,521 2014 17,500 890 16,610 0 768 805 590 337 16,142
Historical Values (2005 - 2014):
Col. (2) - Col. (4) are actual values for historical Winter peaks. As such, they incorporate the effects of conservation (Col. 7 & Col. 9), and may incorporate the effects of load control if load control was operated on these peak days. Therefore, Col. (2) represents the actual Net Firm Demand. For year 2011, the actual peaked occurred in December of 2010.
Col. (5) - Col. (9) for 2005 through 2014 represent actual DSM capabilities starting from January 1988 and are annual (12-month) values.
Col. (10) represents a HYPOTHETICAL "Net Firm Demand" as if the load control values had definitely been exercised on the peak. Col. (10) is derived by the formula: Col. (10) = Col.(2) - Col.(6) - Col.(8).

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10)
January of Firm Res. Load Residential C/I Load C/I Net Firm

Year Total Wholesale Retail Interruptible Management* Conservation Management* Conservation Demand

2015 21,136 1,195 19,941 841 12 593 5 19,684 2016 21,369 1,206 20,163 850 24 598 11 19,886 2017 21,485 1,151 20,334 858 28 603 20 19,976 2018 21,598 1,114 20,484 867 31 609 30 20,061 2019 21,792 1,125 20,667 875 35 614 40 20,227 2020 21,965 1,133 20,833 883 40 620 50 20,372 2021 22,096 1,141 20,956 892 44 625 61 20,475 2022 22,026 948 21,078 900 49 631 72 20,374 2023 22,202 956 21,246 909 53 636 83 20,520 2024 22,408 965 21,443 917 59 642 95 20,695
Projected Values (2015 - 2024):
Col. (2) - Col. (4) represent FPL's forecasted peak and does not include incremental conservation, cumulative load management, or incremental load management.
Col. (5) - Col. (9) represent cumulative load management, and incremental conservation and load management. All values are projected January values.
Col. (8) represents FPL's Business On Call, CDR, CILC, and Curtailable programs/rates.
Col. (10) represents a 'Net Firm Demand" which accounts for all of the incremental conservation and assumes all of the load control is implemented on the peak. Col. (10) is derived by using the formula: Col. (10) = Col. (2) - Col. (5) - Col. (6) - Col. (7) - Col. (8) - Col. (9).
* Res. Load Management and C/I Load Management include MW values of load management from Lee County and FKEC. Schedule 3.2 History of Winter Peak Demand (MW)

Forecast of Winter Peak Demand (MW) Schedule 3.2

Florida Power & Light Company 43(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9)

Net Energy Actual For Load Residential C/I Net Energy Sales for Utility Use Total Billed without DSM Conservation Conservation For Load Resale & Losses Retail Energy Load Year GWh GWh GWh GWh GWh GWh Sales (GWh) Factor(%)

2005 115,065 1,970 1,793 111,301 1,506 7,498 102,296 56.8% 2006 117,116 2,078 1,901 113,137 1,569 7,909 103,659 59.2% 2007 118,518 2,138 2,066 114,315 1,499 7,401 105,415 59.4% 2008 115,379 2,249 2,126 111,004 993 7,092 102,919 60.0% 2009 115,844 2,345 2,196 111,303 1,155 7,394 102,755 56.8% 2010 119,220 2,487 2,259 114,475 2,049 7,870 104,557 58.7% 2011 117,460 2,683 2,324 112,454 2,176 6,950 103,327 59.4% 2012 116,083 2,823 2,394 110,866 2,237 6,403 102,226 58.9% 2013 117,087 2,962 2,469 111,655 2,158 6,713 102,784 59.1% 2014 121,621 3,125 2,529 115,968 5,375 6,204 104,389 57.7%
Historical Values (2005 - 2014):
Col. (2) represents derived "Total Net Energy For Load w/o DSM". The values are calculated using the formula: Col. (2) = Col. (3) + Col. (4) + Col. (5).
Col. (3) & Col. (4) are DSM values starting in January 1988 and are annual (12-month) values. Col. (3) and Col. (4) for 2014 are "estimated actuals" and are also annual (12-month) values. The values represent the total GWh reductions experienced each year .
Col. (5) is the actual Net Energy for Load (NEL) for years 2005 - 2014.
Col. (8) is the Total Retail Billed Sales. The values are calculated using the formula: Col. (8) = Col. (5) - Col. (6) - Col. (7). These values are at the mete
Col. (9) is calculated using Col. (5) from this page and Col. (2), "Total", from Schedule 3.1 using the formula: Col. (9) = ((Col. (5)*1000) / ((Col. (2) * 8760 Adjustments are made for leap years.

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) Forecasted Net Energy Forecasted Net Energy For Load Total Billed For Load Residential C/I Adjusted for Sales for Utility Use Retail Energy without DSM Conservation Conservation DSM Resale & Losses Sales w/o DSM Load Year GWh GWh GWh GWh GWh GWh GWh Factor(%)

2015 119,713 58 51 119,604 6,021 6,595 107,096 58.7% 2016 122,407 98 88 122,221 6,126 6,727 109,554 58.6% 2017 123,946 121 112 123,713 5,882 6,788 111,275 58.3% 2018 125,433 144 137 125,151 5,629 6,852 112,952 58.1% 2019 127,070 168 164 126,738 5,659 6,950 114,461 57.9% 2020 128,851 192 192 128,467 5,700 7,036 116,115 57.8% 2021 129,237 218 221 128,798 5,256 7,011 116,971 57.9% 2022 130,077 244 252 129,581 4,955 7,097 118,025 57.5% 2023 131,495 271 284 130,940 5,013 7,176 119,307 57.1% 2024 133,276 299 318 132,659 5,073 7,271 120,931 56.7%
Projected Values (2015 - 2024):
Col. (2) represents Forecasted Net Energy for Load and does not include incremental DSM from 2015 - on. The Col. (2) values are extracted from Schedule 2.3, Col(19). The effects of conservation implemented prior to September 2014 are incorporated into the load forecast values in Col. (2).
Col. (3) & Col. (4) are forecasted values of the reduction on sales from incremental conservation from Jan 2015 - on and are mid-year (6-month) values reflecting DSM signups occurring evenly thoughout each year.
Col. (5) is the forecasted Net Energy for Load (NEL) after adjusting for impacts of incremental DSM for years 2015 - 2024 using the formula: Col. (5) = Col. (2) - Col. (3) - Col. (4)
Col. (8) is the Total Retail Billed Sales. The values are calculated using the formula: Col. (8) = Col. (2) - Col. (6) - Col. (7). These values are at the meter.
Col. (9) is calculated using Col. (2) from this page and Col. (2), "Total", from Schedule 3.1. Col. (9) = ((Col. (2)*1000) / ((Col. (2) * 8760) Adjustments are made for leap years. Schedule 3.3 History of Annual Net Energy for Load (GWh) (All values are "at the generator" values except for Col (8))

Schedule 3.3 Forecast of Annual Net Energy for Load (GWh) (All values are "at the generator"values except for Col (8))

Florida Power & Light Company 44(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7)

Total Total Total Peak Demand NEL Peak Demand NEL Peak Demand NEL Month MW GWh MW GWh MW GWh

JAN 17,500 8,634 21,136 8,974 21,369 9,218
FEB 16,297 7,957 18,170 8,036 18,554 8,562
MAR 16,183 8,491 18,030 8,882 18,411 9,109
APR 19,934 9,230 19,033 9,214 19,435 9,414
MAY 20,295 10,400 21,262 10,556 21,712 10,750
JUN 21,786 10,438 22,600 10,974 23,078 11,146
JUL 22,935 11,392 23,001 11,759 23,488 11,920
AUG 22,900 12,125 23,286 11,914 23,778 12,089
SEP 21,673 10,641 22,498 11,057 22,974 11,233
OCT 21,079 10,074 21,145 10,427 21,593 10,616
NOV 17,830 8,129 18,588 8,804 18,982 9,015
DEC 16,095 8,457 18,027 9,115 18,408 9,336

Annual Values: 115,968 119,713 122,407

Col. (3) annual value shown is consistent with value shown in Col.(5) of Schedule 3.3.
Cols. (4) - (7) do not include the impacts of cumulative load management, incremental conservation, and incremental load management.
Cols. (5) and Col. (7) annual values shown are consistent with values shown in Col.(2) of Schedule 3.3. FORECAST Schedule 4 Previous Year Actual and Two-Year Forecast of Retail Peak Demand and Net Energy for Load (NEL) by Month

2014 2015 Actual FORECAST 2016

Florida Power & Light Company 45**(This page is l eft intentionally blank.)** 

Florida Power & Light Company 46

## CHAPTER III
Projection of Incremental Resource Additions

Florida Power & Light Company 47**(This page is left intentionally blank.)**

Florida Power & Light Company 48

### III. Projection of I ncremental Resource Additions

III.A FPL’s Resource Planning:

FPL utilizes its well established integrated resource planning (IRP) proce ss , in whole or in part as dictated by analysis needs, 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 new power plants, the primary subjects o f this document, are determined as part of the IRP process work.

This section d escribes FPL’s basic IRP process. It also discusses s ome of the key assumptions, in
addition to a new load forecast discussed in the previous chapter , that were used in devel oping the resource plan presented in this Site Plan

.


### Four Fundamental Steps of FPL’s Resource Planning:

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

Step 1: Determine the magnitude and t iming 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: Evaluate the competing opt ions and resource plans in regard to system
economics and non

- economic factors ; and,

Step 4: Select a resource plan and commit, as needed, to near

- term options.

Figure III.A.1 graphically outlines the 4 steps.

Florida Power & Light Company 49

# Overview of FPL's IRP Process

Figure III.A.1: Overview of FPL ’ s IRP Process Fundamental

IRP Steps

( 1) Determine the magnitude and timing of FPL's new resource needs

(2) Identify DSM and generation resource options, perform preliminary analyses, and develop resource plans which can meet the determined magnitude and timing of FPL's resource needs

(3) Evaluate the competing resource plans in regard to system economics and
non
- economic factors Load forecast update

Updating of other forecasts, data, and assumptions System reliability analyses

Preliminary analyses of individual DSM options

Packaging of DSM options

Develop resource plans for system analyses

System economic and
non
- economic analyses of competing resource plans

Finalize FPL's Integrated Resource Plan (4) Finalize FPL's Integrated Resource Plan & commit to near

term options FPL Commitment to near

- term

options Preliminary analyses of

generation options 

# Overview of FPL's IRP Process

Figure III.A.1: Overview of FPL ’ s IRP Process Fundamental

IRP Steps

( 1) Determine the magnitude and timing of FPL's new resource needs

(2) Identify DSM and generation resource options, perform preliminary analyses, and develop resource plans which can meet the determined magnitude and timing of FPL's resource needs

(3) Evaluate the competing resource plans in regard to system economics and
non
- economic factors Load forecast update

Updating of other forecasts, data, and assumptions System reliability analyses

Preliminary analyses of individual DSM options

Packaging of DSM options

Develop resource plans for system analyses

System economic and
non
- economic analyses of competing resource plans

Finalize FPL's Integrated Resource Plan (4) Finalize FPL's Integrated Resource Plan & commit to near

term options FPL Commitment to near

- term

options Preliminary analyses of

generation options

Florida Power & Light Company 50

### Step 1: Determine the Magnitude and Ti ming of FPL’s New Resource Needs:

The first of the four resource planning steps, determining the magnitude and timing of FPL’s

resource nee ds, is essentially a determination of the amount of capacity or megawatts (MW) of load reduction, new capacity addit ions, or a combination of both load reduction and new capacity
additions that are needed to maintain system reliability . Also determined in this step is when the
MW additions are needed to meet FPL’s reliability criteria. This step is often referred to as a reliability assessment , or resource adequacy, analysis 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 forecast ed loads, but also with other information that is used in many of the fundamental steps in resource planning. Examples of this new information include, but are not limited to: delivered fuel price projections, current financial and economic assumptions, c urrent power plant capability and operating assumptions
, and current demand side management (DSM) demand and energy reduction assumptions . FPL also includes key sets of projections regarding three specific types of resourc e s : (1) FPL unit capacity changes , (2) firm capacity power purchases, and (3) DSM implementation.

Key Assumptions Regarding the Three Types of Resources:
The first set of assumptions
, FPL unit capacity changes, is based on the current projection of new generating capacity additions and p lanned retirements of existing generating units

. In FPL’s 2015 Site Plan, there are six (6) such projected capacit y changes through the 10

- year reporting time
frame of this document . These changes are listed below in general chronological order:

1) R etiremen t of existing Putnam Units 1 & 2: As explained in FPL’s 2014 Site Plan, a nalyses conducted during 2013 and early 2014
showed that it would be cost

- effective to retire two existing units , Putnam Units 1 & 2, and replace the capacity with new combined cycle (CC) capacity at a later date and at a site to
be determined

. The new CC capacity would have a significantly better heat rate, thus reducing FPL’s system fuel usage and system emissions. As a result, these two units
were retired at the end of 2014

.

2) CT upg rades at existing CC plant sites: In the fourth quarter of 2011, FPL started upgrading the 7FA combustion turbines (CT) that are components at a number of its existing CC units. These upgrades will economically benefit FPL’s customers by increasing the MW output of these CC units. 221
MW of the increased capacity from these CT upgrades is already in service. The work for

Florida Power & Light Company 51the remaining upgrades is continuing and the project is projected to be completed in early
201 6

.

3) Modernization of the Port Everglades pl ant site: The work to modernize the existing Port Everglades site by adding new combined cycle (CC) capacity continues. The new generating unit, called the Port Everglades Next Generation Clean Energy Center (PEEC), is projected to be in

- service in mid

- 201 6 and is projected to have a peak Summer output of 1,237 MW . The FPSC issued the final need order for this modernization project in April 2012 in Order No. PSC

- 12

- 0187

- FOF

- EI . The
site certification order for the project, DOAH Case No. 12

- 0422EPP, was rece ived for the Port Everglades project in October 2012.

4) Ne w Solar Facilities:
FPL curre ntly projects that it will add new photovoltaic ( PV ) facilities by the end of 2016 at three sites. These sites are FPL’s existing Manatee plant site in Manatee County
, the Citrus site in DeSoto County, and the Babcock Ranch site in Charlotte County . Each of the PV facilities is projected to have a nameplate rating of approximately 74 .5 MW (AC). Therefore, the three PV facilities will have a combined total nameplate (AC ) rating of approximately 22 3 MW. FPL’s analyses of these three specific projects have led to a conclusion that approximately 52% of the ir nameplate (AC) rating can be accounted for as
firm Summer capacity, and 0% for firm Winter capacity, in FPL’s reliabi lity analyses.

5) GT Replacement: FPL plans , for economic reasons, to retire a number of its older gas turbine (GT) peaking units at its three GT sites (Lauderdale, Port Everglades, and Fort Myers) and partially replace this peaking capacity with new combu stion turbine (CT) capacity at the Lauderdale and Fort Myers sites. In addition, the two existing CTs at the Fort Myers site
will be upgraded, which will increase their capacity. These changes are projected to be completed by the end of 2016. The MW impact of these changes to FPL’s peaking capacit y is a net decrease of approximately 40 MW.

6) New Combined Cycle Capacity: FPL currently projects a need for a significant capacity addition in 2019. FPL’s best self

build option to meet this need is a new com bined cycle (CC) unit that would be built in
Okeechobee County. In order to ensure that the best generation option for FPL’s
customers is chosen to meet this need, and in keeping with the FPSC’s Bid Rule, FPL issued a Request for Proposals (RFP) in March 2 015 that invited generation proposals from outside parties. These proposals are scheduled to be received in May 2015 . Once

Florida Power & Light Company 52these proposals and FPL’s self

- build CC unit have been thoroughly evaluated by both FPL and an independent evaluator , FPL expects to file in mid

- 2015 for an FPSC determination
of need approval , and/or for FPSC approval for cost recovery, for the best option (s)

. In addition, FPL’s current resource plan presented in this Site Plan also shows potential new CC capacity being added in 202 3

. No decision on this potential addition is yet needed and FPL expects to make a decision on this capacity addition at an appropriate time in a
manner similar to how the decision for the 2019 need will be reached.

The second set of assumptions involves firm capacity power purchases. There are two significant changes in firm capacity power purchases from those shown in FPL’s 2014 Site Plan. The first of those is due to the fact that FPL no longer is projecting that it will serve Vero Beach’s electrical load ( as discussed in Chapter II). Thus FPL is no longer projecting that it will acquire the Vero Beach combined cycle unit (46 MW)
, or that it will acquire two of Vero Beach’s existing power purchase agreements which total approximately 37 MW of coal

- fired capa city that were projected to run through the end of 2017

. The second change is that FPL anticipates terminating its existing power purchase agreement for 250 MW of coal

- fired capacity from the Cedar Bay generating facility at the end of August 2015 as a res ult of a Purchase and Sale Agreement between FPL and Cedar Bay Generating Company, L.P . FPL would then own the unit starting on September 1,
2015 . FPL currently anticipates that it will not need the unit for economic purposes after 2016 and, if that proves to be the case, would retire the unit at that time. FPL filed for FPSC approval of the Purchase and Sale Agreement in the first quarter of 2015.

None of the other purchase projections ha s changed from those in the 2014 Site Plan. FPL’s current projection include s an additional 70 MW of waste

- to

- energy capacity from the Palm Beach Solid Waste Authority (SWA) starting in mid

- 20 15

. In addition, FPL continues to project that Internal Revenue Service (IRS) regulations regarding the amount of energy that FPL ca n receive under its purchase agreement with Jacksonville Electric Authority (JEA) for St. Johns Regional Power Park (SJRPP) will result in the suspension of the delivery of capacity and energy to FPL in the second quarter of 2019

. 4 In addition, FPL projec ts that it will begin receiving a total of 180 MW of firm capacity in 2021 from biomass

- based power purchase agreements with affiliates of U.S.
EcoGen.

In total, the projected firm capacity purchases are from a combination of utility and independent
powe r producers. Details, including the annual total capacity values for these purchases
, are presented in Chapter I in Tables I.B.1 and I.B.2. These purchased capacity amounts were incorporated in FPL’s resource planning work.

4 FPL’s projected susp ension date for the SJRPP purchase is based on a system reliability per spective and represents the earliest projected date at which the suspension of capacity and energy could occur.

Florida Power & Light Company 53The third set of assumptions i nvolves a projection of the amount of additional DSM that FPL anticipate s it will implement annually over the ten

- year period of 2015 through 2024

. A key aspect of FPL’s IRP process is the evaluation of DSM resources. Since 1994, FPL’s resource planning

wo rk has assumed that , at a minimum, the DSM MW called for in FPL’s FPSC

- approved DSM
Plan will be achieved. In November 2014, the FPSC established new DSM Goals for FPL that address the years 2015 through 2024, a time period that matches the reporting perio d of this Site
Plan. The FPSC’s DSM Goals Order No. PSC

- 14

- 0696

- FOF

- EU recognized that two key market forces currently were affecting the feasibility and cost

- effectiveness of utility DSM programs. The first of these is the growing impact of federal and st ate energy efficiency codes and standards. As discussed in Chapter II, the projected incremental impact s of these energy efficiency codes and
standards during the 2015 through 2024 time period are: a Summer peak reduction of approximately 2,035 MW , a Winte r peak reduction of approximately 1,321 MW, and approximately 6,808 GWh of energy reduction

. As a result, the se energy efficiency codes and standards significantly reduce the potential for cost

- effective utility DSM programs.

The second market force was lower generating costs with which DSM must compete. This is particularly noticeable in regard to current and projected fuel costs compared to those when
Florida previously established DSM Goals in 2009. As an example, natural gas cost projections

are 50% l ower than natural gas costs projections were in 2009. Although l ower generating costs
, such as lower fuel costs, are very beneficial f or FPL’s customers, they also negatively impact the economics of utility DSM programs

. Therefore, f ewer DSM programs are n ow cost

- effective. In addition, for some DSM programs to remain cost

- effective, incentive payments to participating customers have to be lowered, thus reducing the attractiveness of these programs to potential participants.

The FPSC recognized the impact these market forces have on utility DSM programs and set the new DSM Goals accordingly. Although the new DSM Goals are lower than the previous goals, the new goals will help ensure that the electric rate impacts to all of FPL’s customers from pursuing
DSM are minimized. In March 2015, FPL filed for FPSC approval of its DSM Plan that presents specific DSM programs designed to achieve the new DSM Goals. A decision regarding FPL’s DSM Plan is expected by mid

- 2015. In this Site Plan, the resource plan that is p resented assumes that the new DSM Goals will be met in each year of the reporting period. FPL’s DSM efforts are further discussed later in this chapter in section III.D

.

The Three Reliability Criteria Used to Determine FPL’s Projected Resource Needs:
The s e key assumptions
, plus the other updated information described above
, are then applied in the first fundamental step: determin ing the magnitude and timing of FPL’s future resource needs. This determination is accomplished by system reliability analyses wh ich for FPL have traditionally

Florida Power & Light Company 54been based on dual planning criteria of a minimum peak period total reserve margin of 20% (FPL applies this to both Summer and Winter peaks) and a maximum loss

- of

- load probability (LOLP) of 0.1 day per year. Both of these cri teria are commonly used throughout the utility industry. Beginning in 2014, FPL also implemented a third reliability criterion: a 10% generation

- onl y reserve margin (GRM)

.

Historically, two types of methodologies, deterministic and probabilistic, have be en utilized 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 a n indication of the adequacy of a generating system’s capacity resources compared to its load durin g peak periods. However, deterministic methods do not take into account probabilistic

- related elements such as the impact of individual
unit failures. For e xample: two 50 MW units that 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 that can also be counted on to run 90% of the time. Probabilistic methods also recognize the value of be ing 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 reliability of a generating system. There are a number of probabilistic methods that are i n use for performing system reliability analyses. Among the most widely used is loss

- of

- load probability ( LOLP ) which FPL utilizes

. Si mply stated, LOLP is an index of how well a generating system may be able to meet its firm 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 year, while taking into consideration such probabilistic events as the unavailability of individu al generators due to scheduled maintenance or forced outages.

LOLP is expressed in terms of the projected probability that a utility will be unable to meet its entire firm load at some point during a year. The probability of not being able to meet the en tire firm load is calculated for each day of the year using the daily peak hourly load. These daily probabilities are then summed to develop an annual probability value. This annual probability value is commonly expressed as “the number of days per year” t hat the entire system firm load
could not be met. FPL’s standard for LOLP
, commonly 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 used by FPL.

Florida Power & Light Company 55FPL’s integrated resource planning work over the last several years examined a projected
fundam ental change in FPL’s resource plans. This change was a significant shift in the mix of generation and DSM resources in which FPL was becoming increasingly reliant on DSM
resources to maintain system reliability. As discussed in detail in FPL’s 2014 Site P lan, extensive analyses examined this shift from a system reliability perspective.

In these analyses, FPL developed a new metric: a generation

- only reserve margin (GRM). This GRM metric reflects reserves that would be provided only by actual generating r esources. The GRM value is calculated by setting to zero all incremental energy efficiency (EE) and load management (LM), plus all existing LM, in a nother version of a reserve margin calculation. The resulting GRM value provides an indication of how large a role generation is projected to play each year as FPL maintains its 20% Summer and Winter “total” reserve margins (which account for both generation and DSM resources).

These analyses examined the two types of resources, DSM and Supply options, from bot h an operational and a resource planning perspective. Based on these analyses , FPL concluded that resource plans for its system with identical total reserve margins, but different GRM values, are not equal in regard to system reliability. A resource plan w ith a higher GRM value is projected to result in more MW being available to system operators on adverse peak load days, and in lower LOLP values, than a resource plan with a lower GRM value, even though both resource plans
have an identical total reserve m argin. Therefore, in 2014 FPL implemented a minimum GRM
criterion of 10% as a third reliability criterion in its resource planning process.

The 10% minimum Summer and Winter GRM criterion augments the other two reliability criteria used by FPL: a 20% tot al reserve margin criterion for Summer and Winter, and a 0.1 day/year
LOLP criterion. All three reliability criteria are potentially useful in terms of identifying the timing of the resource need. In terms of identifying the magnitude of the resource need on FPL’s system,
t he total reserve margin and GRM criteria are more useful although the projected magnitudes under each of these criteria may differ. In addition, t he GRM criterion provides direction regarding the mix of generation and DSM resources that s hould be added to maintain and enhance FPL’s system reliability.



### 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 s tep of resource planning generally proceed concurrently with the activities associated with Step 1. During Step 2, preliminary
economic screening analys e s of new capacity options that are identical, or virtually identical, in

Florida Power & Light Company 56regard to certain key characte ristics may be conducted to determine which new capacity options appear to be the most competitive on FPL’s system. Th ese preliminary analys e s can also help identify capacity size (MW) values, projected construction/permitting schedules, and operating
para meters and costs. Similarly, preliminary economic screening analyses of new DSM options
and/or evaluation of existing DSM options are often conducted in this second fundamental IRP step

.

FPL typically utilizes a p roduction cost model and a Fixed Cost Spr eadsheet, and/or an optimization model and spreadsheet analyses, to perform the preliminary economic screening of generation resource options. For the preliminary economic screening analyses of DSM resource options, FPL typically uses its DSM CPF model whi ch is an FPL spreadsheet model utilizing the FPSC’s approved methodology for performing preliminary economic screening of individual DSM

measures and programs. In addition, a years

- to

- payback screening test based on a two

- year criterion is also used in the preliminary economic screening of individual DSM measures and
programs. Then, as the focus of DSM analyses progresses from analysis of individual DSM
measures to the development of DSM portfolios, FPL uses two additional models. One of these
models is FPL ’s non
- linear programming model that is used for analyzing the potential for lowering system peak loads through additional load management /demand response capability . The other
model that FPL typically utilizes is its linear programming model
, which FPL us es to develop DSM portfolios

.

The individual new resource options , both Supply options and DSM portfolios, emerging from
these preliminary economic screening analyses are then typically “packaged” into different resource plans which are designed to meet t he system reliability criteria. In other words, resource plans are created by combining individual resource options so that the timing and magnitude of
FPL’s projected new resource needs are met. The creation of these competing resource plans is typically carried out using spreadsheet and/or dynamic programming techniques.

At the conclusion of the second fundamental resource planning step, a number of different combinations of new resource options (i.e., resource plans) of a magnitude and timing necessar y to meet FPL’s resource needs are identified.



### Step 3: Evaluate the Competing Options and Resource Plans in Regard to System
Economics and Non

- Economic Factors :

At the completion of fundamental steps 1 & 2, the most viable new resource options have bee n identified and these resource options have been combined into a number of resource plans that
each meet the magnitude and timing of FPL’s resource needs. The stage is set for evaluating

Florida Power & Light Company 57these resource options and resource plans in system economic analyse s that aim to account for all of the impacts to the FPL system from the competing resource options/resource plans

. In FPL’s
201 4 and early 201 5 resource planning work , once the resource plans were developed, FPL
utilized the UPLAN production cost model and a Fixed Cost Spreadsheet , and/or the EGEAS optimization model, to perform the system economic analyses of the resource plans

. Other spreadsheet models may also be used to further analyze the resource plans.

The basic economic analyses of the competing r esource 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 objective generally being to minimize FPL’s projected level iz ed sy stem average electric rate (i.e., a Rate Impact Measure or RIM methodology). In analyses in which the DSM contribution has already been determined through the same IRP process and /or FPSC approval, and therefore the only competing options are new generati ng units and /or purchase options, comparisons of competing resource plans’ impacts on electricity rates and on system revenue requirements will yield identical outcomes in regard to the relative rankings of the resource options being evaluated . Consequentl y, the competing options
and resource plans in such cases can be evaluated on a system cumulative present value revenue requirement (CPVRR) basis

.

Other factors are also included in FPL’s evaluation of resource options and resource plans. Although these factors may have an economic component or impact, they are often discussed in quantitative, but non

- economic
, terms such as percentages, tons, etc. rather than in terms of
dollars. These factors are often referred to by FPL as “system concerns” that includ e (but are not limited to) maintaining/enhancing fuel diversity in the FPL system , system emission levels, and maintaining a regional balance between load and generating capacity, particularly in the Southeastern Florida c ounties of Miami

- Dade and Broward

. In conducting the evaluations needed to determine which resource options and resource plans are best for FPL’s system, the non

economic evaluations are conducted with an eye to whether the system concern is positively or negatively impacted by a given res ource option or resource plan. These, and other, factors are discussed later in this chapter in section III.C

.


### Step 4: Finalizing FPL’s Current Resource Plan

The results of the previous three fundamental steps are typically used to develop FPL’s current

resource plan. Th e current resource plan is presented in the following section.

