Revision as of 11:36, 23 February 2020

Text

Supplemental Affidavit of Robert E. Bathen Before the Nuclear Regulatory Commission of the United States
	ML18088A899
Person / Time
Site:	Saint Lucie, Turkey Point
Issue date:	08/04/1976
From:	Bathen R; R. W. Beck and Associates
To:	; Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
	Download: ML18088A899 (125)
	v • d • e

S,UPP LEMENTAL AFFIDAVIT OF ROBERT E. O'ATHEN RE.

FLORIDA POWER h LIGHT COMPANY NUCLEAR UNITS 8RC DOCKET NOS. 50-335A, 50-389A, 50-250A, and 50-251A.

BEFORE THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COME/ILLUSION of the UNITED STATES August 4, 1976

I//

I

/

1

SUPPLEMEiVTAL AFFIDAVIT OF ROBERT E. BATHEVi My name is Robert E. Bathen and my address is 1851 South Chickasaw Trail, Orlando, Florida. This affidavit is a supplement to my I

affidavit of April 14, 1976, in i'.C Dockets No. P-636-A and iVo. 50-389-A, which affidavit and attached exhibits are incorporated and made a part hereof by reference.

The purpose of this supplemental affidavit is to set forth how, to my knowledge and belief, Florida Power h Light Company (FPhL) has exercised its dominance in the wholesale bulk power supply market in Florida, including its existing sole dominance of operating nuclear generating, units, to engage in a long history of anti-competitive activities, continuing and accelera-ting to the present time. The accumulated effect of those anti-competitive activities presently places all municipal and cooperative electric systems in Florida in an unfavorable competitive situation and places certain municipal systems in the imminent position of deciding whether to sell their electric systems to FPEcL. ln fact, the citizens of Vero Beach are being asked to decide in an election scheduled for September 7, 1976, to provide for a change in the City Charter that would permit sale of the system to FP8cL. Discussions regarding the possible purchase of the Fort Pierce electric system by FphL have taken place between representatives of the City and FPhL. A newspaper reports that a spokesman for FPhL produced a "hasty estimate" that "there

re about half a do en community or cooperative electric utilities in our area

which might benefit by selling their plants to us." (See Doc. 1 attached to affidavit of Robert A. Jablon in Docket No. P-636-A. ) The citizens of New Smyrna Beach, faced for years with refusals of FPhL to deal in matters affecting interconnection and interchange arrangements, wholesale rates under reasonable terms and conditions, absence of transmission service from FPhL and lack of access to nuclear generation and repeated offers to purchase or lease the system as alternatives to granting coopera-tion, turned down FPhL's offer to purchase the system at a very low price in a special election held in January, 1975. There is a long, repeated history of attempts by FPhL to purchase municipal systems in Florida. (See Exhibit L.)

The Justice Department, in its advice letter concerning Florida Power h Li ht Compan St. Lucie Plant, Unit No. 2, NRC Docket No.

50-389-A, dated 14 November 1973, stated (pp. 2-3):

"There is substantial and vigorous actual and potential competition among electric utilities in Florida in both bulk power supply and retail distribution markets.

Florida law does not require electric utilities to restrict their service areas. The Florida Public Service Com-mission has approved certain voluntary territorial agreements between Applicant and neighboring systems. 2/

"Even where these territorial agreements exist, neighboring smaller systems do compete with Applicant at retail. They still compete to attract new loads who can choose to locate either in their service areas or in Applicant's. They still compete to extend service in developing areas on the fringes of their systems. Finally, they compete to stay in business; if their costs and retail rates become too high, their customers may force them to sell out to the Applicant.

r<

2/ Some territorial agreements involving the Applicant apparently have taken form. of oral understandings and have never been submitted to the Commission."

To my knowledge and belief, the ability of municipal and cooperative electric systems to compete with FP4L has been seriously inhibited or precluded over a long historical period through the present time by virtue of FPhL's dominance in the wholesale bulk power supply market in Florida, and the following factors; (1) FPhL is the only utility in Florida whose customers are F

presently receiving the benefits of low cost nuclear energy.

That energy is being produced pred'ominantly by the Company' Turkey Point 3 and 4 units which have been in service since November, 1972, and June, 1973, respectively, and to a lesser extent from the Company's St. Lucie No. 1 unit which is now commencing generation of power. These units were licensed under Section 104(b) of Atorric Energy Act as "research and development" units under operating licenses granted. July 1972, April 1973 and March 1976 respectively. Consequently no antitrust review was conducted in connection with the issuance of construction permits or operating licenses for these units and no municipal or cooperative system was ever offered the opportunity to participate through joint ownership or direct purchase in the output of these units. The retention of the sole benefits of the output of these units constitutes such a difference in the costs to FPhL and corresponding rates to its customers as to seriously inhibit, if not in fact preclude, meaningful competition with other utilities in the retail market of peninsular Florida. (See April 14, 1976 affidavit regarding cost differentials between nuclear and fossil fueled plants and attached Exhibi.t K showing residential bill comparisons for the months of April, May and June, 1976 prepared by FMUA.)

(2) FPhL has refused to grant access by municipal systems to its planned South Dade nuclear units and although it had agreed with the Justice Department to grant access to its St. Lucie No. 2 unit, which is under construction, to cooperatives and two municipal systems, Homestead and New Smyrna Beach, its offer for access to those systems has been unreasonably low and insignificant. Therefore, irrespective of the outcome of Cities'etitions to intervene and gain access to the South Dade units, which were scheduled for 1983 and 1985 at the time Cities'etitioned to intervene and now reportedly may be delayed by the Company, Cities face the prospect of no low-cost nuclear energy to serve their customers, or insignifi-cant amounts, for the present and for at least six years or more in the future 1/ As St. Lucie No. 1 reaches full commercial operating levels, the existing cost and rate disparities will become even more pronounced.

1/ The only exception being the small amount of nuclear generation to be shared by certain municipal and cooperative systems from a combined 10% ownership share of Florida Power Corporation' Crystal River No. 3 nuclear unit.

(See original affidavit. )

(3) Access by Cities to nuclear energy from these units, Turkey Point Nos. 3 and 4, St. Lucie 1, and other large, efficient generation of FPhL through purchase from the Company under wholesale for resale rates has either been refused or discouraged by FPRL, directly or through attempts to impose territorial limitations, and, presently, to the limited extent the Company currently makes such sales (to cooperatives, the Utilities Com-mission of the City of New Smyrna Beach, and the City of Home-stead) the rate for such sales, at least since April 1, 1976, is so high relative to the Company's retail rates as to constitute a "price squeeze" and thus inhibit competition. (See documents included in Exhibit L and those attached to Cities'etition to intervene and request for hearing in Dockets No. 50-335-A, 50-389-A, 50-250-A, and 50-251-A regarding refusals or reluc-tance to sell under wholesale for resale tariffs and territorial limitations. Further, FPhL has caused price squeezes in the past. See Exhibit ivl and later discussion in this affidavit regarding price squeeze. )

(4) FPSrL is exercising its current complete monopoly of nuclear energy and its access to low-cost firm gas supply in making offers to purchase municipal systems which, because of their size and limited power supply alternatives, have installed smaller, less efficient fossil fueled plants over the years in order to

meet load, and since the O, P. E, C. oil embargo in October, 1973, have been faced with rapidly increased oil costs and gas supplies diminished to virtually nothing. The planning for large, efficient generating plants, particularly nuclear plants, requires long lead times and access to coordination, Throughout the lead time during which municipals might have brought on line large generating units, including nuclear units, to serve present load, FPEzL has actively opposed coordinated planning and operation with municipal systems and others in a state-wide integrated pool; has opposed legislation that would permit joint municipal action, including joint financing; has refused up to the present date to grant access to its transmission system on a general commitment basis under a filed tariff or even on a case-by-case basis under reasonable terms and conditions. Cities have therefore been effectively blocked from developing competi-tive bulk power supply resources, and those in FPhL's service area now stand virtually defenseless against efforts by the Company to acquire their systems absent the relief requested in Cities'etition in Dockets P-636-A and 50-389-A and the relief requested in Cities'etition in Dockets 50-335-A, 50-389-A, 50-250-A, and 50-251-A. Municipal systems outside FPEzL' system service area, although not subjected to efforts by the Company to directly purchase their systems, are nonetheless subjected to the same citizen pressure to achieve lower costs and rates or to sell their systems. (See documents attached to original affidavit dated April 14, 1976, the discussion of alternatives on pp. 33-34 of the original affidavit, and the documents in Exhibit L.)

FPhL did not seek commercial licenses for Turkey Point 3 and 4 and St. Lucie 1 which would have required antitrust review before licensing, including an evaluation of the anti-competitive effects of FP8zL not granting reasonable access and coordination. When systems did request access and coordination, as did View Smyrna Beach, Homestead and the cooperatives in St. Lucie 2, relying on negotiations between FPhL and the Department of 3'ustice which began in late 1973, in spite of those negotiations and direct negotiations with FPRL, these systems have still not been able to secure such reasonable access and coordination. (See correspondence, Exhibit iV, between representatives of the Utilities Commission, FP8zL, and the Department of t'ustice through the Company's rejection dated November 20, 1974, of the Utilities Commission's proposal dated November 13, 1974. Thereafter negotiations took place over many months in which the parties were unable to reach agreement as to a reasonable participation share or as to transmission service, and that is the status to date. In fact, no reply has been received to date to my letter of April 21, 1976, to ivfr. Ken Daniels regarding transmission service. )

The Price S ueeze As previously noted, where FPRL is selling power to municipals and cooperatives at wholesale for resale rates on file with the Federal Power Commission, the wholesale rate and and its terms and conditions are so unreasonably high and discriminatory as to make the resale fox retail loads noncompetitive. For certain retail loads, it is impossible to compete with FP8rL's retail rates, thus illustrating a classical "price squeeze," As com-pared to the complexities of analyzing all of the costs associated with service to small residential customers, where such costs as customer accounting and collecting and distribution costs are a smaller portion of the cost to serve, the price squeeze may clearly be evaluated by analyzing the ability to compete for large commercial and industrial loads where such distribution costs are a,smaller portion of the cost to serve. Under the wholesale rates which have been in effect since April 1, 1976, there exists such a pervasive price squeeze that it is impossible to maintain retail rates of municipals competitive with those of FPhL under its GS-D rate (General Service - Demand), which is the rate applicable to most of its large commercial and industrial loads.

Exhibit M includes the currently effective wholesale for resale rate SR-1 and the currently effective retail rate GS-D and accompanying fuel adjustment clauses. Also included in Exhibit M are two tables of eight pages each illustrating the price squeeze.

Table ), Exhibit M, shows the monthly retail revenues that would be received under rate GS-D from 5, 000 kW and 10, 000 kW customers under different load factors of 200, 400 and 600 hours0.00694 days 0.167 hours 9.920635e-4 weeks 2.283e-4 months use of demand (27%

55% and 82% znonthly load factor). The lower load factors are those used by the Federal Power Commission in comparing bills between utilities to large customers and the highest load factor represents the high end of such customer load factor range (100% being maximum). Table 2 shows the sazne information for monthly loads of 100. kW and 500 kW. In addition to a range of load factors, these tables also show the revenues that would be received under the GS-D rate and following conditions; (a) GS-D Winter Rates and Sumzner Rates, (b) 100% and 95% coincidence of retail custozners'onthly peak with municipal system' peak, (c) Outside a city where FPEcL does not pay cities or collect from customers a franchise fee and inside a city where FPhL does pay a fee to a franchisor which is passed on to the custozners, I have used 5% as the franchise tax adder to retail rates for calculating these tables where applicable.

The retail and wholesale fuel adjustment revenues shown on the tables in Exhibit i're the average charges to FPhL customers for the months of April, ivfay and June, 1976. The totals on each page at line 8 are the revenues from the output, being retail sales.

The cost of the input to a municipal system to purchase the power and energy to supply the retail load is shown on lines 9-13. Not included in this analysis, for simplicity, is the cost of purchasing demand and energy losses on the municipal system, which costs would increase the cost of input by as little as 1. 5% to upward of 10% depending on the delivery voltage of the municipal system, the location of the retail customer on that system, and system characteristics.

Excluding the cost of losses the total cost of the input is shown on line 13 and the difference between that cost of the input and revenues from output is shown on line 14. At this point there have been included none of the cities'illing and accounting costs, meter costs, transformer costs, distribu-tion line costs, administrative and. general costs, depreciation, return on investment or payment for principal and interest on its system that might run from a low of l. 0 mills/kWh to the order of 5. 0 mills/kWh. Nonetheless it can be seen from line 14, Table 1, pages 1 through 6, that a municipal customer would not even recover the cost to purchase its wholesale supply from FPhL to serve large customers except under the most favorable set of conditions, namely, extremely high load factor of 600 hours0.00694 days 0.167 hours 9.920635e-4 weeks 2.283e-4 months use,'t suzr~er rates only. Even in those instances which show positive margins of . 93 mills/kWh for a 5, 000 kW customer at 600 hours0.00694 days 0.167 hours 9.920635e-4 weeks 2.283e-4 months use and . 81 mills/kWh for a 10, 000 kW customer at 600 hours0.00694 days 0.167 hours 9.920635e-4 weeks 2.283e-4 months use inside the city at 100% coincidence (Table 1, page 7), and 1. Z4 mills/kWh for 5, 000 kW and l. 13 mills/kWh for 10, 000 kW at 95% coincidence (Table 1, page 8), these margins *re'not

'ufficient to recover losses and distribution costs.

Even to serve the smaller 500 kW to 1, 000 kVF retail loads, competition is not possible due to negative margins at the municipal delivery point except in the two most favorable conditions, namely, summer rates and inside the city where a franchise fee would be passed on, and even in those instances it appears that the small positive margins would not be adequate to cover distribution costs and losses.

There is no question therefore that a serious price squeeze exists that precludes competition. The Company, in its response to cooperatives'etition to intervene, stated in a footnote on page 13 as follows; "22/ 'The Cooperatives complain that Applicant's wholesale rates are currently higher than its retail rates to general service customers. However, the Cooperatives are aware both that the wholesale rates now in effect have yet to be approved by the FPC, and thus are sub-ject to refund, and that Applicant plans before the end of the summer to request higher retail rates. It is not, and cannot be, contended that Applicant has pursued any consistent policy of maintaining wholesale rates which are higher than its retail "ates. "

The New Smyrna Beach Utilities System has contended in the past that the Company had effectuated a price squeeze through its rates filed in FPC Docket E-8008 which went into effect in September, 1973, and which, the Administrative I.aw Judge found ".... have not been shown to be just and reasonable; and they are, therefore, found to be excessive or otherwise unlawful." However, almost three years later, the Federal Power Commis-sion has not yet ruled on this case; tnerefore no refunds have been made, if any are to be made, and the rates complained of remained in effect until April 1, 1976, when new, higher rates under the SR-1 rate went into effect subject to hearing and possible eventual refunds. This filing has been assigned FPC Docket No. ER76-211, and the New Smyrna Beach Utilities Commission has intervened and objected to this increase, in particular to the level of the increase and the ratchet provisions. The old rate and the new rate and the estimated cost to the Utilities Commission for a 12-month period are compared as follows:

increase Cld Rate fSR) New Race (SR-1) Race Demand Charge $ 2. 65/kW $3 8ik'V $ 1. 13/)cW 42, S~o ergy Charge:

Base Charge 7. 50 mills/kWh 19. 00 mills/((cWh

-uei Adjus erne nc+ 8. 25 mills/k)Vh ~1. 39)tniQs/kWh TocaL Charge 15. 75 mills/k)Vh 17. 51 mius/kWh 1, 86 ...illa/k)Vh 11. 85 Toe*i Costs - 12 Months Zrded Dec. 1976 $ 1, 491, 731 $ 1, 8"S, 67! $ 386,940 Derna "d Costa $ 484, 02S $ 751, 932 $ 257, 904 55. 35 ergy Costs $ 1, 007, 703 $ 1, 125, 739 $ 119, 036 11. S~o eEstimaced Average - 12 months ended December, 1976.

As shown above, the total annual demand costs are some $ 267,904 or $ 22, 325 per month higher than under the old rate. This 55. 3% increase is due to the 42, 5% increase in the rate and an 8. 9% increase in billing demand resulting from tl e ratchet provision going from 60% to 75% Further, the ratchet provision in the filed rate for partial requirements that will apply when powe" is taken over the parallel tie when it is completed is 100% of the highest demand in the previous eleven months.

As stated above, FP4tcL noted in its response to cooperatives'12-

that the Applicant plans before the end of the summer to request higher retail rates." Cities were not aware of such plans of FPEcL prior to reading the Company' esponse to cooperatives'etition. Neither, to my knowledge or belief, are the citizens of Florida aware of such plans. Certainly the consultants, Ernst 4 Ernst, employed by the City of Vero Beach to analyze FPRL's proposal to purchase the system, were not made aware of such plans since their whole analysis was based on comparing existing Vero Beach rates to'ast and exist-ing rates of FPhL. Of course, until the Company files new higher retail rates and such rates are actually placed into effect, Cities will not be able to evaluate to what extent such new rates would diminish the present price squeeze, nor will the citizens of Vero Beach know what the true difference in costs to them under FP8:L or city ownership actually will be. (En that regard, the citizens of Vero Beach are entitled to know what the cost of service and resulting rates to them might be reduced if the City were free to pursue the alternatives outlined on page 34 of my original affidavit. )

One aspect of FP8cL's filed SR-1 rate contains both the elements of pr'ce squeeze and further anti-competitive activity by the Company. That s the provision of the rate under "Demand" (First revised Sheet No. 5) which states:

"Where the Company supplies partial requirements of a customer at a point of delivery, the billing demand shall be the highest metered demand during the preceding eleven months adjusted to reflect service delivered under other appropriate rate schedules. "

This is a 100% ratchet as compared to the 75% ratchet on demand for all-requirements service. The Company has submitted no cost justification for this higher ratchet on partial requirements service, nor can one be made. It is designed to discourage and penalize parallel operation with the Company whereby a city can make most effective and efficient utiliza-tion of its power supply resources including partial requirements purchased from the Company. If the Company's cost of service can be recovered under the filed rate and a 75% ratchet for all-requirements service, its costs would be recovered or over-recovered under the same rate and a 75%

ratchet for partial requirements service.

Robert E. Bathen STATE OF FLORIDA )

)

COUNTY OF ORANGE)

On this the fourth day of August, 1976, before me, Thaddeus Szymankiewicz, the undersigned officer, personally appeared Robert E.

Bathen, known to me to be the person whose nazne is subscribed to the above instrument and acknowledged that he executed the same for the purpose therein contained.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and official seal.

~c Z~C

~ '~ ~ ~<1 pV)LI'L bs+IC ~t ~LQQIUA kl kw~t MY COMMISSION EXPIRES OCI. 25, 1977 4ONDED IHRU GENERAL INSURANCE UNDERW!LITERS

LIST OF EXHIBITS EXHIBIT K - FMUA Comparison of Residential Electric Rates April, May and June, 1976 EXHIBIT L - Deposition Documents - Case No.68-305 Civ J.,

In the United States District Court In and For The Middle District of Florida, Jacksonville Division EXHIBIT M - Table 1 - Price Squeeze (Examples Showing Inability of Municipalities to Sell Power for Industrial Loads of 5, 000 KW to 10, 000 KW at or'ommercial Company's Present GS-D Retail Rates)

Table 2 - Price Squeeze (Examples Showing Inability of Municipalities to Sell Power for Industrial or Commercial Loads of 500 KW to 1,000 KW at Company's Present GS-D Retail Rates)

Wholesale for Resale Rate Schedule SR-1 and Retail Rate Schedule GS-D EXHIBIT N - Correspondence re St. Lucie 2 - Access, Coordination and Transmission Service, November 14, 1973-April 1, 1976

I, I

- Lakeland, Flcrid.

June, 1976 G - Gen rate COllPARISOtl OF RESIDEHTIAL ELECTRIC RATES compiled by FLORIDA HUHICIPAL UTILITIES ASSOCIATIOH 5 DO ono I."..gg 2.DDQ Gilt

".-.FEn

'lZL. nES'a/i L rxS 'll'L. fVEI. AGZ. PXS'DTL. I nES DADE nATE FDEL AM. TOTAL DASE ATE FUEL AM. TOTAL D."SE RIITE tf EEL AM. TO; IJ CITY G ASE MTE cr..90 22.96 42.71 cr. 1. 60 40. 91 60.41 cr. 3.60 76.61 $ 113.11 S cr. 5.4 $ 107. 71 IOS U.T.

'J.ACIIUA $ 23.66 $ $ $ $ 5 $

7.1 21.96 26.19 14.2 40.47 48. 96 28.5 77.52 71.69 42.8 114.53 10" U.T.

IARTOH 14.82 24.57 40.95 40.95 72.65 72.85 104.75 104. 75 5T U.T.

ILOUHTSTOWtl 24.57 10'>>'.T.

>USidlELL 13.70 9.6'.4

23. 35 22.95 19.30 42.25 41.45 36.6 M.05 59.95 57.9 117.85 12.00 14.46 19.50 4.92 24.42 32.00 9.8 41.84 44.50 14.9 59.46 ttone

IIATThtIOOCHEE 30.0 103.10 Hone 16.10 5.0 21.10 28.10 10.0 38.10 50.60 20. 70.60 73.10

LEWISTOH fORT HEADE 22.S7 cr..9 21.67 41.07 cr. l. 39.27 78.07 cr. 3.6 74.47 115.07 cr. 5.4 109.67 10K U.T.

ION U.T.

13.44 F 1 22.57 22.94 18.2 41.21 41.94 36.5) 78.48 60.94 54.8 115.75 FORT PIERCE 133.75 10'X U.T.

15.70 8.9 24.68 28.20 17.8 46.05 54.20 35.7 &9.90 80.20 53.5 SAIHESVILLE 3REEH COVE SPRIHGS 24.40 24.40 44.40 44 '0 80.90 80.90

89. 82 115.90 131.62 115.90 131.82 IOX U.T.

Hone IAVA.IA 26.82 26.82 47.82 47. 82 89.82 9.5 24.67 27.17 )9.0 46.17 51.17 38.0 89'.17 75.17 57.0 132.17 tlone IOHESTEAD 15.17 11.2S 9.5 20.75 18.38 19.0 37.38 30.13 38.0 68.13 41.13 57.0 98.13 10>> U.T.

)ACKSOHVILLE 14.55 10.5 25.05 22.05 21.0 43.05 36.30 42.0 78. 30 49.80 63.0 112.80 thne IACKSOIIVILLE BEACH 14.44 8.1 22.59 24.44 16. 40.74 43.44 32.6 76.04 60.44 48.9 109.34 Hone KEY WEST 4.9 26.36 36.47 9.8 46.34 63. 27 11.7 75.01 90.07 21.6 111.68 BX U.T.

KISS IBlEE 21.42 ttone 14.21 14.21 .35.71 78.71 78.71 121.71 121.71

=AKE llELEH 35.71'4.25 10% U.T AKELAHD 13.25 8.7 21.95 17.4 41.65 46.25 34.8 81.05 68.25 52.2 120.45 62.56 57.76 39.2 96.96 10$ U.T

'KE WORTII 12.76 6.7 19.46 21.76 13.4 35.16 35.76 26.

EESBURG 24.16 cr. .6 23.51 44.41 CI ~ 1.3 43.11 84.91 cr. 2.6 82.31 125.41 cr. 3.9 121.51 tlone 32.64 15.1 47.60 59.94 30.3 90.26 87.24 45.4 132.72 IOX U.T fSORE HAVEH 18.99 7.5 26.57 50.68 91.24 4.2 95.52 133.94 6.4 140.36 Hone

>IDUHT DORA 21.19 1.0 22.26 48.54 2.1 " U.T

'RRY 22.50 cr. ~ .9 21.60 41'.75 cr. 1. 39.95 78.75 cI. 3.6 75.15 115.75 110.35 1 620 0. .6 06.76 one tl fit OCP C ~ cr. 1. cr. .b CI' ~

22.49. 13.5 36.00 40 ~ 39 27.0 67 41 58.29 40.5 96.82 IOK U.T ORLANDO 13.54 6.7 20 ~ 30

29. 56 54.56 54,56 79 .56 79.56 10K U.T tlUltlCY 17.06 17.06 29.56 24.65 12.0( 36.65 43.15 24.0 67.15 61.65 36.0 97.65 IOX U.T SAIHT CLOUD 14.90 6.0 20.90 96.19 SX U.T SEQRItIG 14.92 5.5 20.47 24.92 11.0 36.01 43.92 22.ll 66.10 62.92 33.2 10'5 U.T 6.9 22.48 26.78 12.0 38.82 54.25 22.1 76.41 4 81.73 32.2 114.02 STARKE Is.50 ~

21.0 103.15 11IIX U.T .

17.40 3:5 20.90 30.3S 7.0 37.35 56.25 14. 70.25 82.15 TALLAIIASSEE 124.54 10', U-T 15.93 9.1 25.10 26.65 18.3 44.99 48.08 36.6 84.76 69.52 55.0 VERO BEACII IOX U.T 16.23 8.7 25.02 28.73 17.5 46.30 53.73 35.1 88.87 78.73 52.7 131.44 ltAUCHULA WILLISTOtl 18.12 7.1 25.26 30;62 14. 3 44 '4 55.62 28.6 84.26 42.9 123.58 tlone Add Cil LLIIIHKZIIIIGUJJKL 1Ll ~LB? cr. 2.5 90.87 Franchi Fee 5

19. 25 34.65 .It 64.15 cr. 1.7 62.43 93.45 GULF POllER CORP.