Florida Power & Light Company 58

### III.B Projected Incremental Resource Additions /Changes in the Resource Plan FPL’s projected incremental generation capacity additions/changes for 201 5 through 202 4 are depi cted in Table ES

- 1 which was previously presented in the Executive Summary chapter . These capacity additions/changes include the 6 generation additions/changes previously discussed in this chapter

.

A lthough FPL’s projected DSM additions that are develope d in the IRP process ar e not explicitly presented in this table
, the se DSM additions have been fully accounted for in all of FPL’s resource planning work reflected in this document

. T he projected MW reductions from these DSM additions

are also reflected in the projected total reserve margin values shown in Table ES

- 1 and in Schedules 7.1 and 7. 2 presented later in this chapter

. DSM is further addressed later in this chapter in section III.D.



### III.C Discussion of the Projected Resource Plan and Issues Impac ting FPL’s
Re source Planning Work

As indicated in the Executive Summary, FPL’s resource planning efforts in 201 4 and early 201 5
resulted in a resource plan that ha s four (4) key differences compared to the resource plan presented in FPL’s 2014 Site Plan

. The se 4 key differences are discussed below in chronological
order.

1. FPL No Longer Projects T hat I t Will Serve Vero Beach’s Electrical Load : Difficulties in the negotiations between the parties involved have led FPL to no longer project
that it will se rve Vero Beach’s electrical load which w as assumed in FPL’s most recent Site Plans and load forecasts. This factor results in a lowering of FPL’s forecasted load and projected resource needs

. To the extent circumstances change and a consummation of the
sal e once again seems likely, FPL will reincorporate this load into its forecast.

2. FPL’s Power Purchase Agreement with Cedar Bay W ill B e Terminated in 2015: FPL anticipates terminating its existing power purchase agreement for 250 MW of coal

- fired capacity from the Cedar Bay generating facility at the end of August 2015 as a result of a Purchase and Sale Agreement between FPL and Cedar Bay Generating Company, L.P . FPL would then assume ownership of the facility starting on September 1, 2015. FPL currently

a nticipates that it will not need the unit for economic purposes after 2016 and, if that proves to be the case, would retire the unit at that time. FPL filed for FPSC approval of the Purchase and Sale Agreement in the first quarter of 2015.

Florida Power & Light Company 593. FPL Will App roximately Triple Its Solar Generation Capacity by the End of 2016 : FPL will be adding three new photovoltaic (PV) facilities by the end of 2016. Each of the PV facilities will be approximately 74.5 MW (nameplate rating, AC). As a result, FPL’s solar
gener ation capacity will increase from its current 110 MW to approximately 333 MW. The new PV installations are projected to be sited in Manatee, Charlotte, and DeSoto counties. The economics of these specific PV projects are aided by the fact that the sites ar e located close to existing electric infrastructure, including tranmission lines and electric substations, and by the fact that bringing these solar facilities into service prior to the end of 2016 will allow the facilities to take advantage of the current 30% investment tax credit that is scheduled to be reduced to 10% beginning in 2017.

4. Turkey Point 6 & 7 Projected In

- Service Dates Have Been Moved Outside of the 10

- year Reporting Period of This Document.
In recent S ite Plans, the earliest practical d eployment dates for the new Turkey Point 6 & 7
nuclear units were identified as 2022 and 2023 and these two dates were used as the in

service dates for these units. However, in the second half of 2014, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) issued a new s chedule for completing its review of FPL’s Combined Operating License Application (COLA) for Turkey Point 6 & 7. The NRC’s new schedule now projects that its review will not be completed until late 201 6 which is a significant delay from the NRC’s previous projection of a 2014 completion of its COLA review . As a consequence of the NRC delay, and the impacts of the recently amended Florida nuclear cost recovery (NCR) statute, FPL now pro jects that the earliest practical deployment dates for Turkey Point 6 & 7
will fall outside of the 10

- year time period of 2015 through 2024 that is addressed in this Site
Plan document. However, emissions

- free, baseload capacity and energy from nuclear power remains an important part of FPL’s resource plans. For that reason, Ch apter IV provides detailed information regarding the Turkey Point site for these two new nuclear units.

In addition, there are six (6) significant factors that either influenced the current resource plan presented in this document or which may result in c hanges in this resource plan in the future.
These 6 factors are discussed below (in no particular order of importance).

1

. Maintaining/Enhancing System Fuel Diversity : FPL currently uses natural gas to generate approximately two

- thirds of the total elect ricity it delivers to its customers. In the future, the percentage of FPL’s electricity that is generated by natural gas is projected to remain at a high level

. For this reason, and due to evolving environmental regulations, FPL is continually seeking oppo rtunities to economically maintain and enhance the fuel diversity of its system.

Florida Power & Light Company 60In 2007, following express direction by the FPSC to do so, FPL sought approval from the FPSC to add two new advanced technology coal units to its system. These two new units would have been placed in

- service in 2013 and 2014. However, in part due to concerns over potential greenhouse gas emission legislation/regulation, FPL was unable to obtain approval
for these units. S everal other factors are currently unfavorable to new c oal units compared to

new natural gas

- fired combined cycle ( CC ) units. The f irst of these factors is a significant
reduction in the fuel cost difference between coal and natural gas when compared to the fuel cost difference projected in 2007 which favored coal ; i.e., the projected fuel cost advantage of coal versus natural gas has been significantly reduced . Second is the continuation of significantly higher capital cost s for coal units compared to capital cost s for CC units. Third is
the increased fuel e fficiency of new CC units compared to projected CC unit efficiencies in
2007

. Fourth are existing and proposed environmental regulations
, including those that address greenhouse gas emissions, which are un favorable to new coal units when compared
to new CC units. Consequently, FPL does not believe that new advanced technology coal
units are currently economically, politically , or environmentally viable fuel diversity enhancement options in Florida

.

Therefore, FPL has turned its attention to : nuclear energy and renewable energy to enhance
its fuel diversity , diversifying the sources of natural gas, diversifying the gas transportation paths used to deliver natural gas to FPL’s generating units, and using natural gas more efficiently. In regard to nuclear ener gy, in 2008 the FPSC approved the need to increase capacity at FPL’s four existing nuclear units and authorized FPL to recover project

- related expenditures that are approved as a result of annual nuclear cost recovery filings. FPL successfully completed th e nuclear capacity uprate project. Approximately 520 MW of additional nuclear capacity were delivered by the project which represents an increase of approximately 30% more incremental capacity than was originally forecasted when the project began. FPL’s cu stomers are already benefitting from lower fuel costs and reduced system emissions provided by this additional nuclear capacity.

FPL is continuing its work to obtain all of the licenses, permits
, and approvals that are necessary to construct and operate two new nuclear units at its Turkey Point site in the future. These licenses, permits
, and approvals will provide FPL with the opportunity to construct these nuclear units at Turkey Point for a time expected to be up to 20 years from the time the
licenses and permits are granted, and then to operate the units for at least 40 years thereafter

. However, as discussed below, a several year delay in the Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s (NRC) schedule for completing its review of FPL’s Combined Operating License A pplication (COLA) have resulted in the earliest deployment date s for the two new nuclear units , Turkey
Point Unit s 6 & 7
, moving beyond the 2015 through 2024 reporting time period of this Site

Florida Power & Light Company 61Plan. The projected new in

- service dates for Turkey Point Units 6 & 7 are June 2027 and June 2028, respectively.

FPL also has been involved in activities to investigate adding and/ or maintaining renewable resources as a part of its generation supply. One of these activities is a variety of discussions
with the owner s of existing facilities aimed at maintaining or extending current agreements

. In addition, FPL considers new cost

- effective renewable energy projects such as the power purchase agreements with U.S. EcoGen which will result in FPL receiving 180 MW of firm capacity from biomass facilities beginning in 2021.

FPL also sought and received approval from the FPSC in 2008 to add 110 MW of then new
renewable facilities through three FPL

- owned solar facilities : one solar thermal facility and two photovoltaic ( PV ) facilities. One 25 MW PV facility began commercial operation in 2009. The remaining two solar facilities, a 10 MW PV facility and a 75 MW solar thermal steam generating facility, began commercial operation in 2010. The addition of these renewable energy fa cilities was made possible by enabling legislation enacted by the Florida Legislature in 2008. FPL remains strongly supportive of f ederal and/or s tate legislation that enables electric utilities to add renewable energy resources and authorize the utilities to recover appropriate costs for these resources.

The capital costs for PV modules have steadily declined . In addition, FPL’s on
- going analyses of its existing PV facilities have led FPL to develop a methodology with which to determine appropriate firm capacity values for PV facilities for use in reserve margin calculations. This methodology has conclude d, in general, that it is possible on FPL’s system to develop a utility

scale PV project

- specific non
- zero firm capacity value for the Summer peak hour
, but not for FPL’s Winter morning peak hour

. Partly a s a result of developing this methodology , FPL’s
current resource plan that is presented in this Site Plan shows that FPL plans to add approximately 22 3 MW (nameplate
, AC) of new PV generation by the end of 2016. These 3 specific PV projects are projected to contribute a total of approximately 116 MW (or 52% of the nameplate AC value for each project ) of firm Summer capacity, but no MW of firm Winter capacity. Significant cost advantages that exist at the 3 specific sites selected for the new PV facilities greatly assisted in being able to bring the PV facilities in

- service in 2016. In addition, the fact that bringing these solar facilities into service prior to the end of 2016 allows the
facilities to take advantage of the current 30% investment tax credit that is scheduled to be reduced to 10% beginning in 2017, also assisted in this regard. The PV facilities are further
discussed later in section III.F of this chapter.

Florida Power & Light Company 62In regard to diversity in natural gas sourcing and delivery, in 2013 the FPSC approved FPL’s contracts to bring more natural gas into FPL’s service territory through a 3 rd natural gas pipeline system into Florida. The process by the pipeline companies to obtain approval for the new pipelin e system from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) is currently underway. The new pipeline system will utilize a n independent route that will result in a more reliable, more economic, and more diverse natural gas supply for FPL’s customers and t he S tate of Florida.

In regard to using natural gas more efficiently, FPL received approvals in 2008 from the FPSC to modernize the existing Cape Canaveral and Riviera Beach plant sites with new, highly efficient CC units t o replace the former steam gener ating units on each of those sites . The Cape Canaveral modernization was commissioned on April 24, 2013 and the Riviera Beach
modernization was commissioned o n April 1, 2014

. On April 9 , 2012, F PL received FPSC approval to proceed with a similar modernizat ion project at the Port Everglades site . The project is scheduled for completion in mid

- 2016. All three of these modernized sites will retain the capability of receiving water

- borne delivery of ultra

- low sulfur diesel (ULSD) oil as a backup fuel.

In the f uture, FPL will continue to identify and evaluate alternatives that may maintain or enhance system fuel diversity. In this regard, FPL is also maintain ing the ability to utilize heavy oil and/or ULSD oil at existing units that have that capability

. For th is purpose, FPL has completed the installation of electrostati c precipitators (ESPs) at the two 800 MW steam generating units at its Manatee site and at the two 800 MW steam generating units at its
Martin site. These installations will enable FP L to retain the ability to burn heavy oil , as needed, at these sites while retaining the flexibility to use natural gas when economically
attractive

. In addition, the new CTs that FPL plans to install at its existing Lauderdale and Fort Myers sites , which will replac e older GT units that are being retired, will have the capability to burn either natural gas or ULSD oil.

2. Maintaining a Balance Between Load and Generation in Southeast ern Florida : A n imbalance has existed between regionally installed generation an d regional peak load in Southeastern Florida. As a result of that imbalance, a significant amount of energy required in the Southeastern Florida region during peak periods is pr ovided by: importing energy through the transmission system from generating uni ts located outside the region, operating less efficient generating units located in Southeastern Florida out of economic dispatch, or a combination of the two

. FPL’s prior planning work concluded that , as load inside the region
grows, either additional ins talled generating capacity in this region, or additional installed

Florida Power & Light Company 63transmission capacity capable of delivering more electricity from outside the region, would be required to address this imbalance.

Partly because of the lower transmission

- related costs resulting from their location in Southeastern Florida , four recent capacity addition decisions (Turkey Point Unit 5 and WCEC Units 1, 2, & 3) were determined to be the most cost

- effective options to meet FPL’s capacity
needs in the near

- term. In addition, FPL has added increased capacity at its existing two nuclear units at Turkey Point as part of the previously mentioned nuclear capacity uprates project

. The Port Everglades modernization project scheduled for completion in 2016 will also
assist in addressi ng this imbalance

. Implementing th e additional generation capacity through the projects mentioned above has contribute d to addressing the imbalance between generation , transmission capacity , and load in Southeastern Florida for much, if not all, of the
201 5 through 2024 reporting time frame of this Site Plan. However, d ue to forecasted steadily increasing load in the Southeastern Florida region, t he Southeastern Florida imbalance issue
will remain a n important consideration in FPL’s on

- going resource planni ng work in future
years.

3

. Maintaining a Balance Between Generation and DSM Resources in Regard to System Reliability : Th ere is another system concern that FPL has considered in its resource planning for several
years. This concern surfaced beginning in 2010 when FPL’s system was projected to become increasingly dependent upon DSM resources for system reliability in later years. FPL discussed this concern previously in its Site Plans from 2011 through 2014. As a result of this concern, FPL conducted exten sive analyses of its system from both a resource planning perspective and a system operations perspective. Those analyses showed that system reliability risk increases, particularly from a system operations perspective, as dependence on
DSM resources incre ases to a point where DSM resources account for more than half of FPL’s 20% total reserve margin criterion value. As a result, in 2014 FPL implemented a new reliability criterion of a minimum 10% generation

- only reserve margin (GRM) in its resource plannin g work to complement its other two reliability criteria: a 20% total reserve margin criterion for Summer and Winter, and an annual 0.1 day/year loss

- of

- load

- probability (LOLP) criterion. Together, these three criteria allow FPL to address this specific con cern regarding system reliability in a comprehensive manner.

4

. The S ignificant I mpacts of F ederal and S tate E nergy E fficiency C odes and S tandards: As discussed in Chapter II, FPL’s load forecast includes projected impacts from federal and
state e nergy ef ficiency codes and standards

. The magnitude of energy efficiency that is now projected to be delivered to FPL’s customers through these codes and standards is significant.

Florida Power & Light Company 64FPL currently projects a cumulative Summer peak reduction impact of 3,568 MW from t hese codes and standards beginning in 2005 (the year the National Energy Policy Act was enacted) and extending through the year 202 4 (i.e., the last year in the 2015 through 2024 reporting time period for this Site Plan) compared to what the projected load would have been without
the codes and standards. The projected incremental Summer MW impact from these codes and standards during the 2015 through 2024 reporting period of this Site Plan; i.e., from year

end 2014 through 2024, is 2,035 MW compared to what the projected load would have been
without the codes and standards. Both of these projections show the significant impact of these energy efficiency codes and standards.

In addition to lowering FPL’s load forecast from what it otherwise would have been, and thus serving to lower FPL’s projected load and resource needs, this projection of efficiency from the
codes and standards also affects FPL’s resource planning in another way. The projected impacts from the efficiency codes and standards lower the poten tial for utility DSM programs
to cost

- effectively deliver energy efficiency for the appliances and equipment that are directly addressed by the codes and standards. This effect was taken into account by the FPSC in the new DSM Goals for the 2015

– 2024 tim e period set by the FPSC in November 2014

.

5

. The Economic Competitiveness of Utility

- Scale Photovoltaics (PV) : A factor that is now significantly influencing FPL’s resource planning is the increasing attractiveness of utility

- scale photovoltaic (PV) fa cilities . This is due largely to the continued decline of the cost of PV modules. Because utility

- scale PV facilities are at least twice as economical on an installed $/kw basis than distributed PV, the declining costs of PV modules
has resulted , for the f irst time, in utility

- scale PV in specific locations now being cost competitive on FPL’s system. In addition, FPL’s analyses of the output from its existing PV facilities in DeSoto and Brevard counties have resulted in FPL establishing a methodology for
de termining Summer and Winter firm capacity value s for utility

- scale PV facilities.

Therefore, FPL’s current resource plan that is presented in this Site Plan shows that FPL plans to add approximately 22 3 MW (nameplate AC) of new PV generation by the end o f
2016. Details regarding the projected new PV facilities are discussed further in this chapter in
section III.F.

6

. Environmental Regulation in General and Specifically, the EPA’s Proposed Clean
Power Plan: Another important factor is environmental re gulation in general and
, specifically
, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA ’s ) proposed Clean Power Plan issued in June 2014.
The intent of the Clean Power Plan is to establish carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) emission limits for

Florida Power & Light Company 65each state. The process for finalizing all aspects of the proposed CO 2 regulations will encompass several years at least. The EPA is scheduled to issue final rules and emission
limits in the Summer of 2015 (i.e., several months after this Site Plan is filed) . The current draft
rules then call for each state to submit its state compliance plan by June 2016 (although a delay of at least one year is possible). Le gal challenges to the proposed Clean Power Plan are expected and such challenges have the potential to delay the proposed time table.

FPL’s resource planning work will account for the CO 2 limits as they are finalized . In addition, FPL expects to be actively engaged in the development of Florida’s statewide compliance plan.

Each of these 6 factors will continue to be examine d in FPL’s on

- going resource planning work during the re mainder of 201 5 and in future years.



### III.D Demand Side Management (DSM) FPL has sought and implemented cost

- effective DSM programs since 1978 and DSM has been a key focus of FPL’s IRP process for d ecades

. During that time FPL’s DSM programs have
include d many energy efficiency and load management programs and initiatives

. FPL’s DSM efforts through 201 4 have resulted in a cumulative Summer peak reduction of approximately 4, 7 9 3
MW (Summer) at the ge nerator and an estimated cumulative energy saving of approximately 70,997 Gigawatt Hour (GWh) at the generator. After accounting for the 20% total reserve margin requirement, FPL’s DSM efforts through 201 4 have eliminated the need to construct the equivale nt of approximately 14 new 400 MW power plants

.

FPL consistently has been among the leading utilities nationally i n DSM achievement. For example, according to the U.S. Department of Energy’s 201 3 data (the last year for which the
DOE ranking data was ava ilable at the time this Site Plan was developed), FPL ranked # 2 nationally in cumulative DSM demand reduction. And, importantly, FPL has achieved these significant DSM accomplishments while minimizing the DSM

- based impact on electric rates for all
of its customers

.

In November 2014, new DSM Goals for FPL for the years 2015 through 2 024 were set by the FPSC. These DSM Goals were lower than the previous DSM Goals for FPL due to two factors.
The first factor is the significant impact of federal and state en ergy efficiency codes and standards

. The projected impact of these codes and standards has significantly lowered FPL’s projected load and resource needs. In addition, these codes and standards have removed a significant amount of potential energy efficienc y that otherwise might have been addressed by utility DSM programs.
Th e projected impacts from these codes and standards are discussed in Chapter II.

Florida Power & Light Company 66The second factor why FPL’s resource plan currently shows a diminished role for utility DSM is the
decline in the projected cost

- effectiveness of utility DSM measures and programs. The cost

effectiveness of DSM is driven in large part by the potential benefits that the k W (demand)
reduction and k W h (energy) reduction characteristics of DSM programs are project ed to provide.
The diminished cost

- effectiveness of utility DSM programs can be illustrated by looking only at potential benefits that DSM’s k W h reductions can provide. There are at least two reasons for projections of lower k W h reduction

- based benefits an d thus projections of lower DSM cost

effectiveness.

The first reason is lower fuel costs. For example, comparing the current fuel cost forecast ( at the time this Site Plan was prepared ) with th e fuel forecast used in 2009

– the year when FPL’s DSM
Goals w ere previously set by the FPSC

– shows that current forecast s of fuel costs are now much lower than those forecasted in 2009. This can be seen by comparing the 2009 and current forecasted costs ($/mmBTU) for natural gas for two specific years addressed in this Site Plan and
that were addressed in the 2009 DSM goals

- setting: 2015 and 2019:

Year 2009 Forecast Current Forecast

----------- ----------- -----------

2015 $9.64 $4.02 2019 $12.63 $4.70

As shown from these values, natural gas prices are forecast to be less than 50% of what they were forecast to be in 2009 when DSM goals were previously set. L ower forecasted natural gas costs are very beneficial for FPL’s customers because they result in lower fuel costs and lower
electric rates. At the same time , lower fuel costs also result in lower potential fuel savings benefits
from the kWh reductions of DSM me asures. These lowered benefit values result in DSM being
less cost

- effective.

A second reason for the decline in the cost

- effectiveness of utility DSM on the FPL system is the steadily increasing efficiency with which FPL generates electricity. FPL’s gene rating system has steadily become more efficient in regard to its ability to generate electricity using less fossil fuel. For example, FPL used 20% less fossil fuel to generate the same number of M W h in 2012 than it did in 2001. This is a very good thing f or FPL’s customers because it helps to significantly lower
fuel costs and electric rates

.

However, t he improvements in generating system efficiency affect DSM cost

- effectiveness in much the same way that lower forecasted fuel costs do: both lower the fu el costs of energy delivered to FPL’s customers. Therefore, the improvements in generating system efficiency further

Florida Power & Light Company 67reduce the potential fuel savings benefits from the kWh reduction impacts of DSM, thus further lowering potential DSM benefits and DSM cost

- effectiveness.

The two reasons discussed above

– lower forecasted fuel costs and greater efficiency in FPL’s electricity generation

– are good for FPL’s customers because they will result in lower electric rates. Although beneficial for FPL’s customers, these factors also contribute to lowering the cost

effectiveness of utility DSM programs. Therefore, the reduction in DSM cost

- effectiveness , plus the growing impacts of energy efficiency codes and standards, le d to the FPSC setting lower DSM
Goals for FPL

.
Although the new DSM Goals are appropriately lower due to these market forces, the projected cumulative effect of FPL’s DSM programs from their inception through 2024 is truly significant.
FPL’s Summer MW Goals for the 2015

– 2024 time period were set at 526 MW. After accounting for the 20% total reserve margin requirements, the combination of this new Summer MW reduction value, and the Summer MW reductions from FPL’s DSM programs from their inception through 2014, represent the equivalent of avoiding th e need to build approximately sixteen (16) 400 MW power plants. The resource plan presented in this 2015 Site Plan accounts for the DSM MW and
GWh reductions set forth in FPL’s new DSM Goals. The reductions from the new DSM Goals are accounted for in Sched ules 7.1 and 7.2 which appear later in this chapter.

In the March 2015, FPL filed for FPSC approval of a DSM Plan that consists of numerous DSM
programs to meet th e new DSM Goals. A decision by the FPSC on these new DSM programs is expected in mid

- 2015.



### III. E Transmission Plan

The transmission plan will allow for the reliable delivery of the required capacity and energy to FPL’s retail and wholesale customers. The following table presents FPL’s proposed future
additions of 230 kV bulk transmission lines that must be certified under the Transmission Line Siting Act.

Florida Power & Light Company 68

### Table III.E.1: List of Proposed Power Lines (1)

Line Ownership (2)

Terminals (To) (3)

Terminals

(From) (4)
Line Length

CKT.
Miles (5)
Commercial

In

- Service Date (Mo/Yr) (6)
Nominal
Vo ltage

(KV) (7)

Capacity

(MVA)

FPL St. Johns 1/ Pringle 25 Dec

– 18 230 759
FPL Levee 2/ Midway 150 Jun

– 2 3 500 2598
FPL Raven 3/ Duval 45 Dec

– 1 9 230 759

1/ Final order certifying the corridor was issued on April 21
, 2006. This project is to be c ompleted in two phases. Phase I consisted of 4 miles of new 230 kV line (Pringle to Pellicer) and was completed in May

- 2009. Phase II consists of 21 miles of new 230 kV line (St. Johns to Pellicer) and is scheduled to be completed by Dec

- 2018

. 2/ Final or der certifying the corridor was issued i n April 1990

. Construction of 114 miles is complete and in

- service

. Remaining 36 miles are scheduled to be completed by Jun

- 2023. 3/ TLSA is being initiated in 2015 for the Raven to Duval project

.

In addition, th ere will be transmission facilities needed to connect several of FPL’s projected generating capacity additions to the system transmission grid. These transmission facilities (described on the following pages) are for the Port Everglades modernization that will be completed in mid

- 2016, the PV additions in late 2016
, and the potential new CC unit in 2019 at the
Okeechobee site. At the time the 201 5 Site Plan was prepared, no site ha d been selected for the 2023 combined cycle addition in the resource plan pre sented in this Site Plan. Therefore, no
transmission information for th is addition is presented.

Florida Power & Light Company 69

### II.E. 1 Transmission Facilities for Port Everglades Next Generation Clean Energy Center (Modernization)

The work required to connect the Port Everglades Next Generation Clean Energy Center to the FPL grid in 2016 is projected to be:



### I. Substation:

1. Construct two string busses to connect two combustion turbines (CT) to the Port Everglades
138 kV Substation.
2. Construct two string busses to connect one CT, and one steam turbine (ST) to the Port Everglades 230 kV Substation.
3. Add four main step

- up transformers (3

- 450 MVA, 1

- 580 MVA), one for each CT, and one for
the ST.
4. Replace ten (10) 138 kV breakers

. 5. Replace eight (8) 230 kV breakers

. 6. At Port Everglades Switchya rd replace twenty

- two 138 kV disconnect switches. Also upgrade associated jumpers, bus work, and equipment connections.
7. Expand switchyard relay vault and add relays and other protective equipment.



### II. Transmission:

1. Upgrade of existing transmission fac ilities:

• An ampacity upgrade up to 1905 amps on the Port Everglades

- Port Everglades Tap
138kV line section.

• An ampacity upgrade up to 1905 amps on the Port Everglades Tap

- Port Everglade s Tap 2
138 kV line section.

• An ampacity upgrade up to 1695 amp s on the Port Everglades Tap 1

- Dania 138 kV line
section.

• An ampacity upgrade up to 1695 amps on the Dania

- Hollywood 138 kV line section.

Florida Power & Light Company 70

### III.E.2 Transmission Facilities for the PV Project at the Existing Manatee Plant Site

The work required to co nnect the approximate 74 .5 MW ( nameplate , AC) facility at the existing Manatee site is projected to be:



### I. Substation:

1. Build a new 230 kV substation approximately 0.4 miles west of the existing FPL Manatee 230
kV substation

. 2. Add one main step

- up transformer ( 80 MVA) to connect solar PV inverter array
3. Construct a new 230 kV breaker bay at the Manatee switchyard

. 4. Add relays and other protective equipment.
5. Breaker replacements: None



### II. Transmission:

1. Construct 0.4 mile 230 kV line from new substation to Man atee switchyard.
2. No upgrades are expected to be necessary at this time.

Florida Power & Light Company 71

### III.E.3 Transmission Facilities for the Citrus PV Project in DeSoto County

The work required to connect the approximate 74 .5 MW ( nameplate , AC) Citrus PV facility in DeSoto County is projected to be:



### I. Substation:

1. Construct a new 4

- breaker 230 kV ring bus at Sunshine substation

. 2. Add one main step

- up transformer ( 80 MVA) to connect solar PV inverter array
3. Construct a string buss to connect the PV array to Sunshine 230 kV Substation
4. Add relays and other protective equipment.
5. Breaker replacements: None



### II. Transmission:

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

Florida Power & Light Company 72

### III.E. 3 Transmission Facilities for the Babcock Ranch PV Project in Charlotte County

The work required to con nect the approximate 74 .5 MW ( nameplate , AC) Babcock Ranch PV facility in Citrus County is projected to be:



### I. Substation:

1. Build a new 230 kV Tuckers substation approximately 5 miles north of the planned FPL
Hercules 230 kV substation

. 2. Add one main step

- up transformer ( 80 MVA) to connect solar PV inverter array
3. Add one (1) mid

- breaker to complete bay 2 at Hercules
4. Add relays and other protective equipment.
5. Breaker replacements: None



### II. Transmission:

1. Construct 5 miles of 230 kV line from new Tuckers substati on to Hercules substation.
2. No upgrades are expected to be necessary at this time.

Florida Power & Light Company 73

### III.E. 4 Transmission Facilities for the Potential New Combined Cycle (CC) Unit in
Okeechobee County

The work required to connect the potential new CC unit in Okeechobee Cou nty by Summer 2019 is projected to be:



### I. Substation:

1. Build a new six breaker 500kV Okeechobee Substation switchyard on the Okeechobee generation site with a relay vault for the two generator string buses and the Martin and
Poinsett line terminals

. 2. Build ne w collector yard containing two collector busses with 4 breakers to connect the three CTs, and one ST.
3. Construct two string busses to connect the collector busses and main switchyard to
Okeechobee 500kV Substation.
4. Add five main step

- up transformers ( 5

- 45 0 MVA) one for each CT, and two for the ST.
5. Add relays and other protective equipment.
6. Breaker replacements: Poinsett Sub

– Replace three (3) 230 kV breakers

.



### II. Transmission:

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

Florida Power & Light Company 74

### III. F. Renewable Resources

FPL’s Renewable Energy Efforts Through 2014:

FPL has been the leading Florida utility in examining ways to effectively utilize renewable energy technologies to serve its customers. FPL has been involved since 1976 in renewable e nergy research and development and in facilitating the implementation of various renewable energy technologies. For purposes of discussing FPL’s renewable energy efforts through 2014, those efforts will be placed into five categories. FPL’s plans for new r enewable energy facilities during the 2015 through 2024 time period are then discussed in a separate section.

Two of these categories are Supply

- Side Efforts

– Power Purchases, and Supply

- Side Efforts

– FPL Facilities. Since 2011, the combined total ener gy output (MWh) from these renewable energy

sources has been greater than th at pro duced from oil

- fired generation. The comparable values for energy delivered by renewable and oil

- fired sources for the year 2014 are presented in Sc hedule
11.1 at the end of this chapter.

1) Early Research & Development Efforts : In the late 1970s, FPL assisted the Florida Solar Energy Center (FSEC) in demonstrating the first residential PV system east of the Mississippi River . This PV installation at FSEC’s Brevard County l ocation was in operation for more than 15 years and provided valuable information about PV performance capabilities in Florida on both a daily and annual basis. In
1984
, FPL installed a second PV system at its Flagami substation in Miami. This 10

- kilowatt (kW) system operated for a number of years before it was removed to make room for substation expansion. In addition, FPL maintained a thin

- film PV test facility at the FPL Martin
Plant Site for a number of years to test new thin

- film PV technologies

.

2) Demand Side & Customer Efforts: In terms of utilizing renewable energy sources to meet its customers’ needs, FPL initiated the first utility

- sponsored conservation program in Florida designed to facilitate the implementation of solar technologies by it s customers. FPL’s Conservation Water Heating Program, first implemented in 1982, offered incentive payments to customers who chose solar water heaters. Before the program ended ( because it was no longer cost

- effective), FPL paid incentives to approximatel y 48,000 customers who installed solar water heaters.

In the mid

- 1980s, FPL introduced another renewable energy program, FPL’s Passive Home Program. This program was created in order to broadly disseminate information about passive solar building design t echniques that are most applicable in Florida’s climate. As part of this

Florida Power & Light Company 75program, three Florida architectural firms created complete construction blueprints for six passive home designs with the assistance of the FSEC and FPL. These designs and blueprints were available to customers at a low cost. During its existence, the program received a U.S. Department of Energy award for innovation and also led to a revision of the Florida Model Energy Building Code (Code). The Code was revised to incorporate one of the most significant passive design techniques highlighted in the program: radiant barrier
insulation.

FPL has continued to analyze and promote the utilization of PV. These efforts have included PV research such as the 1991 research project to evaluate th e feasibility of using small PV systems to directly power residential swimming pool pumps. FPL’s PV efforts also included
educational efforts such as FPL ’s Next Generation Solar Station Program. This initiative
delivered teacher training and curriculum th at is tied to the Sunshine Teacher Standards in Florida. The program provided teacher grants to promote and fund projects in the classrooms. In addition, FPL assists customers who are interested in installing PV equipment at their facilities. Consistent wi th Florida Administrative Code R ule 25

- 6.065, Interconnection and Net Metering of Customer

- Owned Renewable Generation
, FPL works with customers to
interconnect these customer

- owned PV systems. Through December 201 4 , approximately 3,241 c ustomer systems (p redominantly residential) have been interconnected.

A s part of its 2009 DSM G oals decision, the FPSC imposed a requirement for Florida’s
investor

- owned utilities to spend up to a not

- to

- exceed amount of money annually to facilitate
demand side solar wat er heater and PV applications. FPL’s not

- to

- exceed amount of money for these applications wa s approximately $15.5 million per year for five years

. In response to this direction, FPL received approval from the FPSC in 2011 to initiate a solar pilot portfoli o consist ing of three PV

- based programs and three solar water heating

- based programs, plus
Renewable Research and De monstration projects

. FPL’s analyses of the results from these
programs since their inception have consistently shown that none of these pil ot programs is
cost

- effective using any of the three cost

- effectiveness screening tests used by the State of
Florida. As a result, consistent with the FPSC’s November 2014 DSM Goals Order No . PSC

14

- 0696

- FOF

- EU
, these pilot programs will expire on December 31, 2015.

FPL also has b een investigating fuel cell technologies through monitoring of industry trends,
discussions with manufacturers
, and direct field trials. From 2002 through the end of 2005
, FPL conducted field trials and demonstration projects of Proton Exchange Membrane (PEM) fuel cells with the objectives of serving customer end

- uses while evaluating the technical performance, reliability, economics
, and relative readiness of the PEM technology. The demonstration projects were conducted in partne rship with customer s and included five

Florida Power & Light Company 76locations

. The research projects were useful to FPL in identifying specific issues that can occur in field applications and the current commercial viability of this technology. FPL will continue to monitor the progre ss of these technologies and conduct additional field evaluations as significant developments in fuel cell technologies occur.

3) Supply Side Efforts

– Power Purchases:
FPL also has facilitated a number of 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 types of facilities. (Please refer to Tables I.A.3, I.B.1, and I.B.2 in Chapter I).

FPL issued Renewable Requests for Pr oposals ( RFPs ) in 2007 and 2008 which solicit ed proposals to provide firm capacity and energy, and energy only, at or below avoided costs
, from renewable generators. FPL also promptly responds to inquir i es for information from prospective renewable energy suppliers either by e

- mail or phone.

On April 22, 2013
, in Order No. PSC

- 13

- 1064

- PAA

- EQ, the FPSC approved three 60 MW power purchase agreements with affiliates of U.S. EcoGen for biomass

- fired renewable energy facilities. These facilities are expected to provide non

- firm energy service beginning in 2019 and to provid e firm energy and capacity to FPL’s customers beginning in 2021.

In regard to existing contracts that have recently ended, FPL and the Solid Waste Authority of Palm Beach (SWA) agreed to exte nd their contract that expired March 31, 2010 for a 20

- year
term beginning in April 1, 2012 through April 1, 2032. However, the SWA refurbished their generating unit ahead of schedule and, as of January 2012, this unit began delivering firm capacity to FPL . In 2011, the FPSC approved a contract for an additional 7 0 MW between FPL and SWA for a new unit . The new unit is now delivering test energy and will begin delivering firm capacity and energy to FPL beginning in June 2015 . At the end of December 2011, th e contract between FPL and Okeelanta (New Hope) expired. However, Okeelanta continues to deliver energy to FPL as an as

- available, non

- firm supplier of renewable energy.

4) Supply Side Efforts

– FPL Facilities: With regard to solar generating facilities
, FP L currently has three such facilities: (i) a 75 MW steam generation solar thermal facility in Martin County (the Martin Next Generation Solar Energy Center); (ii) a 25 MW PV electric generation facility in DeSoto County (the DeSoto
Next Generation Solar Energy Center ); and (iii) a 10 MW PV electric generation facility in Brevard County at NASA’s Kennedy Space Center (the Space Coast Next Generation Solar

Florida Power & Light Company 77Energy Center)

. The DeSoto County project was completed in 2009 and the other two projects were comple ted in 2010.

These three solar facilities were constructed in response to the Florida Legislature ’s House Bill 7135 which was signed into law by the Governor in June 2008. House Bill 7135 was enacted to enable the development of clean, zero greenhouse ga s emitting renewable generation in
the State of Florida. Specifically, the b ill authorized cost recovery for the first 110 MW of eligible renewable projects that had the proper land, zoning
, and transmission rights in place. FPL’s three solar projects met the specified criteria and were granted approval for cost recovery in 2008. Each of the three solar facilities is discussed below.

a. The Martin Next Generation Solar Energy Center:
T his facility began commercial operation in 2010 and provid es 75 MW of sol ar thermal capacity in an innovative way that directly displaces fossil fuel usage on the FPL system. This facility consists of solar thermal technology which generates steam that is integrated into the existing steam cycle for the Martin Unit 8 natural g as
- fired CC plant. This project is the first “hybrid” solar plant in the world and, at the time the facility came in

- service, was the second largest solar facility in the world and the largest solar plant of any kind in the U.S. outside of California.

b. T he DeSoto Next Generation Solar Energy Center:
This 25 MW (nameplate, AC) PV facility began commercial operation in 2009 which made
it one of the largest PV facilit ies in the U.S. at that time. The facility utilizes a tracking PV array that is designed t o follow the sun as it traverses across the sky.

c. The Space Coast Next Generation Solar Energy Center: Located at the Kennedy Space Center, this facility is part of an innovative public/private partnership with NASA. This non

- tracking , 10 MW (nameplate, AC) PV facility began commercial operation in 2010.

During 2014, FPL conducted analyses designed to develop a methodology with which to determine what firm capacity value at FPL’s Summer and Winter peak hours would be appropriate to apply to these exist ing, and potential future , utility

- scale PV facilities. (Note that the Martin solar thermal facility is a “fuel

- substitute” facility, not a facility that provides additional capacity and energy. The solar thermal facility displaces the use of fossil fuel t o produce steam on the FPL system when the solar thermal facility is operating. ) Based on the results of these analyses, FPL has concluded that its two existing utility

- scale PV facilities can
be counted on to contribute certain percentages of their namepl ate (AC) ratings

Florida Power & Light Company 78(approximately 46% for DeSoto and 32% for Space Coast) as firm capacity at FPL’s Summer peak hour (that typically occurs in the 4 p.m. to 5 p.m. hour) , but contribute no firm capacity during FPL’s Winter peak hour (that typically occurs in the 7 a.m. to 8 a.m. hour). Future FPL utility

- scale PV facilities will be evaluated for potential firm capacity contribution on a case

- by

case basis using this methodology . Their potential capacity contribution will be dependent upon a number of factors including (but not necessarily limited to) site location, technology, and design. For example, t he three new PV facilities that are planned to be added by the end of 2016 are each projected to provide approximately 52% of their nameplate (AC) rating as
fi rm capacity at FPL’s Summer peak hour, but provide no firm capacity during FPL’s Winter peak hour.

5) Ongoing Research & Development Efforts: FPL has developed alliances with several Florida universities to promote the development of emerging technologie s. For example, FPL supports the new ly formed Southeast National Marine Renewable Energy Center (SNMREC) at Florida Atlantic University (FAU), which will focus on the commercialization of ocean current, ocean thermal energy conversion
, cold water
air cond itioning
, and hydrogen technologies. FPL has support ed FAU in discussions with the U.S. Department of the Interior’s Minerals Bureau of Ocean Energy Management Regulation and Enforcement (BOEMRE)

. BOEMRE is working to establish the permitting process for ocean energy development on the outer continental shelf.

FPL has al so develop ed a “ L iving L ab” to demonstrate FPL’s solar energy commitment to employees and visitors at its Juno Beach office facility. FPL has installed five different PV arrays ( using d ifferent technologies) of rooftop PV totaling 24 kW at the Living Lab . In addition
, two PV

- covered parking structures with a total of approximately 90 kW of PV are in use at the FPL Juno office parking lot. Through these Liv ing Lab projects, FPL is able to evaluate multiple solar technologies and applications for the purpose of developing a renewable business model resulting in the most cost

- effective and reliable uses of solar energy for FPL ’s
customers. FPL plans to continue to expand the Living Lab as ne w solar products come to
market.

FPL has also been in discussion s with several private companies on multiple emerging technology initiatives
, including ocean current, ocean thermal, hydrogen, fuel cell technology,
biomas s, biofuels, and energy storage.

Florida Power & Light Company 79

### FPL’s Planned Renewable Energy Efforts for 2015 Through 202 4:

FPL has concluded from its implementation and analyses of utility

- scale PV and PV demand side pilot programs that utility

- scale PV applications are the most economical way to utilize
solar en ergy. In fact, FPL’s analysis suggests that utility

- scale PV is at least twice as economical on an installed $/kw basis compared to distributed PV systems. This conclusion is supported by FPL’s recent analyses discussed above regarding the ability to assig n firm capacity value at FPL’s Summer peak hour to utility

- scale PV. Due to the fact that the price of
PV modules has decline d in recent years, utility

- scale PV has become more cost competitive. However, o nly the most cost

- advantaged sites for utility

- scal e PV are projected to be cost

effective on FPL’s system at this time. Other sites may become cost

- effective in later years if PV costs continue to decline as expected. Consequently, the resource plan FPL is presenting
in this Site Plan includes three utili ty

- scale PV facilities at specific, cost

- advantaged sites which also are able to take advantage of the current 30% investment tax credit ( which is scheduled to be reduced to 10% in 2017)

. If/when utility

- scale PV projects at other sites are projected to be cost

- effective, additional PV generation sources will be discussed in future Site
Plans.

1) FPL Utility

- Scale PV Facilities: In the resource plan presented in this Site Plan, FPL projects the addition of three separate utility

- scale PV facilities by the end of 2016. Each PV facility is projected to be approximately
74 .5 MW (nameplate, AC) . The sites of these three proposed PV additions are: FPL’s existing Manatee plant site, a site in DeSoto County, and a site in Charlotte County. T hese locations are expecte d to have cost advantages to support early development, including:

- Current ownership of land or low cost land purchase agreement in place ;

- Proximity to existing transmission lines with sufficient injection capacity;

- Proximity to existing electric substati ons;

- Previously performed site development and permitting work;

- Proximity to existing FPL generating facilities which allows for lower operating
expenses;

- Support from the associated counties and land developers, with the potential for
further cost abateme nts;

As previously mentioned, bringing these three PV facilities in service before the end of
2016 will also allow the facilities to capture the full benefit of the cu rrently available 30%
investment tax credit for such PV facilities . The investment tax c redit is scheduled to revert back to a 10% credit for PV projects that are placed in service after 2016.

Florida Power & Light Company 802) FPL Distributed Generation (DG) PV Pilot Programs : In regard to distributed generation (DG) PV, FPL is planning to implement two DG PV pilot programs i n 2015. The first is a voluntary, community

- based, solar partnership pilot to
install new solar

- powered generating facilities . The program will be at least partially funded by contributions f rom customers who volunteer to participate in the pilot and will not rely on subsidies from non

- participating customers . The second program will implement approximately 6 MW of combined DG PV and battery storage at large commercial customer sites. The objective of this program is to collec t grid integration data for DG PV and develop operational best practices for addressing potential problems that may be identified

. A brief description of the two pilot programs follows:

a) Voluntary, Community

- B ased Solar Partnership Pilot Program : FPL is introducing a Voluntary Solar Pil ot Program to provide FPL customers with an additional and flexible opportunity to support development of solar power in Florida. The Commission approved FPL’s request for this three

- year pilot program in Order
No. PSC

- 14

- 0468

- TRF

- EI on August 29, 2014. This pilot program will provide all customers the opportunity to support the use of solar energy at a community scale and is designed to be especially attractive for customers who do not wish, or are not able, to place solar equipment on their roof. Custo mers can participate in the program through voluntary contributions of $9/month starting in mid

- 2015

.

In this respect, these DG

- scale projects differ from FPL’s three new utility

- scale PV projects proposed for 2016 , which are not projected to introduce a net cost to customers over the life of these projects and
, therefore
, do not require additional
contributions from FPL’s customers. In contrast, smaller DG

- scale projects have a higher cost to construct , operate, and maintain. The cost per MW to construct DG

scale facilities (whether utility

- owned and operated or otherwise) is approximately
double that of the more cost

- efficient utility

- scale PV projects. Furthermore, the operations and maintenance cost s of DG

- scale projects are projected to be three
times as much as for utility

- scale PV due to the distributed nature of the installations. Thus a voluntary contribution is necessary for this DG

- based pilot program so that net
costs , and electric rates
, do not increase for non

- participants.

The first 2 00 kW o f DG

- scale PV projects will be built by FPL in the first half of 2015 at
locations in the city of West Palm Beach and in Broward County. The first installation is scheduled to be at the Young at Arts Museum in Broward County. Additional PV
facilities unde r this pilot program will be built when the projected voluntary
contributions are sufficient to cover on

- going program costs without increasing electric

Florida Power & Light Company 8 1rates for all customers, including non
- participating customers. The locations of these
additional PV fa cilities will be determined at a later date. While the ultimate amount of PV that will be installed under this voluntary program cannot be known at this time, it is estimated that the project could result in approximately 2 MW (nameplate , DC ) of community

- located PV installations supported by over 10,000 customer participants by the end of the three

- year pilot.

b) C&I Solar Partnership Pilot Program: This is a research program that will be conducted in partnership with interested commercial and industrial (C& I) customers over an approximate five year period

. Limited investments will be made in PV facilities located at customer sites in selected geographic areas of FPL’s service territory. The objective of this portion of the pilot program is to examine the eff ect of high DG PV penetration on FPL’s distribution system and to determine how best to address any problems that may be identified. FPL will site approximately 5 MW (nameplate , DC ) of PV facilities in areas where DG PV already exists to better study feede r loading impacts. PV installations at Daytona International Speedway, and FIU’s Engineering Center campus in West Miami

- Dade County have been selected based largely on their interconnection with targeted
circuits. In addition, this pilot program will also install a battery storage facility of approximately 1 MW capacity. This facility will be used to investigate the interoperability
, and optimization
, of multiple DG technologies. A multi

- year research partnership agreement has been executed with FIU for t he university to assist FPL in
the battery storage research and development plan , and in the analys e s that will subsequently be conducted

.



### III. G FPL’s Fuel Mix and Fuel Price Forecasts

1. FPL’s Fuel Mix
Until the mid

- 1980s, FPL relied primarily on a com bination of fuel oil, natural gas, and nuclear energy to generate electricity with significant reliance on oil

– fired generation. In the early
1980s
, FPL began to purchase “coal

- by

- wire.” In 1987, coal was first added to the fuel mix through FPL’s partial ownership (20%) and additional purchases (30%) 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 acquisi tion (76%) of Scherer Unit 4 which began serving FPL’s customers in 1991.

Florida Power & Light Company 82The trend since the early 1990s has been a steady increase in the amount of natural gas that FPL uses to produce electricity due, in part, to the introduction of highly efficient and cost

effective CC generating units and the ready availability of natural gas . FPL placed into commercial operation two new gas

- fired CC units at the West County Energy Center (WCEC)
site in 2009 . A third new CC unit was added to the WCEC site in 2011. In addition, FPL has completed the modernization of its Cape Canaveral and Riviera Beach plant site s and is currently modernizing its existing Port Everglades plant site by removing the s team generating
units that previously operated at the site and replac ing them with one highly efficient new CC
unit. The new CC units at each of these three sites will provide highly efficient g eneration that will dramatically improve the efficiency of FPL’s generation system in general and, more specifically, the efficienc y with which natural gas is utilized.

In addition, FPL increas ed its utilization of nuclear energy through capacity uprates of its four existing nuclear units. With these uprates, more than 5 2 0 MW of additional nuclear capacity
have been added to the FPL system. FPL is also pursuing plans to obtain licenses, permits
, and approvals to construct and operate two new nuclear units at its existing Turkey Point site that, in total, would add approximately 2,200 MW of new nuclear generating capacity.

In regar d to utilizing renewable energy, FPL has 110 MW of solar generating capacity consisting of: a 75 MW solar thermal steam generating facility at FPL’s existing Martin site, a 25 MW PV facility in DeSoto County, and a 10 MW PV facility in Brevard County. The DeSoto facility was placed into commercial operation in 2009. The other two solar facilities were placed into commercial operation in 2010. As discussed in the preceding section, FPL is planning to add three new approximately 74 .5 MW (nameplate , AC ) PV fac ilities by the end of
2016

.

FPL’s future resource planning work will continue to focus on identifying and evaluating
alternatives that would most cost

- effectively maintain and/or enhance FPL’s long

- term fuel diversity. These fuel diverse alternatives may include: the purchase of power from renewable energy facilities, additional FPL

- owned renewable energy facilities, obtaining additional access to diversified sources of natural gas such as liquefied natural gas (LNG) and natural gas from
the Mid

- Continent unconventional reserves, securing gas reserves, preserving FPL’s ability to utilize fuel oil at its existing units, and increased utilization of nuclear energy. (As previously discussed, new advanced technology coal

- fired generating units are not currently considered as viable options in Florida in the ten

- year reporting period of this document due, in part, to current projections of relatively small differences in fuel costs between coal and natural gas, significantly higher capital costs for coal units co mpared to CC units, greater efficiencies of CC units, and concerns over environmental regulations that would impact coal units more

Florida Power & Light Company 83negatively than CC units.) The evaluation of the feasibility and cost

- effectiveness of these, and other possible fuel divers ity alternatives, will be part of FPL’s on
- going resource planning
efforts.

FPL’s current use of various fuels to supply energy to customers, plus a projection of this “fuel mix” through 202 4 based on the resource plan presented in this document, is prese nted in Schedules 5, 6.1, and 6.2 later in this chapter.

2) FPL’s Fossil Fuel Cost Forecasts
Fossil fuel price forecasts, and the resulting projected price differentials between fuels, are major drivers used in evaluating alternatives for meeting future reso urce needs. FPL’s forecasts are generally consistent with other published contemporary forecasts. A November
201 4 fuel cost forecast was used in the analyses whose results led to the resource plan presented in this 201 5 Site Plan.

Future oil and natural ga s prices, and to a lesser extent, coal prices, are inherently uncertain due to a significant number of unpredictable and uncontrollable drivers that influence the
short

- and long

- term price of oil, natural gas, and coal. These drivers include U.S. and
worl dwide demand, production capacity, economic growth, environmental requirements , and politics.

The inherent uncertainty and unpredictability of these factors today and in the future clearly underscores the need to develop a set of plausible oil, natural ga s, and solid fuel (coal) price scenarios that will bound a reasonable set of long

- term price outcomes . In this light, FPL developed and utilized Low, Medium, and High price forecasts for fossil fuels in some of its
201 4 and early 201 5 resource planning wor k, particularly in regard to analyses conducted as part of the nuclear cost recovery filing work

.

FPL’s Medium price forecast methodology is consistent for oil and natural gas. For oil and natural gas commodity prices, FPL’s Medium price forecast applies the following

m e thodology:

a. For 201 5 through 201 6 , the methodology used the November 3
, 201 4 forward curve
for New York Harbor 0.7 % sulfur heavy oil, ultra

- low sulfur diesel (ULSD) fuel oil, and Henry Hub natural gas commodity prices;

b. For the next two ye ars ( 201 7 and 201 8 ), FPL used a 50/50 blend of the November 3
, 201 4 forward curve and the most current projections at the time from The PIRA Energy Group;

Florida Power & Light Company 84c. For the 201 9 through 203 5 period, FPL used the annual projections from The PIRA Energy Group; and,

d. For the period beyond 203 5 , FPL used the real rate of escalation from the Energy Information Administration (EI A ). In addition to the development of oil and natural gas commodity prices, nominal price forecasts also were prepared for oil and natural gas
tr ansportation costs. The addition of commodity and transportation forecasts resulted in delivered price forecasts.

FPL’s Medium price forecast methodology is also consistent for coal prices. Coal prices were based upon the following approach:

a. Delivered p rice forecasts for Central Appalachian (CAPP), Illinois Basin (IB), Powder River Basin (PRB), and South American coal were provided by JD Energy; and,

b. The coal price forecast for SJRPP and Plant Scherer assume s the continuation of the existing mine

- mouth a nd transportation contracts until expiration, along with the purchase of spot coal, to meet generation requirements

. The development of FPL’s Low and High price forecasts for oil, natural gas, and coal prices
were based on the historical volatility of the 12

- month forward price, one year ahead. FPL developed these forecasts to account for the uncertainty that exists within each commodity as well as across commodities. These forecasts reflect a range of reasonable forecast outcomes.

3. Natural Gas Storage
F PL was under contract through August 2014 for 2 .5 billion cubic feet (Bcf) of firm natural gas storage capacity in the Bay Gas storage facility located in Alabama. The Bay Gas storage facility is interconnected with the Florida Gas Transmission (FGT) pipe line. FPL amended the transaction with Bay Gas on September 1, 2014 to increase the capacity to 4.0 Bcf of firm natural gas storage capacity. FPL has predominately utilized natural gas storage to help mitigate gas supply problems caused by severe weather a nd/or infrastructure problems.

Over the past several years, FPL has acquired upstream transportation capacity on several pipelines to help mitigate the risk of off

- shore supply problems caused by severe weather in the Gulf of Mexico. While this transpo rtation capacity has reduced FPL’s off

- shore exposure, a portion of FPL’s supply portfolio remains tied to off

- shore natural gas sources. Therefore, natural gas storage remains an important tool to help mitigate the risk of supply disruptions.

As FPL ’s reliance on natural gas has increased, its ability to manage the daily “swings” that can occur on its system due to weather and unit availability changes has become more

Florida Power & Light Company 85challenging, particularly from oversupply situations. Natural gas storage is a valu able tool to help manage the daily balancing of supply and demand. From a balancing perspective, injection and withdrawal rights associated with gas storage have become an increasingly important part of the evaluation of overall gas storage requirements.

As FPL’s system grows to meet customer needs, it must maintain adequate gas storage capacity to continue to help mitigate supply and/or infrastructure problems and to provide FPL the ability to manage its supply and demand on a daily basis. FPL continu e s to evaluate its
gas storage portfolio and is likely to subscribe for additional gas storage capacity to help increase reliability, provide the necessary flexibility to respond to demand changes, and diversify the overall portfolio.

4. Securing Additional Natural Gas: The recent trend of increasing reliance upon natural gas to produce electricity for FPL’s customers is projected to continue due to FPL’s growing load. The addition of highly fuel

efficient CC units at Cape Canaveral and Riviera Beach due to c ompleted modernization projects
, the on

- going Port Everglades modernization project, plus the potential for additional CC capacity
, will reduce the growth in natural gas use from what it otherwise might have been due to the high fuel

- efficiency levels of t hese new CC units

. In addition, FPL plans to add a significant amount of new PV facilities that utilize no fossil fuel. However , these efficienc y gains do not fully offset the effects of FPL’s growing load. Therefore, FPL will need to secure more natural g as supply
, more firm gas transportation capacity , and secure gas reserves in the future as fuel requirements dictate . The issue is how to secure these additional natural gas
resources in a manner that is economical for FPL’s customers and which maintains a nd/or enhances the reliability of natural gas supply and deliverability to FPL’s generating units.

FPL has historically purchased the gas transportation capacity required for new natural gas supply from two existing natural gas pipeline compan ies

. As mor e natural gas is delivered through these two pipelines, the impact of a supply disruption on either pipeline becomes more problematic. Therefore, FPL issued a Request for Proposals (RFP) in December 2012 for gas transportation capacity to meet FPL’s system natural gas requirements beginning in 2017. The RFP encourage d bidders to propose new gas transportation infrastructure to meet Florida’s growing need for natural gas. A third pipeline would benefit FPL and its customers by increasing the diversity of FP L’s fuel supply sources, increasing the physical reliability of the pipeline delivery system, and enhanc ing competition among pipelines.

The RFP process was completed in June 2013
, and the winning bidders were Sabal Trail Transmission, LLC (Sabal Trail) and Florida Southeast Connection, LLC (FSC)

. The contracts

Florida Power & Light Company 86with Sabal Trail and FSC were reviewed by the FPSC and approved for cost recovery in late 2013. The order approving this cost recovery became final in January 2014. Sabal Trail and
FSC are currentl y in the process of obtaining Federal Energy Regulatory Commission approval for the new pipelines. The planned in

- service date for the pipelines is May 2017.

5

. Nuclear Fuel Cost Forecast This section reviews the various steps needed to fabricate nuclear fuel for delivery to the nuclear power plants, the method used to forecast the price for each step, and other comments regarding FPL’s nuclear fuel cost forecast.
a) Steps Required for Nuclear Fuel to be delivered to FPL’s Plants
Four separate steps are required before nuclear fuel can be used in a commercial nuclear power reactor. These steps are summarized below.

(1) Mining: Uranium is produced in many countries such as Canada, Australia, Kazakhstan, and the United States. During the first step, ur anium is mined from the ground using techniques such as open pit mining, underground mining, in

- situ leaching operations, or production as a by

- product from other mining operations, such as gold, copper, or phosphate rocks. The product from this first step is the raw uranium delivered as an oxide, U3O8 (sometimes referred to as yellowcake).