IAIIPA ELECTRIC CO. 20 GS 2.1

~ 4 10.82 22.60 36.99 CI e 4.2'3.99 41.26 66.36 6.5 7Ci.94 99.73 12.8 112;GO Uti114 Tax

Il.iy, 1976 G - Geiierate CUHI'AIIISOII OF ltl.'SIDLtlTIAL L'LECTIIIC IIATL'S co<<>>f>lied by I'Lollllth IIUIIICII'hl. UTII.I IIL'5 h"Ot:IATIUH - L <<I.el.>><d, I lv<a><<'ff

<<r<"Hut<

nus Vrl~ I ul' hM rtrrnr. m:s'rt.. ruut. wu. rurnt. ta:s'vtt.. t uut, n<<u. ~orat. mrs <vrt..

t'uut, ntil. II r<< i. <1<.'. <<.ll.<<a~t ..

CITY ilh'u Iulrt vhsu l<<nru lihsu luirl:

t'< ACIIUA

$ 23. 86 cr..&6 $ 23.00 $ 42.71 5cr. 1.71 $ 41.00 $ 80.41 $ cr. 3.42 $ 76.99 $ 113.11 cr. 5.13 5107.98 )0/ U.T.

I:<ARTOH 14.82 7.11 21.93 26.19 14.22 40.41 48.96 2&.nn 77.40 71.69 42.66 I ) 4'3r 10)5 U.T.

LLOUIITSTOI!tt 24.57 24 r 40 95 no.95 72.85 72.85 104.75 104.75 5~ U.T.

tiUSHIIELL 13.70 9.20 22.90 22.95 18.40 41.35 n)'.45 36.80 78.25 59 95 55.20 115.15 IOK U.T.

(IIATTAHOOCHEf 12.00 2.39 14. 39 19.50 4.78 24.28 32.00 9.5G 41. 56 44.50 14. 34 SB.DI f<oile CI.EHISTOII 16.10 3.45 19 5r 28.10 6.90 3roo 50.60 13.00 64'.40 73. 10 20. 70 93. Go tlolle I'ORT IlfAof 22.57 cr. .86 21. 71 41.07 cr. 1.71 39.36 78.07 cr. 3.42 74.65 115.07 cr. 5.13 109.94 10" U.T.

IURT PIERCE 13.44 9.40 22.84 22.94 18.80 41. 74 41.94 37.60 79.54 60.94 r6 40 117. 34< )0'i'.T.

ChltlESVILLE 15.70 8.85 24.55 28.20 17.69 45. 89 54.20 35.38 &9.58 80. 20 53.07 133. 27 10':.'.T.

LIIEfH COVE SPRIIIGS 24.40 cr. .50 23.90 44.40 cr. 1.00 43. 40 80.90 C 1'. 2.00 78.90 115.90 cr. 3.00 112.90 10" U.T.

IIAVAitA 26.82 26.82 47.82 47. 82 89.82 89.&2 131.82 131.&2 <'elle I <<UHiESTfAD 15.17 9 rJO 24.67 27.17 19.00 4G.)7 51.17 38.00 89.17 7rJ 17 57 Po 132.) 7 ftolie JACKSOHVILLE 11.25 10.00 21.25 18.38 20.00 38. 38 30.13 40.00 70.13 41.13 60.00 101.13 )O.'.T.

JACKSotlVILLE DfhCH 14.55 11.00 r5 22.05 22.00 44.05 36. 30 44.00 80.30 49. BO G G.OO ) I S.&0 l<OI1C I:L'Y ItEST- 13.29 7.75 21.04 22.54 15.50 38.04 40.14 31.00 71.14 54.90 46.50 101.40 ftonc KlSS I tlHEE 21.42 4.76 26. 18 36.47 9.52 45.99 63.27 19.04 82.31 90.07 28.5G )l&.G3 8",

l.ld:E HELEtt 14. 21 14. 21 35.71 35.71 78.71 78.71 121.71 121.71 tfone I.AKEL/UID 13. 25 8.97 22.22 24.25 17.93 42.18 46.25 35 86 82.11 68.25 53 79 122.04 )p<; U.T.

I.AKF. IIORTII 12. 76 6.70 19.4G 21. 76 13.40 35.16 35.76 2G.&0 62.56 57.76 39.20 96.96 )p,< U.T.

I.EESBURG 24.16 cr. .78 23. 38 44. 41 cr. 1.36 43.05 84.91 cr. 2.72 82.19 125.41 Ci'. 4.08 121.33 f lone IHORE HAVER 18.99 8.2D 27.19 32.64 16.40 . 49.04 59.94 32.80 92.74 87.24 49.20 136.44 lpS U.T.

I tdUIIT DORA 27.19 cr. 1.02 26.17 n&.'sn cr. 2.04 46.50 91.24 cr. 4.08 87.16 133.94 cr. 6.12 127.82 lfonc HOf&ERRY 22.50 cr. .86 21.64 41.75 cr. 1.71 40.04 78 7Jr cr. 3.42 75 33 115.75 cr. 5.13 110.62 )pg. U.T.

lfEII StnYRIIA DEAOI )9.91 2.95 22.86 34.16 5.90 40.06 55.01 11.80 66. 8) 91.16 17.70 108 Pr Hone OCALA 23.30 cr. .86 22.44 41.25 cr. 1.71 39.54 77.15 cr. '3.42 73.73 113.95 cr. r5 13 108.92 Ho<le UIILAIIDO 13.54 7.31 20.85 22.49 14.61 37.10 40. 39 29.22 69.61 58.29 43. 83 102.12 10" U.T.

IIUIHCY 17.06 17.06 29.56 29.56 54.56 54't56 79.56 79.56 )OX U.T.

SAIHT CLOUD 14.90 6.00 20.90 24.65 12.00 36.65 43.15 24.00 67.15 61.65 97.65 )0<l U.T.

SEDRItlG 14.92 7.08 22.00 24.92 14.16 39.08 43.92 28.32 72.24 62.92 105.10 515 U.T.

STARKE 15.50 6.98 22.4& 26.78 12.04 38.79 54.25 22.16 76.41 81.75 114.04 )0'.5 U:T.

TALLAIIASSEE 17.40 3.55 20.95 30.35 . 7.10 37.45 56.25 14.20 70 4r 82.15 103.45 11.','.: U.T.

VERO DEACII 15.93 9.26 25.19. 26.65 18.52 nr5 )7 48.08 37.04 85.12 69.52 125.08 10'U.T.

llhUCIIULA 16.23 8.83 25.06 28.73 17.66 46. 39 53.73 35.32 89.05 78.73 131.71 10'.: U.T ~

II ILL I STOII 18.12 7. 21 25.33 30.62 14.42 45.04 55.62 28.84 84.46 80.62 43. 26,' 123.88 ttone I'LORIDA Po'IIER CORP. 22.58 cr. 1.06 21. 52 41.91 cr. 2.11 39.80 79.08 cr. 4.22 74.86 116.25 6.33 109.92 hdd City Ci'r.

I'I.oftlDA PoltfR ft LIGHT Co. 10.35 cr. .6G 17.69 33.33 cr. 1.32 32.01 G2.53 cr. 2.64 59.&9 91.73 3.96'.) 87.77 Fr<inch'1sc GULF POWER CORP. 19.25 cr. .53 18.72 34.85 cr. 1.05 33. 80 64.15 cr. 2. 10 62.05 93.45 C1' 9 90.30 Fee l.

10tPA ELECTRIC Co. 20.65 2.30 22.95 36.80 4.GO 41'.no 67'.no 9.20 76.60 98.00 13. Bt 111. 80 Util I ty I <IX

April, 1976 0 - Generate CONPARISON OF AESTDEttTIAL ELECTRIC RATES coll>plied by FLORIDA IIUIIICIPAL UTILITIES ASSOCIATION - Lakeland, Iilortda 500 KltV 2,QQ(LBf > ((QQMIII T VfVEE 1tES'urL. EVL'L ADJ 2VTAL ltES 'TL EVEL AM. TOTAL llES'DTL.

FVEL AM. TOTAL AES 'l'L. l'VEl. Alu. TOTAL CIIAliii.'::

CITY VASE lV1TE VASE NATL VASE RhTE i

AI.ACIIUA ~

$ 23.86 $ .cr..&8 $ 22.98 $ 42.71 $ cr. 1.7G $ 40.95 $ 80.41 $ cr. 3.52 $ 76.89 $ 113.11 $ cr. 5.2 $ 107.83 10" U.T.

OAIITOW 14.82 7. 56 22.38 26.19 15.11 41. 30 no.96 30. 22 79.18 71.69 45. 3 117.02 IOX U.T.

OLOUNTSTOWN 24.57 24.57 40 '5 40.95 72.85 Gr ion.7s 104.75 5>> U.T.

OUSIItlfLL 13.70 10.25 23.95 22.95 20.50 43 4r 41.45 41.00 82 nr 9 9r 61. 50 121.45 10K U.l.

CIIAT (AIIOOCIIEE 12.00 1.69 13.69 - 19.50 3.38 22.88 32.00 6.7G 38.76 nn.so 10.14 54.64 (tone CL EII I STON 16.10 3.55 19.65 28.10 7.10 35.20 50.60 14.20 64.80 73.10 21.30 94.40 Itone FORT flEADE 2n.'s7 cr. .8& 23.69 43.07 cr. 1.76 41. 31 80.07 cr. 3.52 76.55 117.07 5,2 111.79 lov U.l.

FORT PIERCE . 13.44 8.94 =-

22. 38 22.94 17.87 40.81 41.94 34.74 76.68 60.94 53.62 114.56 ID~i U.T.

GAINESVILLE 15.70 9.07 24.77 28.20 18.14 4G.34 54.20 36.28 90.48 80.20 sn.n 134.G2 105 U.T.

Gt(EEII COVE SPRlt(GS 24.40 24.40 44.40 Rn.no 80.90 80.90 115.90 115.90 IOX U.T.

IIAVAIIA 26.82 26.82 47.82 47.82 89.82 89.82 131.82 131.82 I(one IIUHESTEAD 15.17 9.50 24.67 27.17 19.00 46.17 51.17 89.17 75.17 57.0 132.23 I(one JACKSONVILLE 11.25 10 00 F 21.25 18.38 20.00 38.38 30.13 no.oo 70.13 41.13 60.0 101.13 108 u.T.

JACKSONVILLE Of ACII 14.55 11.00 25. 55 22.05 22.00 44.05 36.30 44.00 80. 30 49.80 66.0 115.80 ttoric KEY WEST 13.29 7.85 21.14 22.54 15.70 38.24 40.14 31.40 71154 sn.9o 47.1 102.00 llone KISS INDE 21.n2 5.07 2G.49 36.47 10.13 46.60 63.27 20.26 83.53 90.07 39.3 120.4G 8" U.T.

LAKE NELEtl 14.21 14. 21 35.71 35.71 78.71 78.71 121.71 121.71 (tone L AKEI.AND 13.25 8.53 21. 78 24.25 17.06 41. 31 46.25 CI'8.00 34.12 80.37 68.25 51.1( 119.43 10',.'.T.

I AKE UORTII 12.76 10.15 22.91 21. 76 20.30 42.0G 35.76 40.GO 76.36 57.76 60.9 11&.GG IOX U.l.

Lt'ESOUI\G 24.16 ro 2. 39 21. 77 4R.41 cr. R.78 39.63 84.91 cr. 9.56 75 35 125.41 cr. 14. 34i 111.07 ftone 100AE IIAVEII 18.99 3.80 22.79 32.64 7.GO 40.24 59.94 15.20 75.14 87.24 22. 110.04 10" U.T.

tout(T UoRA 21.19 r. 1.05 20. 14 48.54 cr. 2.10 46.44 91.24 cr. 4.20 87.04 133.94 cr. 6.6( 127.3I I(one ttEUOEAAY 22.50 r. .88 21.62 41. 75 cr. 1.76 39.99 r cr. 3.52 75 23 115.75 cr. 5.2( 110.47 10'.l.

Ntu Sill((A OEACII 19.91 3.00 22.91 34.16 6.00 40.16 55.01 12.00 67.01 91.16 18.0 109.16 I'elle ucALA 23. 30 r. .M 22.42 41.25 cr. 1.76 39.49 77.15 3.62 73.63 113.05 Cl .- 5.2 107. 77 (lone ORI.At(DO 13.54 7.69 21.23 22.49 15.38 37.87 40.39 30.7G 7I.15 58.29 46.1 104.43 10Ã U.T.

(IUIIICY 17.06 17.06 29.56 29.56 54 r56 54 rSG 79.56 . 79.56 10>> U.T.

SAIIIT CLOUD 14.90 6.00 20.90 24.65 12.00 3G.65 43. 15 24.00 67.15 61.65 36.0( 97 Gr 10K. U.T.

Stoftlt(G 14.92 9.23 24.15 24.92 18.46 43.38 43.92 36.92 00.84 62.92 55. 31 118.30 5>> U.T.

STAAKE 15.50 6.98 22.48 26.75 12.04 38.79 4 2rS 22.16 76.41 81.75 32.2! 114.04 loy U.T.

lAI I.AIIASSEE 17.40 5.05 22.45 30.35 10.10 40.45 56. 25 20.20 76 nr 82.15 30. 3 112.45 111," U.T.

Vt'Ro OEACN 15.93 9.41 25.43 26.65 18.8 ns.n& 48.0A 37.66 Gs.7n 69 52 rG 4( 126.00 10>> U.T.

.'AUUIULA IG.23 ~ 'IG.23 28.73 28.73 53.73 53.73 78.73 78.73 10>> U.T.

U tLLISTotl 18.12 7.19 25. 31 30.62 14.3 nn.99 55.62 28.74 84.36 80.62 43.1 123:73 ttone II.OIIIDA POIIER 22.58 r. 1.05 21. 53 41.91 cr. 2.1 38. 79.08 4.20 74.88 109.95 Add City

(,Ut.l'OIIEA CORP.

CORP.'t Ol(IDA I'OIIEA II LIGIIT Co. 18.35 19.25 r.

r

.47

.76 17.88 18.49 32.91 34.10 cr..9 cr. 1. Sl 31.97 71

32. Si9 60.41 so.no 1.8 3.0 rso 53 5r'38 116.25'7.91:

82.70 2.0I i

GS.OU 78.17 francis Iso I'ee C TAIII'A ELECTRIC Co. 20.65 1.93 22.58 .36. 80 3.8 no'.GG 67.40 7.72 75.12 98.00= 11.5 109.58 Utility Tax

'HTTFD STA FS DISTRICT COUPT FOB '>'HE llZDDL-'ISTRICT OZ LOB ZA 2 II aiiaCKiSvii 4 J.LNZ DZV J SZG'm li OAXHZSVXLLE UTILITIES DEPARTMENT and CITY OP OAZf'fESVXLKZ, PLOH1DA) 6 P3.akim ~Xi ~)

I I VS ~

i Ko. 68-305-Civ.-J

'-'LOH~>% PO'iiER COsMCPA XQH ~Ed I

il FLORIDA POR~1 AND L'iGHT COPE,PAID')

Def'endants.

10 I

13 iI I

I I GEPOSZTZOH OP: RICHARD C. ZULLZRTon 16

'ThKZH: Pursuant o'notice by counse1 for the Plaintif'is 18 I

DATE: Seoteabez'6, 3.972 19 (

PLACE: Plorida, Po>rer and Eight Cornaanp'.

20 Hick) Plo rida 21

'TINE I

~ 9:05 o'clock a.m.

22

'ZZOEH: ,. -. Judy .S. Eschar Hotary Puh1kc State ol.'lorkda aC Large I I gl L,EE AND HICOOEMUS, INC.

CzR-.iricO S~csr>ii:iv P.=.eo~rawS

P kinds, and T. don'C'know whether we had Co schedule Chem

"-ii firm or not. Me wouldn't be able Co deliver Chem any.

~ ~

And Che territorial agreement is a pazt and parcel of this; is Chat corrects I

A I thi.nL it is. X think those contracts o.e iI filed in as one piece, although Z can~t positively say.

6 II

/l They are in Che sare ile, X can Cell you that, Z have an unsi.oned, undated draf't where that is true but X have no signed agreement.

MZ. SMITH: 7]hat is Chat unsigned, undated draft of'2 1'> I I HR. LZ33Y: The Vera Beach agreement 13 '

Co which we were gust referring.

BY MZ.. LIBBY:

Nr. Pu11erton, Z apologize f'r handing you I

a bad Xerox copy here but that S;s a copy of the agreement, wfth Glades Electric and the raCe schedule. I I

18 This purports to be an agreement ~ T. can'C 19 read it. I'signed it. Some modification and limitation

. of'onthly rate apparently. 'C says in the next to the I

',, fin&1 paragraph> it says when this matter becomes ef feci ive it wild; cancel the modification of'l~~itations oZ service" and mon hly section. of Che rate-now contained - --;=

-.,in

~4l our letter of'une 20th, 1972.

t EE AND H)COOEniUS, INC.

CKRTIFIKD SHOR, )4A~IC RKF~A =RS

~

Xt is gust soine letter of'nderstar ding changing some agreemen s that ve have with hem.

<<3 I

Substitu ing something here on. RC.

first i

Q We11 the last p ara g r aph of that J

page, l I

sir, states that the company is not going to impose a <<

condition on the preferred rate schedule which is th-t 4\

the Glades sha11 not se13. for resale or di,stribution to <<

I any municipality or unincorporated township and in considerati,on of'ha>> I believe, the city received the 10 sum of'900 some odd dollars per month. Does that comport With pour unde standing2

)

12 A 1'nox .that see have a special, situation there <<

on that. The details of'he special situation have been I

13 14 ;known to me from time to time but at this particular 15 conjuncture Z would not remember.

16 Q Zt is a pre-existing custom2 What was the 1'T purpose of no who'.esale Nor resale to letss call them I

! 1S towns restriction'2 19 A Vl?at was the purpose of'hat rule2 Q 'es 'ir.

21 Po3.icy.

HR. MTHZMS: Zn. contrast arith RZAss 2 you are ta1R~ about2 HR. LZEQ3Y: Yes. You sell pover to

<<0 ~ $ <<>~~ ~o <<z~ 3 o 4ut ~i'qo yp +> ~ ~ w<n~ro ~

I Ec. AHD HICODKMUS, IHC. .82 CCR'Sl ÃIKC SHOR 'n*HC 8= PC<<<<<<KR3

be used for wholesale to a mund.ckpa3.sty I you don't sell 't, ".""- 3: n tryIn," to--

I f

(

3. don't really fully ~verstand the difference, .the reasoning behind that.

4, SY MR. LZ333Y:

I I

>Tou3.d you explain that, please? ~ (

I Well, f.f you ever get S.t straightened out I

'te13. me about Zt.

Ve3.1, there ls no need to lie about 10 The truth is 3: don't know.

I You'don~t know? )loutd you knox where the 12 policy originated?.

13 A 3: presume when we f'erst started do~~

bus 1nes s wt th RM~ ~

s .

MMch was somet~~ e in the ear3.2er years of 16 the 60's?

17 And we were not ourselves who1eseling to.

18 munickpal~ties, so why P

should we. se13. to somebody else 19 and 1st hM who3.esa3.e 1t. 3: mean that is as good as a 20 reason as': can. think of' you went me to think one up.

21 How what was the reason you were not whole" sa1Mg to munkckpa3.ktkes?

I 23 A Ve11, 3: wi11 te11 y'ou nobody ever told me

(

but 3: got sense enough to figure out and sa have you.

I T. ~ ~ 3 - ~ i.(q ) 4

(( e .:le<n ces 3:

t EF AND NlCOOKISTUGI l(NC.

83 CKRTlFlcD SHCRTIIAIIQ R PCRT RS

don't2 Have you ever looked ahead if you owned. the business'S you had. the private enterprise company where you are going to go, and you are going to end up with a generation-transmission system that is all you are going to have because these boys are going to take I

it a11 away f om you and. in a tax-free operation you get '.

along fine.

Your reference to having it taken away f'rom 10 I

you, wou1d you elaborate on that, sire They take your customers away from you.

~

12 ~

ZZ you are vholesa3.in@ to a municipality and:

the municipa1ity is serving its residence,. you are worried about the municipality extend~~ g its lines beyond its city limits and taking away your custom rsvp

~

A That is a conceivable condition.

17 Xs it as profitable to se11 who2.esa3.e to a 18 muni,cipa1ity as it is to se11 retail to the ind~vidua1 19 resident oS that municipalityf

'0 .Z don't knox. I never had any experience

.I h who'.esal.in'o' muni,cipality.

Has a study ever been done about, the.",.re1ative'4 merits or demerits oS who1esale +or municipa1ities as opposed to RZA ' 9 o ~

I miw~l I 9 o'ca@'lal tt ~

LEE ANO NlCOQEhlUS. lNC.

CKRTIFIPC "-..ZR. HAiiQ PEP@~ MRS

l l~ 4r>

~

r>>r>>

r ow440 Q Jy I

Vlc t Palm Beach, Florida X.'ay 5, 1065 CLi'/ 0 Fo t Pic cc

-ort Piercc. =10r-'c:a ~~

Dear Comm ss i one r s:

This re!crs to o " rcccnt discussian n connection with you: pawc.

problems "nd:hc manner in which thcsc problems might 'be, solved. 'iVe feel .

confidcrt th t 0 " Cclnpany can adequate!y scrvc thc prcscnt and future recuircmc:its OE thc City of I ort Piercc with thc type oE service which would dain tc!y promote thc ~rolvth af your City, ard towarc!s that cnd wc sup~est th-t sonac!orm of lease or sale agrccmcnt oc dcvclopcd which wou!d pcr. it our Company:o opcratc the City's electric plant and dcstribution system.

It is real'1"-cd tha ". this t mc, it is imposs blc to submit de!i."-'te Qgurcs, and also thai any a~rccmcn would bc subject to approval of the c;ua!if!lcd voters oE:-ort Piercc and the 3oard of Directors of thc -!orle!a.

Power C: Light Company, but in an cndcavor of a. least establishing -'le "amcwork, in our apillcon, this agrccmcnt should cove" thc .Ollowinc salien:

'ac 0 s If a lca c, it should bc .or a period oE 30 years rrhich would colncic!c with thc term of a stanclard electric franchi "c to bc granted by thc City to the Comp '.".y, and should bccomc effective as carly as possible.

A !case, upon its cE cctivc date, should provide tha.

the Company imrnccliatcly proceed to Lmta!L rcccssary t".ansmis ion, suostatian and other:aci!it cs to tic in with chc City s c l irlbutLo'1 systctni Llkcve'lsc ~

should provic!c for ncccssary inlprovcmc:its to the Sysicnl ~ i r4

~

~ ~

~ C.i W ~siS'" ior C r pr ~ 41011 Oi 'i lil 0 C C io SC VC all C'usiol 'lCi S and CPr2Lr CCLStL lg laCe 1 ~ lcs aS they wear out. r r

31 Any sa'Jc or lease should provicii the City with appro-prlatc nanciaL rvnlunc ation,

'i

'cr ~

.. ~ C)

I May 5, 1>f(5 Cj Ail ~ ccnlc >t ehoi d pl ov>c c ioi t>'Ic >nplLc>(t>on of

~

rloiit>a PQ'<"c (( L>gilt Co. !pauli>/ >9<>tc ~c icdu c~

filed with loci< I Public U$ !:tice Commission, YIh ch

iioughouo >>c Com l>(ny

~

sy.'n..hc>>pp'.'icat on of these rates would rcsul't in an anniial e" viiigs to thc c!Cci ic custoincre of

= or". Piercc.

5. A lca shculd provide at thc cnd of its term tha'hc City wou (1 il vc 'L.<c Option to c<<u' i!'c p opc t'</ at d prcciat 'd valLLC'which thc Conloan>i h..s installed durinhc tcrnl of thc lcasc cxceo for thc substation and transmi sion system iic. Also, if thc C.".y did not c<>>c cise>> 1e op> on then hc Co )iL>Iy would

~ >

have t!LC ri:ht to ac<<(uirc thc City's electric property at dcprcciatcd value.

0:..cr matters of ntcrcst ard advartagcs to thc people of =or.

Piercc a c as follqxvst Under Florida Power h Light Company policy there are no conrcction char cs and wc have no plane for ir stitutin such ch" rgcs. Yormal extensions ar c made without ch-rgc to the custome .

Florida Power 6c Light Company wou'ld establish a district office in Fort Piercc suitably housed and well staffed, Y'hich woulcl bc an asset to thc City. Trouble caLls would bc cove-..cd on'a 24-hour basis.

~: ~

All present Electric Dcpartilicnt cmployccs would be taken over by Florida Power h Light Company at salaries and wages casual to or above thc rcmuncr tion now received by t!icec cmp'loycce and all rcguiar Comoany bcncfits includin pcn"ion pl n, grouo '.ifc insurance, hospitali ation ins'I'L ance> paid vac<>tio 1> sick lcavc< etc> <

would bc Illadc av:.i'.able to sh<<sn.