(2) Conversion: During the second step, the U3O8 is chemically converted into UF6 which, when heated, changes into a gaseous state. This second step further removes any chemical impurities and serves as preparation for the third step, which requires uranium to be in a gaseous state.

(3) Enrichment: The third step is called enrichment. Natural uranium contains 0.711% of uranium at an atomic mass of 235 (U

- 235) and 99.289% of uranium at an atomic mass of 238 (U

- 238). FPL’s nuclear reactors use uranium with a higher percentage of up to almost five percent (5%) of U

- 235 atoms. Because natural uranium does not contain a sufficient
amount of U

- 235, the third step increa ses the percentage amount of U

- 235 from 0.711% to a level specified when designing the reactor core (typically in a range from approximately 2.2 % to as high as 4.95 %). The output of this enrichment process is
enriched uranium in the form of UF6.

(4) Fabr ication: During the last step, fuel fabrication, the enriched UF6 is changed to a UO2 powder, pressed into pellets, and fed into tubes, which are sealed and bundled

Florida Power & Light Company 87together into fuel assemblies. These fuel assemblies are then delivered to the plant site
for insertion in a reactor.

Like other utilities, FPL has purchased raw uranium and the other components of the nuclear fuel cycle separately from numerous suppliers from different countries.

b) Price Forecasts for Each Step

(1) Mining: The impact of th e earthquake and tsunami that struck the Fukushima nuclear complex in Japan in March 2011 is still being felt in the uranium market. Current d emand
has declined and several of the production facilities have announced delays. Factors of importance are:

• He dge funds are still very active in the market. This causes more speculative demand that is not tied to market fundamentals and causes the market price to move up or down just based on news that might affect future demand.

• Some of t he uranium inventory from the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) is finding its way into the market periodically to fund cleanup of certain Department of Energy facilities.

• Although a limited number of new nuclear units are scheduled to start production in the U.S. during the next 5 to 10 years, other countries, more specifically China, have announced an increase in construction of new units which may cause uranium prices to trend up in the near future.

Over a 10

- year horizon, FPL expects the market to be more consistent with market
f undamentals . The supply picture is more stable, with law s enacted to resolve the import
of Russian

- enriched uranium, by allowing some imports of Russian

- enriched uranium to
meet about 20

- 25% of needs for currently operating units, but with no restriction o n the
first core for new units and no restrictions after 2020. New and current uranium production facilities continue to add capacity to meet demands. Actual demand tends to grow over time because of the long lead time to build nuclear units. However, FPL cannot discount the possibility of future periodic sharp increase in prices, but believes such occurrences will likely be temporary in nature.

(2) Conversion: The conversion market is also in a state of flux due to the Fukushima
events. P lanned producti on after 201 8 is currently forecast ed to be insufficient to meet the higher demand scenario , but it is projected to be sufficient to meet most reference case
scenarios . As with additional raw uranium production, supply will expand beyond current

Florida Power & Light Company 88level once more firm commitments are made including commitments to build new nuclear
units. FPL expects long term price stability for conversion services to support world
demand.

(3) Enrichment: As a result of the Fukushima events in March 2011, the near

- term p rice of enrichment services has been declining for the last three years. However, plans for
construction of several new facilities that were expected to come on

- line in the next few years have been delayed. Also, some of the existing high operating cost d iffusion plants
have shut down. A s with supply for the other steps of the nuclear fuel cycle, expansion of future capacity is feasible within the lead time for constructing new nuclear units and any other projected increase in demand. Meanwhile, world su pply and demand will continue to be balanced such that FPL expects adequate supply of enrichment services. The
current supply/demand profile will most likely result in the price of enrichment services
remain ing stable for the next few years before starting to increase

.

(4) Fabrication: Because the nuclear fuel fabrication process is highly regulated by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), not all production facilities can qualify as suppliers to nuclear reactors in the U.S. Although world supply and d emand is expected to show significant excess capacity for the foreseeable future, the gap is not as wide for U.S. supply and demand. The supply for the U.S. market is expected to be sufficient to meet
U.S. demand for the foreseeable future.

c) Other Com ments Regarding FPL’s Nuclear Fuel Cost Forecast
FPL’s nuclear fuel price forecasts are the result of FPL’s analysis based on inputs from various nuclear fuel market expert reports and studies. The calculations for the nuclear
fuel cost forecasts used in F PL’s 201 4 and early 201 5 resource planning work were performed consistent with the method then used for FPL’s Fuel Clause filings, including the assumption of refueling outages every 18 months and plant operation at current (i.e., power uprate d) levels

. Th e costs for each step to fabricate the nuclear fuel we re added to come up with the total costs of the fresh fuel to be loaded at each refueling (acquisition costs). The acquisition cost for each group of fresh fuel assemblies we re then amortized
over the e nergy produced by each group of fuel assemblies

. DOE notified FPL that, effective May 2014, all high level waste payments would be suspended until further notice. Therefore, FPL is no longer including in its nuclear fuel cost forecast a 1 mill per kilowatt hour net to reflect payment to DOE for spent fuel disposal.

Florida Power & Light Company 89Fuel Requirements Units 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024

(1) Nuclear Trillion BTU 273 298 292 300 297 300 305 302 300 305 301 301
(2) Coal 1,000 TON 3,540 2,649 2,585 2,376 2,131 2,061 2,288 1,984 2,081 2,056 2,097 1,962
(3) Residual (FO6) - Total 1,000 BBL 150 409 239 270 6 23 84 52 67 92 73 57 (4) Steam 1,000 BBL 150 409 239 270 6 23 84 52 67 92 73 57
(5) Distillate (FO2) - Total 1,000 BBL 152 197 33 202 3 14 98 36 43 216 235 123 (6) Steam 1,000 BBL 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (7) CC 1,000 BBL 140 123 3 43 3 12 80 29 38 147 157 83 (8) CT 1,000 BBL 12 69 30 158 0 2 17 7 4 69 78 41
(9) Natural Gas - Total 1,000 MCF 550,350 571,451 573,213 607,356 562,114 571,538 636,702 655,209 654,003 661,930 641,918 619,543 (10) Steam 1,000 MCF 30,348 24,488 13,043 12,527 5,516 7,135 11,042 10,599 8,193 9,467 7,885 6,042 (11) CC 1,000 MCF 514,793 542,409 559,815 593,301 552,012 557,972 611,146 636,305 639,200 644,223 624,799 607,913 (12) CT 1,000 MCF 5,208 4,555 355 1,529 4,586 6,432 14,514 8,305 6,611 8,241 9,234 5,587

1/ Source: A Schedules. Note: Solar contributions are provided on Schedules 6.1 and 6.2. Actual 1/ Forecasted Schedule 5 Fuel Requirements

(for FPL only)

Florida Power & Light Company 90Energy Sources Units 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024

(1) Annual Energy GWH 4,445 4,908 3,604 1,263 1,114 1,202 308 0 0 0 0 0 Interchange 2/

(2) Nuclear GWH 25,243 26,812 27,800 28,527 28,249 28,500 29,048 28,710 28,553 29,048 28,626 28,637
(3) Coal GWH 5,981 4,482 4,159 3,805 3,359 3,272 3,667 3,123 3,303 3,262 3,339 3,087
(4) Residual(FO6) -Total GWH 75 231 155 171 4 15 52 33 43 58 46 36 (5) Steam GWH 75 231 155 171 4 15 52 33 43 58 46 36

(6) Distillate(FO2) -Total GWH 120 128 14 103 3 13 91 32 40 183 194 101 (7) Steam GWH 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (8) CC GWH 114 102 3 41 3 12 83 29 38 144 151 78 (9) CT GWH 5 23 11 62 0 1 8 3 2 38 43 22

(10) Natural Gas -Total GWH 75,208 79,102 79,906 84,749 79,380 80,416 88,286 92,422 92,707 92,810 94,509 96,618 (11) Steam GWH 2,472 1,906 1,279 1,214 537 684 1,077 1,001 790 912 763 577 (12) CC GWH 72,308 76,857 78,594 83,405 78,404 79,108 85,809 90,628 91,279 91,100 92,854 95,500 (13) CT GWH 428 340 33 130 439 623 1,400 793 638 797 893 540

(14) Solar 3/ GWH 155 177 192 314 684 700 695 698 695 693 684 691 (15) PV GWH 68 68 71 189 577 575 573 573 569 567 565 565 (16) Solar Thermal GWH 87 109 121 126 107 125 122 126 125 125 119 126

(17) Other 4/ GWH 428 127 3,882 3,474 11,152 11,315 4,923 3,833 3,896 4,023 4,097 4,107

----------------------------------- --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- Net Energy For Load 5/ GWH 111,656 115,968 119,712 122,407 123,945 125,433 127,070 128,851 129,237 130,077 131,495 133,276

1/ Source: A Schedules and Actual Data for Next Generation Solar Centers Report 2/ The projected figures are based on estimated energy purchases from SJRPP, the Southern Companies (UPS contract), and other utilities. 3/ Represents output from FPL's PV and solar thermal facilities. 4/ Represents a forecast of energy expected to be purchased from Qualifying Facilities, Independent Power Producers, net of

Economy and other Power Sales. 5/ Net Energy For Load values for the years 2015- 2024 are also shown in Col. (19) on Schedule 2.3. Actual 1/ Forecasted Schedule 6.1 Energy Sources

Florida Power & Light Company 91Energy Source Units 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024

(1) Annual Energy % 4.0 4.2 3.0 1.0 0.9 1.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Interchange 2/

(2) Nuclear % 22.6 23.1 23.2 23.3 22.8 22.7 22.9 22.3 22.1 22.3 21.8 21.5
(3) Coal % 5.4 3.9 3.5 3.1 2.7 2.6 2.9 2.4 2.6 2.5 2.5 2.3
(4) Residual (FO6) -Total % 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 (5) Steam % 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
(6) Distillate (FO2) -Total % 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 (7) Steam % 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 (8) CC % 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 (9) CT % 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
(10) Natural Gas -Total % 67.4 68.2 66.7 69.2 64.0 64.1 69.5 71.7 71.7 71.3 71.9 72.5 (11) Steam % 2.2 1.6 1.1 1.0 0.4 0.5 0.8 0.8 0.6 0.7 0.6 0.4 (12) CC % 64.8 66.3 65.7 68.1 63.3 63.1 67.5 70.3 70.6 70.0 70.6 71.7 (13) CT % 0.4 0.3 0.0 0.1 0.4 0.5 1.1 0.6 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.4

(14) Solar 3/ % 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 (15) PV % 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 (16) Solar Thermal % 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1

(17) Other 4/ % 0.4 0.1 3.2 2.8 9.0 9.0 3.9 3.0 3.0 3.1 3.1 3.1 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100

1/ Source: A Schedules and Actual Data for Next Generation Solar Centers Report 2/ The projected figures are based on estimated energy purchases from SJRPP, the Southern Companies (UPS contract), and other utilities. 3/ Represents output from FPL's PV and solar thermal facilities. 4/ Represents a forecast of energy expected to be purchased from Qualifying Facilities, Independent Power Producers, net of

Economy and other Power Sales. Actual 1/ Forecasted Schedule 6.2 Energy Sources % by Fuel Type

Florida Power & Light Company 92(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14) (15) (16)

Total Firm Firm Firm Firm Firm Total Summer Installed Capacity Capacity Firm Capacity Peak Peak Scheduled August of Capacity Import Export QF Available Demand DSM Demand Maintenance

Year MW MW MW MW MW MW MW MW MW % of Peak MW MW % of Peak MW % of Peak

2015 25,008 1,420 0 595 27,022 23,286 1,951 21,335 5,688 26.7 0 5,688 26.7 3,736 16.0 2016 25,585 492 0 345 26,421 23,778 2,000 21,779 4,643 21.3 0 4,643 21.3 2,643 11.1 2017 26,001 492 0 345 26,838 24,252 2,046 22,207 4,631 20.9 0 4,631 20.9 2,585 10.7 2018 26,024 699 0 345 27,067 24,648 2,092 22,555 4,512 20.0 0 4,512 20.0 2,420 9.8 2019 27,665 110 0 345 28,120 25,045 2,140 22,905 5,215 22.8 0 5,215 22.8 3,075 12.3 2020 27,665 110 0 345 28,119 25,369 2,188 23,181 4,938 21.3 0 4,938 21.3 2,750 10.8 2021 27,752 110 0 525 28,387 25,497 2,237 23,260 5,127 22.0 0 5,127 22.0 2,890 11.3 2022 27,838 110 0 525 28,472 25,833 2,287 23,546 4,926 20.9 0 4,926 20.9 2,640 10.2 2023 29,154 110 0 525 29,789 26,286 2,338 23,948 5,841 24.4 0 5,841 24.4 3,503 13.3 2024 29,154 110 0 525 29,789 26,771 2,389 24,381 5,407 22.2 0 5,407 22.2 3,018 11.3
Col. (2) represents capacity additions and changes projected to be in-service by June 1st. These MW are generally considered to be available to meet peak loads which are forecasted to occur during August of the year indicated. Col. (6) = Col.(2) + Col.(3) - Col(4) + Col(5). Col.(7) reflects the 2014 load forecast without incremental DSM or cumulative load management. 2014 load is an actual load value. Col.(8) represents cumulative load management capability, plus incremental conservation and load management, from 9/2014-on intended for use with 2014 load forecast. Col.(10) = Col.(6) - Col.(9) Col.(11) = Col.(10) / Col.(9) Col.(12) indicates the capacity of units projected to be out-of-service for planned maintenance during the summer peak period. Col.(13) = Col.(10) - Col.(12) Col.(14) = Col.(13) / Col.(9) Col.(15) = Col.(6) - Col.(7) - Col.(12) Col.(16) = Col.(15) / Col.(7) Schedule 7.1 Forecast of Capacity, Demand, and Scheduled Maintenance At Time Of Summer Peak

Maintenance Maintenance Total Generation Only Reserve Reserve Reserve Margin Before Margin After Margin After Maintenance Total

Florida Power & Light Company 93(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14) (15) (16)

Total Firm Firm Firm Firm Firm Total Winter Installed Capacity Capacity Firm Capacity Peak Peak Scheduled January of Capacity Import Export QF Available Demand DSM Demand Maintenance

Year MW MW MW MW MW MW MW MW MW % of Peak MW MW % of Peak MW % of Peak

2015 26,758 1,357 0 595 28,710 21,136 1,452 19,684 9,026 45.9 0 9,026 45.9 7,574 35.8 2016 27,205 499 0 345 28,049 21,369 1,483 19,886 8,163 41.1 0 8,163 41.1 6,680 31.3 2017 27,842 499 0 345 28,686 21,485 1,510 19,976 8,710 43.6 0 8,710 43.6 7,201 33.5 2018 27,958 499 0 345 28,802 21,598 1,537 20,061 8,740 43.6 0 8,740 43.6 7,204 33.4 2019 27,978 499 0 345 28,822 21,792 1,565 20,227 8,595 42.5 0 8,595 42.5 7,030 32.3 2020 29,573 110 0 345 30,028 21,965 1,593 20,372 9,655 47.4 0 9,655 47.4 8,063 36.7 2021 29,573 110 0 525 30,208 22,096 1,622 20,475 9,733 47.5 0 9,733 47.5 8,111 36.7 2022 29,648 110 0 525 30,283 22,026 1,651 20,374 9,908 48.6 0 9,908 48.6 8,257 37.5 2023 29,737 110 0 525 30,372 22,202 1,682 20,520 9,852 48.0 0 9,852 48.0 8,170 36.8 2024 31,210 110 0 525 31,845 22,408 1,713 20,695 11,150 53.9 0 11,150 53.9 9,437 42.1

Col. (2) represents capacity additions and changes projected to be in-service by January 1st. These MW are generally considered to be available to meet winter peak loads which are forecasted to occur during January of the year indicated. Col. (6) = Col.(2) + Col.(3) - Col(4) + Col(5). Col.(7) reflects the 2014 load forecast without incremental DSM or cumulative load management. 2014 load is an actual load value. Col.(8) represents cumulative load management capability, plus incremental conservation and load management, from 9/2014-on intended for use with the 2014 load forecast. Col.(10) = Col.(6) - Col.(9) Col.(11) = Col.(10) / Col.(9) Col.(12) indicates the capacity of units projected to be out-of-service for planned maintenance during the winter peak period. Col.(13) = Col.(10) - Col.(12) Col.(14) = Col.(13) / Col.(9) Col.(15) = Col.(6) - Col.(7) - Col.(12) Col.(16) = Col.(15) / Col.(7) Total Total Generation Only Schedule 7.2

Reserve Reserve Reserve Forecast of Capacity, Demand, and Scheduled Maintenance At Time Of Winter Peak

Margin Before Margin After Margin After Maintenance Maintenance Maintenance

Florida Power & Light Company 94Page 1 of 2

(2) (3) (4) (5) (5) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14) (15)

Const. Comm. Expected Gen. Max. Unit Unit Start In-Service Retirement Nameplate Winter Summer Plant Name No. Location Type Pri. Alt. Pri. Alt. Mo./Yr. Mo./Yr. Mo./Yr. KW MW MW Status ADDITIONS/ CHANGES

2015 Cape Canaveral Energy Center 3 Brevard County CC NG FO2 PL TK

- Jan-15 Unknown 1,295,400 77

- OT Fort Myers 2 Lee County CC NG No PL No

- Jan-15 Unknown 1,721,490 9 0 OT Fort Myers 3 Lee County CT NG FO2 PL TK

- Jan-15 Unknown 188,190 6 (5) P FT. Myers GT 1-12 Lee County GT FO2 No TK No

- Jan-15 Unknown 744,120 28

- OT Lauderdale 4 Broward County CC NG FO2 PL PL

- Jan-15 Unknown 526,250 17

- OT Lauderdale 5 Broward County CC NG FO2 PL PL

- Jan-15 Unknown 526,250 16

- OT Lauderdale GT 1-12 Broward County GT NG FO2 PL PL

- Jan-15 Unknown 410,734 (13) (8) P Lauderdale GT 13-24 Broward County GT NG FO2 PL PL

- Jan-15 Unknown 410,734 (13) (8) P

Manatee 3 Manatee County CC NG No PL No

- Jan-15 Unknown 1,224,510 20

- OT Martin 2 Martin County ST FO6 NG PL PL

- Jun-15 Unknown 934,500

- (3) OT Martin 3 Martin County CC NG No PL No

- Jan-15 Unknown 612,000 16

- OT Martin 4 Martin County CC NG No PL No

- Jan-15 Unknown 612,000 14

- OT Port Everglades GT 1-12 City of Hollywood GT NG FO2 PL PL Jan-15 Unknown 410,734 (13) (8) P Riviera Beach Energy Center 5 City of Riviera Beach CC NG FO2 PL WA

- Jan-15 Unknown 1,295,400 44

- OT Sanford 4 Volusia County CC NG No PL No

- Jan-15 Unknown 1,188,860 2

- OT Sanford 5 Volusia County CC NG No PL No

- Jan-15 Unknown 1,188,860 2

- OT Scherer 4 Monroe, GA ST SUB No RR No

- Jun-15 Unknown 680,368

- (9) OT St. Lucie 1 St. Lucie County ST Nuc No TK No

- Jan-15 Unknown 1,020,000 (22)

- OT St. Lucie 2 St. Lucie County ST Nuc No TK No

- Jan-15 Unknown 723,775 (20)

- OT Turkey Point 3 Miami Dade County ST Nuc No TK No

- Jan-15 Unknown 877,200 (28)

- OT Turkey Point 4 Miami Dade County ST Nuc No TK No

- Jan-15 Unknown 877,200 (27)

- OT Turkey Point 5 Miami Dade County CC NG FO2 PL TK

- Jan-15 Unknown 1,224,510 (24) (22) OT West County 1 1 Palm Beach County CC NG FO2 PL TK

- Jan-15 Unknown 1,366,800 11

- OT West County 2 2 Palm Beach County CC NG FO2 PL TK

- Jan-15 Unknown 1,366,800 11

- OT West County 3 3 Palm Beach County CC NG FO2 PL TK

- Jan-15 Unknown 1,366,800 11

- OT 2015 Changes/Additions Total: 125 (64)

2016 Cedar Bay (Ownership) 1 Duval County ST BIT No RR No

- Oct-15

- - 250 250 P Fort Myers 2 Lee County CC NG No PL No

- Jun-16 Unknown 1,721,490 216 37 P FT. Myers GT 1-12 Lee County GT FO2 No TK No

- - Jun-16 744,120

- (540) P Lauderdale GT 1-12 Broward County GT NG FO2 PL PL

- - Jun-16 410,734

- (412) P

Martin 2 Martin County ST FO6 NG PL PL

- - Unknown 934,500 (3)

- OT Martin 8 Martin County CC NG FO2 PL TK

- - Unknown 1,224,510

- 2 OT Port Everglades 1 City of Hollywood GT NG FO2 PL PL

- Jun-16 Unknown 410,734

- 1,237 U

Sanford 4 Volusia County CC NG No PL No

- - Unknown 1,188,860

- 3 OT Scherer 4 Monroe, GA ST SUB No RR No

- - Unknown 680,368 (16)

- OT 2016 Changes/Additions Total: 447 577

2017 Babcock Solar Energy Center 1 Charlotte County PV Solar Solar N/A N/A

- Sep-16 Unknown

- - 38 P Cedar Bay 1 Duval County ST BIT No RR No

- - Dec-16

- (250) (250) OT Citrus Solar Energy Center 1 DeSoto County PV Solar Solar N/A N/A

- Sep-16 Unknown

- - 38 P Fort Myers 2 Lee County CC NG No PL No

- Jan-17 Unknown 1,721,490 20

- P Fort Myers 3 Lee County CT NG FO2 PL TK

- Dec-16 Unknown 188,190 50 50 OT Ft. Myers - 2 CT 2 Lee County CC NG No PL No

- Dec-16 Unknown 1,721,490 446 462 P FT. Myers GT 1-12 Lee County GT FO2 No TK No

- - Jun-16 744,120 (615)

- P Lauderdale 5CT 5 Broward County CC NG FO2 PL PL

- Dec-16 Unknown 526,250 1,115 1,155 P Lauderdale GT 1-12 Broward County GT NG FO2 PL PL

- - Jun-16 410,734 (446)

- P Lauderdale GT 13-22 Broward County GT NG FO2 PL PL

- - Jun-16 410,734 (372) (343) P

Manatee 3 Manatee County CC NG No PL No

- Jun-17 Unknown 1,224,510

- 4 OT Manatee Solar Energy Center 1 Manatee County PV Solar Solar N/A N/A

- Sep-16 Unknown

- - 38 P Martin 8 Martin County CC NG FO2 PL TK

- Jan-17 Unknown 1,224,510 27 2 OT Port Everglades 1 City of Hollywood GT NG FO2 PL PL

- Jun-16 Unknown 410,734 1,429

- OT Port Everglades GT 1-12 City of Hollywood GT NG FO2 PL PL

- Dec-16 Unknown 410,734 (446) (412) P Sanford 4 Volusia County CC NG No PL No

- Jan-17 Unknown 1,188,860 52 1 OT Sanford 5 Volusia County CC NG No PL No

- Jan-17 Unknown 1,188,860 26 4 OT Turkey Point (3) 1 Miami Dade County ST FO6 NG WA PL

- - Oct-16 402,050 (398) (396) OT Turkey Point 5 Miami Dade County CC NG FO2 PL TK

- Jun-17 Unknown 1,224,510

- 23 OT 2017 Changes/Additions Total: 637 415
(1) Schedule 8 shows only planned and prospective changes to generating facilities and does not reflect changes to existing purchases. Those changes are

reflected on Tables ES-1, I.B.1 and I.B.2. (2) The Winter Total MW value consists of all generation additions and changes achieved by January. The Summer Total MW value consists of all generation additions and changes

achieved by June. All MW additions/changes occurring after August each year will be picked up for reserve margin calculation purposes in the following year. (3) This generating unit will serve as a synchronous condenser and will not be included in reserve margin calculation. Fuel Transport Net Capability (2) Schedule 8 Planned And Prospective Generating Facility Additions And Changes (1)

Fuel Firm

Florida Power & Light Company 95Page 2 of 2

(2) (3) (4) (5) (5) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14) (15)

Const. Comm. Expected Gen. Max. Unit Unit Start In-Service Retirement Nameplate Winter Summer Plant Name No. Location Type Pri. Alt. Pri. Alt. Mo./Yr. Mo./Yr. Mo./Yr. KW MW MW Status ADDITIONS/ CHANGES

2018 Manatee 3 Manatee County CC NG No PL No

- - Unknown 1,224,510 40

- OT Martin 8 Martin County CC NG FO2 PL TK

- - Unknown 1,224,510 12

- OT Sanford 5 Volusia County CC NG No PL No

- - Unknown 1,188,860 25

- OT Turkey Point 3 Miami Dade County ST Nuc No TK No

- - Unknown 877,200 20 20 OT Turkey Point 5 Miami Dade County CC NG FO2 PL TK

- - Unknown 1,224,510 19 3 OT 2018 Changes/Additions Total: 116 23

2019 Okeechobee Energy Center 1 Okeechobee County CC NG FO2 PL TK Jun-17 Jun-19 Unknown

- - 1,622 P Turkey Point 4 Miami Dade County ST Nuc No TK No

- - Unknown 877,200 20 20 OT 2019 Changes/Additions Total: 20 1,642

2020 Okeechobee Energy Center 1 Okeechobee County CC NG FO2 PL TK Jun-17 Jun-19 Unknown

- 1,595

- P 2020 Changes/Additions Total: 1,595 0

2021 Cape Canaveral Energy Center 3 Brevard County CC NG FO2 PL TK

- Jun-21 Unknown 1,295,400

- 88 OT 2021 Changes/Additions Total: 0 88

2022 Cape Canaveral Energy Center 3 Brevard County CC NG FO2 PL TK

- - Unknown 1,295,400 75

- OT Riviera Beach Energy Center 5 City of Riviera Beach CC NG FO2 PL WA

- Jun-22 Unknown 1,295,400

- 86 OT 2022 Changes/Additions Total: 75 86

2023 Riviera Beach Energy Center 5 City of Riviera Beach CC NG FO2 PL WA

- - Unknown 1,295,400 89

- OT Unsited CC CC NG FO2 PL TK Jun-21 Jun-23 Unknown

- - 1,317 P 2023 Changes/Additions Total: 89 1,317

2024 Unsited CC CC NG FO2 PL TK Jun-21 Jun-23 Unknown

- 1,473

- P 2024 Changes/Additions Total: 1,473 0

(1) Schedule 8 shows only planned and prospective changes to generating facilities and does not reflect changes to existing purchases. Those changes are reflected on Tables ES-1, I.B.1 and I.B.2. (2) The Winter Total MW value consists of all generation additions and changes achieved by January. The Summer Total MW value consists of all generation additions and changes.

achieved by June. All MW additions/changes occurring after August each year will be picked up for reserve margin calculation purposes in the following year. Fuel Transport Net Capability (2) Schedule 8 Planned And Prospective Generating Facility Additions And Changes (1)

Fuel Firm

Florida Power & Light Company 96Page 1 of 8 Schedule 9 Status Report and Specifications of Proposed Generating Facilities

(1) Plant Name and Unit Number: Port Everglades Next Generation Clean Energy Center

(2) Capacity a. Summer 1,237 MW b. Winter 1,429 MW

(3) Technology Type: Combined Cycle

(4) Anticipated Construction Timing a. Field construction start-date: 2014 b. Commercial In-service date: 2016

(5) Fuel a. Primary Fuel Natural Gas b. Alternate Fuel Ultra-low sulfur distillate

(6) Air Pollution and Control Strategy: Dry Low No x Burners, SCR, Natural Gas, 0.0015% S. Distillate and Water Injection on Distillate

(7) Cooling Method: Once-through cooling water

(8) Total Site Area: Existing Site Acres

(9) Construction Status: U (Under construction, less than or equal to 50% complete)

(10) Certification Status: ---
(11) Status with Federal Agencies: ---
(12) Projected Unit Performance Data: Planned Outage Factor (POF): 3.5% Forced Outage Factor (FOF): 1.1% Equivalent Availability Factor (EAF): 95.4% Resulting Capacity Factor (%): Approx. 90% (First Full Year Base Operation) Average Net Operating Heat Rate (ANOHR): 6,330 Btu/kWh Base Operation 75F,100%

(13) Projected Unit Financial Data *,** Book Life (Years): 30 years Total Installed Cost (2016 $/kW): 928 Direct Construction Cost ($/kW): 841 AFUDC Amount ($/kW): 87 Escalation ($/kW): Accounted for in Direct Construction Cost Fixed O&M ($/kW-Yr): (2016 $) 30.00 Variable O&M ($/MWH): (2016 $) 0.10 K Factor: 1.51
* $/kW values are based on Summer capacity. ** Fixed O&M cost includes capital replacement.

Note: Total installed cost includes gas expansion, transmission interconnection and integration, escalation, and AFUDC. Demolition costs of existing plant are not included.

Florida Power & Light Company 97Page 2 of 8 Schedule 9 Status Report and Specifications of Proposed Generating Facilities

(1) Plant Name and Unit Number: Fort Myers CT (2 CTs will be added)

(2) Capacity (for each CT) a. Summer 211 MW plus 20 MW of peaking capacity b. Winter 223 MW

(3) Technology Type: Combustion Turbine

(4) Anticipated Construction Timing a. Field construction start-date: 2015 b. Commercial In-service date: 2016

(5) Fuel a. Primary Fuel Natural Gas b. Alternate Fuel Ultra-low sulfur distillate

(6) Air Pollution and Control Strategy: Dry Low NO x Burners, SCR, Natural Gas, 0.0015% S. Distillate and Water Injection on Distillate

(7) Cooling Method: Water to Air Heat Exchangers

(8) Total Site Area: Existing Site Acres

(9) Construction Status: P (Planned Unit)

(10) Certification Status: ---
(11) Status with Federal Agencies: ---
(12) Projected Unit Performance Data: Planned Outage Factor (POF): 3.0% Forced Outage Factor (FOF): 1.0% Equivalent Availability Factor (EAF): 96.0% Resulting Capacity Factor (%): Approx. 3% (First Full Year Base Operation) Average Net Operating Heat Rate (ANOHR): 10,075 Btu/kWh Base Operation 75F,100% Average Net Incremental Heat Rate (ANIHR): 7,644 Btu/kWh Peak Operation 75F,100%

(13) Projected Unit Financial Data *,** Book Life (Years): 30 years Total Installed Cost (2016 $/kW): 441 Direct Construction Cost ($/kW): 422 AFUDC Amount (2016 $/kW): 19 Escalation ($/kW): Accounted for in Direct Construction Cost Fixed O&M ($/kW-Yr): 2.63 Variable O&M (2016 $/MWH): 0.00 K Factor: 1.38
* $/kW values are based on Summer capacity. ** Levelized value includes Fixed O&M and Capital Replacement

Note: Total installed cost includes transmission interconnection and integration, escalation, and AFUDC. Demolition costs of existing GTs are not included.

Florida Power & Light Company 98Page 3 of 8 Schedule 9 Status Report and Specifications of Proposed Generating Facilities

(1) Plant Name and Unit Number: Lauderdale CT (5 CTs will be added)

(2) Capacity (for each CT) a. Summer 211 MW plus 20 MW of peaking capacity b. Winter 223 MW

(3) Technology Type: Combustion Turbine

(4) Anticipated Construction Timing a. Field construction start-date: 2015 b. Commercial In-service date: 2016

(5) Fuel a. Primary Fuel Natural Gas b. Alternate Fuel Ultra-low sulfur distillate

(6) Air Pollution and Control Strategy: Dry Low NO x Burners, SCR, Natural Gas, 0.0015% S. Distillate and Water Injection on Distillate

(7) Cooling Method: Water to Air Heat Exchangers

(8) Total Site Area: Existing Site Acres

(9) Construction Status: P (Planned Unit)

(10) Certification Status: ---
(11) Status with Federal Agencies: ---
(12) Projected Unit Performance Data: Planned Outage Factor (POF): 3.0% Forced Outage Factor (FOF): 1.0% Equivalent Availability Factor (EAF): 96.0% Resulting Capacity Factor (%): Approx. 3% (First Full Year Base Operation) Average Net Operating Heat Rate (ANOHR): 10,203 Btu/kWh Base Operation 75F,100% Average Net Incremental Heat Rate (ANIHR): 7,528 Btu/kWh Peak Operation 75F,100%

(13) Projected Unit Financial Data *,** Book Life (Years): 30 years Total Installed Cost (2016 $/kW): 433 Direct Construction Cost ($/kW): 411 AFUDC Amount (2016 $/kW): 22 Escalation ($/kW): Accounted for in Direct Construction Cost Fixed O&M ($/kW-Yr): 3.26 Variable O&M (2016 $/MWH): 0.00 K Factor: 1.39
* $/kW values are based on Summer capacity. ** Levelized value includes Fixed O&M and Capital Replacement

Note: Total installed cost includes transmission interconnection and integration, escalation, and AFUDC. Demolition costs of existing GTs are not included.

Florida Power & Light Company 99Page 4 of 8 Schedule 9 Status Report and Specifications of Proposed Generating Facilities

(1) Plant Name and Unit Number: Citrus Solar Energy Center (DeSoto County)

(2) Capacity (for each CT) a. Nameplate (AC) 74.5 MW b. Summer Firm (AC) 38.7 MW c. Winter Firm (AC)

-
(3) Technology Type: Photovoltaic (PV)

(4) Anticipated Construction Timing a. Field construction start-date: 2015 b. Commercial In-service date: 2016

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

(6) Air Pollution and Control Strategy: Not applicable

(7) Cooling Method: Not applicable

(8) Total Site Area: 841 Acres

(9) Construction Status: P (Planned Unit)

(10) Certification Status: ---
(11) Status with Federal Agencies: ---
(12) Projected Unit Performance Data: Planned Outage Factor (POF): Not applicable Forced Outage Factor (FOF): Not applicable Equivalent Availability Factor (EAF): Not applicable Resulting Capacity Factor (%): 26% (First Full Year Operation) Average Net Operating Heat Rate (ANOHR): Not applicable Base Operation 75F,100% Average Net Incremental Heat Rate (ANIHR): Not applicable Peak Operation 75F,100%

(13) Projected Unit Financial Data * Book Life (Years): 30 years Total Installed Cost (2016 $/kW): 1,835 Direct Construction Cost ($/kW): 1,835 AFUDC Amount (2016 $/kW): 0 Escalation ($/kW): Accounted for in Direct Construction Cost Fixed O&M ($/kW-Yr): (2016 $) 5.39 (First Full Year Operation) Variable O&M ($/MWH): (2016 $) 0.00 K Factor: 0.96
* $/kW values are based on nameplate capacity.

Note: Total installed cost includes transmission interconnection.

Florida Power & Light Company 100Page 5 of 8 Schedule 9 Status Report and Specifications of Proposed Generating Facilities

(1) Plant Name and Unit Number: Manatee Solar Energy Center (Manatee County)

(2) Capacity (for each CT) a. Nameplate (AC) 74.5 MW b. Summer Firm (AC) 38.7 MW c. Winter Firm (AC)

-
(3) Technology Type: Photovoltaic (PV)

(4) Anticipated Construction Timing a. Field construction start-date: 2015 b. Commercial In-service date: 2016

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

(6) Air Pollution and Control Strategy: Not applicable

(7) Cooling Method: Not applicable

(8) Total Site Area: 762 Acres

(9) Construction Status: P (Planned Unit)

(10) Certification Status: ---
(11) Status with Federal Agencies: ---
(12) Projected Unit Performance Data: Planned Outage Factor (POF): Not applicable Forced Outage Factor (FOF): Not applicable Equivalent Availability Factor (EAF): Not applicable Resulting Capacity Factor (%): 26% (First Full Year Operation) Average Net Operating Heat Rate (ANOHR): Not applicable Btu/kWh Base Operation 75F,100% Average Net Incremental Heat Rate (ANIHR): Not applicable Btu/kWh Peak Operation 75F,100%

(13) Projected Unit Financial Data * Book Life (Years): 30 years Total Installed Cost (2016 $/kW): 1,835 Direct Construction Cost ($/kW): 1,835 AFUDC Amount (2016 $/kW): 0 Escalation ($/kW): Accounted for in Direct Construction Cost Fixed O&M ($/kW-Yr): (2016 $) 5.39 (First Full Year Operation) Variable O&M ($/MWH): (2016 $) 0.00 K Factor: 0.96
* $/kW values are based on nameplate capacity.

Note: Total installed cost includes transmission interconnection.

Florida Power & Light Company 101Page 6 of 8 Schedule 9 Status Report and Specifications of Proposed Generating Facilities

(1) Plant Name and Unit Number: Babcock Solar Energy Center (Charlotte County)

(2) Capacity (for each CT) a. Nameplate (AC) 74.5 MW b. Summer Firm (AC) 38.7 MW c. Winter Firm (AC)

-
(3) Technology Type: Photovoltaic (PV)

(4) Anticipated Construction Timing a. Field construction start-date: 2015 b. Commercial In-service date: 2016

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

(6) Air Pollution and Control Strategy: Not applicable

(7) Cooling Method: Not applicable

(8) Total Site Area: 443 Acres

(9) Construction Status: P (Planned Unit)

(10) Certification Status: ---
(11) Status with Federal Agencies: ---
(12) Projected Unit Performance Data: Planned Outage Factor (POF): Not applicable Forced Outage Factor (FOF): Not applicable Equivalent Availability Factor (EAF): Not applicable Resulting Capacity Factor (%): 26% (First Full Year Operation) Average Net Operating Heat Rate (ANOHR): Not applicable Btu/kWh Base Operation 75F,100% Average Net Incremental Heat Rate (ANIHR): Not applicable Btu/kWh Peak Operation 75F,100%

(13) Projected Unit Financial Data * Book Life (Years): 30 years Total Installed Cost (2016 $/kW): 1,835 Direct Construction Cost ($/kW): 1,835 AFUDC Amount (2016 $/kW): 0 Escalation ($/kW): Accounted for in Direct Construction Cost Fixed O&M ($/kW-Yr): (2016 $) 5.39 (First Full Year Operation) Variable O&M ($/MWH): (2016 $) 0.00 K Factor: 0.96
* $/kW values are based on nameplate capacity.

Note: Total installed cost includes transmission interconnection.

Florida Power & Light Company 102Page 7 of 8 Schedule 9 Status Report and Specifications of Proposed Generating Facilities

(1) Plant Name and Unit Number: Okeechobee Clean Energy Center

(2) Capacity a. Summer 1,622 MW b. Winter 1,595 MW

(3) Technology Type: Combined Cycle

(4) Anticipated Construction Timing a. Field construction start-date: 2017 b. Commercial In-service date: 2019

(5) Fuel a. Primary Fuel Natural Gas b. Alternate Fuel Ultra Low Sulfur Light Distillate

(6) Air Pollution and Control Strategy: Dry Low Nox Burners, SCR, Natural Gas, 0.0015% S. Distillate and Water Injection on Distillate

(7) Cooling Method: Mechanical Draft Cooling Towers

(8) Total Site Area: 2,842 Acres

(9) Construction Status: P (Planned Unit)

(10) Certification Status: ---
(11) Status with Federal Agencies: ---
(12) Projected Unit Performance Data: Planned Outage Factor (POF): 2.2% Forced Outage Factor (FOF): 1.1% Equivalent Availability Factor (EAF): 96.7% Resulting Capacity Factor (%): Approx. 80% (First Full Year Base Operation) Average Net Operating Heat Rate (ANOHR): 6,304 Btu/kWh Base Operation 75F,100% Average Net Incremental Heat Rate (ANOHR): 7,731 Btu/kWh Peak Operation 75F,100%

(13) Projected Unit Financial Data *,** Book Life (Years): 30 years Total Installed Cost ( 2019 $/kW): 737 Direct Construction Cost ($/kW): 668 AFUDC Amount (2019 $/kW): 69 Escalation ($/kW): Accounted for in Direct Construction Cost Fixed O&M ($/kW-Yr): 16.89 Variable O&M (2019 $/MWH): 0.28 K Factor: 1.45
* $/kW values are based on Summer capacity. ** Levelized value includes Fixed O&M and Capital Replacement

Note: Total installed cost includes transmission interconnection and integration, and AFUDC.

Florida Power & Light Company 103Page 8 of 8 Schedule 9 Status Report and Specifications of Proposed Generating Facilities

(1) Plant Name and Unit Number: Unsited 3x1 CC

(2) Capacity a. Summer 1,317 MW b. Winter 1,473 MW

(3) Technology Type: Combined Cycle

(4) Anticipated Construction Timing a. Field construction start-date: 2021 b. Commercial In-service date: 2023

(5) Fuel a. Primary Fuel Natural Gas b. Alternate Fuel Ultra-low sulfur distillate

(6) Air Pollution and Control Strategy: Dry Low NO x Burners, SCR, Natural Gas, 0.0015% S. Distillate and Water Injection on Distillate

(7) Cooling Method: Mechanical Draft Cooling Towers

(8) Total Site Area: TBD Acres

(9) Construction Status: P (Planned Unit)

(10) Certification Status: ---
(11) Status with Federal Agencies: ---
(12) Projected Unit Performance Data: Planned Outage Factor (POF): 2.3% Forced Outage Factor (FOF): 1.1% Equivalent Availability Factor (EAF): 96.6% Resulting Capacity Factor (%): Approx. 80% (First Full Year Base Operation) Average Net Operating Heat Rate (ANOHR): 6,307 Btu/kWh Base Operation 75F,100%

(13) Projected Unit Financial Data *,** Book Life (Years): 30 years Total Installed Cost (2023 $/kW): 923 Direct Construction Cost ($/kW): 839 AFUDC Amount ($/kW): 84 Escalation ($/kW): Accounted for in Direct Construction Cost Fixed O&M ($/kW-Yr): 39.5 Variable O&M (2023 $/MWH): 0.37 K Factor: 1.51
* $/kW values are based on Summer capacity. ** Levelized value includes Fixed O&M and Capital Replacement

Note: Total installed cost includes transmission interconnection and integration, and AFUDC. Actual transmission and interconnection costs are unknown for an unsited unit. The transmission interconnection and integration costs for the unsited unit are based on the costs for the Okeechobee Clean Energy Center

Florida Power & Light Company 104

### Schedule 10 Status Report and Specifications of Proposed Transmission Lines

Port Everglades Next Generation Clean Energy Center

The Port Everglades Next G eneration Clean Energy Center which will result from the modernization of the Port Everglades power plant site does not require any “new” transmission lines.

Florida Power & Light Company 105

### Schedule 10 Status Report and Specifications of Proposed Transmission Lines

Fort Myers Plant Gas Turbine Replacement and CT Upgrade

The Fort Myers Plant gas turbine replacement and CT upgrade projects do not require any “new” transmission lines.

Florida Power & Light Company 106

### Schedule 10 Status Report and Specifications of Proposed Transmission Lines

Lauderdale Plant Gas Turbin e Replacement

The Lauderdale Plant Gas Turbine Replacement project does not require any “new” transmission lines.

Florida Power & Light Company 107

### Schedule 10 Status Report and Specifications of Proposed Transmission Lines

Citrus Solar Energy Center (DeSoto)

The Citrus Solar Energy Ce nter (DeSoto) will require one new line to connect the PV inverter array to the expanded Sunshine Substation

. (1) Point of Origin and Termination: Skylight

– Sunshine Substation
(2) Number of Lines: 1
(3) Right

- of

- way FPL

– Owned
(4) Line Length: 1.5 miles
(5) Voltage: 230 kV
(6) Anticipated Construction Timing: Start date: 2015 End date: 2016
(7) Anticipated Capital Investment: Included in total installed cost on schedule 9 (Trans. and Sub.)
(8) Substations: Skylight Substation and Sunshine Substation
(9) Participation with Other Utilities: None

Florida Power & Light Company 108

### Schedule 10 Status Report and Specifications of Proposed Transmission Lines

Manatee Solar Energy Center (Manatee)

The Manatee Solar Energy Center will require o ne new line to connect the PV inverter array to the expanded Manatee Switchyard

. (1) Point of Origin and Termination: Helios

– Manatee Switchyard
(2) Number of Lines: 1
(3) Right

- of

- way FPL

– Owned
(4) Line Length: 1.5 miles
(5) Voltage: 230 kV
(6) Anticipated Construction Timing: Start date: 2015 End date: 2016
(7) Anticipated Capital Investment: Included in total installed cost on schedule 9 (Trans. and Sub.)
(8) Substations: Helios Substation a nd Manatee Switchyard
(9) Participation with Other Utilities: None

Florida Power & Light Company 109

### Schedule 10 Status Report and Specifications of Proposed Transmission Lines
Babcock Solar Energy Center (Charlotte)

The Babcock Solar Energy Center (Charlotte) will require one new lin e to connect the PV inverter array to the planned Freeland Substation.
(1) Point of Origin and Termination: Webb

– Freeland Substation
(2) Number of Lines: 1
(3) Right

- of

- way FPL

– Owned
(4) Line Length: 5 miles
(5) Voltage: 230 kV
(6) A nticipated Construction Timing: Start date: 2015 End date: 2016
(7) Anticipated Capital Investment: Included in total installed cost on schedule 9 (Trans. and Sub.)
(8) Substations: Webb Substation and Freeland Substation
(9) Participation with Other Utilities: None

Florida Power & Light Company 110

### Schedule 10 Status Report and Specifications of Proposed Transmission Lines

Okeechobee Next Generation Clean Energy Center

The Okeechobee Next Generation Clean Energy Center does not require any “new” transmis sion lines.

Florida Power & Light Company 111

### Schedule 10 Status Report and Specifications of Proposed Transmission Lines

Unsited 3x1 CC
No site has been determined, therefore no transmission analysis is possible.

Florida Power & Light Company 112(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) NEL Fuel Mix Generation by Primary Fuel Summer (MW) Summer (%) Winter (MW) Winter (%) GWh (2) % (1) Coal 897 3.3% 911 3.2% 4,482 3.9% (2) Nuclear 3,453 12.8% 3,550 12.4% 26,812 23.1% (3) Residual 3,663 13.5% 3,697 12.9% 231 0.2% (4) Distillate 648 2.4% 710 2.5% 128 0.1% (5) Natural Gas 16,396 60.6% 17,765 62.1% 79,102 68.2% (6) Solar (Non-Firm) 35 0.1% 35 0.1% 177 0.2% (7) **FPL Existing Units Total (1)**  **: 25,092**  **92.8% 26,668**  **93.2% 110,933**  **95.7%** (8) Renewables (Purchases)- Firm 55.0 0.2% 55.0 0.2% 473 0.4% (9) Renewables (Purchases)- Non-Firm Not Applicable --- Not Applicable --- 445 0.4% (10) **Renewable Total:** 55.0 0.2% 55.0 0.2% 918 0.79% (11) **Purchases Other :**  1,890.0 7.0% 1,890.0 6.6% 4,117 3.6% (12) **Total :**  27,037.0 100.0% 28,613.0 100.0% 115,968 100.0%

Note: (1) FPL Existing Units Total values on row (7), columns (2) and (4), match the System Firm Generating Capacity values found on Schedule 1 for Summer and Winter. (2) Net Energy for Load GWh values on row (12), column (6), matches Schedule 6.1 value for 2014. Schedule 11.1

Actuals for the Year 2014 Existing FIRM and NON-FIRM Capacity and Energy by Primary Fuel Type

Net (MW) Capability

Existing NON-FIRM Self-Service Renewable Generation Facilities Actuals for the Year 2014

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) = (3)+(4)-(5)

Type of Facility Installed Capacity DC (MW) Renewable Projected Annual Output (MWh) Annual Energy Purchased from FPL (MWh) Annual Energy Sold to FPL (MWh) Projected Annual Energy Used by

Customers Customer-Owned Renewable Generation

(0 kW to 10 kW) 17.25 21,548 191,676 634 212,590

Customer-Owned Renewable Generation (> 10 kW to 100 kW) 8.77 11,087 217,985 661 228,411

Customer-Owned Renewable Generation

(> 100 kW - 2 MW) 12.76 36,645 91,007 210 127,442

Totals 39 69,279 500,668 1,505 568,443

Notes: (1) There were 3241 customers with renewable generation facilities interconnected with FPL on December 31, 2014. (2) The Installed Capacity value is the sum of the nameplate ratings (DC MW) for all of the customer-owned renewable generation facilities connected as of December 31, 2014. Three systems do not have a DC rating. These are 3 non-solar facilities: Tropicana - Landfill gas reciprocating generator: 1600 kW AC Manatee Landfill gas: 1600 kW AC Bio Mass - Palm Beach County: 750 kW AC These AC values are included in the (> 100 kW < 2 MW) row. (3) The Projected Annual Output value is based on NREL's PV Watts 1 program and the Installed Capacity value in column (2), adjusted for the date when each facility was installed and assuming each facility operated as planned. (4) The Annual Energy Purchased from FPL is an actual value from FPL's metered data for 2014. (5) The Annual Energy Sold to FPL is an actual value from FPL's metered data for 2014. (6) The Projected Annual Energy Used by Customers is a projected value that equals: (Renewable Projected Annual output + Annual Energy Purchased ) minus the Annual Energy Sold to FPL. Schedule 11.2

Florida Power & Light Company 113**(This page is left intentionally blank.)**

Florida Power & Light Company 114

## CHAPTER IV

Environmental and Land Use Information

Florida Power & Light Company 115**(This page is left intentionally blank.)**

Florida Power & Light Company 116

### IV. Environmental and Land Use Information

IV.A Protection of the Environment
Florida’s climate can be described as a combination of humid subtropical and tropical savanna supporting an environment which includes a diverse number of distinct ecosystems with many endangered or threatened plant and animal species. These distinct ecosystems, the residents, and industries of Florida comp ete for the same resources that are necessary for the generation, transmission, and distribution of electricity. FPL is a corporation which practices strong environmental stewardship evidenced by the creation and management of the Everglades Mitigation Ban k and the preservation of the Barley Barber Swamp. FPL desires to meet public expectations of such stewardship and conducts their business in a responsible manner by minimizing impacts to Florida’s natural environment.

FPL and its parent company, NextEra Energy, Inc. have co ntinuously been recognized as leader s among electric utilities for their commitment to the environment. That commitment is ingrained in FPL’s corporate culture. FPL has one of the lowest emissions profiles among U.S. utilities and in
2 014 its carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) emission rate was 38 % lower (better) than the industry national
average.

On March 3, 2014 NextEra Energy was named No. 1 in its sector on Fortune Magazine’s “Most Admired Companies” list for the eighth year in a row. In determ ining the industry rankings, approximately 15,000 senior executives, outside directors
, and industry analysts are surveyed and companies are rated on the following nine attributes :

1.) Ability to attract and retain talented people 2.) Quality of management 3.) Socia l responsibility to the community and the environment 4.) Innovativeness 5.) Quality of products or services 6.) Wise use of corporate assets 7.) Financial soundness 8.) Long

- term investment value 9.) Effectiveness in doing business globally

Fortune recognized that “ in 2013, the output from NextEra Energy’s power plants resulted in emissions rates of sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxide and carbon dioxide that were 97 percent, 80 percent and 53 percent lower, respectively, than the U.S. electric industry’s average . In addition,
the company provides gra nts to teachers of science, technology, engineering and math (STEM)

Florida Power & Light Company 117classes, partners with community colleges on wind technology training, and protects threatened and endangered species where it has operations, including the Florida man atee, American crocodile, and osprey and desert tortoise.”

In March 2014
, FPL received the 2014 F lorida House Conservation Award in recognition of its extraordinary commitment to the environment. In presenting the award, Bart Hudson, president of
the Flor ida House, declared “From preserving wildlife and natural resources to bringing the public and private sectors together to support long

- term restoration efforts in the Everglades, the southeast Florida marshes and Biscayne Bay, conservation is at the core of FPL’s mission”

.

Other conservation efforts noted by the Florida House include FPL's focus on reducing greenhouse gas emissions while helping to keep customer bills low through the use of fuel

efficient power generation and other innovative technologies . Since 2001, FPL has reduced its use of foreign oil by 99 percent by modernizing existing power plants into cleaner, more fuel

- efficient plants. It is the first utility to bring commercial

- scale solar power to Florida, including the world's
first solar

- na tural gas hybrid.

On April 2, 2014, the Environmental Protection Agency presented Florida Power & Light Company with its Clean Air Excellence Award in recognition of the company’s “green” vehicle fleet and customer education programs featuring its electri c vehicles and their benefits. The awards recognize innovative programs that protect Americans' health and the environment, educate the public, serve their communities and stimulate the economy.

In 2014
, FPL supported a broad base of environmental organiz ations with donations and memberships total ing in excess of $290,000. The organizations included, but were not limited to, the Everglades Foundation, the Conservancy of Southwest Florida, the Busch Wildlife Sanctuary,
Inc

. , the Arthur R. Marshall Foundatio n and the Loggerhead Marinelife Center, Inc. In addition,
p art of the charitable giving was the result of an FPL employee 2014 Power to Care Event that
raised funds dedicated to the Friends of MacArthur Beach State Park.

FPL employees serve as board membe rs for many organizations that focus on environmental restoration, preservation, and stewardship. A partial list of these organizations includes: Loggerhead Marinelife Center, Inc., the Everglades Foundation, the Arthur R. Marshall Foundation, The Nature C onservancy, Grassy Waters Preserve, and the Palm Beach Zoo.



### IV.B FPL’s Environmental Policy At FPL and its parent company, NextEra Energy, Inc., we are committed to being an industry leader in environmental protection and stewardship, not only because it makes business sense,

Florida Power & Light Company 118but because it is the right thing to do. Our commitment to compliance, conservation, communication, and continuous improvement fosters a culture of environmental excellence and drives the sustainable management of our business plannin g, operations, and daily work.

In accordance with our commitments to environmental protection and stewardship, FPL and NextEra Energy, Inc. endeavor to:

Comply

• Comply with all applicable environmental laws, regulations, and permits

• Proactively identif y environmental risks and take action to mitigate those risks

• Pursue opportunities to exceed environmental standards

• Participate in the legislative and regulatory process to develop environmental laws, regulations, and policies that are technically sound and economically feasible

• Design, construct, operate, and maintain our facilities in an environmentally sound and responsible manner

Conserve

• Prevent pollution, minimize waste, and conserve natural resources

• Avoid, minimize, and/or mitigate impacts to habitat and wildlife

• Promote the efficient use of energy, both within our company and in our communities

Communicate

• Communicate this policy to all employees and publish it on the corporate website

• Invest in environmental training and awareness to achie ve a corporate culture of
environmental excellence

• Maintain an open dialogue with stakeholders on environmental matters and performance

Continuously Improve

• Establish, monitor, and report progress toward environmental targets

• Review and update this poli cy on a regular basis

• Drive continuous improvement through ongoing evaluations of our environmental management system to incorporate lessons learned and best practices.

FPL’s parent company, NextEra Energy, Inc. updated this policy in 2013 to reflect cha nging expectations and ensure that employees are doing the utmost to protect the environment. FPL complies with all environmental laws, regulations, and permit requirements. FPL design s , construct s , and operate s its facilities in an environmentally sound a nd responsible manner. It also

Florida Power & Light Company 119respond s immediately and effectively to any known environmental hazards or non

- compliance
situations. FPL’s commitment to the environment does not end there. FPL proactively pursue s opportunities to exceed current environment al standards, including reducing waste and emission of pollutants, recycling materials, and conserving natural resources throughout its operations and day

- to

- day work activities. FPL also encourage s the efficient use of energy, both within the Company and in communities served by FPL . These actions are just a few examples of how FPL
is committed to the environment.

To ensure that FPL is adhering to its environmental commitment, it has developed rigorous environmental governance procedures and programs. The se include its Environmental Assurance Program and Corporate Environmental Governance Council. Through these programs, FPL
conduct s periodic environmental self

- evaluations to verify that its operations are in compliance with environmental laws, regulations , and permit requirements. Regular evaluations also help identify best practices and opportunities for improvement.



### IV.C Environmental Management In order to successfully implement the Environmental Policy , FPL has developed a robust Environmental Manag ement System program to direct and control the fulfillment of the organization’s environmental responsibilities. A key component of the system is an Environmental Assurance Program , which is described in section IV.D below . Other components of the system
i nclude: executive management support and commitment, a dedicated environmental corporate governance program, written environmental policies and procedures, delineation of organizational responsibilities and individual accountabilities, allocation of approp riate resources for environmental compliance management (which includes reporting and corrective action when non

compliance occurs), environmental incident and/or emergency response, environmental risk assessment/management, environmental regulatory develo pment and tracking, and environmental management information systems.

As part of its commitment to excellence and continuous improvement, FPL created an enhanced environmental data management information system (EDMIS) which was fully implemented by the

e nd of 2014 . Environmental data management software systems are increasingly viewed as an industry best

- management practice to ensure environmental compliance. FPL’s top goals for this project are to : 1) improve the flow of environmental data between site o perations and corporate services to ensure compliance, and 2) i mprove operating efficiencies. In addition, the EDMIS will help standardize environmental data collection, thus improving external reporting to the public.