= lorida ower 4 'Liht Comp" ny as a Company and

'>>'irou"h it" c:nployccs will cQILLr(bute to ihc support of all corn>nl! n Lp activities> C>'I>> >!bc Qi Con>l l% cc ~

ch,.i. s >L.': u, an( o;..c ac'ivi::cs clatinp o civ1c an(> colin'L'I li Ly p ogre ~

~ and %vill ic (>>is ull euppoit inward atLracii!ig iiiduetr) to,ic a O'L.

CJty Co".Jlaiasiotl CJt) CJ I'ort I~JC cc May 5, 19tJ5 V(c wii. co.".tiauc our JJO,",O.iatioas iJJ au at'tempt to reach a. mutually sctis.actory a,".rcc:tlcot wi:h rcspcct to grarti.".~ a 30-year clcctric .'r-rich'.Sc also to pc ro let tal saic 0 Icasc 08 ttac ut Ilty acllltlcs I J the Pijcarat i lc J

~ 'I

~

J will bc i l Order to p.a J the.c...crCc:icy cor".cctio.".s Jlccc" a" ry by thc Ci'y a-,.d us to su>>'.l> '.hc power ".era'rcnlcr;ts which you Il ve rceucstcd.

Very t"uly'you=a, R. D. HIQ

'. DiviaioJJ Mallagc" ROE:aj

~ ~ ~

r e Lt I

. l.i I 1 'll C tr U H y Loe >w> I>> V <<C J..vJ o

>F >2 w cr e

.1 LC'L T'C 0 OrpLC. Or CLTY Mhhe>aa>.R POST OrFICc LLOX CCO REC'I V<0

, ~i.ay 12, 1965 MAY1 31CO5

\

EATEP." 0">LS!C Fi . R. D.;:!il r""a--""

Dtvtston -

West Pal~:-each; "toe'ld'ear i<ir. ='ll Tha."m yo- for your let-er of Nay 5, 1965 adcL essed. to he Ct"y COa=t>SS!OS re "ar>>!n~ yaur S ~~eSttOn <<h.t SOrne fera'f leaSe Or s".c "ree...en= wh!Ch wou!-'".c!Uc'.e an tnterconnectton betwecon'"he LQr a po rge>> ~tp v CQrn<<c<<of tvc salsten an/ he Ctcwyts elec ical Sv " 0 Sf S e. ~ S le >>C>> Le>ccs rCcLC! anC! Citscussed by t'le CL f CQ;.....t t "tc..

I 0;. ~; y 0, !96'- a co".;c. ence ncct!ne and. was Q.=tc!at!y no= " !n -i:e records o= "he City Cornatsston a- a re@Bar r=eet>>".g on k"y !0, !965. You anci: also had an opporc".tty -o ciscuss "he !e=e= by "eleohone on o:ay 7, 1965.

As X adl;ts c'o by telo@hone on <ay 7, 1965, t was my Understancltn~

a >>boa>> i,. et ~ aw v. O Cavy Corn !SS!OL1 Was not t ave ester ~ '. ~ a !ease or:"-.c..ase a~reer>>ont bu" -he Ci"y is interested. in ec tortn~'arran.-ee<<

~ents =o. s-an -'Qy, enle .-e."'.cy s-anc-by or wholes !L".g of e!ec-.ic'-y Qf yoa -. Cov..-any "0 =hc Ci"y o= "or- Pierce. Re@aroint" th!s tntcres=

o= -he Ci-y, oat yo- acvisec'L on tne te'ooiaone what in the I ~

~ ~ \ ~ ve=~ near " u e (Qu WC'>>a>> ap ano Co o<<C W!~1 face abouv it So v'lls t 0 >Stbt!Icy Could be

~ >

~~

.Iy eg!Ore-'. You also pointed ou= to me that your corlo ny was i>>>>ca>>>a<<g

~ ve Cswc J t>> >>>> I I w a~ Oo ~

Xt =.ay Qe -;.-- -he Cttf ts "i.ostt!On with re ard. to the !c=sc o: -he Ct ~ tv ee"

~ I <<

vw av>>t I ~~ 'et I te j t<<0 r ~ (0>> vO eae p w

~ J N>>o> v' >pea>>

a

~

~~ a

't o

4 w Cr i v a I ~

f It 4 la >>eve W+S I

4>>>>v a reS".

~ ~ If a>>V v w>> ve

~

'I

~

Cca.a owt ..aa>>>aval<<Qv ~ eo o>

<<> a.O<<4>> <<>>CXOr cv>>vvae << We C >1i't Loa L>>ed 0 C vcuv<<vc'a w

'a ~

~: t

--. '-'.-.- -:- ~ -..-

I <<e CL>> C>> 0 ace>> v>>otv vw ~ ~ ' v) aaa>>g aavlo )Col i e1>>C 0 C we I

~

~ o Lr Co- ~ eivvevoa v Cve ~ 4 ~ >>tave ~ vr ) Qua II Cw>

~ ~

(Continue ) S~

5'-= s-~

~

g

.. rs

~ ~

sab:ec N'0 e .

~

".e

.;.'-:o.c~z..'..-..- o:

~ o '"a ~ ~o coo ci ~ Q v'L yell "l 1e 'rc

~bc = -;.e -oss!o!:!=y o= s"awd-by, er:.c.-"c"..cy seas'.-by jicc '."ici=y. As wc i.".c!ca-ed "o you ""cv'.cushy =i.,c

-"is':: i;.:". -.c.-.= i;. ".".y delay ia -he co@side.-a=ion o-.

Ve."y =.='.y; ov.."o, i:.r/ Z .>'/!. r.:.

I CZ'w MAKALU-2 AS:=./a.-.-.

cc Mayo." rPllian R. Da."".a.'".ow er

~

~ l c

<<~evaaooaea C

.e; i ee

'I ~ 's ~

V ~ oa ~

ar 'a

~; ' r <<r oo S<<e e<<e ~ 4 ~ ia vvea<

SIP 1 ~ ~ 'Si ~ o) 4 ~

\,sic<<C

~ L ~ ~

oae so

~

LC as Da \ I ~ ~ Oa iJ ~ L)07 goA ~

a ~ eoa ~

e lol; L, ~ Cs:QL'~C D,'ce<> }'OU?'iCC ~ 'esl 'C 0 Pea aNo Cai ~ esloel~ V)l ea yOU AVc cise" s sec 0:0;".::0 "l 1 cg-.cc...0 e W ac XVC acCi Cesro 04 Ci<<C '}'oeioe PP OVul Oy l, 0

~~~ e ~~~

~~C Ss: V CC CO .i .'S>LO,~~

'S ~ CCCSSas ~ eS's, CL ss,SLA }'Ol'VLL es~> CC a asC Sails ic 0 i@i 0 CC Na4. i ~ "SC QC Co. Cil'<<CC oooo e<<e'isa".0 ~ aeo C Ch o PX'OPC ly loess" 0 loco P OOsCLS ~ C Gcl C ~ ~ ee WVllLC? U ~

~~aC: OL: WOUsC'. '00 iS i:S 'OCS- ir.:C."CS:, ivoiCh i Ss oa COU Soe l S~~~

~~Ci SCO 0 S OChi ~ ~ aaa iosao T.oo Ss.'Cae..P QL se" aoel Ness a ool' Col 0 . e" ~cooey aC aV ~~~

yoUZ S}'Sioa.> Co ll'ais AVraslC:l'0 PORC }'OU ~ .i<<}'oCCC '. C*ssi OL es'L 0 ~ eo >i ec} ~ e 0 Ca ~

~~> leeoa CCYC ~ ~~~

~~OPa ic ~ ~ 0 << lo~~

~

~~lol~~

~~~ ~~~

~~< ~~Cai 0 ls ~ SV% Wlsi lail ~ ~ <<pcs ~ 0 iO L Sl~~~~

~~~ s~~

~~~ aeC oi A ofi ~ ~ e ~ C CCL S C ~ LC sosarecy i 0 sV; . e/OU S}'SL<<a, ~~~

~~aaleVC oc\ Li S 6 0} } Oi Cp a 0SC Z<<liVa S Co 'a '~~

~~Ciie " '-"~~

~ aees a WV 1"- 0 0 "iol<< ' po. O'V<<i O. i. 0 Gas S 0'-s: C ls' 0 Pica So <<<<i A a a C r C<<t ) veeS era ~ e ~

~~' I la L <<'> >> '\ ~ e s~~

'a

~~~ ~ Cela s I'\a~ s~~

~~'\ o '\~~

~~saa <<V a s~~

~

~~f C . ~ OC PU SUCd SO COeoCi'<<Sioii VC?'y 4Ua}'O>> Sa I r Sso ~ D ~ ~ ~ ~~~

~~.<<~/~~~

~~I is's.',ll o I)e Ce ~ I ill le l'l ~ sls r Qr~ Pg~~

~~,s g 'a r..l. r.,fr.~~

~~l'!~~

~~(a ~ 0:aS llS a~~

~~VI jf}i)~~

}

~~sVeat I" alan l<cna '~~

~~r cc}n'r '.~, i".f 7 Mro Ro Ce u-~~

~~):r. S. C. Sp n" cr.~~

~~pD. H?ll~~

~~~ l~~

~~(}n Dccer..bcr w th th" SC'i in thc !o conan 5/r.~~

~~Eo??cwin, nc S'. Spencer, Sr. ard 5 rnct "lc rcprccentinr For! Piercc to discuss its c'.metrical prob?cans'.~~

Sinn ..:assey, 'Power P!ant 'upc rinccndent, City a. =ore:iezcc R..'! Shinncr. i istrib 'tion ~upezinccrdenc, City oi "-art Piercc Z. A. Youn"z',eyna'. 's, inith ~ i!i?is) Canal C?n"Cn:!inccrs VV. L. Carl.'nton. i yno?dc, Sn}?Ch h ?fills, Consult?ng "n},'inecrs

~~"'he purpose oi tais rncec?ng w" c to discuss; l ~ J'a ter itarini a~rccrncnc which 9 s sub[ac 0 our v(z ti '~ o City '.!ann~or o.'nrt .:.icrce r q cs;in,; approval, Co purs"o '. = rnatter.~~

~~.u" '-.c discuss?an an hc part oi tna-c reprecen'in',the City jiiscl>sed this would bc in .ho best ircercct o: ba n tnc City and thc Co:n=any cc.~~

~~that a tc ritor al a~rcexnent couid be?nstitutcd ard a"proved ta r" ance any iur her conflicts oi ccrritory.~~