Florida Power & Light Company 120

### IV.D Environmental Assurance Pro gram

FPL’s Environmental Assurance Program consists of activities that are designed to evaluate environmental performance, verify compliance with corporate policy as well as legal and regulatory requirements, and communicate results to corporate managemen t. The principal mechanism for pursuing environmental assurance is an 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 organiza tion and of the specific management systems and equipment designed to protect the environment. The primary objective of performing

an environmental audit is to facilitate management control of environmental practices and assess compliance with existing env ironmental regulatory requirements and FPL policies. In addition to FPL facility audits, t hrough the Environmental Assurance Program , FPL performs audits of third

party vendors used for recycling and/or disposal of waste generated by FPL operations. Vendor audits provide information used for selecting candidates or incumbent vendors for disposal and recycling needs.

FPL has also implement ed a Corporate Environmental Governance System, in which quarterly reviews are performed by each business unit deemed t o have potential for significant environmental exposures. Quarterly reviews evaluate operations for potential environmental risks and consistency with the company’s Environmental Policy. Items tracked during the quarterly reviews include processes for the identification and management of environmental risks, metrics
, and indicators and progress / changes since the most recent review.



### IV.E Environmental Communication and Facilitation FPL is involved in many efforts to enhance environmental protection throug h the facilitation of environmental awareness and in public education. Some of FPL’s 201 4 environmental outreach
activities are summarized in Table IV.E.1.

Florida Power & Light Company 121

### Table IV.E.1: 201 4 FPL Environmental Outreach
Activities
Activity Count (#) Visitors to FPL’s Energy Encounter at St. Lucie 2,669 Visitors to Manatee Park, Ft. Myers 216,401 Number of website visits to FPL’s Environmental & Corporate Responsibility Websites 580,000 Visitors to Barley Barber Swamp (Treasured Lands Partnership) 8,517 Martin Energy Center Solar Tours 600

Solar Schools Program • 92 schools and 10 demo sites completed as of 12/31/ 14

• Installed capacity for the 102 sites is 921 kW and can produce more than one million kWh annually

• An ad ditional 24

- 28 school/demo sites will come online by the end of 2015



### IV.F Preferred and Potential Sites
B ased upon its projection of future resource needs, FPL has identified eight (8) Preferred Sites
and three (3) Potential Sites for future generation additions. Preferred Sites are those locations where FPL has conducted significant reviews
, and has either t aken action, is currently committed to take action, or is likely to take action, to site new generating capacity. Potential Sites are those sites that have attributes that support the siting of generation and are under consideration as a
location for futur e 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 or moderniz ation in the case of an existing generation site) at that location, nor does this designation indicate that the size or technology of a generator has been determined. Analyses of any modernization candidates would
include evaluation of numerous factors inc luding: fuel delivery, transmission, permitting, etc. The Preferred Sites and Potential Sites are discussed in separate sections below.



### IV.F.1 Preferred Sites For the 2015 Ten Year Site Plan, FPL has identifie d eight (8) Preferred Sites

. These include a

c ombination of existing and new sites for the development of natural gas combined cycle
, combustion turbines, and /or solar generation facilities.

The Port Everglades site is a location where a modernization project is in progress. This work
consists of re placing the former steam generating units and replacing them with new combined cycle (CC) technology. The modernization work is scheduled to be completed in mid

- 2016. In addition, a ll of t he existing gas turbines (GTs) at the Port Everglades site, and all but two of the existing GTs at the nearby Lauderdale site
, are projected to be re tired by the end of 201 6

. The two GTs that will remain will serve to provide black start capability. Five new combustion turbines

Florida Power & Light Company 122(CTs) are projected to be added at the Lauder dale site by the end of 201 6 to partially replace the retired peaking capacity at the se sites. These actions , taken to lower FPL’s long

- term costs, will
also aid in addressing compliance with new air emissions standards.

Similarly, and as part of this GT replacement effort, all but two of the existing GTs at t he Ft. Myers
site will be retired and two new CTs will be added. In addition, the two existing CTs at the Ft. Myers site will be upgraded to increase their capacity. All of the Ft. Myers work is sche duled to be completed by the end of 2016.

The Okeechobee County site has been identified as a Preferred Site for new natural gas CC technology

. As discussed in the Executive Summary, the new natural gas CC at this site represents FPL’s best self

- build gen eration option in 2019
, and it will compete with proposals received in response to a capacity request for proposals (RFP) that was issued in March 2015.

The Okeechobee County site is also under consideration for future new photovoltaic (PV) facilities.
In regard to PV, Charlotte, DeSoto, and Manatee Counties have been identified as the locations
for new PV facilities that are expected to go in

- service by the end of 2016.

Finally, the Turkey Point site is the location at which FPL plans to construct two n ew nuclear units, Turkey Point Units 6 & 7. T he Nuclear Regulatory Commission recently announced a several year delay in their schedule to make a decision on FPL’s pending Turkey Point Units 6 & 7 Combined Operating License Application (COLA). Due to this delay in the COLA schedule, and to changes in Florida’s nuclear cost recovery rule, the earliest p ractical date for bringing the Turkey Point 6 & 7
units in

- service is now beyond the 2015 through 2024 time period addressed in this Site Plan. Despite this c hange in timing of the two new nuclear units, this Site Plan continues to present the Turkey Point site as a Pre ferred Site for the new units.



### Preferred Site # 1 : Port Everglades Plant , Broward County FPL is in the process of modernizing the Port Evergl ades Plant located within the City of Hollywood in Broward County with c onstruction anticipated to be completed in 2016. Previously
the site consisted of two 200 MW (approximate) and two 400 MW (appro ximate) steam generating
units . The four units were take n out of service, dismantled, and removed from the site as part of
the modernization project

. The modernized site, named the Port Everglades Next Generation Clean Energy Center (PEEC)
, will consist of a single new Combined Cycle unit that replace s the orig inal four steam units. The modernized unit will be highly efficient and have a lower

- emission
rate and will use less water than the original units at the site.

Florida Power & Light Company 123a. U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Map A USGS map of the PEEC site is found at the end of this c hapter.

b. Proposed Facilities Layout A general layout of the PEEC generating facilities is found at the end of this chapter.

c. Map of Site and Adjacent Areas An overview map of the site and adjacent areas is also found at the end of this chapter.

d. Existi ng Land Uses of Site and Adjacent Areas
The Port Everglades Plant formerly consis ted of two 200 MW (approximate) and two 400 MW (approximate) generating units with conventional dual

- fuel fired steam boilers and steam
turbine s which were demolished in the S ummer of 2013 to make way for the new Port Everglades Next Generation Clean Energy Center

. The plant site includes minimal vegetation. Adjacent land uses include port facilities , barge access via port infrastructure, a rail line and
associated industrial a ctivities, as well as light commercial and residential development.

e. General Environment Features On and In the Site Vicinity
T here are environmental benefits of replacing the former steam units at the Port Everglades Site with a new CC unit including a si gnificant reduction in system air emissions and improved
aesthetics at the site such as lower stack heights

.

1. Natural Environment The site is located adjacent to the Intracoastal Waterway (ICW) and is comprised of facilities related to electric power gener ation. It is located within a highly industrialized port that has active material and fuel handling facilities.

2. Listed Species No adverse impacts to federal

- or state

- listed terrestrial plants and animals are expected
in association with construction at the site, due to the existing developed nature of the site and lack of suitable onsite habitat for listed species. The plant provides warm water to the ICW pursuant to the facility’s Manatee Protection Plan , which is a benefit to the area’s

m anatees

.

3. N atural Resources of Regional Significance Status The Port Everglades Next Generation Clean Energy Center is located adjacent to the
ICW. The construction and operation of a natural gas

- fired CC generating facility at this

Florida Power & Light Company 124location is consistent with the ex isting use at the site and is not expected to have any adverse impacts on the ICW, parks, recreation areas, or environmentally sensitive lands.

4. Other Significant Features FPL is not aware of any other significant features of the site.

f. Design Features and Mitigation Options The design is to replace the four former units
, with one new unit of approximately 1,2 00 MW Summer capacity . The new unit will be a single CC unit that consi s t s of three new CTs , three new heat recovery steam generators (HRSG), and a ne w steam turbine.

In addition, all of the existing GTs at the Port Ev erglades site are projected to be removed by
the end of 201 6 as part of the gas turbine repl acement project discussed in the Lauderdale and Fort Myers Preferred Sit e discussions.

g. Local Government Future Land Use Designations Local government future land use designation for the site is a combination of “ Electrical Generating Facility” and “Utilities Use”. A land use map of the site and adjacent areas is also
found at the end of this cha pter.

h. Site Selection Criteria Process The Port Everglades site has been selected due to consideration of multiple factors including system load, ability to provide generation in the Miami

- Dade/Broward region to help balance load and generation in th at reg ion, and economics. Environ mental issues were considered
, but because the site has been previously utilized for power generation facilities, no environmental impacts will result from this modernization

.

i. Water Resources
Water from the Intracoastal W ater way via Port Everglades Slip No. 3 is currently used for

once
- through cooling water supply . The new plant will only utilize portions of the existing once

through cooling water intake and discharge structures due to reduced water demand . Process and potable water for the modernized plant will come from the existing City of Ft. Lauderdale potable water supply.

j. Geological Features of Site and Adjacent Areas FPL’s Port Everglades Next Generation Clean Energy Center site is underlain by the Surficial Aquife r System (SAS). The SAS in eastern Broward County is primarily composed of sand, sandstone, shell, silt, calcareous clay (marl), and limestone deposited during the Pleistocene

Florida Power & Light Company 125and Pliocene ages. The sediments forming the aquifer system are the Pamlico Sand , Miami Oolite, Anastasia Formation, Key Largo Formation, and Fort Thompson Formation (Pleistocene) and the Tamiami Formation (Pliocene). The sediments in the eastern portion of
Broward C ounty where the plant is located are appreciably more permeable than in the west.
The SAS is underlain by at least 600 feet of the Hawthorn formation (a confining unit). The Floridan Aquifer System (FAS) underlies the Hawthorn formation.

k. Projected Water Quantities for Various Uses Approximately 600 million gallons per day (mgd) of cooling water w ill be cycled through the

once
- through cooling water system which is a reduction of more than 51% in cooling water when compared to that of the previous steam units

. The estimated quantity of process water required is approximately 0.24 mgd for uses such as process water and servic e water. Potable water demand is expected to average 0 .001 mgd.

l. Water Supply Sources by Type The modernized plant will continue to use the Intracoastal Waterway as the source of once

through cooling water. Process and potable water for the new plant will come from the existing City of Ft. Lauderdale potable water supply.

m. Water Conservation Strategies Under Consideration No additional water resources will be required as a result of the modernization proj ect. The

c ombined c ycle technology will result in 51% less water used compared to the tradition al steam generation units. Recovery and reuse of steam generator blowdown by mixing with cooling water flow also recycles water reducing need for fresh water. Th ere fore, no additional water resources will be required as a result of the modernization project.

n. Water Discharges and Pollution Control
The modernized plant will utilize portions of the existing once

- through cooling water system for heat dissipation prio r to discharge to the Intracoastal Waterway . The heat recovery steam generator blowdown will be reused to the maximum extent practicable or mixed with the cooling water flow before discharge. Reverse osmosis (R/O) reject will be mixed with the plant’s once

- through cooling water system prior to discharge. Stormwater runoff will be collected and routed to stormwater ponds. The facility will employ a Best Management Practices (BMP) plan and Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure (SPCC) plan to prevent a nd control the inadvertent release of pollutants.

Florida Power & Light Company 126o. Fuel Delivery, Storage, Waste Disposal, and Pollution Control Natural gas for the new unit w ould be transported to the site via an existing natural gas pipeline to the site . New gas compressors to rais e the gas pressure of the pipeline to the appropriate level for the new unit will be installed either at the existing site or off

- site

. Ultra

- low sulfur light fuel oil , which is used as a backup fuel, would be received by truck, pipeline
, or barge and stor ed in a new above

- ground storage tank.

p. Air Emissions and Control Systems The regulated air emission rates at the new plant would be approximately 90 % lower than the previous Port Everglades Plant’s emission rates, resulting in significant annual emission s reductions and air quality benefits per unit of energy produced. The use of natural gas, ultra

low sulfur light fuel oil, and combustion controls would minimize air emissions of sulfur dioxide (SO2), particulate matter, and other fuel

- bound contaminates from the unit and ensure compliance with applicable emission standards. Combustion controls similarly minimize the formation of nitrogen oxides (NOx)
, and the combustor design will limit the formation of carbon monoxide and volatile organic compounds. When firing natural gas, NOx emissions will be controlled using dry

- low NOx combustion technology and selective catalytic reduction (SCR). Water injection and SCR will be used to reduce NOx emissions during operations when using
ultra

- low sulfur light fuel oil as backup fuel. Greenhouse gas emissions (GHGs) from combustion of natural gas at PEEC will achieve an emission rate substantially lower than the EPA proposed new source performance standard for GHGs. The CC design is equivalent to the Best Available Cont rol Technology for air emissions, and minimize s such emissions while balancing economic, environmental, and energy impacts. Taken together, the design of PEEC
will incorporate features that will make it among the most efficient and cleanest power plants
in the State of Florida.

q. Noise Emissions and Control Systems
Noise from unit construction and operation at the site is expected to be below existing noise
levels for residents near the site.

r. Status of Applications
FPL filed a need determination with the FPSC on November 21, 2011. The FPSC’s final need order was issued on April 9, 2012. The project’s Site Certification Application (SCA) was submitted January 24, 2012 resulting in the issuance
, by the Siting Board of the State of
Florida , of the Final O rder PA 12

- 57 on October 9, 2012. FPL received a Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) permit on May 1, 2012 and an Industrial Wastewater Facility permit on December 16, 2012. No other permits are required.

Florida Power & Light Company 127

### Preferred Site # 2 : Babcock Ranch Solar Energy Center , Charlotte County
The Babcock Ranch Solar Energy Center facility will be sited on approximately 443 acres in Charlotte County. The solar facility will be located approximately 10.5 miles north of the
intersection of SR

- 80 and SR

- 31 and 0.7 m iles east of State Road 31 and north of Tucker’s Grade
road . The Babcock Ranch Preserve, owned by the State of Florida, borders the facility directly to
the north and northwest . T he Babcock Ranch Community is located east and south of the facility.
The f a cility is an approximately 74 .5 MW (nameplate, AC) p hotovoltaic (PV) facility.

a. U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Map
A USGS map of the Charlotte Solar site is found at the end of this chapter.

b. Proposed Facilities Layout The proposed facilities layout is curr ently in development and not available at this time

.

c. Map of Site and Adjacent Areas An overview map of the site and adjacent areas is f ound at the end of this chapter.

d. Existing Land Uses of Site and Adjacent Areas The Charlotte Solar site and adjacent la nds are predominantly used for agricultural production. Currently, the site includes fallow sod fields, improved and unimproved pasture with a portion in a combination of pine flatwoods and freshwater marsh. The existing land use and zoning designations a re Babcock Ranch Overlay and Overlay Zoning District. This land use and zoning allows for solar facilities.

e. General Environmental Features On and In the Site Vicinity

1. Natural Environment The majority of the site is comprised of lands dedicate d to agr icultural production

. FPL will mitigat e for unavoidable wildlife and/or wetland impacts that occur from facility
construction as required

.

2. Listed Species Although the site is predominately in agricultural production
, r esults of protected species

surve ys performed in 2006 , 2 007 and 2009 reveal the project limits and surrounding landscape are utilized and/or have the potential to be utilized by a number of listed species. The project is located within the US F ish and W ildlife S ervice (USFWS) Panther
Focu s Area and is also located within the Core Foraging Area of known wood stork
colonies.

Florida Power & Light Company 128Any impacts to the habitat of protected species associated with the PV facility are included
within t he mitigation plan for the Babcock Ranch Community. To compensate for the loss of habitat, mitigation activities will be performed in an area known as the “Curry Preserve” which is located on a portion of the Babcock Ranch Preserve owned by the State of
Florida.

3. Natural Resources of Regional Significance Status
The C harlotte Solar site is in the area of the Babcock Preserve and east of the Cecil Webb Wildlife Management Area. Both of these natural areas are managed by the Florida
Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. However, t he construction and operation of a
P V fa cility at this location is not expected to have any adverse impacts on parks, recreation areas, or environmentally sensitive lands.

4. Other Significant Features FPL is not aware of any other significant features on the site.

f. Design Features and Mitigat ion Options The design includes construction of a PV facility, onsite transmission substation, and site stormwater system to accommodate approximately 74 .5 MW (nameplate AC) of power generation.

g. Local Government Future Land Use Designations The existing and future land use on this site consists of agriculture and barren land. A land use map of the site and adjacent areas is also found at the end of this chapter.

h. Site Selection Criteria Process
The Charlotte s ite has been selected as the location of the PV facilit y based on various factors including system load, transmission interconnection, and economics.

i

. Water Resources
Minimal amounts of water , if any, would be required for cleaning the PV panels. This water
would be trucked to the site or obtai ned from existing onsite permitted water resources.

j. Geological Features of Site and Adjacent Areas In general, the soi l profile of the S urficial Aquifer System (S AS ) consi sts of loose to medium dense fine sands with occasional thin stratum of slightly cl ayey fine sand

. Groundwater can be encounter at the surface to a depth of a few feet below with fluctuations throughout the year

Florida Power & Light Company 129due to seasonal variations in rainfall and other factors. As is typical of the rest of south Florida
this site is underlain by the I ntermediate C onfining U nit and the F loridan A quifer S ystem

.

k. Projected Water Quantities for Various Uses Solar requires minimal amounts of water, if any, for cleaning the PV panels and would only be required in the absence of sufficient rainfall.

l. Water Supply Sources by Type A water source is not required for this site. A ny needed water may be brought to the site by truck or obtained from permitted water sources.

m. Water Conservation Strategies Under Consideration The PV site does not require a p ermanent water source. Water conservation strategies may include selection and planting of low

- to

- no irrigation grass or groundcover.

n. Water Discharges and Pollution Control The facility will employ Best Management Practices (BMP) to prevent and control t he inadvertent release of pollutants.

o. Fuel Delivery, Storage, Waste Disposal, and Pollution Control Fuel is not required and no waste products will be generated at the site.

p. Air Emissions and Control Systems This technology does not generate air emission s

.

q. Noise Emissions and Control Systems This technology does not generate noise

.

r. Status of Applications FPL has obtained the required federal USACE 404 permit allowing for impact with mitigation to 9.3 acres of onsite wetlands during construction. The sta te Environmental Resources Permit (ERP) for the existing on

- site facilities will be modified to incorporate revisions to the site layout and stormwater management system . Application will be made to Charlotte County for the local development approval.

Florida Power & Light Company 130

### Pr eferred Site # 3 : Citrus Solar Energy Center , DeSoto County

The Citrus Solar Energy Center site consists of approximately 841 acres and is located at 4051 Northeast Karson Street
, approximately 0.3 miles east of U.S. Highway 17 and immediately north
of Bob ay Road in Arcadia, Florida. The si te has been chosen for an approximately 74 .5 MW (nameplate
, AC) PV facility.

a. U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Map A USGS map of the Citrus Solar Energy Center site is found at the end of this chapter.

b. Proposed Facilitie s Layout The proposed facilities layout is currently in development and not available at this time

.

c. Map of Site and Adjacent Areas An overview map of the site and adjacent areas is found at the end of this chapter.

d. Existing Land Uses of Site and Adjacen t Areas Existing land use on the site is agricultural. The adj acent areas include agriculture
, forested
and non

- forested upland s

.

e. General Environment Features On and In the Site Vicinity
1. Natural Environment The approximate 841 acre site is comprised of la nds dedicated for agricultural production with some wetland areas throughout the property.

2. Listed Species Burrowing owls and gopher tortoises may be present within the proposed project area . If

so, burrows of these species will be relocated to adjacent po rtions of the FPL property prior to construction under permits from Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation
Commission

. Previous wildlife surveys have identified Audubon’s Crested caracara foraging within the property, but no nests are located within the pr oject area, and caracara have been rarely seen since the removal of cattle from the project area. Based on this
information
, no negative impacts to threatened or endangered species are anticipated as a result of the PV project

.

Florida Power & Light Company 1313. Natural Resources of R egional Significance Status
T here are no natural resources of regional significance at, or adjacent to
, the site

. The construction and operation of a PV generating facility is not expected to have any adverse impacts on parks, recreation areas, or environm entally sensitive lands.

4. Other Significant Features FPL is not aware of any other significant features of the site.

f. Design Features and Mitigation Options The design includes construction of a PV facility, onsite transmission substation, and site
stormwa ter system to accommodate approximately 74 .5 MW (nameplate
, AC) of PV

.

g. Local Government Future Land Use Designations In 2009, DeSoto County instituted an Ordinance amending the Land Development Regulations by adding Utility Grade Solar Plant as a permi tted use within an Agriculture

- 10 zoning district and an Ordinance amending the Future Land Use Map to change the FPL land from the Rural Agricultural category to the Electrical Generating Facility category. Solar facilities are allowed within this categor y.
A land use map of the site and adjacent areas is also found at the end of this chapter.

h. Site Selection Criteria Process
The site has been selected as the location of a PV facilit y based on various factors including system load, transmission interconne ction, and economics.

i. Water Resources
Minimal amounts of water , if any, would be required for cleaning the PV panels and would only be required in the absence of sufficient rainfall

. This water would be trucked to the site or obtained from existing o nsite permitted water resources

.

i. Geological Features of Site and Adjacent Areas
The S urficial A quifer S ystem soil types foun d on the Site include Anclote mucky fine sand (depressional), Basinger fine sand, Basinger fine sand (depressional), Eau Gallie f ine sand, Immokalee fine sand, Myakka fine sand, Smyrna fine sand, and Valkaria fine sand. As is typical of the rest of south F lorida this site is underlain by the I ntermediate C onfin in g U nit and
the F loridan A quifer S ystem.

Florida Power & Light Company 132k. Projected Water Quantities for Various Uses Solar requires minimal amounts of water, if any, for cleaning the PV panels in the absence of
sufficient rainfall.

l. Water Supply Sources by Type A water source is not required for this site. Any needed water may be brought to the site b y truck or obtained from permitted water sources.

m. Water Conservation Strategies Under Consideration The PV site does not require a permanent water source. Water conservation strategies will be implemented through the selection and planting of low to no i rrigation grass or groundcover.

n. Water Discharges and Pollution Control The facility will employ Best Management Practices (BMP) to prevent and control the inadvertent release of pollutants.

o. Fuel Delivery, Storage, Waste Disposal, and Pollution Control
F uel is not required and no waste products will be generated at the site.

p. Air Emissions and Control Systems
Solar technology does not generate air emissions

.

q. Noise Emissions and Control Systems
Solar technology does not generate noise

.



### r. Status of Applicat ions Application will be made to FDEP for state Environmental Resources Permit (ERP), USACE for federal wetlands permit, and Desoto County for local development approval.



### Preferred Site # 4 : Manatee Solar Energy Center , Manatee County
The Manatee Solar E nergy Center site consist s of approximately 762 acres and is located in unincorporated north

- central Manatee County. The PV site lies approximately 5 miles east of Parrish, Florida, approximately 5 miles east of U.S. Highway 301 and 9.5 miles east of Inter state Highway 75 (I

- 75). This site has been chosen for the addition of a n approximately 74 .5 MW (nameplate
, AC) PV facility.

Florida Power & Light Company 133a. U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Map
A USGS map of the Manatee Solar site is found at the end of this chapter.

b. Proposed Facilitie s Layout The proposed facilities layout is currently in development and not available at this time

.

c. Map of the Site and Adjacent Areas A map of the site and adjacent areas is found at the end of this chapter.

d. Existing Land Uses of Site and Adjacent Areas Existing land use on the site is agricultural. A portion of the site is zoned Planned Development / Public Interest (PD

- PI), which will allow for electrical generation. The remainder of the site will be zoned from agriculture to PD

- PI. The adjacent areas include agricultural, upland non

- forested, forests, transportation, communication, and utilities.

e. Environmental Features
1. Natural Environment
FPL will mitigat e for unavoidable wildlife and/or wetland impacts as needed as a result of a PV project constructe d at this site

.

2. Listed Species The site is predominately agriculture and m inimal impacts to federal

- or state

- listed terrestrial plants or animals are expected in association with construction at the site, due to the existing disturbed nature of the site and lack of suitable onsite habitat for listed species. In accordance with Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, the project will be designed to maintain an adequate buffer from the active bald eagle nest
located west of the site

.

3. Natural Re sources of Regional Significance Status
T here are no natural resources of regional significance at, or adjacent to
, the site

. T he construction and operation of a PV facility at this location is not expected to have any adverse impacts on parks, recreation areas, or environmentally sensitive lands.

4. Other Significant Features FPL is not aware of any other significant features of the site



### .

Florida Power & Light Company 134f. Design Features and Mitigation Options The design includes c onstruction of a PV facility, onsite transmission substati on, and site stormwater system to accommodate approximately 74 .5 MW (nameplate, AC) of power generation

.

g. Local Government Future Land Use Designations Existing land use on the site is agricultural. In 2009, Manatee County instituted an ordinance amending the Manatee County Official Zoning Atlas to rezone approximately 620 acres from General Agriculture (A) to Planned Development Public Interest (PD

- PI), as well as approve a General Development Plan to allow solar development. The project area has since bee n
exp anded north (approx . 383 acres) and new approvals will be sought to change the Official Zoning Atlas to allow solar development within the additional area

.

A land use map of the site and adjacent areas is also found at the end of this chapter



### .

h. Site Selection Criteria Process
The site has been selected as the location of the PV facilit y based on various factors including system load, transmission interconnection, and economics.

i. Water Resources
Minimal amounts of water , if any, would be required for c leaning the PV panels. This water would be trucked to the site or obtained from existing onsite permitted water resources and would only be required in the absence of sufficient rainfall

.

j. Geological Features of the Site and Adjacent Areas The soil types f ound on the s ite include Anclote mucky fine sand (depressional), Basinger fine sand, Basinger fine sand (depressional), Eau Gallie fine sand, Immokalee fine sand, Myakka fine sand, Smyrna fine sand, and Valkaria fine sand.

k. Projected Water Quantities for V arious Uses Solar requires minimal amounts of water, if any, for cleaning the PV panels in the absence of
sufficient rainfall.

l. Water Supply Sources by Type The PV site does not require a permanent water source. Any needed water may be brought to
the si te by truck or obtained from permitted water sources.

Florida Power & Light Company 135

### m. Water Conservation Strategies Under Consideration Water conservation strategies may include the selection and planting of low

- to

- no irrigation grass or groundcover.



### n. Water Discharges and Pollution Cont rol The facility will employ Best Management Practices (BMP) to prevent and control the inadvertent release of pollutants.

o. Fuel Delivery, Storage, Waste Disposal, and Pollution Control Fuel is not required and no waste products will be generated by site.

p. Air Emissions and Control Systems
This technology does not generate air emissions

.

. q. Noise Emissions and Cont r ol Systems This technology does not generate noise

.

r. Status of Applications Application s will be submitted to rezone the northern extent of the site, to obtain County site plan approval, to modify an Environmental Resources Permit (ERP) to include the expanded project area, and to modify the USACE 404 permit to include the expanded project area.



### Preferred Site # 5 : Lauderdale Plant Peaking Facilities , Broward County This site is located at the existing Lauderdale Plant property and consists of approximately 392

acres, within the Cities of Dania Beach and Hol lywood in Broward County, Florida, east of U.S. Highway 441, north of Griffin Road, west of SW 30th Avenue, and south of Interstate 595.

The Lauderdale Plant currently includes two combined cycle units and two banks of 12 first generation simple cycle ga s turbines (GTs) that began operation in the early 1970s. These GTs are used to serve peak and emergency demands in a quick

- start manner. Each bank of GTs has a net capacity of 420 megawatts (MWs) and are authorized to operate on natural ga s and distillate oil. FPL plans to re tire 22 of the 24 existing GTs and partially replace this peaking capacity with 5

new combustion turbines ( CTs )

. This GT removal with CT replacement is assumed to occur by the
end of 2016.

a. U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Map A USGS map of the Lauderdale site and adjacent areas is found at the end of this chapter.

Florida Power & Light Company 136b. Proposed Facilities Layout
A facilities plot plan of the Lauderdale generating facilities is found at the end of this chapter.

c. Map of Site and Adjacent Areas A USGS map o f the Lauderdale site and adjacent areas is found at the end of this chapter.

d. Existing Land Uses of Site and Adjacent Areas The existing land use at the site is commercial and the adjacent areas are a mixture of low to high density urban, transportation, communication, utilities, commercial, water, and some open land. The site is zoned general industrial by the City of Dania Beach.

e. General Environment Features On and In the Site Vicinity
1. Natural Environment The majority of the project site is comprised of facilities related to electric power generation . The project site also includes approximately 14 acres of surrounding forested wetlands and upland spoil piles.
2. Listed Species Based upon field assessments conducted in 2013, review of United States Fish an d Wildlife (USFWS) and Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC) literature and databases, the Florida Natural Areas Inventory (FNAI) database of documented listed species occurrences, the lack of suitable habitat, and the land use of
the sur rounding areas, federally listed species are not anticipated to utilize the CT Project

area.

3. Natural Resources of Regional Significance Status
T here are no natural resources of regional significance adj acent to the site. T he construction and operation of the CT Project at this location is consistent with the existing use at the site and is not expected to have any adverse impacts on parks, recreation areas, or environmentally sensitive lands.

4. Other Significant Features FPL is not aware of any other sign ifica nt features of the site.

f. Design Features and Mitigation Options
The project is to re tire 22 of the 24 gas turbines (GTs) at the existing Lauderdale Plant ( plus
retire an additional 12 simple cycle GTs at the nearby Port Everglades Plant ) and partiall y replace this capacity with 5 new highly efficient simple cycle CTs. The CTs operate in simple

Florida Power & Light Company 137cycle mode and produce electrical energy by direct connection to an electric generator. The CTs will operate using natural gas and ultra

- low sulfur distillate ( ULSD) oil as fuel.

g. Local Government Future Land Use Designations The site is zoned General Industrial by the City of Dania Beach, a designation intended to provide for light and medium intensity industrial, research
, and assembly fabrication uses.
Elect rical power plants are permitted within a General Industrial zoning designation as a special exception use only , see Section r

. A land use map of the site and adjacent areas is also found at the end of this chapter.

h. Site Selection Criteria Process
The L auderdale Plant site has been selected for the locat ion of new CTs based on various factors including maximizing opportunities to utilize existing utility infrastructure, system load, transmission interconnection, and economics.

i. Water Resources
The CT P roject will require a marginal increase in demineralized water that will be obtained from the existing Lauderdale Plant’s water treatment system.

j. Geological Features of Site and Adjacent Areas
T he geological layers beneath the site include the S urficial A quifer S ystem (SAS) , the
I ntermediate C onfining U nit (ICU) , and the F loridan A quifer S ystem (FAS) . According to the Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) Soil Survey of Broward County, the SAS in the proposed facilities area is dominated by Okeela nta series muck.

The Okeelanta series consists of very deep, very poorly drained, rapidly permeable soils in large fresh water marshes and small depressional areas. In un

- drained areas the water table is at depths of less than ten inches below the surface or the soil is covered by water 6 to 12 months during most years.

k. Projected Water Quantities for Various Uses
The CT P roject consists of installing new CTs that are operated in simple cycle mode and do not require a heat dissipation system. Raw water fr om the Broward County will continue to be used for process water treatment system influent and fire protection. Water used for CT inlet air cooling and water injection for NOx control when using ULSD oil will be demineralized water from the existing proces s water treatment system.

Florida Power & Light Company 138l. Water Supply Sources by Type
T he CTs do not require a heat dissipation system, therefore there are no associated cooling
water uses. T he proposed facility would continue to acquire water from existing water
contracts with Browar d County and would continue to use potable water from the City of Hollywood to provide drinking water for employees.

m. Water Conservation Strategies Under Consideration

No additional water resources would be required as a result of the CT P roject.

n. Water D ischarges and Pollution Control There would be no surface water discharges required for the operation of the proposed facility

. The stormwater management system has been designed to prevent direct discharge to
surface waters.

The facility will employ a Best Management Practices (BMP) plan and Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure (SPCC) plan to prevent and control the inadvertent release of pollutants.

o. Fuel Delivery, Storage, Waste Disposal, and Pollution Control
The fuel to be used in the CTs is natural gas and ULSD oil. Natural gas will be transported to the facility via existing pipeline. No onsite storage is provided for natural gas. ULSD oil would be trucked or piped to the facility and stored in double walled ULSD oil tanks

.

p. Air Emissio ns and Control Systems
Air emission rates for NOx associated with the operation of the new CT s would be approximately 90 percent lower than the existing GT emission rates, resulting in significantly lower air quality impacts per hour of operation . In addit ion to lower air emissions, the maximum total air quality impacts for the site facility are predicted to be well below and in compliance with the National Ambient Air Quality Standards ( NAAQS ) . For pollutants such as NO 2 , the new CT s’ total air quality imp acts are predicted to be significantly reduced by 40 percent or more compared to the existing GTs.

The use of clean fuels (natural gas and ULSD oil) and combustion controls would minimize air emissions of SO 2 , sulfuric acid mist (SAM), particulates ( PM/P M10/PM2.5 ), and other fuel

bound contaminants and ensure compliance with applicable emission

- limiting standards. Combustion controls will minimize the formation of NOx and the formation of CO and VOCs by combustor design. Further NOx reduction will be achi eved by water injection during oil firing.

Florida Power & Light Company 139q. Noise Emissions and Control Systems The construction and operation of the new CTs will not exceed the maximum permissible
sound levels in Section 17

- 86 of the City of Dania Beach.

r. Status of Applications
A 404 dredge and fill permit has been issued by the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) to allow for wetland impacts with mitigation associated with the project and a Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) air permit has been issued by the Florida Department of
Environmenta l Protection (FDEP). A modification of the PSD permit to include GHG emissions has been prepared by FPL for submitt al to the FDEP. No other licenses or permits have been issued for the CT Project. FPL will submit appl ications to Broward County for a special exception use permitted within a General Industrial zoning designation and to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for the Greenhouse Gas air permit

.



### Preferred Site # 6 : Ft Myers Plant Peaking Facilities , Lee Coun ty Florida Power & Light Company (FPL) plans to re tire, re place
, and upgrade components of the peaking facilities at the Fort Myers Power Plant . This site consists of approximately 460 acres located in the City of Tice (Fort Myers) in Lee County, Florida. The Plant property is located north of State Road 80 (Palm Beach Boulevard), south of the Caloosahatchee River, east of the Caloosahatchee Shores Community, and west of State Road 31.

The existing Fort Myers Plant consists of one natural gas C ombined C y cle (CC) units, two natural gas and oil fired C ombustion T urbine (CT) units, and one bank of 12 oil fired G as Turbines (G Ts ) (peaking facilities) that have a combined capacity of 2,4 03 summer megawatts.

Presently, the bank of 12 first generation GTs (wh ich started operation in the early 1970s) provide power during periods of peak demand and black start capability in the event of a power outage.
FPL plans to add two new CTs and retire ten of the existing GTs by the end of 2016.The two new CTs will be mor e efficient with cleaner air emissions than the existing GTs. In addition, the two existing CTs will be upgraded to produce additional generation capacity.

a

. U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Map A USGS map of the Fort Myers site and adjacent areas is found at the end of this chapter.

b

. Proposed Facilities Layout A general layout of the Fort Myers generating facilities is found at the end of this chapter.

Florida Power & Light Company 140c. Map of Site and Adjacent Areas A USGS map of the Fort Myers site and adjacent areas is found at the end of this chapter.

d

. Existing Land Uses of Site and Adjacent Areas The existing land

- use at the site is transportation, communication, utilities, barren land, and agricultural. Adjacent properties include low density urban, commercial, rangeland , open land, transportation, communication, and utilities. A Land Use / Land Cover Map is also found at the end of this chapter.

e. General Environment Features On and In the Site Vicinity
1

. Natural Environment The majority of the site is comprised of facil ities related to electric power generation.

2

. Listed Species
Based on the results of a 2013 biological assessment , which included a field evaluation and review of data obtained from the Florida Natural Areas Inventory (FNAI), the U.S. Fish
and Wildlif e Service (USFWS), and the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC) , no threatened or endangered species are expected to be affected by the proposed Project.

3

. Natural Resources of Regional Significance Status The Caloosahatchee and Orang e Rivers are adjacent to the site

. The construction and operation of the CT Project at this location is consistent with the existing use at the site and is not expected to have any adverse impacts on the Caloosahatchee River, the Orange River, parks, recre ation areas, or environmentally sensitive lands.

4

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

f

. Design Features and Mitigation Options
FPL will retire 1 0 of 12 GTs at the existing Fort Myers Plant, and re place them with two new highly efficient simple cycle CTs. In addition, the two existing CTs will be upgraded to produce additional capacity and enhanced performance

. The CTs operate in simple cycle mode with associated stacks and produce electrical energy by direct connection to an electric generator. The CTs will operate using natural gas and ultra

- low sulfur distillate (ULSD) oil as fuel. Two
GTs may be ret ained for peaking and black start capabilities.

Florida Power & Light Company 141g

. Local Government Future Land Use Designations The site is zoned Industrial Light (IL) by Lee County, a designation intended to provide for areas devoted to various light industrial and quasi

- industrial commercial uses. Electrical power plants are permitted within an IL designation. A land use map of the site and adjacent areas is also found at the end of this chapter.

h

. Site Selection Criteria Process The Fort Myers Pla nt site has been selected for the location of the new and upgraded peaking
unit s based on various factors including maximizing oppo rtunities to utilize existing utility infrastructure, system load, transmission interconnection, and economics.

i

. Water Resources
The proposed facility will require a marginal increase in demineralized water that will be supplied by treating potable wa ter obtained from Lee County.

j

. Geological Features of Site and Adjacent Areas According to the Natural Resource Conservation Service Soil (NRCS) Soil Survey of Lee County, Florida (1991), two soil types have been mapped within the proposed Project site : Caloosa fine sand and Urban Land. Notably, the soils within the Project site have been previously excavated to the depth of several meters and refilled, effectively eliminating the natural soil profile.

k

. Projected Water Quantities for Various Uses
Th e project consists of CTs that are operated in simple cycle mode and do not require a heat dissipation system. Water used for CT inlet air cooling and water injection for NOx control when using ULSD oil will be demineralized water. Demineralized water will be obtained by treating potable water provided from Lee County.

l

. Water Supply Sources by Type As stated in the previous section the CTs do not require a heat dissipation system, therefore there are no associated cooling water uses. For all other water supply requirements, the proposed facility would acquire potable water from Lee County.

m

. Water Conservation Strategies Under Consideration No additional water resources would be required as a result of the CTs project.

Florida Power & Light Company 142n

. Water Discharges and Pollut ion Control There would be no surface water discharges required for the operation of the proposed facility. The stormwater management system has been designed to prevent direct discharge to
surface waters.

The facility will employ a Best Management Prac tices (BMP) plan and Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure (SPCC) plan to prevent and control the inadvertent release of pollutants.

o

. Fuel Delivery, Storage, Waste Disposal, and Pollution Control The fuel to be used in the CTs is natural gas and ULSD oil. Natural gas will be transported to the facility via existing pipeline. No onsite storage is provided for natural gas. ULSD oil would
be trucked or barged to the facility and stored in existing ULSD oil tanks.

p

. Air Emissions and Control Syst ems Air emission rates for NOx with the new and upgraded CTs would be approximately 90 percent lower than the existing GT emission rates, resulting in significantly lower air quality impacts during operating hours . In addition to lower air emissions, the m aximum total air quality impacts for the CT Project are predicted to be well below and in compliance with the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). For pollutants such as NO 2 , the CT Project’s total air quality impacts are predicted to be signifi cantly reduced by 40 percent or more compared to the existing GTs.

The use of clean fuels (natural gas and ULSD oil) and combustion controls would minimize air emissions of SO2, sulfuric acid mist (SAM), particulates (PM/PM10/PM2.5), and other fuel

bound contaminants and ensure compliance with applicable emission

- limiting standards. Combustion controls will minimize the formation of NOx and the formation of CO and VOCs by combustor design. Further NOx reduction will be achieved by water injection during o il firing.

q

. Noise Emissions and Control Systems
N oise from the new and upgraded CTs will not exceed the maximum permissible sound levels in Lee County noise control ordinance No. 93

- 15. The design of the se new and upgraded CTs includes components and an enclosure which mitigate the emission of noise to the surrounding environment. 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.

Florida Power & Light Company 143r

. Status of Applications
F PL will apply for FDEP ERP for stormwater impacts and a PSD permit for air emissions. A Development Order Approval will be obtained from Lee County.



### Preferred Site # 7 : Okeechobee Site , Okeechobee County FPL owns 2,800 acres of land in Northeast Okeechobe e County. FPL plans to use approximately 200 acres of this land for development of a combined cycle (CC) unit at this site. A CC unit at this
site has been determined to be FPL’s best self

- build generation option for meeting its capacity needs beginning i n 2019. In March 2015, FPL issued a capacity request for proposals (RFP) to solicit proposals from outside parties for meeting this capacity need. FPL’s CC unit at the Okeechobee site, and the proposals received in response to the RFP, will be evaluated by FPL and an Independent Evaluator to determine which option(s) is the best selection for FPL’s
customers.

Natural gas

- fired CC generation at the site is possible due to the proximity to existing and planned natural gas pipelines. In addition, FPL current ly views the Okeechobee site as one of the most likely sites to be used for future large

- scale solar using photovoltaic (PV) generation facilities.

a. U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Map A USGS map of the Okeechobee site and adjacent areas is found at the end of this chapter.

b. Proposed Facilities Layout The proposed facilities layout is currently in development and not available at this time.

c. Map of Site and Adjacent Areas A USGS map of the Okeechobee site and adjacent areas is found at the end of this chap ter.

d. Existing Land Uses of Site and Adjacent Areas
The Okeechobee site is predominantly used for agricultural production (cattle and citrus). Adjacent land uses include agriculture and conservation

. The site is in an unincorporated,
rural area of the cou nty . FPL’s Poinsett

- Martin transmission line corridor abuts the property along the northern boundary.

e. General Environment Features On and In the Site Vicinity
1. Natural Environment The majority of the 2,800 acre site is comprised of lands dedicated to agric ultural production (unimproved pasture and fallow citrus). Approximately 400 acres consist of pine flatwoods, mixed forested wetlands, saw palmetto prairie, and freshwater marsh.

Florida Power & Light Company 1442. Listed Species Minimal impacts to federal

- or state

- listed terrestrial plan ts or animals are expected in association with construction at the site, due to the previously disturbed nature of the site and lack of suitable onsite habitat for listed species.

3. Natural Resources of Regional Significance Status
The Okeechobee site abut s the western boundary of the Ft Drum Marsh, a water conservation area managed by the Saint Johns River Water Management District. T he construction and operation of a power generating facility at this location is not expected to have any adverse impacts on that area or any other parks, recreation areas, or environmentally sensitive lands.

4. Other Significant Features FPL is not aware of any other significant features of the site.

f. Design Features and Mitigation Options
O ption s include construction of CC an d/or PV technologies. Mitigation for unavoidable impacts, if required, could occur through a combination of on

- and off

- site mitigation.

g. Local Government Future Land Use Designations Local government future land use designation for the site is predominan tly unimproved pasture. A land use map of the site and adjacent areas is also found at the end of this chapter.

h. Site Selection Criteria Process The Okeechobee County site was selected as Preferred based on various factors including system load, transmissi on interconnection, proximity of the proposed F lorida S outheast C onnection and other natural gas pipelines, and economics. Expected e nvironmental issues
are minimal because the site has been previously disturbed and contains few wetlands that
will be impac ted by the construction and operation of the planned facilities.

i. Water Resources
Groundwater from the Surficial and Floridan Aquifers is anticipated to supply water to the Northeast Okeechobee County site for the combined cycle unit

. Minimal amounts of water , if
any, will be required for cleaning the PV panels. This water will be obtained from onsite water resources permitted for the CC unit.

Florida Power & Light Company 145j. Geological Features of Site and Adjacent Areas The geological features of the Northeast Okeechobee County si te are similar to that of most of South Florida. In general, the groundwater system underlying Okeechobee County consists of the SAS, the Intermediate Confining Unit (ICU), and the FAS. In this area, the SAS consists of approximately 100 to 250 feet of und ifferentiated deposits of sand, shell, clay and silt. The ICU consists of approximately 200 feet of carbonate rocks interbedded with sandy and silty clay. The multiple layers of the FAS extend thousands of feet below the ICU.

k. Projected Water Quantities fo r Various Uses Approximately 9 mgd of cooling water will be used in cooling towers, which reduces water use by 95 to 98% compared to once through cooling, for a CC unit at the Okeechobee site. The estimated quantity of water required for processing at a CC unit is approximately 0.24 million gallons per day (mgd) for uses such as process water and service water. Potable water demand is expected to average 0.001 mgd. Only minimal amounts of water, if any, would be required for cleaning the PV panels, and woul d only be required in the absence of sufficient rainfall. This water would be obtained from onsite water resources permitted for the CC unit.

l. Water Supply Sources by Type The p otential water supply source is groundwater from the SAS and the FAS . Additiona l evaluations are necessary to determine the exact source. Process and potable water for the new pla nt are also not determined and may come from the surficial aquifer.

m. Water Conservation Strategies Under Consideration
Combined cycle technology utilizes le ss water by design than traditional steam generation units. PV facilities are expected to have no water demands. Specific water conservation strategies will be evaluated and selected during the detailed design phase of any development project.

n. Water Disch arges and Pollution Control
Th e CC plant is anticipated to utilize a closed cycle cooling (towers) system for heat dissipation. The heat recovery steam generator blowdown will be reused to the maximum extent practicable or mixed with the cooling water flow before discharge. Reverse osmosis (R/O) reject will be mixed with the plant’s cooling water flow prior to discharge. A deep injection well system known as an Underground Injection Control system (UIC) is proposed for disposal of non

- hazardous industrial w astewater from the power generation process and non

hazardous construction

- related water. Stormwater runoff would be collected and routed to stormwater ponds. The facility will employ Best Management Practices (BMP) and Spill

Florida Power & Light Company 146Prevention, Control, and Count ermeasure (SPCC) plans to prevent and control the inadvertent release of pollutants.

o. Fuel Delivery, Storage, Waste Disposal, and Pollution Control Natural gas for a new CC unit w ill be transported to the site via a new natural gas pipeline
lateral . New gas compressors to raise the gas pressure of the pipeline to the appropriate level
for the new unit may be necessary. Back

- up fuel supplies of ultra

- low sulfur light fuel oil will be received by truck or pipeline and stored in an above

- ground storage tank to ensure reliability of operations

.

p. Air Emissions and Control Systems The use of natural gas
, ultra

- low sulfur light fuel oil
, and combustion controls will minimize regulated air emissions of sulfur dioxide, particulate matter, and other fuel

- bound
conta minates from a CC unit and ensure compliance with applicable emission standards. Combustion controls similarly minimize the formation of NO x , and the combustor design will
limit the formation of CO and VOCs . When firing natural gas, NO x emissions will be c ontrolled using dry

- low NO x combustion technology and selective catalytic reduction (SCR). Water injection and SCR will be used to reduce NO x emissions during operations when using ultra

low sulfur light fuel oil as backup fuel. The CC facility emissions o f GHGs from combustion of natural gas achieve an emission rate substantially lower than the EPA’s proposed new source performance standards for GHGs. These design alternatives are equivalent to the Best Available Control Technology for air emissions, and m inimize such emissions while balancing economic, environmental, and energy impacts. Taken together, the design of a CC unit would incorporate features that would make it among the most efficient and cleanest power plants in
the State of Florida. PV generat ion does not produce air emissions.

q. Noise Emissions and Control Systems
Noise from unit construction is expected to be minimal

. Noise from unit operation will not exceed Okeechobee County maximum permissible sound levels in an agricultural area.

r. Sta tus of Applications FPL has filed an UIC Exploratory Well and associated Dual Zone Monitoring Well for the Northeast Okeechobee County site. The application has been deemed complete and the
Public Notice for the Draft Permit was publ ished in early February 2015. A permit for the construction of the Exploratory Well and Dual Zone Monitoring Well is expected in S ummer 2015. FPL will submit applications to the State of Florida for Site Certification as well as other permits needed to support the construction a nd operation of the project. The applications will be prepared as the planning and development of the project proceeds.

Florida Power & Light Company 147

### Preferred Site # 8 : Turkey Point Plant, Miami

- Dade County The Turkey Point Plant (Turkey Point) is located on the west side of Biscayne Bay, 25 miles south
of Miami. Turkey Point is directly on the shoreline of Biscayne Bay and is geographically located approximately 9 miles east of Florida City on Palm Drive. The land surrounding Turkey Point is owned by FPL and acts as a buffer zone. Tu rkey Point is comprised of two natural gas/oil
conventional steam units (Units 1 & 2), two nuclear units (Units 3 & 4), one combined cycle natural gas unit (Unit 5), nine small diesel generators, and the cooling canals. A capacity uprate project
for the tw o nuclear units was successfully completed in 2013. The Everglades Mitigation Bank (EMB), a n approximately 13,000 acre s , FPL

- maintained natural wildlife and wetlands area that
has been set aside
, is located to the south and west of the site.

On May 14, 2 014, the Florida Power Plant Siting Board authorized the site certification, with conditions, of Turkey Point 6 & 7. Each of these two units would provide 1,100 MW of nuclear generating capacity. Due to a delay in the Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s (NRC) schedule to reach a decision in the Combined Operating License Application (COLA) submittal by FPL until late 2016, and to changes in Florida’s nuclear cost recovery rule, the projected earliest practical
in

- service dates for the two new units are June 202 7 (for Turkey Point Unit 6) and June 2028 (for Turkey Point Unit 7). These in

- service dates are outside of the current ten

- year time period (2015 through 2024) addressed in this Site Plan. H owever , because these two new nuclear units remain
in FPL’s resour ce plans, th e Turkey Point site is again presented as a Preferred Site in this year’s Site Plan.

In addition to the two new generating units, supporting buildings, facilities
, and equipment will be
located on the Turkey Point Units 6 & 7 s ite, along with a construction l aydown area. Proposed
associated facilities include: a nuclear administration building, a training building , a parking area
, an FPL reclaimed water treatment facility and reclaimed water pipelines
, radial collector wells and delivery pipel ines
, an equipment barge unloading area
, transmission lines ( and transmission system improvements elsewhere within Miami

- Dade County ), access roads and bridges
, and potable water pipelines.

a. U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Map USGS maps of the Turkey Point area, with the proposed location of Turkey Point Units 6 & 7 identified, are found at the end of this chapter.

b. Proposed Facilities Layout Maps of the general layout of Turkey Point Unit s 6 &7 are found at the end of this chapter.

Florida Power & Light Company 148c. Map of Site and Adjace nt Areas Land Use / Land Cover overview map s of the Turkey Point Units 6 & 7 site and adjacent areas

are also found at the end of this chapter.

d. Existing Land Uses of Site and Adjacent Areas Turkey Point Plant is currently home to five generati ng units an d support facilities that occupy approximately 150 acres of the approximately 9
, 4 00

- acre Turkey Point property

. Prominent features beyond the power block area include the intake system, cooling canal system, switchyard, spent fuel storage facilities, and t echnical and administrative support facilities The cooling canal system occupies approximately 5,900 acres.

Two 400

- megawatt (MW) (nominal) fossil fuel

- fired steam electric generation units at Turkey Point have been in service since 1967 (Unit 1) and 196 8 (Unit 2). These units have historically
burn ed residual fuel oil and/or natural gas with a maximum equivalent sulfur content of one percent. Unit 2 is currently serving, not as a power generating unit, but as a synchronous condenser to provide voltage su pport to the southeastern end of FPL’s transmission system.
The two original 700

- MW (nominal) nuclear units have been in service since 1972 (Unit 3) and 1973 (Unit 4) and were uprated to a combined total of approximately 1,63 2 (Summer) MW in
2013 . Turkey P oint Units 3 and 4 are pressurized water reactor (PWR) units. Turkey Point Unit
5 is a net 1,1 48 (Summer) MW natural gas

- fired combined cycle unit that began operation in
2007. The site for the new Units 6 & 7 is south of existing Units 3 and 4 and occupie s approximately 300 acres within the existing cooling canal system.

Properties adjacent to Turkey Point property are almost exclusively undeveloped land. The
FPL

- owned EMB is adjacent to most of the western and southern boundaries of Turkey Point propert y. The South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) Canal L

- 31E is also situated to the west of Turkey Point property. The eastern portions of Turkey Point property are adjacent to Biscayne Bay, the Biscayne National Park (BNP)
, and Biscayne Bay Aquatic Preserve. The southeastern portion of Turkey Point property is bounded by state

- owned land located on Card Sound. The Homestead Bayfront Park, owned and operated by Miami

- Dade County, is situated to the north of the Turkey Point property.

e. General Environ ment Features On and In the Site Vicinity
1. Natural Environment Turkey Point is located directly on the northwest, west, and southwest shoreline of Biscayne Bay and the Biscayne National Park , 25 miles south of Miam i

. Biscayne National
Park was first establi shed in 1968 as a National Monument and was expanded in 1980 to

Florida Power & Light Company 149approximately 173,000 acres of water, coastal lands, and 42 keys. A portion of Biscayne Bay Aquatic Preserve, a state

- owned preserve, is adjacent to the eastern boundary of the Turkey Point pl ant property. The Biscayne Bay Aquatic Preserve is a shallow, subtropical lagoon consisting of approximately 69,000 acres of submerged State land that has been designated as an Outstanding Florida Water.

The approximately 300

- acre Turkey Point Units 6 & 7 site consists of the plant area and adjacent areas designated for laydown and ancillary facilities. The site includes hypersaline mud flats, man

- made active cooling canals, man

- made remnant canals, previously filled areas/roadways, mangrove heads associa ted with historical tidal channels, dwarf mangroves, open water /discharge canal associated with the cooling canals on the western portion of the site, wet spoil berms associated with remnant canals, and upland spoil areas.

2. Listed Species Threatened, enda ngered, and/or animal species of special concern known to occur at the
site
, transmission line corridors, or in the nearby Biscayne National Park
, include the peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus) , wood stork (Mycteria americana) , American crocodile (Crocody lus acutus) , roseate spoonbill ( Ajaja ajaja) , little blue heron (Egretta caerulea), snowy egret (Egretta thula), American oystercatcher (Haematopus palliates), least tern (Sterna antillarum) , the white ibis (Eudocimus albus) , Florida manatee ( Trichechus

ma natus latirostris), eastern indigo snake (Drymarchon couperi)
, snail kite (Rostrhamus sociabilis plumbeus), white

- crowned pigeon (Patagioenas leucocephala)
, and bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) . No bald eagle nests are known to exist in the vicinity o f the site. The federally listed, threatened American c rocodile thrives at Turkey Point, primarily in and around the southern end of the cooling canals which lie south of the Turkey Point
Unit 6 & 7 area. The majority of Turkey Point is considered American 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 C rocodile and the program is credited with survival improvement and contributing to the downlisting
of the American C rocodile from endangered to threatened.

Some listed flora species likely to occur at the site or vicinity include p inepink (Bletia purpurea)
, Florida brickell

- bush (Brickellia mosieri)
, Florida lantana (Lan tana depressa var. depressa)
, m ullien nightshade (Solanum donianum)
, and l amarck's trema (Trema lamarckianum).

Florida Power & Light Company 150The construction and operation after construction, of Turkey Point Unit 6 & 7 project is not expected to adversely affect any rare, endangered, or threatened species.