2. Thc cuestion oE wholesale power vras discussco in only a.".".incr way. Thc real purpose was to E nd aut tnc power conspany', atc'tude Eor cnlcz+ency 4c wc 'and juc . aw ?C could bc a an cd ~ nis oi ~
cour c, brournt up many face's and thc nct result of .he ci"cunsic.
mac th t a, lector would 'o" viritccn co the City .',fanaicr rccucstin Che ~
City's aaproval to ui>>'c 'ss a terr;torial ."." oc...cnt and en:er".cncy power and iurther can@ron to u" hei" intcres in thc cwo ca.";,cries.
The august!on oi rates anc ..cw pnyrncncs vioulc b ronde ior trans:cr oE cnarfcy wa" onc of chc paintc oi d?scu=sion. "he c,uestion c'".'e o" lease war not di "c seel at I .
~ >>
~ >> II V ~ ~
PL"135
~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~ I
~ ~
~ ~
~ ~
~ ~
I Y~=ch 30 1970
~ ~
~ ~
'Iieet Pal. Beach, "."
lo ~ ~
'.'~. f'ea=
Hil1: ~ ~
X have been inst acted by the City Co-.=.issioa to tr=ite'ou agardiag t;ic st"Gus o.-. thc Zste c.".";..c. A~"ac.-)"S - batt"ce"..
tha C'.Y of: G =ce d ~ L' 'c;c'. PGK'I ".".ld Li <lt CN~=uy
~0
. ~)'.y telo-bio:;a coavc=sat oI. tr- .". l'". Spcucc- '='y) ."eh~=-ry
'27 ) a lc! yGu'o 1: ..aI ioll by tele~; 0'Ila 0 '; c)i 2 ) o,l Jla
.Q. """>'orida ~ot;a- and i.igh'o;;.-.,".I.y X"..te;.co:.I.action.,:is no t dis"u=bi-..=. Zt '" '::co-,.cc'v"bla to tla th"t: yo:.>> 'di"ficul-t'as a- It"=!cey Pc at fo m --.: bas's ".o= sue!dctlly "CI)usi-..~
to si."".. "'.>a ."."c c"..=.-.. e A","e~a.-..cilt 1;,'.ich is t:la cu t.-)i:la ioa
.Of al-...ost t;;0 "-..d o-..a-ha " ye- "s OZ ~God aith na"ot5.atio"..s Hath the 'Coia.7)a.iy ~
At trc. special -...acti.." o= t':.a Ci"y Cc",....issio.. Oa Septa..Ibc=
1 ) Kr yo t 0 lclcc) t <;as aQ ' "I >> otllj da{ ' s of t:1" "".)tc.=chall"e )'."=Ca-..let t."..".t; n"d tact Oc"a Il' ap c~.ic" y ag>>c d to bg t!lc ria as 't'rara 'ha G.)cc ' I. c 1 " as o oc
~ ~
cca tactac! by tie Ci' ia o"c!'= to t:e ou;- '".:0 systc~s
~ ~
. to t!la CG"..". cict Ca Sc'itc.-.)ba- 17, conies o City !?csolut'GIis ~
'Qa c>>cI 'alI~O Aq cc la'lt'ia Qc alf oi. I Iic iI y 0>> Pot t I, iai cc) sub'et to ccs ') ct cllI 0 'ic)lio t ccc to vol
','v l(>>tl
~
~ ~
4 ) 4a>> c oe 1'ra
~
~ ~
~ +) ' %) w >
~
III I ~ ~ s>> p .~ (o>>)h. 1 I >> ~ ~ >> ~ ~ h r>> ~ I f >>A4 >>I
'ou-. -.c.c:,::a: t) "ad 'o iacluda a t:Ii >>d 0>>Ja c Lcu t Ta s-bsec:uc..t -,..Octiil~s 0" ot'<'icc ':la'ach::ical 'a~ uc~c ul y a'; ac " 'i 'c 'i.!it 0" 'c igtlcc. ))Si: cl'toots
~ 1 ~ ~ ~ >. ~ ~
f>>oalail ' '" ly A>l.aa...zaa c'1 tIlc ~i>>lcHisa t 1
+~i' I~~a I >>>>>>rW
~ ~ /VI ~ I r/r
!!r. Richard !iill, Pwrch 30, 1970 psga 2
~ ro' to the Tur';:ey;oint Pl""..t constitute ci"cu.. tcnces'rhich 1;e 1:0'c! >i'.:c to re:;ind you 01: thc essenti" cle-...ent o tha Inta ch=-nc-a .'."Ce.-..ent th"t .."ee ". cn "c"son ng ..."oss ole for QS>>o coccept'a.
l. A ticl" ';" - Kla t=ic Caner"tin"., C,".occitv - st"tes that adequately provic!e "'a.c'""for." T.". " p"st ye..r the C'ty o Pie c" h-" ""=rice" :cner.". in'ap"c'"y reserv es 'n excess oi
'ort ~%
J ~
P ~ ~ >> -nc! L'"',"." 1 1 C Cc-...o"nv. n lip.-.t 1 o= th's, ~nd the r;'"uaal brc~up o"ov "'"".." v.".icn c"e t..a essence 0~ t..a Con rect, . t
':"ar 1zo 1d seer. th.".t thc Cc-...p-nv, in"tc"c! of hesit"tin~ to sign th's lntercn=n a A'rea;.,Cnt, 1'0 lI 0 =.Ost zn:: Gus to>>ove " c Ong ~
~
c piul~ ~s poss Q 0>> c. t..a n oa e ~ c >
.age og a tna > i z,o>>i ity
.c'. ~
poss
~ ~
lola ch'ut1as tznacas su ounclng ta1e turkey 0 nt 2 on>>
c-... 'robl
~ 2..
prov Sa=>>" ca Schcc ce n , " "'la"n A -e" E-...ar=.anc'ntcrc!1=.n.".a
'." " i.' "" p'ac Sa"vice Gy cna pSr ra s tc pc ! ly unco e to cote n ts ecu roc po a'er Knc e frow no ...all;. avail"ble sources." Also, th " "...tha Seller Gll Nc. n l>>rcle ScurCCS CS ha.P.'CC to tr1a C." ten'
)tLct..
~ a
~ ~
~
t.. C 00>>
c ~
~
.'a
~
1.a)
~ ~
r~
v'a>>
r r
/ c.a. r CQ
~
~ ~
~
<<~ ). L /P
$ ~
.r '
c~ n n>>.
~
0
>>'. ~
~a
~,, a'. a I ',aa
~ An
~~r. aca.'r~~
~ '.
~
I I
~
ra
$ Q i
~
r '
1a cr'i.:
a r aids h>>C rhra cc>>D>>>>
~
r h rhC ra h c Sa r1,f{Ca S Vl e a .Cuir- ~ SChe 1 e ' >>a C ".'.pc. Se V' ulc Q 1ltCrca. ange SarV'C a. G".; ti-...a to tis10
~ a a Caaa
~
4 ' '@ac'~otic I a ~ 1'l'
'scenic c:.n be;::"-',".',".il"blc by t!1a 0'.:e= p=.=ty, c cc..=..it..". nt srrall oe r rc;e oetvecn the p-a ties ne'to fc- such service."
a a p
Q=
~ ~
~ a aa \I can r v'e) )
a
~
90>>r e
~
e >>0 f ~
a
~
na ~
J
'>>a rt ~ l 0'4aaa cJ to t'".c C-'ty 01. '>>>> ic Ce ~
t'c c
>>a ha or pc ca OG 1 1
l rcco""ic'."" t!'aa cf "c) "':. Cence'c.u t0 ce
~
Qota1 you ~ ~
'a
~
a
~ ar ~ a rr ~ Sc)C1acC'n>> c!~a CCaarP< nay '1'aour'.v naO>> S
~ ~
P'al taaeae
1 Q
~ ~
~ I f.. Riche"d 1!il !Vll t Pu"ch 30, 1970
<<* I,. Page
~ 3 ~ ~
I'g "ha contr "y, wa u".gently =equast that the aa-...ants ~ On cont="cts be 'si". "..ad "::d '-...-.. diataly fo'a~a"ded to the C ty so tnai wa c.".n p"o=acd w'th o ~= con"t".uc"'on plans (which havo ba Qy ) ou) fo" tha physical i"..'ta"connection fbi l'as. p Qv
- 1 h
' Va a".,uast th"t ycu ".cp'y 'n ~.=itin. to this 'etta= as to the
~
. final dech sion o= tha,Co-...pcny cs soon s possible so the City
~~can r;.a~a its plans @ceo -cingly.~~
Vap t"uly you=s, 5 CXTY OP PORT PZ RCZ I
~ vM ~
. ~ ~
~ ~
I Ri Ni S chh iona e ' ~ ~ ~
~ ~
CC: iver. J. C.e Spence", Florida Powe" 6 L'oht Conpany I't 'VI'N J I<< I<<
<<O<<
CC y ~
~
Powe" P'aK' Supe"intandan ~ 4 ~
R. E. B"tean, R. Jl. 2ec'c.. end As oc tes I
~ ~ ~
I ~ f ~ ~
h I,
~ ~ ~ I ~
~I C ~
~
~ ~
~ ~
I ~
I I ~
~ ~
~ ~
I ~
~ ~
I ~
J
~ h' I
0 fLOALOA POVrtil G LCNL CO':.r~'ar
'aytona Beach
~ ~
July 9, 1970 PL-O4o
~ 'l City OL ~ ci $ +
~ ~0 L
~ 4 kP' ycw Smyrna ""each, ."-!Or!de ~ ~
pe r bfayor Poster:
J h 5 refer to our recent di"cvs s !an in connec.!on with your electr!c power 'orablems ar.d in response ta your request vre would be interested in endeavor!ng to work out with the Ci:y some farm af le se agreeman. vrhich wauld pe@aft OL'ompany to operate the City's elec ic facf!!ties.
It fs rcali ed that the lease would have to provide mutua! 'benef!ts to bath the City ard to our Conpany and although at th!s tine it is inpossible to submit any definite figures, it is our opfnian certain specif!c items should be!ncf ded svch as:
.1 - Tern - a period of 30 years to caincfde with the te.m of a standard elec'.fc franchise to be granted by the City to the Company.
2 - Upon its eff ctive date prov!sion-'Lshoufd'e i
made in the!ease th t the Conpany install necessary transmission. substations anc other .
facff!t!Cs to t!e in with the City's dfs ibution system. Li'cawfse, ft should provide for necessary.fmpravements to the system and there-.
after for expansion o: it in orce. to scare a!1 customers and repair ex!siting faci!ities as they wear out.
3 - ihe lease should oravide the City with appropriate f!nancial remuneration which cau!d "a de.ived either from the franchise or same "rental" ...oney,.
either singular!y or combination of the two.
4 - Any lease agreement should provide for the appl!cation of PP&L rata schedules as fi!ed Lvfth tha ?for.'da?ub!ic Serv!ce Cont:.SsiOn,, which are now or!ater e"factive thrauchaut the Company's system. It!s noLv estimated that appl!c ".On of these rates vraufd result in annual savings to thc e!Cc'.r'.c customers of Neiv Smyrna Beach in excess of 5150,000.
Prcscrt!y F?&L rcsid ntia! rates are approximate!y 20M lowe. than tihosc o: thc City and thc commercial rates are aporoxi,.ately 15;<
lower. In addit!on, concessions are made ta hospita!!s, churches end schools.
Q% 2 5 - A lease shou!d provide at thc cnd of its term that thc Cf:y would have thc opt!on to ac+ irc the propc.",y at dcprcc!ctcd va!uc vriiich thc Company has ins a!fed duri .g hc c ~ L of thc case cxccp fo and:raLLsmL""ion sys:cm tic. Al- o, if thc City dfd:Lat "c'ub"ta(ion cxc,c'L c t LL. op Lon, then 'lLc CCCLpa .y would h'Lvc 'i'Lc right to ec<fLL!ru thc City's electric pro! urty 'L: dcpL'Cia!a:cd value.
J
/'
4 I ~
1
' I /( I I IX I e
fLQAIOA POV'rl 4 uQHr tCl:.(" Y
/ July 9, 1970
/no Fred Dostcr
/
Q 0 hc, matters of interest and adv ntages t." cugh a Lease ar.angement to.the citt"ens of Ncw Smyrna ocach are as fot.'owsr Under Plot!ca Power & Light Company poltcy there are no ccnnect!on charges arg wc have no plans i-r inst.'tutti such charges. Normal evtenstons are made without charges to th customer.
F Florida Power & Light Company would estabLtsh an office tn New Smyrna Beach su!:abLy housed an '/e!l staffed,.which would be an asset to the Ctty. Trouble call's would be covered on a 24 hour2.777778e-4 days 0.00667 hours 3.968254e-5 weeks 9.132e-6 months " basts.
present Ftcctrtc De. arrm nt employees would be offered comparable Jobs at salaries and wages eauaL to o. above the renuneration now recetved by these. ~
employees, tcgether with all regular Conpany Binge benefits.
~~
lt!s real!zed that under Sect!onil93 of the C!ty Charter even a lease arrangement vrould possibly requtre servo amendment to the Charter.;.owever, unde. Chapter 59-242 Laws of Florida, Senate Btt! 297, enacted July 2, '969, it wou!d appea.:hat something r;.ight be worked out ur:der the "hone rule" Legislation. This ts a matter, 0 which you would have to determine through your attorneys.
4 We have a tomporary energer.cy connect!or. with the City on SR 44 //htch was establtshec tn May 1969. From t!.,e to tine our Company has supplied t'h e City with e:.crg ncy'powe up to approxtmatety 3600 kw. We will con(tnue thts arrangement on the sar(e,basts-nameLy,.thar. tt ts for emergency purposes and ts not to be considered;irm.power. We want you to know that tt is our sincere desire to coopara:e .'ut'Ly with the City as we have tn past years and K wiil be gLad to meet with you ar.d o:her representat!ves at your cor:venience.
~ ~
~
Yours stncerely,'ice Prcstdcnt Q ~DVt'-!c
~ ~ ( ~ ~ ~~ ~ + ( ~ ~ ~
~ ~ t ~ \'&
PL.-547
<<,>><<Is . Daytona Beach Qr G Spence. Jr ,o*T* April 21, 1970 TO J
+O!eltS 'TO p B Vlright ~
SVSICCTI
'i\'nw S...vr..a Proach
~ ~
AVith further rp!erencc to our discussion yesterday in regard to what might bo done to change the present Ci'.y Charter o'hyew Smyrna Beach to permit some cpu!tab!c arrangomont for the .'easing or sale of the City's elec:ric
utilitios, 1 afm attachirg a suggested charge in Section 193 of the City Charter togethe.- w!:h a c" py oi Chapter 69-242, Laws oi ."-lorida, Senate Bill iso. 2 7, which was enacted J ly 2, 1969 and which relates to the char;ge of a city charter unce. the "home ulem arrangement.
~
Lf it is possible for a municipality to change its charter under the foregoing,
,it would seem that this is the 'lcgical course .'or 'iVew Sr.:yrna Beach to pursue
~~in order that the present "impossible" situation be remecied.~~
't As me.".:!oned durfng ou." d!souse!on, Mayor Duster fs de.'ln!:a!y fn:eras: d
!n endaavarfng to wo:k out a sale or lease ar:argeman: w!th our Company.:
Of oourse', we al! realize that the oresent Char:n:, geo:fon 193, wfll "nave
. to be changed if we are ever going to reso!ve this mat:er.
t Accordingly, it will be appreciated if Sid:-.oehl, if he is avaHablo, wQ1 review this ard Jet us have his comments ~
t t
-g
~ ~
' ~ ~ r ABW fo
~
'.,J ~~~" ~P-'-' h r ~
A I.'t I'ttachments
-"rsvp ,~ l:t
~
J
/IJV I)
~Z'c P)~d 5'. Z,[ 7 a
~ ~
6,":r ~
Y,",r;5 / rrt,',~5 I Ofr r trrr fnA ...rtlf: Yelff: C'a'fr:.:rY-.r rtf'rfu'
PI.-59S. Nl
-0
.Fest Palm Peach, Florida November ~"
1967'C!ty Cot-.....!sc!On of Vcro Scach Vc"ODc ch, Z:!Orida httcutiont Jiir~ iTa ics ryder City>>Viaailger Qcritlc ~1ci11 It vlas a pic%su c to mec with the O.Qcia!. of 5 ero IIcach~~
cdiscuss eleci ica>> p obic icosi" fi cr thc discucsiono ~ i '" " >> 1c'c cc Chat! rrou!d answer turcc!n:portant cucstioas as soon s possible.
Thc first vra about " tc ! o ial s. cement>> I a u c ~~~'at
'this =cadily can bc done and you:cc:uc "tcd ."'.". Frank Ph!Ilips a.-." ~
>>E". 7'. C. 'Pfai!acc to vrorit withrnc. r'pproval by thc Pub'. c Sc";-.'"c Cottitimisstoii 1'G iicccssai y aincl vre tceiy yourn" Gad>> ilow 'that you %~i!~ aii ec c
tha'"is Ci>>>>>>i i >>mi ~ rial a~rccmc "t must be corclu" co bctorc ci:her ".c tc=r!to City or o ~- co.np ".c n p oper }
~ as" c thc pro Ie L d dc e"-
mL"c vrhich "t..c" act.'o"..Vro Icl'=" La, Lts be- i"tore t, which is, of cou Geg its custoUC s bes't Li c>>est>>
Tho Second question ~as bout "= c...cr"c"cy tce v;.'th you" sy tcsn to .. Y"'sh vrbatcvcr pocvcr y nccci Ln c" sc of an emcr-
~ gc cy>> Pc din~ iiie dcvcloo~ecnt oL a tc io>>!a ac ccsncnt aH
~ father dcc!~icos to "r..!ch rrc =c:cr belo.v, vrc vri11 bc in a nosition to n>=!cc an c=:.er~cncy t!c w!tie your sy c=... Thts vriII talc thc pres-~ 'g ~
su=cs of Lm...cdiacy off both thc C ty a=d ou" co...pany -nd prov c'c t'mc for r""""c" G-u-'y a"d dL-cussioa The th!Yd cucctioz involves wholcsa.'c povrcr>>o the C!ty aiid vre arc r"luctant to .o .'thcr in!o this at this "me as vre bcI:evc .
Ac"c "c o" c" a'c""-"v" w'rica GhouM "." t be fully studied.
These w111 Lnc!udct (a) KALI"r a"ran" crnents for in!c Ychan.".e of povrer bcttvecn us Guci1 as vlc ne'er have vr1ih the Ci>>y of Zac.e oaivt c a id M lanoo Ut!litics Commi sio...
(b) Tho oui 1 'i>> pl i cLase of you p ei c t >>ystem by painty>>
(c) f 30-year lcacc oi'ou'r present cystcm by our company for our opc t on>>
~.~>> C"
~
. rrC~
~ (' >>
1
CL:; Ca~mic ion,oE Ycro Dcach iovcmbcr -"S, '9c7 V.'c Eccl t'hccc cl!em" 'vc cncc~ion ~
2 it 1'Lz
<<sib<< ~ 1<<+
i<<o Ls <</ 4 0 Ii
~
I of n Iiot l n vl ionic jc ogc COnt >>ct <<0 CIC>>B 1 b Q
5 l
<<>>cc>> o>>>> Ce ~
~ aa 'C
<<4i<<l<<c 11 Ca i1a<<l<<in~>> o vi eQ C i11 C>>o iEC ~ ci
~for) trDLIJ )ocr~ ~
D.. i'12 Vice Prcc den ~ ~
~~-ui1 erton <~~
Spencer, Jr.
I
~ ~
~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ (
tNTCR.al'r CC CaiiACSiio:laC:ii'C PL-599 liOC AT IOri VCcst? lm leach CATC November 2 I, 1,9c7 CO ~ ICS TO MZiriO TO = IL- Mr. vi Q TO R. D. Hill M". Z~ <. Spcnccr, =
IIAOAI
\ ~
,~P 5 lv".r; R. D. Cov and I vis .ed with a group representing the C;".y oi >era 3cac'.- On november 21, 1967 at noont mc. Those present b'asides .iver. Cov and mysel'erc: Vr. =. C. Vlallace of 3!ac!( ~
and(VC tch; Mr. Dames . Voccllc, City Attorney; Vr. Zacx S:ur s. City CZ....ssioncr, =nd who operates a ll..bc"and supply comp~ "~i.~ cd Zi ?resting Ciiy Comi L!ssionc i M Za pcs ~
'Prydc, City V.-nager, and .'vtr. Fred Gossett, ?lant M nagcr.
T~s zncctinri was thc rcsu!t of an earl c" caQ to Mr.:-Merton "om Mr. ?restin which was relayed to ...e. I visited these aeople to discuss several matters..
~ l. A territorial agreeme"..t. which to some degree had been nves-iga:cd previously, but w*s held ua as a result of
'e canversa='on.'evera mon Ns ago w:".h Vir. rydc who was not in'armed. a- the
'me, 'acing newly appointed. result of this d scussior. was
~".at Mr.:-rank?hil"ps. Distr!but an i tanager, Mr. '~Yallace anc.
I should review the territory and establish a territor.'a! agreement which I wol!d to!d would have to be aparoved on our part by the
=lorida Utilit es Comm.'ssion. I told them I was not interested n losin~ any customers but ivould wor? toward ad'ustments to the bes .'ntcrests of =lorida?ower <~ ight Company anc, Vero 3eac.'"....
Z. The euestion of wholesale poive" was presanted and I told:hem I did nat:hinx:h'.s was a ~cad i"ca and then ivithdrew my answer and stated I thought a review of the third purpose of the meeting, on a: emergency serviccj, mig..t enter nto th.:s an" 'oe a solut.'on'. I said ive wou d be glad o c!scuss .,!s but:ha depend, o. course, on the intcrpretat on of ivhat const.tu~d emcr-L'iscuss
'ou gcncy sci Vice T s hc i biougiii oi i."ii iiiiid cucsiio.ii
~ ~ ~
~~3. I told them that we arc sti!1 intcrcstcd in wor?Cing out somcth ng that would bc 'mic=blc to tham and ol=sclvcs in:hc way of emer-gency sci Yacc but ia I was a sl bjcc ot~~
~ 1 ~ oic disci ssioni o con c us lans ~
r r/ (-'\ '.-4 "\ " .
~ g l,', "~ .
~ ~ 'I,.'i I i ~
(r".r.J
' ~,4
/+Ail lr I II 1 ii I I
M'- X'.0, 0; I ovcrnbc ~ a ~ 1 )'
Page iNoo wallace bro~.-'.-.: up thc rues.ion of rates and t".ading o powe-"
and a.so at thc ti...c made a'statcnent that Messrs. Spencer and
'7uoua had prev'.ousiy told them they we" e not interested in who'e-sa!e power.
is 'e I ask d thetn (those:ep:esen:ing the city), as a diversio... whc:her they we"e!nte."estin~ in sellin o." lea's n~
thc p=opcrty to us. They said "ycs," that they would be inte."ested, itt a p."oposal an.'sked how long it would take to r:.ake such a p."o-posal. I told the.,. that i= we had the info"....ation a p".oposa'ould be made in abo~t '0 days.
At this poin- Mr. Vlaliace read a prooosal to th g"oup that we we=e p"esu=..cd to have made in }959 He plans to send r.",e
~~cooy o aliis. At this t -...c Xi>>.. YoceQe spoke up ard sa:d their cha"!e" cid not pe."snit t..c sale o'hc "p"ope"ty but th-t this was no so...ething.~~
hc would be too conce"ned about as a:efe"endurn ard Lc~ slation.
change could oc made if something of this natu e was wo"ked out.
It was fu""ne" p".oposed by M=. Stu"gis hat the answe"s o hc cues fons 2".-.. Yocclie stated. as being necessa".y; ra-...e'y, te""'-
torial ag-.ee...en:, wholesale power and ewe."gency tie, should be in writirigo Fu"the" Votes I sec ".at it is ncccssa".y that other ...embers of the Cor."....ission should be vis tcd to ~et thei" a"itude "ega"d n" these r.",a-e"s.
think I s..ould visi with M". Ph"lips ard wo"k'ou....e te".:ito"'al ag".ee...ent as soon as o".acticable. Also, since M". Spence" had worked w;"-h ...c on Ye."o Beach matte."s previously that hc aga'.'"
ente" t..e pictu".c
\ with we in zvy visitat.'ons uo the "e.
I have obtained copies of the 1965 and the 1966 audit of the =.'ect." c B.cvcnuc =und and a.so ".cceived a copy o'he B.ev ew o-ect" c Systetn Planning that. Slack and Yeatch submitted on.'Bove...be" ZO, 1967.
I'I 1evqr }le ' ' r I Jr
'1)Q l'. ':
17 ~ ~ 1 t( e ~ +I%1 llilyoe).lel 'eoeO'ip 1'001~;el hu~:u.".t: 5, 1959 PL-65 C~~a' 0~
e,e,ere
~ ~ >>rr) C',
4' rg ~ e re ~~I ee >
ere i eeb e4e Ar 7 O 1,0; re 0 el eee .~ ~ Oiv Oe ~ le g l 0
.1t C>>.. ~e ~
O.r ~
C re -.
e e~
ere 7 e e R+
ere ~
~
'"n... ll",r11 C"'.:no"1.."",,0 you J 1y 29, 'y =0'<:Ct-1C"..r.."; OC 959 Oma Ou'el.ei.ro; eea. '.QiOeli ',) ..1 <<7 p 195':0 O~OQ 'jou~ C OCCAM".C 'p1v."Le.
0' I ( ~: ere rev {4
~ Vi 9 'ew e '4 ~ ~ er J Il bl Veer ~ ~
pre Po'C,
e e e 1.)'1
~ ~ ree
~
0'.:
.:" >l.y v '>, ":C c"'13.:.::.On -:
'e rer ~ . r44er
~ ~ ~ . ~
Od vo>>0 '~ 0
'Ou
~
1
~
ve
~
L <'u:
I'e, ev ', te yoll 0'1'.'4 l, "0"6 0
' ~
e 1:
e 0 ).'.1'o v
~
~
lie ree ev6 ip.v ..'e ree e ~
~
~
~
~
~
t:
~ ~
..'ll -el'. Jc".7,0il 0eever "1')'sot:0 Q1 .:Gu!.<1 vo u1U...".L'll-'01y tP "l '.0 4 re el)';' ',rI ( reveI 4 erl ( .he
'1 1 1
~
UOC"
~
)
0
~ ~
~
e Cnf'.:
~ r
~
e v 'e ve ( ve a:Ca' 1
r
'(Icl ':1:3...
0 ~
~ ~
(jQCOe 1 eo(j 1 oooe'1'e)ggjrQJO ~
e t
e er.rte J geO yorlg (n uee e 'onCQ~V;e n '~4Q Sel1C 0 e7a')O. 08016 Ooer'0 C~et
~ ~ v er, rev er re 4 .io10~r ilC CO -,1 Cn "n('C OU- .ro ' Cy Q:la@CO, "0 CNQ C'e CQ 0+ f$
"'. ,e e
~
e O~ 0" 0'1QC".'Cllt
~ooe l) 0 I (e VQr nCy ~
'C "OoÃP*y 1950
'eo eoe OZ ig,w co noeo<lorl "U~ n~ QA Qlreeei q np l'l Qin C:0 C
'"ll "0 Q:1~.=QS..
e Ou" ">>;i"CC~"t'On,.oi v..Q OPTO""-"n~."y 0
~ 'e'w ~
Cj-'-: = "-:-':: ":
You~0 Vre y g-';Xi1
~
gP
/ -"':
-C: r r .
p 'FZ ~
e ',lc
~ <<'~<<>>
r,)~': -~: PL-5=9 i
I t QiLO Oeytona t "ch I
I February 19, 1965 I
t
-:-v '
Co ..ission 4
~
A ~
~
I I
'vl << CA tssg>><<+7 s ~
~ ~ s to cur recent d'scussion in. connect on <<1th you po<<G p-oo a .s
--c t~e -sn..cr:n t,.hicb. these oroblat..s aig"..t bc solved,. w'e =ea1 con='dent ~ ~ t
---.- C ~
p nv can .dacuate'y serve the oresant and
" t re rac "'re= nts
'-= thc C-'ty o= X <<S-.yrnz <<Base'n <<--'. =<<e type 0 serv'ce w.. c. <<ot
~ ~ ~
~
c
~~1-.te>v pro=0"a the pro<<th of ycur City, and tc<<a>>ds that and <<a suggest~~
-bat so=.a fora o" lease or s"'a a~"@a~ant oe dave'oped <<hicn 4 ' <<culd pewlt o-ooa "-ta the C 'y'. 1 e ectric p'ant anc distr but on systa
~
~
>>t ls rea1. ad t..er at this t e, it 's i=possible to suonit de= n."e rift res, d "iso th"t any a~ ca-...ent <<culd be subject vo approva1 o= tha CL.sl.'-ied
.~ters 0" M <<S yrn"- Beach and the Board or D- ctcrs 0= ".".. Or'ca pc<<a c:
~<<t Co-..pany, " t in an endaavcr 0" et a.st est b sning tha fra=e<<ork, 1 our opinion th s Gaea ent s..ou d cove tha 0110<<in( se an 1 c c s:
'f a 1 zseq t s, Guld ba o>> a period o= 30 yes s <<i".ch <<ou'd co nc ca <<.' tha tan o= a scene"rc electric =rane'n se to 'oe
".r"ntcc by the City to the Co.-..pany, and s'.".Ould bacc...i~ a"=act.va cpta=oc>>
P
~~90) ~ 0>> e" <<e>> ) <<poss b-e>>~~
2 " A lease, upc.. ts ef=act've data, shou1d prov'de t.".a" t'h e Co<<zany .'.ad~ ata'y proceed to tnsta'1 nacess"- y tran s. iss'n~
su)$ 't t>> on and 0 1a>>:ec c'stribut'on systa-..
i >> as
='!ca<<ise, it a:
0 ~ <<'t tn shou'" prcv'da 0" ty'
'.. "'s
~
cassary .'->>orova-.>>ants "0 tha system and v"..ereafter =or eY pans on or>> order to sahara F11 custci>>e s and rap existing =-c as t'hey <<e = out.
cy sa ' 0>> 1 ease sho" d Drcvida t+0 C' << ",L az)D 0D
~ c ~ 'v <<4aa 0 <<4 Oa ~
st>>cu i d p cv da co tha'pplication of: lorid" Pc<<ar z c.s r 'tc << .. -v>>-v>> 'b c
~ ~ c'-'-
I
,', ~
0 ~
':-',<<2'. CGil~PP "PZ
/e/g
.sQlLO Daytona 3 "ch Feb~a"y 9, L9.65-
~ ~spa 4
C' Cc y o 1 ~ 't % ~ 'WW 3eac4 4. ich " c nog ot L 't~~ ec ective s ~y~toz, 'rt 's nog 4 rt L s c~. c ~ ~ c Xc~v St.y ~ ~aac" excess o~ S~OO,OGO 5 - .~ Lc"sa shc" d p cvica "" the end o" it tea that the C ty c'ouLc have tha opt'on to acauire the c=ooezty at deo"ec<zted
~
~ ~
I v ua t".. cn tha Cc=p"..y has instaLLed
~ ~
~ ~ c du=in~ the 4, I ' ta ~ oz It~aa e sa e.:capt =o= tha substat on and t ans~ission system
" t..a C ty c" d not ez "c.'h's t'e.
A so, oot or. then t'. e Co~any woc~Ld have the =ight to accui=a the Ci yes eLect ..c p"opc"ty. a" dap"ecia ed vaLue.
0';e" nztt io .;.."
=s o" inta=est 4
~~= and advancages to the oeonLe o= Mew S .~na 3e*c".~~
'. 'e zs ~ 'ps:
Undo= Plo"id Po"~e 6 Light Co-oa..y poLicy the"e a=a no con-no p ans Po 1.,st tu in) suc c" s to<<.e ~
=
l%
~a".da ~cue>> & Light Conpoany ~rcuLd estabL'sh a c'st"'ct a~=ice
'iaw ...y na 3aach su ab 1 y housed anc K)e ' s " ed T4h cn %vcu I,T
'oe an asset to tna City. T"oub'a caLLs wouLd oa covered cn a 2-':
hou- oasi s LL p asent = act= c Dept""ment e oLoyeescuLd oe t"'e"..
I Wl ove" by r Lo=.da Po(>a" & Light Co=.pany "t saLc=ies and wages equaL to o=
" ovc =;.c "e-... no="t'cn no(~ tec" 'ved by these e.-..oLoyc s c.u a" Cc;..p=ny bcnctits 'nc" c'n
~>> /t j pons'on oLan ~=ouo Q=--
etc.,
~
su="rcc, Nospit wc "d bc r'"d
'i -'on insu""nc, paid v c ".'on, sic'~ 'e"va, "v"'L"b'c to thea.
~ 6" >><<5
~
1
,Ccr 4'g.go Daytona Beac. '
Fest' y 19, 1965 Co...'Sc Cn XQM Sa y>>na Beach c>> 1 g>> iAg PQL"c=
0} ~~s
'"ht bu Co-...pany as a Company anc'.
0 ..c. suppo oz '
th"ough cor."=. n'yv's
'ts eaL-activi" es, 4 0: CQ - 2 V c..c..t s Su~eau~ an@ 0 >>~..e act cc;Le 2-c'~
suppo c c'v'c Cbt=c c ac.c co...: n'"y D=o~=ess and t>> aot .R '. C" vill St y to tc 2 2 ea ~
lend . ts "
~~. C-ty '..==- l=eacy ".. ='atec -.. ..ecessa=y p ocec' to p ovine co= a' patte" c."."--:"es LLit'r. =Qspact to g=anting 30-yea= 2 ect c =anc'.".'ses anc~~
)0 y Q acnQ1cc s Q cc iso "" p "-=-'"- t.".2 s 2 0" 2 "se o" utility =ac'1 ties,:Lhcn apo"ove 21ec 0 $ ~
~ ~
11 cQ <<'
5'ie g '11 y
~~0'u~~
~~<e =ea-..ti-.e:;2 =' '=.2C"ato y -.=<<in~ n 2 ~cncp CC Lnec 0 c. C C:ty b ='on = c '.'ias on~~
~~te=po =y 'oas' c Q L S st" to supoly tNe powe equ you havo = quested.~~
=e=ents'.".c'..
0 Yours ve"y t~ly, A.B V=ight
.Vice P=esident 0
FLORIDA POWER O.'LIGHT COt.IPANY
'l -784 INTrn OF!!cr co!tlkcspoNocHcc
'5 ~
!.octet>o~ f11~~1 ~ I Hr R 0 Illll Vlcc Pres VO Oct 22 I>63 C S Cocnes Irate Dept cortes vo Hr R C Fullerton crrl torial P.rr c~cnt end Contract ~ ~
Cl t OF ~..-'-'" I!~r th ~~
~ * ~
r As requested vie have prepare d a p rooosed Terr! tor I a I Ac'rc="ant and Contract or In terchange n e Serv ice wI th the CIty of La~a
.. Morth.
5 This agreement ls 1dcntlcal Mlth that Beach except tl~at In each cas "La. ale )lort "
has been su'bs t ted I tu fo r '9e ro Beach."
Pages an d 2 o of "n E::hlbit C have b..cn modl fled t h .! the proper' descr lpt lon of t !
- forrdcllve ry ng sstation lng a and one line dlagr"v to Lake >lorth.
~ . ~
~
~
! ~
5 5 ~ ~
I CSC en ~ I Encl. ~
5
\
5 ~
~, ~
~ = ~
I
June 2Q, 1963 1 < ~ ~ I p. rr ~ V ~<. ~ 'l
'~.;i-" 'ull van <<O'Dp=ts ~<1."-.t Q<>c g> c.ll (g Q .<
~
oux'e 0<<<
t;e"=i='o=i? 1 du < aae I < If
~ Ij I 1
~
\
v I
ea IV I aa
..u-..wc wP
~ ~ ~ ~
OZ
'S c '='s o "4 <<oa"'
> .". =e a a=;"v to 0 'i q)e UQ QP i S g)o "akes action ac=-ir.st
~ ~
CQ'Q j <'ou Q3 eC-a
- Z...e <j,g Ce.".. ~ 5< .C 1 aaA ~ Ia a < I <I o."-. h.-.;=ec:-,.o=e o.". <<'=ox..".;.s o" "r.oi in ~+e qua ~ 'c aaa
~
e G < aj'a <a ~ Z'al "a V Ola< OaaS Oj t e ?71l a
' S a
~ a, 11'L <'1I w
~
ca"-es ~I'.e=e t'".e ~M ' Se-"~ c co..~i s-OI 0 f<~6 i11e ag<<ee.-..en', "he cpu=i uo'no3.ds i Y,C.!i'-2 Cc WQL~I~~ ~
~ ~ j 1 ~ <j I 2, 7< 0-.' 0 Q Cora@ Cgaaaf <
Qe <<A aaea
~ 0 ar ~
a v1 v~ v 7
~
/ ~
/ ~ ~
~ '
~
~
I~
~ ~ ~
~ ~
~ ~
~ > ~
,> ~ ~
0 ~
LAXE ~)ORTH ELECTION
~
LEASE OP ELECTRIC SIST-.C TO FP8cL CO.
~
7 ,
~
THINGS FOR.il"'tEDIATE CONSID" RATION AND ACTION 'i
~
~
~ l
~
[ ~
1 << Citizens Committee - RDH >> RHF - CS ~
~
~ ~
' - City Employees - CS 3 Stockholders Committee '-
I List -
~ y ~
Freeholders CS'egistered CSC .
~ ~
, ~
'I 5 oo Card System - CSC I
~ ~
6 - Employee Organization - CSC ~ ~
r'.
I 7 - Information Booklet - KB << NcD I~
- Election Legal Procedure - -
~ ~
8 i~icC 'AiP .
9 -, Outside Help ~, ~ I Appliance Dealers >> Bud Freer Foci Suppliers - D. Boutor.
Railroad - Oil - insurance etc -
'0
- Xnformations Center h Headquarte s - CSC 11 - Advertising Publicity - NB - NcD Ec
.12 Purge Freeholders List >> CSC 13 - Block 'i'lorkers - RDH - CS 14 - Commumications & Sxingma."> - RFL
/
~ ~
z.
0
~ l
~ ~
~ ~
~, ~
~ ~
I
~ ~
' ~
~
'l
~ ~
~ ~N ~
~
~ ~ ~
~~".'uly.29, 1958"~~
~
)
~
~ ~
~,1 ~
~ ~
'I N I
I ~
'I i
Mri I "non Andre;.~ ~ ~
~
~
I N)
~
~ ~
Lake Uorth, florida Dear ~Andy"
~
You and thG oth ro who work d vr~th us Gt Lal:8 3I,'orth d~ c'. a rcr""rl~>ble Job. S~ . out OZ Gverv seven
'otes ia a ne~r record a::0 a 1w~ni~i'leant c:~r as~on of co:.~ ~ QcQGG n t~ic poa" t" on'c '~ El you
'~ Cooi(o 'i')il-le
'tercet X know that r;!zt you c i:. s LE cau"c o." your Xn the -"""a"c o"'a':G i or"h norcrth less) Z h'Qs glad th"t o'l." cantor sta v're riutual a'.2 tet X ';)as OQ your 03.QG ~
T. r ad your Co"z'ttee~o stator;ont in the Pa3z Beach Po"t ~ I aa de~i-;iltcd Chat they oman to th
'jjou Zel3.ci'N'3
'r o '"orts and 7 .-.z even r.or. Qej. plA'e<'i that
-")'.."...L:L h=".vo e'.lo".".;1 ceo~:~ Qcncc ~n Qs con-'.nuc to
~
~
uo to co'33 Uz,cz perEQnently 4 As S'or a11 o~ ua c..<th Flo <da Po;;er h Light Cow~any lrc c.re not go~.r" an'";)Nhere ond s 11 bc ~<'tand-Xng by ju:'t ov -. Chc c Nty 3.'""s a"d I hope you "rL3.1 BQVG OCCQG3.on tO Cc 13. ua ~
Sf.ncero3.y you."8,
~ I I
Robe+5 fI. FXCG P GBldcnt Ev Ge .G 0 1~nGGB R1F 'bh
&J 3
~P) 0)~N
~
N ~~ ~%+~
~
) ) 5 N
pp g
g
+I/a ~
f~ ~Mnw.~ )I ')
~
~
PL"93 HEYiORAHDUM TQ PILE Messrs. rite and Autrey had an informal meeting with the Homestead Commission on Thursday evening, July 27, 1967 at the invitation oz llayor Dickinson and city Attorney vernon Turner.
The reason for the meeting was to discuss the relationship between tne City of Homestead utility operation and r P6J utility opera tion.
Mr. Turner was, for the. most part, spokesman for the Commission and he, presented a request =or (1) a territorial agreement; (2).
provision "or an additional emergency connect'on to supply up to 5,000 iQ7 more than the e:<isting connection which is about 2,000
.or 3,000 c'N; and (3) a future permanent connection with FPSu for the purchase of the service at wholesale for resale by the City.
We made it clear that we would like ve y much to conclude a mutually agreeable territorial agreement, but also made it that this agr cement mus t be concluded before undertaking negotia tions clear for an inte change or to sell wholesale. We did agree to look into the feasibility o an emergency in"erconnection to determine now much it would cos~. At this point, the City compla'ned bit erly about the rate fo- emergency power that had been cnarged in the past and asked t..e Company to "take,a look" at the rate emergency service is needed.
if We agreed to "take a look" at the further rate.
City On the territorial agreement it was and the Company that we would submit on understood by both the nevi Monday, July 31, 1967, an agreement which provides in essence that an area be designated insid of which the City of'omestead .~ould operate in
.the future and the Plorida Power & Lig'nt Company would operate outside and both inc C'ty and ihe Company would obse 've completely these boundary lines and discontinue any raiding of the others'erritory.
~ While the exact area was not agreed upon, it.'s clear that the City wants an extended area beyond any thai wt',had previously considered equitable as the area the C'ty desires'ncludes several hundred'f our customers. o II
~~+- &2.S L<ed IIA PP
~
I
~ e I l)t ) lt I ~
~
~ ~
) ~ ~
Nhile we may be able to negotiate the shrinking o the area to some extent, it is doubt ul that we will be able to get the to change their thinking. Both the City and the Company 'ity agreed that be ore becoming effective any territorial agreement we reach would firs" have to be approved by the Public Service Commission after a public hearing at which any customers affected would have an opportunity to be heard.
After approval by the Public Service Commission, it, was agreed that the City would purchase the Company's lines inside the City's territory and take over the'ustomers on such lines-Likewise, the Company would follow the same procedure in connection with tne City of Homestead lines and customers outside the pro-posed Homes" ead territory. The lines are to be purchased by the respective parties at original cost, less depreciation. Xt was understood that there may be physical limitations that would rave to be surveyed to determine how the actual phys'cal change can be made. Xt was agreed by the City that any transmission lines or main feeder lines that the Company may want to leave inside the City's territorv for transmitting electricity beyond tneir terri-torial boundary would be acceptable to the City. Payments for any lines purchased would be or cash at the time of transfer of owner snip.
Upon direct request by the City for an arrangement for wholesale service, we pointed out that we 'don't now serve any municipalities wholesale, we don't want to serve any, but i thoy really want wholesale service and this is the only arrangement that can be negotiated, if the terr'orial agreement nas been settled, tha" we would not refuse to sell wholesale, but we would not expect to give the City our BZA wholesale rate.
~
Xt was 'also pointed out that an intercnange agreement may be more desirable to the City than a wholesale contract. Ne emphasized again that purchase of the Homestead facilities, or lease o" them should be considered also. At several points, it was ropeated tnat we must have a territorial agreement signed, sealed and delive ed, and approved by the Public Service. Commission before going anead witn any of these arrangements.
Nhile Nr. Turner. said the City was more interested in a wholesale contract than anything else, he volunteered that the present commission is different from those of the past and that it was willing to review and consider anyth'ing, such as an of er "o purchase,'r lease that we may care to submit.
I I
~ I v 1 c
vp s ~
~
Page 1 TABLE I PRICE SQUEEZE IhIPOSED ON MUNICIPALS BY FLORIDA POWER tt< LIGHT'S WHOLESALE AND RETAIL RATES (Examples Showing Inability of Municipalities to Scil Power for Industrial or Commercial Loads of 5,000 KW to l0,000 KW at Company's Present GS-D Retail Rates)
RETA I 'USTOMERS AT>
)(I I(T">-'CAIL RATcS Delivery volta<;e -i(V )3 13 13 l3 I3 I3 2 Demand Kit 500(r 5000 5000 t 000> I 00(4 I GOOU 3 nours of t)se of Demano 204 400 600 200 40U oUU Khii-ln Thovsands IOOU 20UO 3000 2000 400 6000
'6
'2 5 base Revenues -ikI I I s/K)r H 27 22. oa 2t I2
~ 27. 05 ~ 5J 2).02 6 Retail <-'uel Adjustment -rtiiis/K<<H W. d9 -O. cM M.dV v ~ ot< 0 -O.op 7 r rancni se Tax -)'I 11 s/KnH 0. 0~ J ~ U~ 0. V~
Total RevenuesL<utput a.
Retail Rates -rlills/KnH 26.47 2I.79 20.23 2o. i7 2).6-'0. I 3 COST Gc Ii'(PUT AT:(3<I(iCIPAL UrL I Vc)IY PG If(T Incremental Cost at
<(holesaie Rate "141 I Is/K)r'H 37.9U 28. 45 25 ~ JC 37<90 dd oat 25.3U IU 'rvel Ad Justment -wl I I s/KhH -2.70 -2<70 -2. 70 -2. 70 2e>A ."A Total Cost of Input -xi 1 is/r,'riH 35.20 25. 75 22 ~ 60 J5.20 25.75 ~ 00 Dlpi.'"Rct<Cc - COST OI- IIIPVT At(U RhVEI<UcS I'IICL'4 OUTPUT Ic -A I I is/KiiH 8 ~ 73 3~ 90 J7 -4.II 2 ~
15 TG'CAL ADDcD COST TG SERVE R"'TAI L CUS'I'G<(cR Cost, of Input - si ils/r'i')H 35.2U 25. 75 22. 60 J5.20 25.75
<'2 22. oo Distribution Cost to Serve Io Retail Customer -)(I 11 s/<(I'iH 'IA >>A ~ <A ~ ~ .eA
)7 Cotal Added Cost -ilI 11 s/K <<ir Jb 20 25.75 22.6J ao ~ 2 c5 7'2.60 ttc T '4A<. -Icc 2c.
Legend:
NA = Not available at this time, will vary depending on delivery voltage to municipal and indivi<iual municipal system losses and investments.
(I) From any positive net margin there would have to be deducted and to any loss shown there would have to be added the cost of purchasing losses to serve thc retail customer and the distribution costs from the municipal delivery point to the retail customer's facilitics.
Page 2 TABLE I PRICE SQUEEZE IMPOSED ON MUNICIPALS BY FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT'S WHOLESALE AND RETAIL RATES (Examples Showing Inability of Municipalities to Self Power Is>r Industrial or Commercial Loads of 5, 000 KW to IO, 000 KW at Company's Present GS-D Retail Rates)
Rn TA IL CUSTOM =R 3 AT <
<tltiTc< RATcS V5 'A COI."ICID"'HC'"
OVTSIDb CITY v'SD ( i(s< ) USD(K s)
(a) (c) (a) (e) (s)
CO<41<AI<Y OR AU<I ICIPAL H VLtiUCS I <tG~ GVTpUT AT COapA<iY RhTAI HAT=S I Delivery voltage -KV 13 13 13 13 13 13 2 <)enana -Kn 5000 5000 5000 I GOat I GOG~ 10000 3 nours of Use or Denand 200 400 600 200 40u 600 4 i;iin-In Tnousancs 1000 2000 3000 2000 400s< obn0 Sase Revenues -)If!is/KI'<H 27+ 36 22.68 21.12 27. 06 22.53 21."2 o detail i:uel Aa.tuStment -ikflls/KnH W ~ dV M.dV -O.o 9 -u. ttV -G.dr 3.49 7 Franchise Tax -)CI LL s/Ks<H 0. 0. 0~ 0. G.
Total RevenuesMutput at d Retaf1 Rates -)(I 1 1 s/Ki'<H 26.47 21 'V 20.23 25. 17 "'1.64 20.13 COST OF ItiPVT AT )(UIIICIPAL D"LIVciIY PGIIIT Incre<sentaf Cost at V <<nolesale Rate -I'f l!s/K<<H 36.95 27. 9 t< 24.9d aoogo 27 9= 24.Vd Iu i'ue 1 Aa Justs<ent -).I 1 1s/KHH -2.7u -2. 70 -2. 70 -2s 70 "2.7J
~
~ 70 I I Suototal -l4i 11S/K nH 34.26 25.28 22 ~ 2V 34 ~ 26 25 ~ 2o 22 2V Cost, to Purcnase Power ana
'-nergy Losses to Retaf I 12 Customer Delivery Pofnt -.<<I lfs/K<th 'IA 'IA 'IA '\sn
~
~
tsA ssn 13 Total Cost of Input -zf lls/K'nH '4 26
~ 25 2d 22 29 sc.2o 25.2s 22 ~ 229 GI<'FcRrIIC= - CGS7 GF I)IPUT AiiD RcvciidnS 1'dC'4 OUTr UT
.14 -<sii I!S/'<sih 7 '4 -3 4V -2.05 -O. mrs -3.64 etio TGYAL ADD"D COST 70 SSRV-HcTAIL CUSTO)<cH 15 Cost of Inpu -ki 1 1s/KnH 34.26 25. 28 2< ~ 29 34.25 25 ~ 2o 22.2V Dfstrfbutfon Cost to Serve 16 detail Custoner -l4i !Ls/Kr<H 'sA liA tiA <<A ~ sA s<A 17 Total Aacea Cos- -af L ls/K<sii 34 ~ 26 25 2t< 22.29 3
' 26 25.2 22. 29 ttc7 <AR(llti Oil LOSS lo -<4 I I Ls/KWh -7. 7a -3. 49 -2. 05 -d. JV -3.64 -2. 15 IV of Revenues -2V. 4u -16. ".O -10 Io -30. 92 -i 6.C2 -10. 71 2v -s/ <anth -77u4 . -5r73.
~
-ol 64. -1 61 7). -I 455o . -12VSQ .
Page 3 TABLE I PRICE SQUEEZE I<XIPOSED ON IviUNICIPALS BY FLORIDA POWER 4 LIGHT'S WHOLESALE AND RETAIL RATES (Examples Showing Inability of Municipalities to Sell Power for Industrial or Commercial Loads of 5,000 KW to 10,000 KW at Company's Present GS-D Retail Rates)
<(=7nIL>>STU 4 <~~Tca Rhl cS~~
~
~~I OJ 'o CUI<<CIu"'<I"="~~
~~I:<SIOo CI iY v'SD(R>>) MS!J <,'>I ) ~~~
~~<a) <o) (c) (d) (e) (I)~~
CCai AI.Y OR "WICIPAI. i<<oV-""!IU='S FRO<<GUTi'UT AT CO~?At<<Y RafAIL RAT"S i Oeiivery volta<re -KV 13 13 13 13 I 13 2 <Jem a no -Kr< 50()u )OOO JQQJ I QQQ I 0030 3 nours of Use o. Oemand 20u 4OJ 600 2QJ <<QJ oIlu K>>n-In Tnousancs I 00~ 2000 JOQQ 20 0 40OJ 6OJJ Base Revenues -<Af lls/K<<H 27. 3o 22. oo 21. 12 27. 06 '2." 2I 44 o Retail Fuel Ad )ustment -.'f Lf s/i;<<H -Q~ dv< Oooo J ~ ov Joop u'r
'o
~
7 i-rancnL se Tax -)(f L f s/K>>>n 27 ~ oG 22.0<8 21.24 ~
~~27.47 22.72 2l.i4 GUST OF I'<<PUT AT )>Ui<<ICIPAL O"LIV"<<<Y POIhT Incremen al (.'ost at~~
>>nolesale Rate -~f lls/K<<h 37. <r0 2d. 4o 2o. JQ 37, Vu o.4.< 25. JQ 10 ruel AuJus ment -~f LLs/K>>n -2. 7(< -2. 70 -2. 7Q -2. 70 -2 7J
~~~ -2.70 I I Suoto tal -)(1 Lls/Ki<H 35.20 25 75 22 ~ 60 35 2a; 5 ~ 7Q 221 ~ JO Cost to purcnase ?o<<er and~~
=nervy Losses to l<<etaf I 12 Customer Delivery Point -.".f LLs/K>>H <<A !1A :IA ~ II i)A I 3 7otal Cost of Input -mf Lls/<;>>ii 35.2C 25. 75 22 ~ 6J 'o 2J
~~~ 22 o J~~
~
1) IF?ah'-!ICJ - COST Oi't<?Uf Al<> 3 ~ <43 -1.46 TOTAL AUUc~ COST TG Sal<<vi=
i<>ri 35 '0 25. 7o 22.6J 25.7 J 24 ~ 6()
lo <<etafL Customer lls/(<<H I<<A I<<A I<h I<A < In .In 17 Total Acoeo Cos -<;1 lls/Krili Jbo20 25 ~ <o 22 ~ 60 <o.2v 25 ~ io 22 ~ oQ I<i:7 ~ARUIH G<<<LUSS Id <4L I'/K<<h 7 ~ 40 -2 s7~ -1.36 -7 7J~ -3e<JJ -I ~ 46 IP ->> of Revenues -26.6>> -12.J4 -o.3r -2o.l:
20 -S/;4Onth -740u. -57J(<. -4J73. -154JI. -121~ . ~ =": V.
Page 4 TABLE 1 PRICE SQUEEZE IMPOSED ON MUNICIPALS BY PLORIDA POWER h LIGHT'S WHOLESAI E AND RETAIL RATES (Examples Showing Inability of Municipalities to Sell Power for Industrial or Commercial Loads of 5,000 KW to 10,000 KW at Company's Present GS-D Retail Rates)
RETAIL CUSTOM(-RS AT>
nlN> cii RAa co V5 <<COINCIU=NCE INSIDc CITY USD (Kti ) u'5D( K> i )
(a) (c) (a) (e)
COMPANY OH )(UNLCIPAL RcVE>IVES FWO!il OUTPUT AT COrrpANY R "TAIL RATES I Delivery Voltage KV IJ 13 13 13 IJ I 3 2 Uemana -KW 5000 5000 5000 I 00(D I 000'00 I 0000 iiours of Use of Uenana 200 400 600 200 600 4 KY>H-In Thousands I 000. 2000 1000 2000 40M 6000 Base Revenues -efl fs/K!iH 27.36 22. 68 21>12 '7.u6 22.5~ 21.02 o Retail Fuel Aojustment -.if Lfs/KI>h -0.89 -0. 8V -0.89 -O~dV 0>OY M.aV 7 F rancnise Tax -)if LLs/Knii 1.32 1.09 I ~ 01 I ~ 31 I ~ Os I Jl Total Revenues-Output at d Retail Hates -Nf Lfs/KWH 27+80 .22. Sd 21 '4 27>47 22>72 21 F 14 COST Or'NPUT AT )IUNICI."AL f)cL IVcrIY POINT IncrementaL Cost at nholesale Rate -r4L.LLs/KWH 36. V5 27.Vd 24 ~ V J J6 ~ 95 27 ~ Vu 24. VG 10 Fuel Aajustnent -r(f 1 ls/KiiH -2>70 -2. 70 -2. 70 -2. 70 -2.70 -2.70 JI SubtotaL -<11Ls/KtiH 34 '6 25. 2d 22 ~ 29 34.2o 25.2n 22.2V Cost to Purchase power ano Fnergy Losses to Retafl 12 Custome. Delivery Point -rif1fs/K'rrH NA NA NA ~
I
>A
~
i>A i ~ >i 13 Total Cos- of Input -Af LLs/KriH 34 '6 25.28 22.29 3'.26 2 F 28 22 '9 Dlr FERE!iC" - COST OF INPUT ANO >IEVENUES I'r(Ok OUFr'UT i4 -hlf lls/Ki'iH -6.46 -2. <<0 -1.04 -6 ~ id -2.56 -i ~ 15 TO'I'AL ADDi!U COST TO SEHVc R"'TAL L CUSTOr4cri 15 Cost of Inpu -r4L 1 1s/KWH 34 >26 25.28 2'.29 J'.26 25. 2o 22. 29 Ufstrfoution Cost. to Serve 16 Retafl Customer -!4 1 lls/Kir H NA NA ~ ~ ~
> '> >i NA ~ IA 17 ;otal Adcea Cost -ref 1 1 s/KnH 34 >26 25.28 22.2V J4 ~ 26 25.2s 22.29 NFT >tAriuIN OR LOSS Id IV -<<of
-,'4f Lfs/KwH Revenues
-6. 46
-23 24
-2. 40
-10 4d
~
4~9I 04 6
-24. 6J
'8 -11.26
-1.15 o ~ << '4 20 -s/month -o460. 4794 ' -312d> -I 3561. -I 023' mo )9.
Page 5 TABLE 1 PRICE SQUEEZE IMPOSED ON MUNICIPALS BY FLORIDA POWER tc LIGHT'S WHOLESALE AND RETAIL RATES (Examples Showing Inability of Municipalities to SeLL Power for Industrial or Commercial Loads of 5,000 KW to 10,000 KW at Company's Present GS-D Retail Rates)
RETAIL CUSTOMcHS AT>
SUMMcd RATcS 100 ~ COIHCIDEt(C"'UTSIDE CITY uSD(KW) USD(rid)
(a) (c) (d) (e)
COMPANY OR MUt(ICIPAL REVENUES FROM OUTt UT AT C&4PAIIY HcTAI L RATES I Delivery Voltage -KV l3 IJ l3 l3 I3 t3 2 Deaand -Kw 500v 5000 500J I OOK) I 0000 I 0000 3 Hours of Use of Denana 200 400 600 200 400 600
'Mi Ki<H-In Thousanas I 000 2000 3000 2000 4000 6000 5
6 Base Revenues itetai 1 Puel Ad Just ~ent
-MLZLs/KnH
-ML lls/i(nri 29.a9
-0.8v 24, 94
-Oo 89
~~23. 30 M.d9~~
~~29. 57~~
-O.av 24.7a
-0. 69 23 '9 v". B9 7 i-rancnise Tax lls/KWH 0 0. 0~ Oo Oo 00 Total Revenues-Output at tt detail Hates -ki lls/i nH 29.00 24.05 22. 4l 28. 63 23.B~ 22.30 COST QF INPUT AT MUNICIPAL Dc' VcRY POlttT Increnental Cost at nnolesale Ha e -MLLls/KWH 37.90 2a.45 25. 30 ~7. 90 ZB ~ cu 25. 30 Iu c'uel Aa Justnent -MLLLs/KnH -2 ~ 70 -2.70 -2. 70 -2+70 -2. IV -2. 7G I I Suototal -MfLls/KnH 35 '0 25. 75 22.60 -'5.20 25.75 22.60 Cost to Purchase Power and energy Losses to Retail l2 Customer Delivery Point -Mills/KwH HA HA HA HA HA tiA l3 Total Cost of Input -kills/KWH 35e20 25.75 22 ~ 60 35.20 5. 7o 22.50 Dlp?cRcHCE - CuST Oi'NPUT AHD RcVEHUcS i'ROM OUTPUT l4 -Mills/rinii -6. 20 -I.7u M. I9 -6. 52 -I ~ 06 -0. 30 TOTAL ADDED COST TQ SERVE HETAIL CUSTOMER l5 Cost of Input -MiLLs/KwH 35.20 25. 75 22.60 35.20 25.75 22.60 Distribution Cos- to Serve I6 ite tai 1 Custocer -Mi.1 1s/KMH t(A HA HA HA t(A l7 Total Adaed Cos- -Mi 1 1s/KWH 35.20 25.7b 22 ~ 60 'u+2d 25+75 22.60 HET MAduIH Od LOSS Id -6.20 -I .7u M. I 9 -o.52 -
I9 -" of-kiLLs/KWH devenues -2 I . 39 -7.05 -~. a 7 -22. 74 I ..".6
-7.77
-G. 30
-I . 35 2u -~/month 620 ' 3o93 ~ Sad, I J()4 a ~ 7 424 ~ I du3 ~
Page 6 TABLE I PRICE SQUEEZE IMPOSED ON MUNICIPALS BY FLORIDA POWER h LIGHT'S WHOLESALE AND RETAIL RATES (Examples Showing Inability of Municipalities to Sell Power for Industrial or Commercial Loads of 5,000 KW to l0,000 KW at Company's Present GS-D Retail Rates)
RcTAIL CUSTOscRS ATt Su!JI >> dAI S V5 ~ COIiiCIDENCE OUTS IDc CITY USD (Ki'I ) uSD( K>> )
(c) (d)
COMPAtIY GR )(UNICIPAL RcVEiIUES rdO)( UUTPUT AT CGNPAIIY R'"TAIL RATES veil very Voltage -KV 13 13 13 13 13 13 2 Denana o 000 5000 500J I CGGJ I 000u I GOUG Hours of Use of Demana 200 400 600 20J 400 600 4 i'hH-In Thousanos I OCO 2000 JOOu 400u 6000 200'9.
5 Base Revenues -!41}ls/KnH 29.89 24 ~ V4 24 ~ 30 57 24. 7c, 23. I V 6 detail Fuel Aajustment -Hf}ls/KhH -O.bv -Oo c9 -0. dV -0 dr W.s9 7 i'ranchfse Tax -itf I 1 s/i; RH 0. 0. 0. 0~ 0. 0~
Total Revenues-Output at 23.69 22. JO d Retail Rates -)I 1 11 s/Khr'. 2V. 00 24. 05 22.41 2J <<bs COST Gi'tIPUT AT hcUNI CI PAL D"'LIVcRY POINT Increme'ntal Cost at wholesale Rate -Iff I is/KnH 36.V5 27 ~ VB 24.98 J6.95 27.Vo 24.)S 9
10 I'uel Ac)ustment -Mf lls/Knh -2.70 -2. 70 -2 7J~ -2 '0 -2.7u 7 ll I I Suototal llf lls/Knh 34 '6 2ce 2d 22.29 4 ~ ~ ?O ~"5. 2o 22. 2V Cost to Purchase Po~er anti Energy Losses to Retail 12 Custoner Delivery Point -I!1 lls/K>>H NA NA NA NA IaA 13 Total Cost of Input -zf 1 1 s/Knri 34.26 2~0 28 22. 2V 34 '5 25.22a 22 '9 DIPrcRENC" - COST Or It<PUT AI(U R'cVEIiJcS rdU!4 OUTPUT 14 ~ df Ils/i<>>H 5 ~ 26 ~ I ~ 22 0 ~ 12 o ~ oo I ~ 3o u ~ 01 TOTAL A"DM CCST TG SER Vc dcTAIL CUS;GMER 15 Cost of Input, -Hi 1 1 s/KnH ~ 34.26 25'0 22 'V u4 ~ 2o 25 ~ 20 ~ 29 Distribution Cos- to Serve 16 Itetaf) Customer -41 lls/Khii NA IIA I(A IIA IIA ~
I I>>~
17 Total AMeo Cost, -,.If 's/Ki>ti J4.26 25.28 22+29 34 '6 25 'o 22.2V NET ><<ARulN OR LOSS I is/YnH -5.26 -I . 22 0. -5. 56 - . Jo J.O
-" of-IsfRevenues IB 12 I I 19 -Id.13 -5.0V 0.54 -I v.4o -5.7>> 0.05 20 -S/!4Onth -5259. -244U. J61. -11154. -5o33. o7.
Page 7 TABLE I PRICE SQUEEZE IMPOSED ON ivlUNICIPALS BY FLORIDA POWER!k LIGHT'S WHOLESALE AND RETAIL RATES (Examples Showing Inability of Municipalities to Sell Power for Industrial or Commercial Loads of 5.000 KW to 10,000 KW at Company's Present GS-D Retail Rates)
<t"-TAIL CJSTGhcHS ATi SUI(tr-"H <(ATaS IOO ~ CQIIICIDEt(Cc IIISIDi: CITY u'SD( K <() USD(K<<)
(a) (c) (d) (e) (f)
(:O<4PAI<Y Qii r4UIIICIPAL H"'VL>>I)'-S I'rtuM ()UTPUT AT COMPANY HcTAIL RAT-S I Del very volta()e KV 13 l3 l3 ~
3 I. l3 2 Demand o OOG v000 o<JO~ I <)GOJ I OOOJ I 0000 3 riours of Use of Denand K>>rl-In Tnousancs 2GO 400 os 4 'L)J 4(kr o00 I (MG 20QG JODO ?OOJ 40GJ 60JJ Base itevenues -Mills/K>>ii 2V.SV 24 ~ V4 2J. 30 2V+57 24. /3 23.IV 6 He tail r'ue I Aa Jus tment -rr! I I!s/I,'>>ii M.dV -O.o V W.gv -0, dV -0<<ov 7 r'ranchise Tax -'i!11 s/Khri 1.4<> I o20 I.I2 l.43 I.l! I, l2 Total HevenuesWutput at d seta!i Hates -M!mls/K<<ii ~0 F 45 25.26 ?3 '3 Ju.il Z5.('v 23.4I COST Cr'NPUT A" 'IUIIICI)AL D=LIVbitY PQ I <IT Incremental Cost at
<<ho I e sai e Hat,e Mi I 1s/KI<h 37.VO 2G. 45 20 ~ 30 >7.90 (6 cg~ 25.30 Iu Fuel AdJustment -<(I I I s/K <<'." -2.70 -2.70 -2<<70 -2. 70 -2.70 -2.70 I I Suototal -:(I 's/KI<h 35.20 25. 75 22 '0 3>.20 4 o ~ 7o 22.oO Cost to purchase Po<<er and
=ner"y Losses to Meta!1 I 2 Custoraer De!! very . oin "M!.Ils/K>>H IIA i<A iiA <(A .iA l3 Total Cost of Inpur. -MI 's/Kr<h 35.20 25.75 22.60 35<<2J <<5.7o 22.60 DI;"Pelt.'"tiC" - CUST Qr'tiPU<
Aiiu H VI t(U S P<(QM QLI. v'T l4 -Mills/K<<ii -4.75 -0.4V 0 V3 '5 ~ Jv 0 06 Oodi iOiAI. ALIJcD COST TO SE<t vb