3. Natural Resources of Regional Significance Status Sign ificant features within the vicinity o f the site include Biscayne National Park, the Biscayne Bay Aquatic Preserve, Miami

- Dade County Homestead Bayfront Park, and Everglades Nat ional Park. The portion of Biscayne Bay adjacent to the site is included within the Biscayne National Park. Biscayne National Park contains 180,000 acres, approximately 95 percent of which is open water interspersed with more than 40 keys. The Biscayne Nat ional Park headquarters is located approximately two miles north of Turkey Point and is 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. Design Features and Mitigation Options For Turkey Point Units 6 & 7, t he technology proposed is the Westinghouse AP1000 pressurized water reactor (PWR). This design is certified by the Nuclear Regulatory Commis sion ( NRC ) under 10 CFR 52 and incorporates the latest technology and more advanced safety features than today’s nuclear plants that have already achieved record safety levels. The Westinghouse AP1000 unit consists of the reactor, steam generators, pressur izer, and steam turbine/electric generator. Condenser cooling for the Units 6 & 7 steam turbine s will be accomplished using six circulating water cooling towers

. The makeup water reservoir is the reinforced concrete structure beneath the circulating water system cooling towers that will contain reserve reclaimed water capacity to be used for the circulating water system. The structures for the Westinghouse AP1000 are the nuclear island (containment building, shield building, and auxiliary building), turbine building, annex building, diesel generator building, and radwaste building. The plant area will also contain the Clear Sky substation (switchyard) that
will connect Unit s 6 & 7 to FPL’s transmission system. Mitigation plans for Turkey Point Units
6 & 7 in clude restoration areas as well as credits purchased from the Everglades Mitigation
Bank.

g. Local Government future Land Use Designations The Turkey Point Plant site is designated by the Miami

- Dade County Comprehensive Development Management Plan as an IU

- 3 (Industrial, Utilities, and Communications) Unlimited Manufacturing District that carries a dual designation of MPA (Mangrove Protection

Florida Power & Light Company 151Area) in portions of the property . There are also areas designated GU

– “Interim District.” Designations for the sur rounding area are primarily GU

– “Interim District.”

h. Site Selection Criteria Process For Turkey Point Unit s 6 & 7
, FPL conducted an extensive site selection analysis leading to the selection of the Turkey Point site as the site that, on balance, provided the most favorable location for developing new nuclear generation to serve FPL’s customers. The Site Selection Study employed the principles of the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) siting guidelines and is modeled upon applicable NRC site suitabili ty and National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) criteria regarding the consideration of alternative sites. The study convened a group of industry and FPL subject matter experts to develop and assign weighting factors to a broad range of site selection crit eria. Twenty

- three candidate sites were then ranked using the siting criteria. This review allowed the list of candidates to be reduced until the best site emerged. Key factors contributing to the selection of the Turkey Point site include the existing
tra nsmission and transportation infrastructure to support new generation, the large size and seclusion of the site while being relatively close to the load center, and the long

- standing record of safe and secure operation of nuclear generation at the site sin ce the early 1970s.

i. Water Resources In regard to Turkey Point Uni ts 6 & 7 , the primary source of cooling water makeup will be
reclaimed water from the Miami

- Dade County Water and Sewer Department (MDWASD), with potable water also from MDWASD. When recla imed water is not available in sufficient quantity and quality of water needed for cooling, makeup water will be saltwater supplied by radial collector wells that are recharged from the marine environment of Biscayne Bay. Horizontal collector wells (radial collector wells) have become widely used for the purpose of inducing infiltration from surface water bodies into hydraulically

- connected aquifer systems in order to develop moderate to high capacity water supplies. Turkey Point Units 6 & 7 wastewater will be discharged via on

- site deep injection wells.

j. Geological Features of Site and Adjacent Areas Turkey Point lies upon the Floridian Plateau, a partly

- submerged peninsula of the continental shelf. The peninsula is underlain by approximately 4,000 to 15,0 00 feet of sedimentary rocks consisting of limestone and associated formations that range in age from Paleozoic to Recent. Little is known about the basement complex of Paleozoic igneous and metamorphic rocks due to their great depth.

Generally in Miami

- D ade County, the surficial aquifer (Biscayne Aquifer) consists of a wedge

shaped system of porous clastic and carbonate sedimentary materials, primarily limestone

Florida Power & Light Company 152and sand deposits of the Miocene to late Quaternary age. The Biscayne Aquifer is thickest
alon g the eastern coast and varies in thickness from 80 to 200 feet thick. The surficial aquifer is typically composed of Pamlico Sand, Miami Limestone (Oolite), the Fort Thompson and Anastasia Formations (lateral equivalents), Caloosahatchee Marl, and the Tam iami formation. The lower confining layers below the surficial aquifer range in thickness from 350 to 600 feet and are composed of the Hawthorn Group. Beneath the Hawthorn Group, the Floridan Aquifer System ranges from 2,800 to 3,400 feet thick and consist s of Suwannee Limestone, Avon Park Limestone, and the Oldsmar Formations.

k. Projected Water Quantities for Various Uses
T he estimated quantity of water required for the new Turkey Point Units 6 & 7 for industrial processing is approximately 936 gallons per minute (gpm) for uses such as process water and service water. Approximately 55.3 million gallons per day (mgd) of cooling water would be cycled through the cooling towers. Water quantities needed for other uses such as potable water are estimated to be ap proximately 50,400 gallons per day (gpd) for Units 6 & 7.

l. Water Supply Sources and Type
T he water for the various water needs of Turkey Point 6 & 7 will be obtained from a reclaimed water supply supplied by the Miami

- Dade Water and Sewer Department , a sal twater supply, and a potable water supply from the Miami

- Dade Water and Sewer Department

. Reclaimed water will be used as makeup water to the cooling water system with saltwater from radial
collector wells as a back

- up water source to be used w hen reclaime d water is not available in sufficient quantity or quality.

Potable water will be used as makeup water for the service water system. The p otable water supply will also provide water to the fire protection system, demineralized water treatment system, and other miscellaneous uses.

m. Water Conservation Strategies
U se of reclaimed water from MDWASD Turkey Point Unit s 6 & 7 helps Miami

- Dade County meet approximately half of its wastewater reuse goals and will provide environmental benefits by reducing the vo lume of wastewater discharged by the County. In the absence of reuse opportunities, this treated domestic wastewater would likely continue to be discharged to the

ocean or into deep injection wells.

Miami

- Dade County is required to eliminate ocean outfall s and increase the amount of water
that is reclaimed for environmental benefit and other beneficial uses. Turkey Point Unit s 6 & 7

Florida Power & Light Company 153will use reclaimed water 24 hours per day, 365 days per year when operating and when the
reclaimed water is available in suff icient quantity and quality.

n. Water Discharges and Pollution Control Turkey Point Units 6 & 7 will dissipate heat from the power generation process using cooling towers. Blowdown water or discharge from the cooling towers, along with other wastestreams,
wi ll 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. Stormwater runoff will be released to the
closed

- loop cooling canal system.

Turkey Point Units 6 & 7 wil l employ Best Management Practices (BMP) plan s and Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure (SPCC) plan s to prevent and control the inadvertent release of pollutants.

o. Fuel Delivery, Storage, Waste Disposal, and Pollution Control The Turkey Point Un its 6 & 7, reactor s will contain enriched uranium fuel assemblies.

New fuel assemblies will be transported to Turkey Point for use in Unit s 6 & 7 by truck from a fuel fabrication facility in accordance with U.S. Department of Transporta tion (DOT) and NRC regulations. Spent fuel assemblies being discharged will remain in the permitted spent fuel pool while short half

- life isotopes decay.

After a sufficient decay period, the fuel would be transferred to a permitted on
- site independent spent fuel storage i nstallation facility or a permitted off

- site disposal facility. Packaging of the fuel for off

- site shipment will comply with the applicable DOT and NRC regulations for transportation of radioactive material.

The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) is responsi ble for spent fuel transportation from reactor sites to a repository under the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, as amended. FPL has executed a standard spent nuclear fuel dispos al contract with DOE for fuel used in Units 6 &
7

.

p. Air Emissions and Control Systems Regarding Turkey Point Units 6 & 7, the units will minimize FPL system air pollutant emissions by using nuclear fuel to generate electric power. This includes avoiding emissions of particulate matter ( PM )
, sulfur dioxide ( SO 2 )
, nitrogen oxides ( NO x )
, carbon monoxide ( CO )
, carbon dioxide (CO 2 ), and volatile organic compounds ( VOC )

. The circulating water cooling towers will be equipped with high

- efficiency drift or mist eliminators to minimize emissions of

Florida Power & Light Company 154PM to 0.0005 percent of the circulating water ; which represents 99.99

- percent control of potential drift emissions based on the circulating water flow.

The diesel engines necessary to support Turkey Point Units 6 & 7 and fire pump engines will be purchased from manufacturers whose engines meet the EPA’s New Source Performance Standards ( NSPS ) Subpart IIII emission lim its.

q. Noise Emissions and Control Systems
F ield survey s and impact assessment s of noise expected to be caused by activities
associated with the Turkey Point Units 6 & 7 project were c onducted. Predicted noise levels associated with these projects are not expected to result in adverse noise impacts in the vicinity of the site.

r. Status of Applications The Turkey Point Units 6 & 7 Need Determination for this additional nuclear capacit y was issued by the Florida Public Service Commission in April 2008. The Site Certification Application (SCA)
, under the Florida Electrical Power Plant Siting Act
, was filed in June 2009
and on May 14, 2014, the Florida Power Plant Siting Board authorized the site certification,
with conditions. In its final order, the Florida Power Plant Siting Board identified the West Consensus Corridor as the primary western corridor (comprising an alternate corridor proposed by the Miami

- Dade Limestone Products Associa tion and a portion of FPL’s West Preferred Corridor) and FPL’s West Preferred Corridor as a back

- up western transmission line
corridor. The use of the back

- up western transmission line corridor will be necessary in the event the pending land exchange with the National Park Service and other agencies is not consummated on a timely basis.

A Combined Operating License Application for Units 6 & 7 was submitted to the N RC in June
2009 . There are two components to that application; one is the Environmental Asse ssment (EA) and the oth er is the Safety component. In 2014 the US N uclear R egulatory C ommission informed FPL that their decision on the COLA was going to be delayed several years until late
2016 . As a result of this delay, and changes in Florida’s nuclear cost recovery rules, the earliest practical in

- service dates of Turkey Point Units 6 & 7 (June 2017 and June 2028, respectively) have moved beyond the 10

- year reporting window (2015 through 2024) of this
Site Plan.

Besides the certification and the licens e, additional approvals have been issued for Turkey Point Units 6 & 7 including Miami

- Dade County Unusual Use approvals that were issued in 2007 and 2013 and a Land Use Consistency Determination that was issued in 2013. The

Florida Power & Light Company 155Prevention of Significant Deteri oration (Air permit) was issued in 2009. In addition, a permit to construct an exploratory well and a dual zone monitoring well, under the Underground Injection Control Program, was issued in 2010, and a permit to convert the exploratory well, to an inject ion well and to operationally test the system, was issued in 2013. Permits from the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) for the containment structure were originally issued in
2009 and renewed in 2012

.



### IV.F.2 Potential Sites for Generating Options
Three (3) sites are currently identified as Potential Sites for future generation additions to meet
FPL’s projected capacity and energy needs

. 5 These sites have been identified as Potential Sites due to considerations of location to FPL load centers, space, i nfrastructure, and/or accessibility to fuel and transmission facilities. These sites are suitable for different capacity levels and technologies , including both renewable energy and non

- renewable energy technologies for
various sites

.

Each of these Pote ntial 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 an d attention.

Permits are presently considered to be obtainable for each of these sites. No significant environmental constraints are currently known for any of these 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 : Hendry County FPL has acquired a n approximately 3,120

- acre s ite in southeast Hendry County, off CR 833. The Hendry County site has been listed as a Preferred or Potential Site in previous FPL Site Plans as a possibility for a future PV facility and/or natural gas

- fired CC generation. FPL currently views the Hendry site as one of the most likely sites to be used for future large

- scale generation. A map of the property owned FPL and an overview map of the site and adjacent areas is found at the end of this chapter.

a. Geological Survey (USGS) Map A USGS map of the site is found at the end of this chapter.

5 As has been described in previous FPL Site Plans, FPL also considers a number of other sites as possible sites for future generation additions. These include the remainder of FPL’s existing generation sites and other Greenfield sites. Greenfield sites that FPL currently does not own, or for which FPL has not currently secured the necessary rights to, are not specifically identifi ed as Potential Sites in order to protect the economic interests of FPL and its customers.

Florida Power & Light Company 156b. Existing Land Uses of Site and Adjacent Areas The existing and future land use s on the site are Agricultural and Upland Forest . The existing land uses adjacent to the site are predominately agricultural. The property to the south is the Seminole Big Cypress Reservation.

c. Environmental Features The natural environment adjacent to the north, east, and west of the site are used predominately for agricultural activities such as improved, unimproved, and woodland pasture. The majority of the pasture lands include upland scrub, pine, and hardwoods.

FPL strives to have no adverse impacts on federal

- or state

- listed terrestrial plants and
animals. Much of southwest Florida , including this area is considered habitat for the endangered Florida Panther. Although few or no impacts are expected in association with
future construction at the site , FPL anticipates minimizing or mitigating for unavoidable wildlife or wetland impacts.

Future construction and operation of a solar and/or a natural gas

- fired CC generating facility at this location is not expected to have any adverse impacts on parks, r ecreation areas, or environmentally sensitive lands.

d. Water Quantities Required The estimated quantity of water required for processing at a CC unit is approximately 0.24 million gallons per day (mgd) for uses such as process water and service water. Potab le water demand is expected to average 0 .001 mgd. Approximately 7.5 mgd of cooling water would be used in cooling towers for one CC unit. Minimal amounts of water would be required for a PV facility.

e. Supply Sources
A Potential water supply source is grou ndwater , but a dditional evaluations are necessary to determine the exact source. Process and potable water for the new plant will come from the existing potable water supply. Specific water conservation strategies will be evaluated and selected during the detailed design phase of any development project.



### Potential Site # 2 : Martin County FPL is currently evaluating potential sites in Martin County for a future PV facility. No specific
locations have been selected at this time.

Florida Power & Light Company 157a. U.S. Geological Survey (U SGS) Map A USGS map of the county has been included at the end of this chapter.

b. Land Uses This information is not available because a specific site has not been selected at this time.

c. Environmental Features This information is not available because a sp ecific site has not been selected at this time.

d. Water Quantities Required Minimal amounts of water would be required for a PV facility.

e. Supply Sources Minimal water would be required for a PV facility. A small amount , trucked in, may be needed
to occasio nally clean the PV panels in the absence of sufficient rainfall.



### Potential Site # 3 : Putnam Plant Site , Putnam County FPL is currently evaluating the existing Putnam Plant site for future natural gas

- fired generation.
This 66 acre site is located on the e ast side of Highway 100 opposite the former FPL Palatka Plant
in East Palatka. The Putnam site has been listed as a Potential Site in previous FPL Site Plans as a possibility for future natural gas

- fired CC generation. FPL currently views the Putnam site a s one of the most likely sites to be used for future large

- scale generation.

a. U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Map A USGS map of the Putnam site is found at the end of this chapter.

b. Existing Land Uses of Site and Adjacent Areas The Putnam site is design ated as Industrial land use. Adjacent land uses include power generation and associated facilities (the former Palatka Plant) as well as Mixed Wetland Hardwoods, Residential, and Mixed Hardwood

- Coniferous.

c. Environment al Features The majority of the site i s developed and has facilities necessary for power plant operations. No significant environmental features have been identified at this time. It is anticipated that
there will be m inimal impacts (if any) to federal

- or state

- listed terrestrial plants and a nimals in association with construction at the site, due to the existing developed nature of the site and lack of suitable onsite habitat for listed species. The construction and operation of a power generating facility at this location is not expected to have any adverse impacts on natural

Florida Power & Light Company 158resources of regional significance and FPL is not aware of any other significant features of the
site

.

d. Water Quantities Required
The St John’s River and/or regional water supply initiatives are potential water sources.
Potable water demand is expected to average .001 million gallons per day ( mgd ) . The estimated quantity of water required at a CC unit is approximately 0.24 mgd for uses such as process water and service water. Approximately 7.5 mgd of cooling water would be used in cooling towers for a CC unit

.

e. Supply Sources A p otential water supply source is the St. John’s River , but a dditional evaluation is necessary to determine the exact source. Process and potable water for the new plant will come from the
existin g potable water supply . CC and cooling tower technologies utilize less water by design than traditional steam generation units. Specific water conservation strategies will be evaluated and selected during the detailed design phase of the project developmen t.

Florida Power & Light Company 159

### (This page is left intentionally blank.)

Florida Power & Light Company 160

## CHAPTER V
Other Planning Assumptions & Information

Florida Power & Light Company 213**(This page is left intentionally blank.)**

Florida Power & Light Company 214

### Introduction
The Florida Public Service Commission (FPSC), in Docket No. 960111

- EU, specified certain information
that was to be included in an electr ic 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 concern specific aspects of a utility’s resource plann ing 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 th e impacts on the plan. Discuss any plans for alleviating any transmission constraints.

FPL’s resource planning work considers two types of transmission limitations/constraints : external
limitations and internal limitations. 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 because they affect the development of assumptions for the amount
of external assistance that is a vailable to the FPL system a s well as 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 assis tance that 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 the loss of load probability (LOLP) portion of its reliability analyses, FPL
models this amount of external assistance as an additional generator within FPL’s system that 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 generating units that minimize adverse impacts to the flow of electricity within FPL’s system. The
internal transmission limitations ar e also addressed by developing the direct costs for siting potential new
units at different locations
, evaluating the cost impacts created by the new unit/unit location combination on the operation of existing units in the FPL system , and /or evaluating the costs of transmission additions that may be needed to address regional concerns regarding an imbalance between load and generation in a given region . Both of these site

- and system

- related transmission costs are developed for each different unit/unit loca tion option or groups of options. When analyzing DSM portfolios, such as in a DSM Goals docket, FPL also examines t he potential for utility DSM energy efficiency programs to avoid/defer regional transmission expenditures that would otherwise be needed to i mport power into that region by lowering electrical load in Southeastern Florida

. In addition , transfer limits for capacity and energy that can be

Florida Power & Light Company 215imported into the Southeastern Florida region (Miami

- Dade and Broward Counties) of FPL’s system are
also deve loped for use in FPL’s production costing analyses. (A further discussion of the Southeastern
Florida region of FPL’s system
, and the need to maintain a regional balance between generation and
transmission contributions to meet regional load
, is found in C hapter III.)

FPL’s annual transmission planning work determines transmission additions needed to address limitations and to maintain/enhance system reliability. FPL’s planned transmission facilities to interconnect and integrate generating units in FPL’s resource plans
, including those transmission facilities that must be certified under the Transmission Line Siting Act
, are presented in Chapter III.



### 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 typic ally 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 its system 6

.

6 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 analy sis (i.e., when only new generating options are considered), the lowest electric rate basis approach and the lowest system cumulative present value of revenue requirements basis approach yield identical results in terms of which resource options are more e conomic. In such cases FPL evaluates resource options on the simpler

- to

- calculate (but equivalent) lowest cumulative present value system revenue requirements basis.

The load forecast that is pres ented in FPL’s 2015 Site Plan was developed in November 2014

. The only load forecast sensitivities analyzed during 2014 /early 2015 were high load forecast sensitivities developed to analyze the quality of FPL’s future reserves

.



### 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 sen sitivity 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 scenario s 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 p lan is tested for sensitivity to varying fuel prices.

Florida Power & Light Company 216The basic assumptions FPL used in deriving its fuel price forecasts are discussed in Chapter III of this document. FPL used three fuel cost, and three environmental compliance cost, forecasts in analys es supporting its 201 4 nuclear cost recovery filing. Also, in response to a request from the FPSC Staff, FPL
used three fuel cost forecasts in sensitivity case analyses for the 2014 DSM Goals docket.

A Medium fuel cost forecast is developed first . Then th e Medium fuel cost forecast is adjusted
, upwards (for the High fuel cost forecast) or downwards (for the Low fuel cost forecast), by multiplying the annual cost values from the Medium fuel cost forecast by a factor of (1 + the historical volatility in the 12

- month forward price, one year ahead) for the High fuel cost forecast, or by a factor of (1

– the historical volatility of
the 12

- month forward price, one year ahead) for the Low fuel cost forecast.

The resource plan presented in this Site Plan is bas ed, in part, on those prior analyses. For that reason, this resource plan has not been further tested for different fuel cost forecasts.



### Discussion Item # 4: Describe how the sensitivity of the plan was tested with respect to holding
the differential bet ween oil/gas and coal constant over the planning horizon.

As described above in the answer to Discussion Item # 3, FPL used up to three fuel cost forecasts in its
2014 /early 2015 resource planning analyses. While these forecasts did not represent a consta nt cost differential between oil/gas and coal, a variety of fuel cost differentials were represented in these forecasts.



### Discussion Item # 5: Describe how generating unit performance was modeled in the planning

process.

The performance of existing gener ating units on FPL’s system was modeled using current projections for scheduled outages, unplanned outages, capacity output ratings, and heat rate information. Schedule 1 in Chapter I and Schedule 8 in Chapter III 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 ca pital costs, fixed and variable operating & maintenance costs, capital replacement costs, construction schedules, heat rates, and capacity ratings for all construction options in its resource planning work. A summary of this information for the new capacit y options that FPL currently projects to add over the reporting horizon for this document is presented on the Schedule 9 forms in Chapter III.

Florida Power & Light Company 217

### Discussion Item # 6: Describe and discuss the financial assumptions used in the planning process. Discuss how th e sensitivity of the plan was tested with respect to varying financial assumptions.

During 2014 , FPL used the following financial assumptions : i) a n incremental capital structure of 40.38% debt and 59.62% equity; (ii) a 5.14 % cost of debt; (iii) a 10.5% r eturn on equity; and (iv) an after

- tax discount rate of 7.54 %. In February 2015, the cost of debt changed to 5.05% and the after

- tax discount rate changed to 7.51%. No sensitivities of these financial assumptions were used in FPL’s 2014 /early 2015

resourc e planning work.



### 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 (I RP) process is described in detail in Chapter III 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 objective genera lly being to minimize FPL’s projected levelized system average electric rate (i.e., a Rate Impact Measure or RIM approach). As discussed in response to Discussion Item # 2, both the electricity rate perspective and the cumulative present value of system re venue requirement perspective yield identical results in terms of which resource options are more economic al when DSM levels are unchanged between competing resource plans. Therefore, in planning work in which DSM levels were unchanged, the equivalent, but simpler

- to

- calculate, cumulative present value of revenue requirements perspective was utilized.



### Discussion Item # 8: Define and discuss the electric utility’s generation and transmission reliability criteria.

FPL uses three system reliability criteri a in its resource planning work that addresses generation, purchase, and DSM options . One criterion is a minimum 20% Summer and Winter reserve margin. An other reliability criterion is a maximum of 0.1 days per year loss

- of

- load

- probability ( LOLP). The thir d criterion is a minimum 10% generation

- only reserve margin (GRM) criterion. These three reliability criteria are discussed in Chapter III of this document.

In regard to transmission reliability analysis work
, FPL has adopted transmission planning criter ia that are consistent with the planning criteria established by the Florida Reliability Coordinating Council (FRCC). The

Florida Power & Light Company 2 18FRCC has adopted transmission planning criteria that are consistent with the Reliability Standards established by the North American E lectric Reliability Council (NERC). The NERC Reliability Standards are available on
the internet site ( http://www.nerc.com/ )

.

In addition, FPL has developed a Facility Connection Requirements (FCR) document as well as a Facility Rating Methodology document that are also available on the internet under the “ Interconnection Request
Information ” , and “ FPL Facility Ratings Methodologies ”
, director ies respectively
at h ttps://www.oatioasis.com/FPL/index.html

.

Generally, FPL limits its transmission facilities to 100% of the applicable thermal rating. T he normal and contingency voltage criteria for FPL stations are provided below:

N ormal/Contingency Voltage Leve l (kV) Vmin (p.u.) Vmax (p.u.) 69, 115, 138 0.95/0.95 1.05/1.07
230 0.95/0.95 1.06/1.07
500 0.95/0.95 1.07/1.09 Turkey Point (*) 1.01/1.01 1.06/1.06
St. Lucie (*) 1.00/1.00 1.06/1.06 (*) Voltage range criteria for FPL’s Nuclear Power Plants

There may be isolated cases for which FPL may have determined that it is acceptable to deviate from the general criteria stated above. There are several factors that could influence th ese criteria, such as the overall
number of potential customers that may be impacted, the probability of an outage actually occurring, and transmission system performance.



### Discussion Item # 9: Discuss how t he electric utility verifies the durability of energy savings for its DSM programs.

The projected impact s of FPL’s DSM programs on demand and energy consumption are revised periodically. Engineering models, calibrated with current field

- metered data, are updated at regular intervals. Participation trends are tracked for all of FPL ’s DSM programs in order to adjust impacts each year for changes in the mix of efficiency measures being installed by program participants. For its load management programs, FPL c onducts periodic tests of the load control equipment to ensure that the equipment is functioning correctly. These tests, plus actual, non

- test load management events, also allow FPL to gauge the MW reduction capabilities of its load management programs on an on
- going basis.

Florida Power & Light Company 219

### Discussion Item # 10: Discuss how strategic concerns are incorporated in the planning process.

The Executive Summary and Chapter III provide a discussion of a variety of system concerns/issues that influence FPL’s resource planning pr ocess. Please see those chapters for a discussion of those concerns/issues

.

In addition to these system concerns/issues, there are other strategic factors that FPL typically considers when choosing between resource options . These include : ( 1 ) technology r isk; ( 2 ) environmental risk
, and ( 3 ) site feasibility. The consideration of these factors may include both economic and non

- economic aspects.

Technology risk is an assessment of the relative maturity of competing technologies. For example, a prototype tec hnology
, which has not achieved general commercial acceptance
, has a higher risk than a technology in wide use and, therefore, assuming all else is equal, is less desirable.

Environmental risk is an assessment of the relative environmental acceptability o f different generating technologies and their associated environmental impacts on the FPL system, including environmental compliance costs. Technologies regarded as more acceptable from an environmental perspective for FPL’s resource plan are those that mi nimize environmental impacts for the FPL system as a whole through highly efficient fuel use
, state

- of

- the

- art environmental controls
, generating technologies that do not utilize fossil fuels (such as nuclear and solar ), etc

.

Site feasibility assesses a w ide 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 o f these factors play a part in FPL’s planning and decision

- making , including its decisions to construct capacity or purchase power.



### Discussion Item # 11: Describe the procurement process the electric utility intends to utilize to acquire the additional su pply

- side resources identified in the electric utility’s ten

- year site plan

.

As shown in this 2015 Site Plan, FPL’s resource plan currently reflects the following major supply

- side or generation resource addition s: the on
- going modernization at Port Everg lades
, the replacement of existing GT capacity with new CT capacity, the on
- going upgrading of CTs in several existing CCs throughout

Florida Power & Light Company 220FPL’s system, the i mplementation of the previously executed EcoGen PPA, the projected addition of new
PV facilities , and t he addition of new CC units

.

In regard to the modernization project at Port Everglades , the project received a Florida Public Service
Commission waiver from the Bid Rule due to attributes specific to the Port Everglades site and to modernization projects in general (such as use of existing land, water, transmission, etc.) plus other
economic benefits to FPL’s customers. Th is waiver from the Bid Rule w as granted in Order No. PSC

- 11

- 0360

- PAA

- EI for Port Everglades.

CT upgrades are currently taking place at several CC unit s throughout the FPL system. FPL was approached by the original equipment manufacturer (OEM) of the C Ts regarding the possibility of upgrading the se units. Following negotiations with the OEM
, and economic analyses that showed upgrading was cost

- effective for FPL’s customer s , the decision was made to proc e e d with the CT upgrades. That process is underway and is scheduled to be completed in 2015.

The EcoGen PPA s , which w ere approved by the Commission in Order No. PSC

- 13

- 0205

- CO

- EQ dated
5/21/ 13
, w ere the result of negotiations between U.S. EcoGen and FPL

.

In regard to the planned PV facilities, the selection of equipment and installation contractors for these facilities will be done via competitive bidding.

Identification of projected self

- build generation resources beyond those units already approved by the FPSC and Governor and Siting Board or units , such as the 2019 and 202 3 CC unit s and the PV projects presented in this Site Plan
, is required of FPL in its Site Plan filings

. FPL’s ident ification of these resources represents FPL’s current view of alternatives that appear to be the best, most cost

- effective self

- build options at present . FPL reserves the right to refine its planning analyses and to identify and evaluate other options befo re making decisions regarding future capacity additions . Such refined analyses have the potential to yield a variety of self

- build options, some of which may not require an RFP. If an RFP is issued
for generation resources , FPL will choose the best alterna tive for its customers, regardless of whether it is a third party proposal to an RFP or an FPL self

- build option. If an RFP for generation resources is not required, FPL will utilize a competitive bidding process to select equipment suppliers and installat ion
contractors based on its assessment of price and supplier capability to realize the best generation option
for its customers.



### 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.

Florida Power & Light Company 221FPL has identified the need for a new 230 kV transmission line that required certification un der the Transmission Line Siting Act that was issued in April 2006. The new line will connect FPL’s St. Johns
Substation to its Pringle Substation (shown on Table III.E.1 in Chapter III). The line will be constructed in two phases. Phase 1 was completed i n May 2009 and consisted of a new line connecting Pringle to a new Pellicer Substation. Phase 2 will connect St. Johns to Pellicer and it is scheduled to be complete d by
December 2018

. The construction of this line is necessary to serve existing and futur e customers in the Flagler and St. Johns areas in a reliable and effective manner.

Florida Power & Light Company 222