<<'rTA IL CUSi Ditch l5 Cost of Input -<i!11 s/Ki<ki 35.20 2o ~ 7o 22. 60 35.ZJ a5.7o 22.60 Distribution Cost to Serve l5 <teta!I Customer -Mi I 1 s/K>>h HA <<A tiA <<A I<A :iA I 7 To r.al Adc ec Co s t ":<<I 1 1 s/Ki

.20 25.75 22. o0 35.2J 25.7'> 22.50 Io IV 2J tier <<AI(v'IIV G<l 'SS -r:!1!s/Ki<h -" of Iievenues -s/Month ~ 7o -I 5. 61 -4753. -0.49 -I . 96 -! Is<< D.V3 J ~ V4 277", -o. Jv -< 6 ~ VJ -i JI7o ~ 0 ~ 6o -2.63 -2044 '.dl3.4a 4'3U. Page 8 TABLE I PRICE SQUEEZE IMPOSED ON ib(UNICIPALS BY FLORIDA POWER h LIGHT'S WHOLESALE AND RETAII RATES (Examples Showing Inability of Municipalities to Sell Power for Industrial or Commercial Loads of 5,000 KW to 10,000 KW at Company's Present GS-D Retail Rates) R-en IL CUSTO<I=RS h.' SUA<4c<<RATcS V5 ~ CUlt<CID"'RCE IIIS ID"'I TY USD(K<<) v'SD(K ~< ) (a) (c) (c) (ei COAPAI<Y OR ~IUI(ICI<<AL RE'VE.IVES . RC<'UTi'UT AT CC<<c AiiY R 'TAli RATES I Delivery Voltage -<(v 13 13 13 13 lo i 3 2 uenanc -K<< 5000 5000 5000 I 0000 I 00<n 10000 3 Hours of Use of t)eland 200 400 600 200 400 6(>>) Ki<H-In Tnousancs 1000 200U 300J 2000 4000 503v'3. Base <<evenues -14L I l s/KitH 29.dV 24 ~ V4 23.30 29 '7 24<70 19 6 Retai I;uel Ac Jus trent -'kills/Klib W.bV -0. dV -'J ~ d V -O.aV -O.o v J ~ d>>< 7 Franchise Tax -!li lls/K<<ri I<45 1.20 1.12 I <43 I . I>>< 1.12 Total Revenues-Output at Retail itates -<AILls/Kr<H >0. 45 25 ~ 26 23 ~ 53 30. 11 25.0>> 23.-1 CCS< CF IIIPUT AT )IUtIICIPAL Odl.l VERY POI I< T lncrenental Cost at -till)s/KhH V 10 rlnoiesale <tate Fuel AdJustnent -)IfLL s/Ki<H 36.95 -2. 70 27.Va -2.70 24.>><d -2.70 45.Va -2. 70 27.9" -2 ' '2.7024<ad II Suototal -aiLLs/KnH 34+26 2o ~ 2b 22 ~ 2V 34 'o 25 ':i 22 '9 Cost to Purcnase Po<<er and =nergy Losses to Retail i2 Cusco<<<e. i) eiivery Point -<vi I I s/K<<'H hA t A fin ~ <i< << t\ 13 Total Cost of Input -)~i I ls/Kr<H 34 ~ 25 25 ~ 2d 22 ~ 2V 34 ~ 2o 25 ~ 2- 22 ~ 29 OIFFcREI<CE - COST CF ItiPUi AI<D <(&VEh<)-S FRC)t CUTPUT 14 l<'>' ~ < 3 TOTAL ADDS CCSt TO SER v'= IIEfAIL GUSTO<<<ER 15 Cost o f Input -M I 1 l s/K<IH 34 ~ 26 25< 2tt 22.2V 34 ~ 25 25 ~ 2;< 22.2V uis tr ibut ion Co s t to Serve 16 Retail Custoner -1 i I l s/Kliii 1 i<A 11A ilA i<n <<n 17 Total Aaded Cos- -thi lls/<(><H 34 ~ 25 252a 22 2V 44 ~ 2<5 <'52 222>> <<<A<tui!I OR LOSS Ia LL s/K<<H 3 ~ 51 0 ~ 02 I 24 4~ I>> 0~ I i I I 3 -" ot h<Liievenues ~ ~ IV -12.51 -J.ua o.2a -14.75 -0.7o 4.32 2<) 0/<<on t)1 3800 ~ 43 ~ 37 2 3 ~ a 2<)5 ~ 754 ~ 5 773 ~ Page 1 TABLE 2 g PRICE SQUEEZE IMPOSED Ol'1 MUNICIPALS BY FLORIDA POWER h LIGIIT'S WHOLESALE AND RETAIL RATES <Examples Showing Inability of Municipalities to Sell Power for Industrial or Commercial I.oads of 500 KW to 1,000 K)V at Companyrs Present GS-D Retail Rates) RETAIL CUSTOMERS ATr itlir'Tfrr RATES 100 ~ COI,"iCIJEltCE OuTSIO'f CI TY vs (i<w ) Q( i(r ) ~ (a) <b) <c) <d) (e) CQMPAtrY OR MUNICI) AL REVi:."<UkS FrtOM QUTi UT AT COMPANY RkTAI L RATES 1 Uel ivery Voltage -i< V 13 13 13 '. 13 ly 13 2 Demand -t<)r 500 500 500 I 003 I CGC 1 000 S i<ours cf Use of Demand 2CO 400 600 ZK) 400 600 4 K>>H~In ;nousands 100 200 300 200 400 500 Base Revenues -Mi I is/'<aH 32.86 25.43 22.95 29.dl 23,90 21,94 o rtetai 1 Fuel Aa )ustment -Mills/HrrH bv -0 Brr ~ 0 ~ d9 0 ~ or -O.ov ~3 69 >>Mi lls/i,'nH i 7 Franchise Tax 0, 0~ M~ ~
0. Oo Total Revenues-Output at Retail Rates -MillS/i<nH 31.97 24.54 22.07 2o.VZ 23.01 21.05 COST CF IHPUT AT r<UHICIPAL QLLIVERY POIHT Incremental Cost at 9 rrnolesale Rate -Mills/YMH 37.90 28o 45 25+30 37.90 ZB.4o 25. 30 10 Fuel Ad Justnent -M <
Ils/<nH -2+70 -2. 70 -2 70~ -2 ~ 70 7u -Z. 70 11 Svotota 1 isi 11 s/<rri: 35 ~ 2<r 25 ~ 75 22 ~ 60 35 ~ 24 ? 5 ~ 75 22 ~ 60 Cost to Purchase Power and Energy Losses to Retail 12 Customer Delivery Point -Mills/Yon fr A (1 A NA HA HA HA 13 Total Cosr. of Input -Mills/i<rrn 35.20 25. 75 22 ~ 60 35.2u 25.75 22.60 QIFi'=HEHC" - COST QF lliPUT AttQ itkVEHUcS FitOM OUTPUT 14 -Mil1a/i<rrii -3. 22 -1. 21 -3 ~ 53 -6 ~ 2c -2. 7>> -1. ag TOTAL ADLrM COS; TO SERV-R"-cA IL CUSTO!4"it 15 Cost of Input -Mi I 1 s/.<a n 35. 20 25. 75 22 ~ 60 lu tu ~ 25.7" 22.oO Distrioution Cost to Serve 16 Retai! Customer -MI!Is/i<nH NA NA lrA NA HA 1(A 17 Total Adoed Cos- -Mi r ls/i<lrH 35 ~ 20 25 75 22 ~ 60 3b ~ ZV Z5 ~ 75 22 ~ 60 (<ET AARUIH OR LOSS tl) Id 19 -MI lls/1! rtH of Revenues -3. 22 -10.09 -1 ~ -4. 92 21 -J. 53 -2.42 -6. Zo -Z).7> -2. 74 -1) .ov -1 ~ 55 "7. ~o 20 -s/icon th -322. -241. -160. -1256. -149'. -9~2. Legend: NA = Noc available at this time, will vary depending on delivery vo'itagc to municipal and individual municipal system loarrea and investments. <1) From any positive nec margin chere would have to be, deducted and to any loss shown there would have to be added the cost of purchasing losses to serve the retail customer and the distribution costs from the municipal delivery point to the retail customer's facilities. TABLE 2 PRICE SQUEEZE IMPOSED ON MUNICIPALS BY FLORIDA'POWER I< LIGHT'S WHOLESALE AND RETAIL RATES (Examples Showing Inability of Municipalities to Sell Power for Industrial or Commercial Loads of 500 K<V to i,000 KW at Company's Present GS-D Retail Rates) RETAIL CUSTOa"'RS AT< nitlTc<<RA<'"S 95 ~ COIIICIOE)iCE QUTSIDo CITY USD<i'>>) USD(K ) (a) <c) (d) (e) COh(PAI<Y G<I AU!< ICIPAL RhVEIIUFS i'hQN OUTPUT AT COh(PAI<Y <<hTAIL RATES I I eli very Voltage -KV l3, I3 l3 IJ !3 l3 2 Demand -Kr< 500 500 sOU I OOJ 1003 I 000 3 Hours of Use of Uemand 200 400 600 ZOJ 400 600 4 K< H-In Tnousands IOO 200 JOO 20~ 4v0 600 6 Uase Revenues Retail Fuel Adjustment -)Ai lls/i;<<H -wills/K>>il JZod6 -0.ov 25 ~ 43 Oooo
22. 95
-Oo 89 Zv.dl -O.dd 23o VJ Ooo<o 2I,94 U 7 I-rancnise Tax -:At II s/I; <<H 0~ 0. Jo 0. Oo V~ Total Revenues-Output at d Retail Rates -h'lt IIs/KI<H 3I ~ 97 24 ~ 54 22 ~ u7 Zb o92 2 3 o I 2 ~ 05 CCST OF II<t UT AT )<VIII Cl< AL DcLI VhRY POIIIT 9 10;uel Incremental Cost <<nolesale Rate Adjustment at -h!i lls/<;<<H -!4t!1 s/<<>>H 36.95 -2.70 27 '8 -2.70 24 -2 '3 '0 a6 ~ 9u -2 70 c7.9~ -2.7-24.)" -2.70 I I Suo total ->H 34 '6 25.2d 22.29 ~4 2". 25.2o 22.2v Ccst to Purcnase Power anc Energy Losses to iietai! 'i l2 Customer Delivery Point -Iet 1! s/K<'<H HA !<A iiA !IA I:A I A l3 Total Cost of Input -I<! I Is/<(>>H 34 ~ 25 25 Zd 22 ~ 29 J4 ~ 2o 25 ~ '- 22 ~ 29 DI:"i.ci<EHC-' COST OF II<PUT AI(<) IIEVENUcS F<<Oh( OUTPUT l4 -h(II!s/K>>H -2.2d -0. 73 J. 22 5~3 -2 ~ 2 ~ 2 ADDED COST TO SERVE 'OTAL BETA IL CuSTOk=R lb Cost ef input Distrtoutton Cost to Serve -At lls/<(r<H 34 '6 25.2d 22. 29 34.2o .5. 3 22.29 l5 Retail Customer -<4i!!s/KI~H !In HA r(A IIA IIA <oA l7 Total Added Cost -<at! !s/<(i<h 34. 2o Zo. 2b 22. 29 J4. 26 25. 2J 22 o 29 ld 19 20 <<hT ~AI(v'III O<<LOSS -At lls/Ki<H ->> of Revenues -s/<<onth "2 o2() -7. I 22do ~ Oo <4 -2. 99 -I 47. J ~ 22 -I.UJ -66o -5 ~ Id 40, ~ -I<68. 34 -2.25 vuu ~ '5.-I.Z 7 J9 ~ '9.o ~ o ~ Page 3 TABLE 2 PRICE SQUEEZE IMPOSED ON MUNICIPALS BY FLORIDA POWER h LIGHT'S WHOLESALE AND RETAIL RATES (Examples Showing Inability of Municipalities to Scil Power for Industrial or Comrncrcial Loads of 500 KW to 1,000 KW at Company's Present GS-D Retail Rates) M'=iAIL C JSTO.A'-'il S AT> iiillT-"i HAi='S I OJ ~ COIliCIi)ciIC=' HS IOc CI iY VSi)(Kii) JSQ(K s) (a) (c) (e) CCi<<i'AiiY GH I'UIIICIPAL Hc VcliV"'5 I'tiOI GVTPVT AT CG'A.4Y H"-TAIL HATcS I Dei! very voltage -KV l3 I 3 l3 i3 ID I3 2 iJ enana i(ii 500 500 3 OO I 00>> I v<<J nours of Vse of Delano 200 C00 500 200 'CJ 6 i+ 4 K>>n-In Thousanas I00 200 300 20J c>><< o<<J Base iievenues -)ai 1 1 s/Kiiii 32 ~ c6 25.43 22.V5 2v. c I s 'I 2I . ir. 6 i(e tail i=ue 1 Ao Justaent "Mills/K>>n O<<cV -0<<oV M,oV u<<cv -O.oi 0 ~ u7 7 I'rancnise Tax "t<s Total detail H evenues-Output Hates at -)ii 11 s/K>>'ri 33. 57 2<< ~ 77 23.17 3J so c. I-'2 I" ~ COST Gi')i?VT AT )iUiIICI)'A OcL I VcHY ?0IIIT Increisental Cost at >>no 1 esale Hate -A!I 11S/Kiiri 37.VV 2b<<45 2o e 80 47 ~ )0 cc ~ 'o 25 ~ '0 IO tuel AoJustnent -iii ls1 /Kiiii 2 ~ 7v -2. /0 -C. 70 -2. 70 -2. 7 J -2. 7'J I I Suoto t.al -."'ls/Kii"'5 2J ~ 25. 75 c2 ~ o0 3 <<<<c.i "oofo 2c ~ o<< Cost to Purchase Po~er ano cnervy Losses to aetail l2 Custvoner [!e livery Point -i!Ills/K>>i: liA IIA ~ iA I~ l3 Total Cost ot Input -~ I 1 s/K>>h 1 35<<20 25'> 22 ~ o0 <<o ~ c<<c 0~ OII'i'circ)ICc - COST IIIPVT 'i QP AHO i(cvLhVcS PHQx OUTPUT -~:.I 11 s/Kiiii - I ~ 63 0.02 3 >> ~ o>> I cs J ~ uJ TQ'CAL ADJi-'I) COSi TO S'- H V'- iicTAIL CbciQ)!ci< c>>) ~ n<< 'o Ia 4 I o Cost o. Input -:<>i I i<A liA IIA >>A 17 Total Aoaeu Cost. -i:I 1 ls/KliH 35 ~ 2u 25 ~ 75 22.60 3uo c0>>'<<.7u 22 ~ ou >>BT <<.Aiibii< GH LOSS Id itk i ls/alIn I -I .o3 U.C2 o I >> ~ J>> << ~ >><< ~ -I ". ~a ~ I v'0 -<<ot Hevenues -s/i.'on t.h ABC 0.06 c ~ >>o i7l. -Voi. ~ C ~ I o 4 ~ 4, I ~ TABLE 2 PRICE SQUEEZE IMPOSED ON MUNICIPALS BY FLORIDA POWER t! LIGHT'S WHOLESALE AND RETAIL RATES (Examples Showing Inability of Municipalities to Sell Power for Industrial or Commercial Loads of 500 KW to 1,000 KW at Company's Present GS-D Retail Rates) O'-'TAIL CJST(L!el<3 AT! !11NTc~< RAT-'S VS ~ COIIICIDcI40c IIISIDc CI TY USD(K!i) vSD<Kis) (a) (b) (c) (e) CGAPANY OR )IU14ICIPAL RdvcHUES rROk OUTPUT AT COicpnHY Ri TAIL RATBS I De'ive.y Voltage -KV 13 13 13 13 Ia 13 2 Demand -Kn Ls/KITCH 500 b00 bGO I OOJ I OOJ i 000 iiours ol'se of Demand 200 4 GO 600 . 2GG 400 600 4 Kn!i-In Thousands 100 200 300 200 40<) o~)<) Sase Revenues -N.f I 32 ed6 25'3 22 ~ VS 2V.dl '3. VO 21,94 o Retail i'uel Ad)ustment -icf Lfs/K'nH M+ 8V -O.dV W ~ dV -0.89 -0. bv '3 7 I:ranchfse Tax -MLLLs/KnH 1.6v I ~ 23 I . IG I ~ 45 I.lb I . "5 Total IcevenuesMutput a d Retail Rates -14f)ls/KNH 33.57 2o. 77 2J 17 F 3U.36 Scan 24.16 22.10 COST 01'HPUT AT 44UNICIPAL DcLI VcRY POINT Incremenral Cost at wholesale date -a! .I ls/K hH 36.VS 27.98 24 Vd 36.95 27.V 24. v8 lu i-uel Acjustnent -k I 2 ls/K)!H 2o7V -2.70 -2.70 -2.70 -2 o70 -2.70 ) I Subtotal -<<IZL s/KnH 34 ~ 2o 25.28 22. 2V 34.25 25.2a c 29 Cost to I urchase Power and '='nergy Losses o Re ail 12 Customer Delivery Pofnt -Itf Lls/Knh NA NA HA IIA ~ ~ i .w ~
iA 13 Total Cost of Input -af,f Is/KHH 34. 26 25.2b c2 ~ 29 25 2 o ~ 2s 22 ~ 2V DIPP=RcHC'" - COST OP INPUT ANU R5VcI!UES i'I<O)4 OUTPUT 14 >>Hills/KnH M. 6b 0. 49 Go d -3. 3V IV TOTAL AUD=D COST TO ScRVb R" TAIL CUSTOrcR 15 Cos of Input -)4 f I I s/KWH 34 ~ 26 25. 28 22+ 2V 3 '.2o 25.2- 22.29 Dfs rfbutfon Cost to Serve 16 ReraLl Custoner ")4iLLs/KnH 14A HA ! IA aA i!A 2'2.
~ 17 Total Added Cos- -.'4ills/K'nH 34 ~ 26 25. 2V 34. 25 25. 2v 22. 29 NcT xA14UIH OR !MSS Id -)If Lls/YhH -Oe 6b 0. 49 G. BS -3 SV -I I I W~ I 9 19 20 -~ of Revenues -s/!<anth -2 i 03 ~b. I ~ Vl Vt). ao31 255. 12 '2 -773. ~ 4e61 ~4m . -Uooc -112 . Page 5 TABLE 2 PRICE SQUEEZE IMPOSED ON MUl<IICIPALS BY FLORIDA POPOVER II< LICiHT'S AVHOLESALE AND RETAIL RATES (Examples Showing Inability of Municipalities to Sell Power for Industrial or Commercial Loads of 500 KAV to I,000 KW at Company's Present GS-D Retail Rates) R<"-'TAIL CUSTOMERS AT< SUM<<<w HAT"'S 100 " COINCI<JENCE OUTS I D" CI TY USE(Kh) USD(Kn) (c) (e) CQaPAFIY OR MUNICIPAL HcVENUcS FHQM OUTPUT AT CO<~<<ANY HaTAIL RAT'"-S I Delivery Voltage -KV 13 13 13 13 13 c 2 Uemand Kh 500 500 500 I 000 I 00'00 I 1)00 3 Hours of Use of Demand 200 400 600 200 oi)0 4 Knn-In Thousancs 100 200 300 20J 4(yJ 600 Base Hevenues -Mills/Kt<H 35. 61 27.51 25.20 32.43 26.P2 2c,14 o Retail i=ueL AdJustment -liiLLs/K<<H -0. BV -0e dV -J~BV -O~t<V -O.o~ W. aV 7 Francnise Tax -MILLs/Kl'<H 0. Oo J~ 00 0. G. Total Revenues&utput at Retail Rates -Mi I ls/K<<H 34.72 26.V2 24. 32 3 I ~ 0c 25. 33 23. 25 COST OF INPUT A'UIIICIPAL UbLIV'cdY POINi Incremental Cost at V nnolesale Hate -Mi.l1 s/K <<H 37. VO 28.45 25.30 37 ~ V0 25. 'o 25 30 I<) i-uel Aajustment -MILLs/KnH -2.70 -2.70 -2.70 -2 '0 -2.7 J -2. 70 11 Suoto tel -Mi l 1s/KAH 35.20 25.75 22.50 35.2'-'5.7o 22.c0 Cost to Purcnase Po<<er ana Energy Losses to Hetail 12 Customer Delivery Point -Mills/KHH NA IIA ilA IIA <'IA 13 To al Cos- of InPut -MI <Ls/KI<H 35.2u 25.75 22.50 35 ~ 20 25. 7> 22. 50 DIFFEHEIICE - COST OF INPUT AND dEVEI<UES FRO<h OUTPUT 14 -Mills/KnH -0. 47 1.17 1.72 3mod -0.42 0.65 TOTAL ADDED COST TQ SEH VE REfAIL GUSTO<<Ed 15 Cost of Input -Mills/KHH 35 2v 25. 75 22. 60 35.2 J 25.75 22. 60 i)istribution Cost to Serve 16 detail Customer -Mills/KnH NA IIA NA NA 17 Total Adaed Cos -Mi lls/i(nii 35.20 25.75 22.6J 35.2'J 25 ib 22.60 18 IV 2~) NET MAHUIN OR LOSS of l -<ki.l s/Kl<H Revenues -~/Month -0 '7 -1.37 -47. 4 1.17 '4 234 '.72 7.05 515 ~ -3.66 -I I . 60 -731. --O.c2 I .o7 -16V . 0.55 2.61 DV3 ~ Page 6 TABLE 2 PRICE SQUEEZE IMPOSED ON MUNiICIPALS BY FLORIDA POWER h LIGHT'S WHOLESALE AND RETAIL RATES (Examples Showing Inability of Municipalities to Sell Power for Industrial or Commercial Loads of 500 KW to 1,000 KIV at Company's Present GS-D Retail Rates) RETAIL GUSH '=RS AT>> SU vM"It RAfcS 95 n COII>>CIDELICE OUTS IDc CITY USO(KW) USD (K.i ) (a) (o) (c) (d) (e) COtkPAIIY U>>t MUll ICIPAL Rc! VEIIUcS FRO)>> ()UTPUT AT CUMPAI(Y RhTAIL RATES I Delivery Voltage -KV 13 13 13 13 13 13 2 Demana -KW 500 503 I OX) I OQQ I OQQ 3 Hours of Use of"Demand 200 4QO 600 20Q 4 00 600 4 Kiiri-ln 'Ihousancs 100 200 300 4v'Q 6QQ 5 Base Revenues -Mi 1 1 s/KI>>ii 35+61 27.dl 25'0 32 ~ 43 26.2'O.ov 24, 14 6 >>tetaiL Fuel AaJustment -Mi LLs/K)iH W.av 0 dV We 89 -0. 89 ~) ~ dv 7 i-'rancnise Tax -Mi I Ls/Kr>>'rl u. 00 0. 0. 0. Total Revenue s-Uu Put at ' 32 d Retail Rates -MILLs/K>>H 34. 72 26. 92 2 31 ~ 54 25. 33 23+25 COST Ci'tiPUT AT MUMICIPAL DcLIVcRY POIlIT Incremental Cost at 9 wholesale Rate -Mi 1 1 s/i(>> H 36 95 27 Vd 24.98 so.V5 27.9o 24.V8 10 i'ue1 Ac Justmen -Mi 1 1 s/Ki'>>>>I -2 '0 -2.70 -2.70 -2 '0 -2.7 -2.70 II Suotota1 -Mills/K>>H 34.25 25.2d 22.29 ~4.2o 25.2" 22.2v'ost to Purchase>>JOI>>er and energy i osses to detaiL 12 Cus toner Delivery Point -MLLls/K>>H HA liA I)A iin i ~ J'I :<A 13 Total Cost of Input !Ji I Ll 5/KI>>H 34 '6 25.2d 2 ' 29 34 ~ 2o 25.28 22.2v DIFF"REIICc - COST Q'tlPU'i AHD>>>>c'vEt>>>>tcS FROM OUT)'I'T 14 -M 1 1 '/K>>H 0. 47 1.64 8.03 -2.71 u.QO Q.v TOTAL AOOcED COST TO SER VE R"TAIL CUSTGMER 15 Cost of Input -MILls/KIVH 34.26 25 ~ 2d 28+ 2V 34+ 25 25.28 22. 29 Distribution Cost to Serve 16 )I e t ai 1 Customer -tti I 1s/K>>H tIA IiA NA tIA lin ~ IA 17 Total Adcea Cost -Mills/KMH 34.2o 25.28 22. 29 34.25 25 ~ 2> 22.2V NcT MAR>>)II( OR LOSS 18 -M>> 1 i s/K>>'H 47 o54 2 ~ ()3 -2.71 0.05 Q.vi 19 -~ of Revenues Q 1.35 5 ~ OV 8. 35 -o. 50 O. I v '. l 7 20 <>)V. -543. 2~. bJI I . Page 7 TABLE 2 PRICE SQUEEZE IMPOSED ON MUNICIPALS BY FLORIDA POWER h LIGHT'S WHOLESALE AND RETAIL RATES (Examples Showing Inability of Municipalities to Sell Power for Industrial or Commercial Loads of 500 KW to 1,000 KW at Company's Present GS-D Retail Rates) d"'TAIL CUSTO.4='HS ATt SU JAcn iiAIcS 100 ~ COIHCID-IICc IN S I t) c C ITY v'SD(Kil ) v'SD< Kit ) (a) <c) <a) (e) CO A I<Y OH IIVIII C IPAL Hc V:IUcS I'(O!~ OUTPUT AT CO!4PAVY HiTAIL HAT"S I Delivery vol age -KV 13 13 13 13 Is 13 Demana -Kn 500 a CO 50J I OOJ I OOJ I 000 3 Iiours of Use of Demanc 200 400 o00 2O) 4~ 600 4 KnH-Ln Tnousanas 100 2CO JOD 2<)J 4(4 c00 Base Hevenues -i4L Lls/KnH 35.61 27.dl 2o. 20 32.4J 26. 24 24 ~ 14 5 Hetail c'uel Aa )ustment -wL Lls/Kl<H 0 shiv -O,bV -J+BV -U.dV -0. uv -'J. dV 7 ranchise Tax -!<L,LLs/KnH 1.74 I. 5 I o 22 I od I ~ 27 1.16 TotaL Hevenues-Output at o Hetail Hates -~tilLS/KbH 36.46 2do26 25.53 33. I2 6.OV 24o42 COST Oi: IHI'UT AT ~'UHICIPAL D"'VcHY POli<T Incremental Cost at iinolesaLe Hate -!hi 1 1 s/KnH 37.90 2d. 45 25.30 37.VJ 28.4o 25. JO V 10 rue) AaJustment )I L.l L s/K i{ r> 2 ~ 70 -2 ~ 70 -2 70 ~ -2.70 -2 'J -2.70 11 Suototal -ei 1 ls/K ih J5.20 25+75 22.60 35.2v 25.75 22.60 Cost to Purchase Power and energy Losses to Retail 12 Customer Delivery Point -!ki lls/Ki<li l<A !IA icA 1!A IIA ilA 13 Total Cost of input -!4!LLs/Knh 35.20 25. 75 22.60 35.2J 25.75 22.50 "I.=:"cHIII<C" - CMT OP IIIPUr Ahr) H'"V'=IIJcS i'HOW OUTPUt 14 i -!4 LL s/K nh 1.25 2.51 2.VJ 2 'd O.o4 1. 92 TOTAL ADL)cvJST TO S-Hvc HcTAIL CUSTO)<cH 15 Cost of Input Dlstriaution Cost to Serve -!>ills/I:i<h 35.20 25. 75 22 '0 35.2J 25 ~ 7u 22.60 16 hetai 1 Customer -!a 1 I Ls/KnH iVA !IA HA 11 A I<A HA 17 Total Acaeci Cost -~L lls/K)sH 35.2u 25. 75 22. 60 Jo. 2 J 25. 75 22.60 I;='T mAH IH O~ LOSS Id Itf 11 s/Knii 1.26 2.51 2.V3 -2.nd O.o4 I.d2 IV -~ of Revenues -s/n',anth 3.4O 126. d.d9 503. JI.4d 87V. -6 'd ~ lo. 3 '7 337. 7,'4 IOVO. 20 Page 8 TABLE 2 PRICE SQUEEZE IMPOSED ON MUNICIPAlS BY FLORIDA POWER I>> LIGHT'S WHOLESALE AND RETAIL RATES (Examples Showing Inability of Municipalities to Sell Power for Industrial or Commercial I oads of 500 KW to 1,000 KW at Company's Present GS-D Retail Rates) dc>> A I L C JSTO>> -d> vv>>>> SU tAAc>>t RAT 'S V5 ~ COIt'CID'"AC= IlvSI D" CITY 'St)(iivv ) (a) (o) (c) (eV COhrAi>>Y OH>>hUi>>ICIPAf HcVEttUcS 1.7cSi)(Kv'v) E)>>0~ CUT;"UT AT CC~:)'A.IY HcfAIL RATcS I Delivery Voltage -i V 13 13 13 13 I. 13 2 uemana -i(n 50O oQO 50J OQJ I OQa IOuu Hours ot'se of I 3 Denanc 20O 400 6l)3 20J 40u CE)O 4 Kv'>>H-I n Thousands 100 200 300 2OJ 400 630 Base Revenues ->>v.iLL s/t,'>>>>H 35. 61 27,dl 25 ~ 20 s2.4 J 26. 22 24 ~ I 6 detail i.uel AC)ustment -lhil's/K>>>>ii -0 oV ->>).dV W.CV >>)vdr -O.dr 0 ~ >>8 7 rrancnise Tax -)hi lls/Knii I . 35 >> ~ 22 I.5s 1.27 I ~ 15 Total Revenues-Output a>> Retail Rates >>hi L LS/KliH 36.46 28. 26 25. 5 J 33. 12 25.5r 2>> ~ >> 2 C~MT Oi't(PUT AT )hUIIIC{PAL DCLIVcdY POI!>>T Increnental Cost at nnolesaie Hate -.'2 I s/K4H 36. V5 27.Vd 2a ~ Vd J5 pro 27.r,t 2>> rd IJ Fuel Aojustment -ui LLs/K>> >>H -2. 70 -2.70 -2. 73 -2.70 -2.7J ~ -2. 70 II Suutotal -thil Is/K 1vii 34 ~ 20 25.2d 22.2V J '.25 25.2>> 22./V Cos- to rurcnase Power and Energy Losses to Retail 12 Customer Delivery Point -; ills/KnH liA !1A it A ~ vn 13 Toral Cost of Input ->>hi I '/Kivl 34.26 25v 2b 22. 24 v o ~2 2) )V ~ DI>>'r'"RE!>>Cc - COST Oi'!IP>>)T At>>D RhvEI>>JcS c'dGh OUTPUT I< -thi lls/K>>UI 2.21 2.vv .2o -l. I ' .~. 2.13 TOLAL ADDED COST TO SE!>> Vc d=hAIL CUSTOi'h"d 15 Cos- o. Input -~L LLs/KnH 34.26 25.2d 22v2V J4.26 25.2> 22 ~ 2V Oistribution Cos to Serve 16 detail Customer ->>h I L l s/K riH tvA >>>>A ~ ~ vvA ~ >>A ~ vA I7 To'tal Accec Cost -thi I l s/Kwii J4.26 25 ~ 2d 2c ~ 2V 3 '. 26 '-'5.2.. 22. 2v ld IV ltcT t(AduI!I Ot LOSS -" of->>hiRevenues 1 ls/K>>>>H 2 21 o.05 2 VV IOv57 ~.25 12v71 -I.I'.~2 3 ~ CJ Vo 2.13 5 ~ 73 20 -S/rlonth 221. 5V7. v>>74. -227. ~ C25. I'V. FLORIDA POWER 6 LIGHT COilPANY FPC Electric Tariff Original Volume No. 1 First Revised Sheet Ho. 5 SALE-FOR-RESALE RATE SCHEDULE - SR-1 AVAILASLE: In all territory served by the Company. APPLICATION: To electric service supplied to a municipal electric utility or to a cooperative non-profit membership corporation organi ed under the provisions of the Rural Electric Cooperative Law for their, own use or for resale. SERVICE: Three phase, 60 hertz at such delivery points: ()) as may be established at any location on the Company's interconnected system <<here the operating voltage is 69 KV, 115 KV, 138 KV or 230 KV, or (2) at any location on the Company's interconnected system '<<here the operating voltage is belo~ 69 KV and adequate capaciry is available to meet the customer's estimated load for the initial five years, and (3) at other points agreed upon by the Company and the customer. All service required at th'e point of delivery by the customer shall be furnished through one meter. Customer will provide, install, operate and maintain all necessary lines, substations, transformers, and other equipment necessary to utilize the electric service delivered hereunder, including the switching and protective equipment to be inst'alled at the point of delivery. LIMITATIOH OF SERVICE: Heither the Company nor the Customer, unless ordered to do so by a properly constituted authority, shall distribute or furnish electric power and energy to a customer of the other. No power and energy sold hereunder shall be resold a wholesale for use outside of the State of Florida. Standby or emergency service is not permitted hereunder. MONTHLY RATE, AT EACH POINT OF DELIVERY: For service at distribution voltage: ~Damnd Char a For each KH of Demand 53.78 pe IIN Reactive Demand Charjze For all rKVA by whzc the Reactive Demand exceeds one-half the measured KÃ demand $ 0.15 per rKVA Ener Char e 1.90 cents For service at 69 KV and higher: Discount 44 of the bill, before adjustments. Adjustment: The amount computed at the above Monthly Rate shall be adjusted mi.nus or plus by an amount calculated in accordance with the formulae specified in the Company's Fuel and Tax Adjustment Clauses which are incorporaied as a part of this Rate as Appendices A and B. Minimum: The current effective billing demand charge bu. not less than 5945 'EMAND: The demand is the IN to the nearest ~hole K'H, as determined from the Company's demand meter for the 15-minute period of Customer's greatest use during the current billing month, adjusted to preclude duplication of any demand that may have been occasioned by switching of load between delivery points, but not less than 50 of the highest demand metered during the preceding eleven months or less than 250 IN. In the event load is transferred to a new delivery point, the preceding eleven months demand at he delivery point from which load was transferred shall be appropriately adjusted for future billing purposes. Where the Company supplies the partial requirements of a customer at a point of delivery, the billing demand shall be the highest metered demand during the preceding eleven ronths adjusted to reflect service delivered under other appropriate rate schedules. ReACTIVE DEMAdal) The Reacrive Demand will be the maximum 15-minute rKVA demand measured during the month. Issued by: E fective Marshall Mc"onald Presiden Issued on: FLORIDA POWER 6 LIGHT COhfPAW FPC Electric Tariff First Revised Sheet No. 6 Original Volume No. 1 SALE-FOR-RESALE RATE SCHEDULE, - SR-1 PAYiiKiT: Bills for electric energy shall be rendered monthly by the Company and paid monthly by the Customer, and shall be due and payable within ten days from date rendered, and the Company shall have the right to discontinue the delivery of electric energy to Customer in the event Customer shall fail to pay any sum due, or in the event Customer otherwise violates this contract; provided that the Company shall give Customer at least sixty (60) days'ritten notice of its intention to discontinue the delivery of electric energy and the reason therefor. Customer shall have such period in which to pay such sum or cure such default; provided, however, that the foregoing shall not be applicable to the extent that a bona fide dispute exists. RULES AND REGULATIONS: Service under this rate is subject to orders of governmental bodies having jurisdiction and to the currently effective "General Terms and Conditions" and contract agreements applicable to Rate Schedule SR-1. The rate and any provisions herein, or any provisions in the "General Terms and.Conditions," are subject to changes or substitutions, either in whole or in part, made from time to time by a legally effective filing of the Company with, or by order of, the regulatory authorities having jurisdiction. Both the Company and the Customer shall have the right to seek unilaterally changes or substitutions from such regulatory authorities. Issued hy: Effective: ."mrshall PaOonald President Issued on: FLORIDA POWER 6 LIGHT COMPANY ~ FPC Electric Tariff ~ Original Volume No. 1 First Revised Sheet No. 8 APPENDIX-A FUEI. ADJUSTMENT CLAUSE APPLICABLE: To the Monthly Rate of each filed rate schedule as indicated with reference to Adjustment. CALCULATION OF FUEL ADJUSPalEhT: Each energy charge oE the Monthly Rate shall be decreased or increased .001< per kilowatt-hour for each .001'ecrease below or increase above 1.340e per kilowatt-hour in the cost oE Fossil and Nuclear fuel Eor each kilowatt-hour delivered in the second preceding month, as calculated in accordance with the Eollowing formula: FA ~ 1.340 1.016S2 S m Where: FA w Applicable fuel adjustment per kwh delivered to be applied to each kwh of energy billed in the current month or billing cycle. F ~ Cost to the Company in the second preceding month of Fossil and Nuclear fuel used during the month, including: (1) Fossil and Nuclear fuel consumed in the Company's own plants, and he Company's share or fossil and nuclear fuel consumed in jointly owned or leased plants. (2) The actual identifiable Fossil and Nuclear fuel costs associated with energy purchased for reasons other than identified in (3). (3) The net energy cost of energy purchases, exclusive of capacity or demand charges (irrespective of the designation assigned to such transaction) when such energy is purchased on an economic dispatch basis. Included therein may be such costs as the charges Eor economy energy purchases and the charges as a result o. scheduled outage, all such kinds of energy being purchased by the Company to sub-stitute for its own higher cost energy; and less; (4) The cost of Fossil ard Nuclear fuel recovered through inter-system sales including the fuel costs related to economy energy sales and other energy sold on a economy dispatch basis. S ~ Net kwh input into the Company's system for the supply oE energy in its operating area for the second preceding month, equated as the sum of (a) generation, (b) purchases, (c) interchange in, less (d) intersystem sales referred to in (4) above, less (e) total syscem losses. This sum shall then be adjusted to reflect a loss factor oE 2.664 assoc-iated with wholesale sales !or resale. The adjustment factor computed above shall be Eurther modified to allow for recovery oE 1.6254 State of Florida revenue taxes occasionei by the Euel adjustment revenues. Zssued by: g ective: Varshali HcDonald President Zssued on: 4 4 7 l' FLORIDA POWER 5 LIGHT COHPAi%'PC Electric Tariff Original Volume No. 1 Original Sheet No. 9 APPENDIX- B TAX ADJUSTMENT CLAUSE APPLICABLE: To the khnthly Rate of each filed rate schedule as indicated with reference to Adjustment. CALCULATION OF TAX ADJUSTMENT: Minus or plus the applicable proportionate part of any taxes and assessments imposed by any governmental authority below or in excess of those in effect on the effective date hereof, which are assessed on the basis of meters or customers or the price oi or revenues from electric energy or service sold or the volume of energy generated or purchased for sale or sold. Issued by Effective: <marshall Hcnonald ?resident Issued on: FLORIDA POWER 8: LIGHT COilIPANY Original Sheet No. 8.105 GENERAL SERVICE - DEMAND -- Rate Schedule GSD AVAILABLE: ln ail territory served. APPLICATION: For electric service required for lighting, power'and any other purpose with a measured Demand in excess of 20 kw for which no specific rate schedule is applicable. SERVICE: Single or three phase, 60 cycles and at any available standard voltage. All service required on premises by Customer shall be furnished through one meter. Stand-by or resale service not permitted hereunder. MONTHLY RATE: Customer Charge: 516.50 De=and Charge: November - Aoril May - October $ 2.50 per kw for the firs: 500 kw, 52.,65 per kw for the first 500 kw, 51.75 per kw for all additional kw. 51.85 per kw for all additional kw. Energy Charge: November - April May - October 2.9c per kwh for first 20,000 kwh, 3.1e per kwh for first, 20,000 kwh, 1.8c per kwh for all additional kwh. 2.0C per kwh for all additional kwh. Note: The change in monthi> rate will be effective with meter readings on May 1st and November 1st. Minim : The Customer Charge plus the charge for the currently effective demand which shall not be, less than 10 kw. Adjustment: The amount computed at the above Monthly Rate shall be adjusted minus or plus by an amount calculated in accordance with the formulae specified in the Company's Fuel and Tax Adjustment Clauses which are incorporated by refe:ence as a part of this Rate Schedule and as filed with the Florida Public Service Commission. DE~AND: The Demand is the kw to the nearest whole kw, as determined from the Company's demand meter for the 30-minute period of Customer's greatest use during the month as adjusted :or power factor, but not less than 10 kw. TERM OF SERVICE: Not less than one year. RULES AND REGULATIONS: Service under this schedule is subject to orders of governmental bodies having juris-diction and to the currently effective "General Rules and Regulations for Electric Service" on file with the Florida Public Service Commission. In case of conflict between any pro-vision of this schedule and said "General Rules and Regulations for Electric Service" the provision of this schedule shall apply. Issued by: Marshall McDonald, President Ef feet ive: )</+~y ]975 ~ Sc<<ond Rcv I scd She ct No. 8. 84II ', FLORIDA POiYER E" I.IGHT COMPANY (.an<<cls I:irst Shc<<t Ão. 8.II.i0 FULL COST AND PURCIIASL'D POIi'ER ADJUSTMI!hi CI RUSE APPLICABLE: To thc Monthly Rate of each filed rate schedule as indicated with rcfcrcnce to Adjustmcnt. CALCULATIOM: Minus or plus an adjustmcnt calculated in accordance with thc formula spccificd by thc Florida Public Scrvicc Conaission designed to give cffcc- to changing cfficicncy as well as the changing cost of fossil and nuclear fuels and purchased power as summari"cd below: Each energy charge of thc Monthly Rate shall be dccrcascd or increased .001) pcr kilowatt-hour for each F 001< decrease below or increase above 1.21SC per kilowatt-hour in the cost of fossil and nuclear fuels and purchased power for cath kilo>>att-hour dclivcred, including adjustments for cnerg> losses, gross receipts tax and regulatory trust fund fcc, during the se~d preceding month. Issued by: Marshall hfcf4nald, Prcsi dent liffcctivc: ( J ~ ( ~ ]97' R. V/. BEc~ ~xD AssociATEs ENCiiVEERS ANO CONSULTANTS PLAiVNINC SEATTLE, WASHINCTQN OESIC I OEMVER. COLORAOO 1510 EAST CQ LON IAL 0 R I VE RATES PHOENIX, ARIZONA POST OffICE BOX EBI7 ANALYSES QRLANOQ, f LORIOA ORLANOO. f LORIOA 32S03 EVALUATIONS CQLUhIBUS. NEBRASKA AIAiVACEIiIENT TELEPHONE 30SiB96 4911 WELLESLEY. AIASSACHUSETTS INOIANAPOI.IS. INDIANA fILE No. FF-5149-EG1-MW April 21, 1976 iVlr. J. K, Daniel, Coordirator Florida Power h Light Company'. O. Box 013100 hCiami, Florida 33101
Dear Ken:

Subject:

Agreement to Provide Transmission Service Between Florida Power K: Light Company and the Utilities Commission of the City of New Sm ma Beach, Florida In response to your letter of April 15, 1976, regarding the subj ct matter, we have considerable corcern regarding tne costs proposed by FPErL for transmission service and the basis on which those costs have been developed by the Company.
Of course we are very concerned about the prospect of the Utilities.,
Commission paying a double transmission charge, one to Florida Power Corpo-ration and one to FP8cL, to have its 4. 63 M%'wnership share of Crystal Rive" No. 3 nuclear unit output delivered to its facilities. Ever. a cursory examina-tion reveals that under an integrated statewide Florida power pool a fair share of statewide pool transmission investment proportiorate to a 4. 63 i>DV usage of transmission facilities would result in a capita) cost to the Utilities Com-mission which it could amortize annually at a cost far less than the cost of the double xates that would be paid to the two companies under the proposed bi-lateral arrangements. The approach of the Utilities Commission making an investment in t ansmission facilities, which approach is be ..g used in Georgia in lieu of transmission charges and should be possible for municipali-ties under the constitutional amendment approved by tne voters in November, 1974, was proposed to FPIlcL in the CozrzussionIs initial proposal for trans-mission from St. Lucie No. 2 in the letter to L'vf . Mulholland dated iNovember 13, 1974, from Ivfr. John Kelly.
Mr. Z. K. Daniel April 21, 1976 Aside from the approach of making a capi.al investment in trans-mission facilities, looking at the combined investment of the two companies in bulk power transmission facilities, an annual charge based on such invest-ment and reasonable company fixed charges would still indicate a transmission charge for wheeling 4. 63 MW over the facilities of both companies of about half the potential double charge under the proposed bi-lateral arrangements.
I am sure you can see how serious this matter is for the Coz."~ssion since your proposed arrangement would apparently result in a payznent to FPhL, based on 3'une 30, 1975 test period figures, of $ 12. 85/kW/year. Florida Power's new T-1 (Transmission Service) rate which it expects.to file before commercial operation of CR-3 will be an increase ove the $ 5. 05/kW/year rate in the present tariff.
Aside from the problem of a double rate, we have some real concerns about the znethods and costs proposed by FP&L under the bi-lateral arrangeznent. For example, under the work sheets on which you developed the $ 12.85/kW/year rate (copy attached), there appear to be discrepancies in the nuznbers, the accounts, and the functionalized pla~t that would be utilized in providing transmission (wheeling) se vice to ibew Smyrna Beach when this calculation is compared to the testiznony and e~bits sponsored by Mr. Richard 2'ierce, Principal Consultant of Zbasco Services Inc., on behalf of FPhL in its recently filed wholesale rate request "SR-1," FPC Docket No. ER76-211. (See attached copies of pertinert portions of M . P erce's testimony, pages 5, 6 and 8, and obit M-l, Period 1, "Functionalized Production, Transmission and Distribution Plant in Service" which are attached.) We note that your work papers include "Accounts 350 through 390."
Since these account numbers include distribution accounts, we fail to see how such investznent is used in providing transmission service.
We see no evidence of your having functionalized transmission plant into "Power Supply," "Comznon," "Specific," "General," or "Sub-Transmission" as Mr. Pierce has done in his testimony for your rate case.
We consider it iznportant in developing a fair transmission rate for the Utilities Coznmission, that will be taking transmission service at 115 kV through the new interconnection under construction, that only the cost of your bulk power supply transmission investznent be utilized as a basis for the rate for trans-mis sion service.
Looking at Mr. Pierce's exhibit, only the "Power Supply" invest-ment'would clearly be'used and useful in supplying transmission service to iNew Smyrna Beach; and of that investment, there wou1d have to be deducted the investment in step-up faciL'ties at you= generation plants since these do not
Mr. Z. K. Daniel ~ 3 April 21, 1976 function as transmission for wheeling pov'er over your systezn from Florida Power to New Smyrna Beach. It is clear that the investment in all "Subtrans-mission" and "Specific" transmission facilities as defined and identified by Mr. Pierce would not be includable in calculating a cost justified transznission rate to New Smyrna Beach's 11S kV facilities. It is doubtful if any of the "Common" facilities would be used and useful, but we have no way of know'ng without znore detail, Also, we cannot identify what Mr. Pierce has included under "General" and how that is allocated or assigned so that we can identify that portion associated only with bulk "Power Su'pply" transmission.
Therefore, the information required to properly analyze a fair and reasonable cost justified rate includes the following:
(1) A map of the FPKcL, system showing all "Power Supply" trans-mission facilities used and useful in providing txansmission service to New Smyrna Beach.
(2) Details of Plant investment of all such "Power Supply" trans-mission facilities including a break out of step-up facilities that would be excluded from transmission investment for transmission service purposes. This data should be in sufficient detail so that the break outs made by Mr. Pierce into "Sub-transmission," "Common " "Specific " and "General" can also be identified and included or excluded as may be appropriate for the investment on which a trans-mission rate might be based.
Further, as to a fair rate for transmission serv'ce, we have consistently taken the position in our negotiations with you regarding trans-mission service that the transmission system serves multiple purposes including (1) power deliveries, (2) transmission reliability (alternative paths in the event of a line fault), and (3) generation reliability (in the event of a generation outage). In recognition of these facts we strongly believe, and otner utilities in the state have agreed, that an adjustment for generation reliability should be made when calculating a fair- transmission rate where the system is used to deliver power from one utility to another, such as the case for wheeling CR-3 power and energy from Florida Power to New Smyxna Beach. In the Florida Power T-l tariff that generation reliability reduction is 30'Pa. Unless FP8cL has made its own studies to determine a different reasonable percentage, we suggest this ratio be used for the subject trans-mission service.
Mr. J. K. Daniel April 21, 1976 Finally, we note on the attached work sheets that you propose as the cost of capital using the following rates:
A. Long Term Debt - Most Recent Transaction - 9. 85%
B. Preferred Stock - Cost of Most Recent Transaction - 10. 08%
C. Equity - Most Recent Return on Equity Approved by a Regulatory Authority - 15. 00%.
We do not understand how the Company feels such rates are cost justified. New Smyrna Beach has not asked FP8rL to build any new facilities to provide the service. You might want to use such rates to make an economic analysis of alternative new facilities, but they are clearly not appropriate in any fair cost of service analysis. In fact, in your rate case, Statement G, the foQowing cost of capital ates appear:
A. Debt Capital Period I, at June 30, 1975.........
Period Il, at December 31, 1976...... 7. 57%

7. 80%

B. Preferred Stock Capital Period I, at June 30, 1975.........
Period II, at December 31, 1976...... 8. 14%

8. 14%

Further, a transmission rate for New Smyrna Beach would be under the jurisdiction of the Federal Power Commission. That Comr.".ission nas not handed down its decision in Docket No. E-8008 so we do not know what return on equity capital will be granted, but we doubt it will approach 15. 00%. We suggest using 12, 50% until the decision is handed down and tnereafter using whatever is set forth therein.
We both know how important the requested transmission service is to the Utilities Commission of New Smyrna Beach; however, we cannot recom-mend to the Commission that they accept a completely unjustified, exorbitant rate for that service which is not and cannot, in our opinion, be cost justified.
We suggest, therefore, that the Company, which has the details of its trans-mission system, furnish us with the necessary details as requested so that we may prepare a proper rate for your consideration. Also, you may want to review the material previously furnished and modify it along the lines sugges ed hereh.
Mr. J. K. Daniel April 21, 1976 Regarding the information on the proposed switching station site, the approximate location has been known to the Company since the very initi-ation of our negotiations on the high voltage interconnection. You were shown by Mr. Kelly on a drawing the exact site the Commission was intending to acquire some znonths ago. Further our Denver Design Departznent has been in frequent contact with your engineering personnel from Miami, including a visit by your Mr. Cogburn to our Denver Design office. We know of no engineering considerations other than the number of spans involved that depend upon the actual location along your line that could not have been made at any time since execution of the interconnection Agreement. We trust that all necessary engineering and material procurement has proceeded by FPE;L such that you wiL~ be coznpletely ready to energize the interconnection when the Commission facilities are cozr;pleted. As requested, Mr. Moriarty of our Denver office transznitted by letter of April 13, 1976, a plot plan of the switching station showing the arrangement and containing a coznplete legal desc iption of tne property which the Commission has, by resolution, taken steps to acquire.
Very truly yours, R. W. BECK AlVD ASSOCLCTES P/M~~ G Robert Z. Bathen W7 Manager, Orlando Regional Office RZB/ebf Enclo sur e s cc Robert A. Jablon, Esquire Mr. John R. Kelly
LLW 12-18-75 METHOD FOR CALCULATIOH OF TRANSMISSION DELIVERY SERVICE OF THE CRYSTAL RIVER POLlER RESOURCES OF THE UTILITIES COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF t<Dl SHYRllA BEACH, FLORIDA A. Costing Period 12 Months Ending June 3Q, 1975 B. Transmission Facilities (Accts. 350 thru 390)
Plant $ 41 8,803,822 Oepr. Reserve (77,421,876)
I'let 341 38 946 C. Annual 60 minute on Company's system 7,076,000 KH

0. Capital Structure Long Term Debt 57.95 Preferred Stock 9.00 Common Stock 33.05 100.00

E. jncome Tax'actor (1.0 - State) {1.0 - Federal)
{1.0 - .05) . (1.0 - 0.48) .4940 F. Cost of Capital A. Long Term Debt - Cost of most recent transaction 9.85 x .5795 = 5.71 B. Preferred Stock - Cost of most recent transaction 10.08 x .09 = 1.84
.4940 C. Equity' Host recent return on equity approved by a regulatory authority
~9a 15.00 x .3305 = 10.04 lTYf G. Transmission Operating Expense including but not limited to operation and maintenance, depreciation, taxes other than income
$ 30,891,065 H. Cost per KH at Transmission Service Cost of Capital times net transmission plant plus operating expense divided by the Company's annual peak 'load 17.59 x 341,381,946 = 560,049,084
~oo 30,891,065 EK.9,1 9 590,940,149 ='12. 85/K'.%YR 7,076,000
I used the actual cost data for the calendar year 1974, actual cost data for',the year end June 30, 1975, and budgeted figures for the year 1976.
Nhat are your conclusions based on the results of 6 the study?
7 8 The two classes of Nholesale Service show a 9 significant revenue deficiency for the projected year 1976, based on a desired rate of retu n from ll 10 12 operations of 10.39 percent rate of eturn on rate base. About 2.98 percent of Florida Power &
13 Light Company 1976 projected sales revenues were 14 accounted for in its wnolesale operations. In 15 projected year 1976 the overall rate of return 16 from wholesale operations is 6.36 percent.
17 Between the years 1973 and 1976, a three year 18 period, Florida Power & Light Company will have 19 increased their total investment 'in utility plant 20 by more than 30 percent, due to the necessity to 21 accommodate load growth. During this. period, 22 approximately 33 percent of the increase has been 23 in production facilities. It is essential'o the 24 continued ability of Florida Power & Light Company 25 to .provide dependable service that the financial 26 needs associated with these higher costs are met.
27 28 Please describe your overall process o cost, 29 allocation?
30 31 I have used a conventional three-step procedure 32 which consists of functionalization, classification 33 and allocation.
34 35 Q Nhat is meant by functionalization?
36 37 Functionalization is the assignment of the Company's 38 plant, revenues and expenses among operating functions 39 suitable for allocation.'he basic Uni form System of 40 Accounts is inadequate for a cost allocation study 41 because it does not recognize distinctions occurring 42 within each accounting funct'on.
43 44 As an example, the transmission categorv of the 45 Uni orm System of Accounts does not distinguish
1 between plant, functioning at 500 kV, 240 kV, 138 kV, 2 115 kV or 69 kV. The Ebasco functionalization 3 recognizes the various functions for which transmission 4 facilities are utilized.
5 6 Q Can you give me an example of the way the Ebasco 7 Method of functionalization works?
8 9 A Yes. Certain transmission lines and their substations 10 which connect generating stations and establish 11 interties with other utilities and form power loops 12 for the bulk transmission of power, have been designated 13 as being part of the power supply function-whose 14 related plart, revenues and costs are equally shared 15 by all customers on the system.
16 17 Analysis of the Florida Power & Light Companv 18 system also shows certain transmission tap lines 19 with associated substations. Where these are required 20 for an identifiable customer they have been function-21 alized in a specific category; that is, the costs of 22 the lire and the required switch gear have been 23 assigned airectly to the customer's class of service.
24 25 Zn another case where a transmission line serves 26 a wholesale customer as well as tne general etail .
27 requirements o the surrounding area, this tap line, 28 with associated switch gear, has been assigned to 29 the common function.
30 31 All transmission facilities other than those 32 previously set forth are functionalized as general.
33 34 g What is meant by classification, 'the second step in 35 your process of cost allocation?
36 37 A Classification is the assignment of functionalizea 38 plant, revenue and costs to demand, energy or 39 'ustomer components o service. "Demand related" 40 costs are those costs consiaered to be a function 41 of either the demand coincident with the system 42 peak, the class non-coincident peak demands or 43 customer non-coincident peak demands. "Energy 44 related" costs vary with annual kilowatt-hour 45 requirements. The customer component of cost
'46 varies with the numbe" of customers.
The energy purchased by the class at the individual 2 voltage levels was then expanded upward to the 3 busbar to determine the c3.asses energy allocation 4 factor as a percent against total energy generated.
5 The same procedure was utilized for Periods I and 6
7 II.
8 Q 9
10 13.
12 13 A All other items of rate base were analyzec and 14 assigned to the Production, Transmission, Dist i-15 bution, Customer Accounts, Sales or Revenue Functions.
16 The items were further spread on percentages developed 17 within the function to subfunction re3.ationships on 18 the basis of the original analysis.
19 20 Revenues from sales of electricity reflect the 21 annual sales revenues by class. Other electric 22 revenues were assigned following relatec items of 23 tangible plant.
24 25 Operating deductions excluding income taxes 26 were assignee on the basis of relatec elements of 27 tangible plant.
28 29 Income taxes were developed and ass'gned on 30 the basis of taxable income.
31 32 Q Please describe the exhib'ts relating to your cos 33 analysis .
34 35 A Wholesale Cost cata =or the cost analysis study is 36 shown in tne schedules collectively referred to 37 as "Statement N." Statement H is submitted as 38 Exhibit iso. (RP tlI) for Perioc I and Exnibit 39 No. (RP NII) for Period II. The first page 40 of Statement H for both Periocs I and IX is a 41 summary of rate base, operating income and rate 42 of return at present rates for the two wholesa3.e 43 classes.
44 45 Statement N-1 summarizes the functional assign-46 ment and classification of Production, .ransmission
SSH4HN Sl SHIN OW4 ~ I IQN Ceew IIKINHII)so ISNCONO, OMMSSM W NMOMSS IOM It SIN)II Wl OCH I Nt PH 4, HOS
~ ar (h)!~ol hs III I
N)
I IW I lg to%HI Ill I
%OH are\
~ SJ lel I
I ls
~
CN
)I)
~
lerl (e
~
CN 4
)4 I
~
I(
414 HH Is(
Vt
~
~
ee eow (tekel oho Nl
~
Nrt (rhe) ilv IH
~
~
seh (N)
I
~
) htc Mh ~
g.
Nl)
I o)L )evl (V)
I LW leo ~
II I)
Noae J)WJ(a II~ I I
H ION 4 JVOC I 4)
I lorw IN)
~
~ OH
~ terroL (Il)
~
te 1 IMH ooore
~
ISO4 oretc IN)
~
Nro Irho(
(HI I
g hale NN I
1 tro(~ ~
~s VII C
NM
)
1)CI N))
I IPI VN Cr l~
MOON, Vl (HI
~ HM Hot Crl<<
Heh ~ 4, I4
~
't)5'I Ig(~-
In)
I (4)
%4 4eel I e>>,
NO4 Ill)
~
local N
I (h)e (N)
I
~ M, Nloeo lhtle )N )H J4t JV N,HIJN IJS JH V)JNW Itpel,'W 4 le)JN NJOL)N NSS IN SLIHPH ~ let JN Hl Weel ~ Jle Jlt NA)tJH )NJN,)H N,NI,W ~,IN lel V wipes IPH.tle,)N I,M,)n.rl (se w) Inl,w) (V).IH)
"C)j a.e . )rp)rv) Nrpc) J() )rpl IJC) rppp)t s)rnrvr )IJNM vpc)w sl-.vsJN )rJNJN N)NJ)1 CSNJ)) c)rvcLJN r)vPs( N.V%PI( IN.CNJII )rscrvc t3$ 1)( v~)Il:w) IQ:w<N) S.tel.lh JN rlVJSS.V()
~ elPV Ju Rj)).))) scarp Jv NJV,SI I ~,IH Je1 W Nl PI I N.%N JH
~,M.4el N. W PH LMHI ~ I.N ~ N,INWS hreoh 1%%
V.e S l,lwpa) ).INAOI ~ 1 JH N,\II ~,M Ja)
N 4 al WPH H,W,IH t,nl 'Ht NJN W,W n Jel IJ 4 JH
)hh
~ ~
~ 4.1st NAH,M 4
N H
C hhlele N Joe,lol S,VLln W JN ItJN Jol ~ ).M.VI NAVAN INA14 ~ Jotpal I,M.HI IAO),OH N,%N
w I N),VI I,W.N4 t,pe,W IJI)AN ')HAH V%AN WAH 44.W,')OI v)'Jo) t)JH'.I>>
~ .Nl Je)
~ el, Ke,hl i%pe) OH
%.1H,NI H 4 ~,Neph I Pl)AH )hwlJN N.HLVI N Is)JN vpvplt vlonl n),MJll W,se JN IS N
~ ~
I Sees)
Ntpel I,SN
~ IJN N.IH I~ W)AN JHAN ~ Aa),IN IWIJN ~ AOLIN Ie N
hr Swp I eh ~ .%N ~ )Aa~
JV tnpel
~,IN.)OI S.ae)'.W N4Aat N% L)M%4 ~ JH,HI H Lro LHI) N,ao\ 144,NI IN,)n ~,W V).M W)PH 4 HAH ~ HPN W JH 1),W WAN ~V JH n ler tie 1 nl. Hl I.HSJN I AN.)41 N,NI ~ JH IPO).)H )ANJN
)C ~ ol ~ 4 Jtl I N),14 I,NL'IN L)N,VI I on'M )%Pal SAH,W ~ PH.N1 II 44) ~ IPN IN IN NlJN N
n C~I ao
~,wl ee JH
~
I AH.M ~ .Nl.nl I.he,nl
~ JN,1P
~,OH, ln N,%el lelJn 1,4N,)N ~,NI,V) 4.4N,HI IJN JV V,lel,lll IN AH,M He.vl,w le N 4 rw NPN npr N.IH NAN NAH NJel NJN N P) I tNJN Hw NPN M,M W.V) )N,SO I Coo Vs)An CHPN Color)
~ Pt n JN JII NPH lal III,INPI) ll),NO,HI It,en Pal H,wtJtl Lle tl,lH IN It;ro,vt ~ 4AH,NI ~ OA41,)V C 1),ON 41 N.NIJN le J A,en ))pit 44 t
Q ~ IPOIAN N,NIJ41 ~ IAOI,)N ~ IJel JN rre MM a),NL4ll N,lh,t ~ n.er'.Hr ItPO) oV
~
N,I HJH N.SH.%N H.IN,M n,appal n,enpee n.'anpoe I,NLHl ~ PHAN SI All.nl I)AH.VI CHMS re I ~ LWJN t,'ISL IN ~ WPH LWJN
~ W
~ JN JN I IJn Jlt I).IOO.Nt V.NOAOS
~ I Crhw ) JN,Ht lpel.lN 1 J)l JH \Pn Jel
~ ee 4 Ce
~ I Hwr N. )H ItJle N,NO
~ I
~
~
~ Nle
~ ,tol IJl ~ ~ Jet H I N JN.W I)I,N)JH IN.N)JH
~1 ~ s.sn.m N,alt,nl ~ I,IHJn
~H )HH
~ IA)l,lel ~ lpel,lel H A)l,lo)
~e CHO Il,44 Pl I le,let pn I\,lte pn
} I j).C
~ I HAN,)e) IIAHJ)l eapN,)el 1 NL)ee Nt 'V Na JH N n PH J N )OPS JH n AHJ N St ~C<< HAH.eh HAHPN N t, W,OH I,leph SJ N re~~lore N,ala,ht N ~ I ~, al N 414 'M
~/~ geP I i/
P. O. 0:)y OISIN, /:.A !irII. '
Iiii)i'equi)l

u. '+ {~@ V' gi (t I II i)II!;gA I'(jA'iII,'0 I IGHI LQMIaA'aY Marcn 31, 1975 New Smyrna Utilities Commission ~ ~ a P.O. Box 519 New Smyrna Beach, Florida 32069 Gent3.emen:

in connection with the Atomic Energy Commission review of Florida Power 6 Light's application.to construct Unit 2 of the St. Lucie plant, we agreed to provide certain utility systems advance notice of ou plans for "the next nuclear generating unit to be constructed after St. Lucie Unit 2."
This is to advise you that FPL is now considering seeking the necessary regulatory authorizations to construct a nuclear unit at a site in the southern part of Dade County, Florida, or some other acceptable site. No fi m decisions have been reached with respect to the specific type or size of reactor to be utilized, although we are considering standardized reactor designs in the 1,100-1,300 MW range.
Moreover, while no firm decisions have been reached with respect to'iming, we contemplate completion of a unit in the general time frame of 1983-85.
Sincerely, J
8/ j
~""~
Q 1
.~ 4 g(L:
Tracy Dan/ac Director of Public Affairs TD: mh HELPING Bl'ILO PLORIOA
UTI LITIES COM M ISS ION Oy2g6
-eI CITY OF NEW SMYRNA SEACH POST OFFICE BOX 5 I 9 R. II 'eet g
)gp4
~SSGG(
NEW SMYRNA SEACMe FLORIOA 22049 ttanttno. F -tates Fla CYW L. 'NLLla4 z~SG COvwGIOo (hWsktl iVovember 25, 1974 N\IITMI INSIDE( ~
CHJNLIS I. JANIMO wtGswIT G. ere'!1C vKI O 4I~ asl ~ laal NCMIMW J4CX I, ttOf Siii Kiwi Qu~>
~ t le ~1 Mr. Ben H. Fuqua, Esq.
Senior Vice President Florida Power 5 Light Company Post Office Box 3100 Miami, Florida 33101

Dear Mr. Fuqua:

have your letter of November 20 in response to my letter of IVovember 13, relative to our participation- in St. Lucie o. Vi 2 and related matters.
I appreciate your prompt response and your suggestion that. we set a mutually convenient, date to discuss in detail additional power supply for New Smyrna Beach.
By copy of this letter I am alerting our Counsel, Spiegel McDiarmid and our Engineers R. W. Beck tt Associates of the meeting subject to an agreed place, time and date.
If you are in agreement let's shoot for the week of December 1, say 4, 5 or 6 at your office in Miami.
I am also taking the liberty of informing Mr. Abraham Braitman Chief of the Office of Anti-Trust g Indemnity of the Atomic Energy Commission, so that he can have a representative present if he j.s so inclined.
As soon as I hear from you I will contact the others to try "nd confirm a date certain.
I will be"out of the office the rest of this week, but will in-struct my secretary to follow through in trying to firm the arrangements as soon as we have your response.
Sincerely, UTILITIES COiMMISSION ty of New Smyrna Beach ohn R. Kelly irector JRK:p cc: i~fr. Bob Jablon, Esq., Mr. Bob Bathen $ Mr. Abraham Braitman
p....,~ r ~~~.""~N aa,'~ 'A FI.OH:O'Oi"ER 6 l. g~ ~ '.'=<<. ~
HAND DELIVERED February 26, 1974 Mr. Joh.-. F.
~
O'eary Director Direc"o"=-te of Licensing United S"ates Atomic Energy Commission Washi.-.".tcn, D. C.
Re: Florida Powe" and Light Company St. Lucie, Unit No. 2, AZC Docket No. 50-389A

Dear '.:

". O'eary:
The license conditions attachec to your letter of February 25th are acce"-able to Florida Power and Light Company as a resolution of al an"'rust matters with regard to this Docket. Acco di..gly, Flor'"a =c"er and Light Company ag "ees to inclusion of these condi-tions '.-. the licenses issued in th's Docket.
\
A"cep"ance of these license conditions is for the purpose of avo'"'.-." an antitrust hea=ing in the proceeding, and is not co be constr"e= as an admission that any s'tuation inconsistent with the anti = s= laws would be created o" maintained by activities u..der an uncc.-."'tioned license, or that Florida Power and Ligh- Company is ot'.".er>>is in violation of any o= the antitrust laws.
Sincerely, Ben H. Fuqua Senior Vice President
~ ~

Cps ~ Z ~ ~ ~ ~

November '.?0, 1974 Mr. John P,. Kelly Director Utilities Commission City of New Smyrna Beach P . O. Box 519 New Smyrna Reach, Florida 32069

Dear Mr. Kelly:

This responds to your letter. of November 13 2974 Mr. Ral p h G.i. Nulhholland. Your letter i..c'udes a -.roposal consisting of eight items and states th t "'t a xn keeping with [FPL's] commitments to the Atomic Fnergy Commission as a condition of license for St . Lucae >>o. 2, in hecate its acceptance of this proposal . . . ." The letter, dated November 13, 1974, concludes: "Your our acceptance a t equired to complete the evaluation is requested as soon as possib3.e, but not later than November 21, 1974,"
I should like to preface my response with a b.rie '
review of the back ro ac ground of this matter with respect to the opportunit r un@ y to participate in St. Lucie Unit 2.
On April 26, 1974, I wrote to the City of New Smyrna Reach advising of FPL's willingness to offer to the City an oppor-tunity to own a share of St. Lucie Unit 2. On Ma 1 197 uc, Catty Manager, acknowledged my letter, stating that it had been forwarded to the Chairman of thee 1 i ies of the City of New Smyrna Beach and also referred Util't'ommission for information to Members of the City Commissi'on. S ome weeks later ono June 24, 1974, Mr. Jablon (counsel for r thee x sties
) re quested certain information about St Eucie U 't Ut'1'ommission)

2. On August st 21, Mr. Mulholland responded in detail to Mr. Jablon's request, including in his response cost estimates w'th hach were not developed for submission to the AEC i respect until August, 1974. We heard nothing further from New Smyrna Beach in regard to this matter until receiving, on Friday, November 15, your letter of November 13.

Obviously, and particularly in view of this b ac ground, it is unreasonable for you to insist that FPL analvze de fini tive 1 y i l ess than five
'n business days to a yze an your proposal.
and respon d.
However, your proposal goes so far beyond wh'at is required by the St. Lucie Unit 2 license conditions and is so foreign to any proposals previously discussed between us that I th'ln 1't isa ppx o priate to provide you with FPL's initial views with regard 4o several of the items in your proposal.
V Items 1 and 2 of your proposal suggest that the "Utilities Commission agrees to take and pay for a 3.7037% share" of St.
Lucie Unit 2, amounting to appxoximately 30 Mw. This amount of capacity compares with New Smyrna Beach's total 1972 peak of approximately 20 Mw. FPL's intent in agreeing to offer to the City of New Smyrna Beach and other named systems the opportunity to share in ownership of St. Lucie Unit 2 was that ownexship shares of potential participants would be based upon each system's purchases of power from FPL in 1972. According o he formu'la which we are proposing to all participants named in the license conditions, New Smvrna Beach would be for St. Lucie Unit 2. This amounts to'less than 1/30 capacity requested in your proposal.
'f entitled to 946 Kilowatts (.946 MN), based on 802 Mwe net rating the Item 4 of youx proposal pertains to St. Lucie Unit 1. The St. Lucie Unit 2 license conditions contain no reference to St. Lucie Unit 1, and FPL has never considered selling any portion of Unit 1..
Your Item 5 suggests that New Smyxna Beach would invest in transmission facilities now owned by FPL'. Ne do not construe the St. Lucie Unit 2 license conditions as requiring that FPL in effect sell a portion of its existing transmission system, and we ax'e not at this time willing to do so. Ne are pxepared to offer to deliver the power and energy associated with the City's ownership share and to charge for delivery on the basis, of a rate which covers FPL's cost.
Item 6, relating to "parallel" operation is particularly perplexing in that FPL has offered New Smyrna Beach an inter-connection agreement similar to agreements currently in effect et,~een FPL and 'the ities of Ft'. Pierce'nd Homestead. This offer has been outstanding for more than 10 months, 'add would provide for parallel operation and make available emergency and scheduled maintenance power and energy on reasonable terms.
This offer was advanced before FPL agreed to any AEC license conditions; however, we believe that requirements of the license conditions.
it more than satisfies the
Your Items 7 and 8 are predicated on FPL's acceptance of your Item 5; and, as I stated previously, FPL is not at this time agreeable to the arrangement suggested in Item 5. Ho~ever, some further clarification of the matters raised in your Items 7 and 8 might be helpful. At present, electricity sold by FPL to New Smyrna Beach moves through FPL's Edgewater substation and is delivered there by one 115 Kv line. FPL has suggested that, if New Smyrna Beach a second 115 Kv line desires an interconnection with into that area might be built directly FPL, into a new substation at. New Smyrna Beach. However, if New Smyrna Beach desires that FPL continue to deliver increasing amounts of power under the SR rate and the present delivery arrangement, FPL will probably construct a second 115 Kv line into the Edgewater substation at some future date. In either event, no special "consideration" will be required to induce FPL to fulfillits responsibilities with respect to the FPL transmission system.
Finally, your proposal is made subject to certain conditions, several of which are unacceptable from FPL's standpoint. For example, FPL will not accept a participation arrangement "made subject to... final verification and documentation of cost estimates of St. Lucie No. 2... for tpj FP&L's ability to secure an operating license for St. Lucie Unit No. 2." In our view, any participant in St. Lucie Unit 2 must share in the risks of cost escalation and nuclear licensing.
In summary you have advanced a proposal which has little relation to the offer of participation to which your letter purports to respond. FPL is prepared to proceed promptly with discussions concerning the fair implementation of the St. Lucie, 2 license conditions and is prepared to continue discussions concerning an agreement for interconnection and parallel operation with New Smynra Beach. That our initial review of your a number of serious problems does not, of course, proposal'dentified close the door to discussion of a wide variety of possible arrangements. FPL is prepared to move forward w'th discussions subject to my own availability and the availability of our legal counsel and technical advisers. Please contact me to'rrange a mutually agreeable time and place for these discussions.
Pursuant to your request, the cost estimate with respect to St. Lucie Unit 2 contained in Mr. Mulholland's letter of August 21 to Mr. Jablon should be revised upward to $ 537,000,000, plus common or shared facilities of which approximately $ 25,000,000
is allocablee to St. Lucre Unit 2, totalling $ 562,000,000. This reflects FPL's latest revised estimates. However th'is is ony any parts.cipant will be expected to assume the u risks of further escalation.
Sh,ncerely, faber ~
Ben H. Fugua Senior Vice Pre.-ident cc: Mr. Lee Dewey Nr. David Leckie Mr. Lawrence K. Hoffman Harry Poth, Jr., Esp.
John E. Mathews, Jr., Esq.
J. A. Bouknight,"'r., Esp.
~ ~
1
UTI LITIES COMMISSION C(TY OF NEW SMYRNA BEACH I>>DDT OFFICI; IIOX 5 ICI NFW IIMYRNA0KAOHI FLORIDA 2Oelo l
~ <+I I t'll'treI I>> <<r<<>>
~l 0 OIetII<<IIOI w >>>>It>>r <<t>>trent ttt>><<r>>t ~
Olk& II I Ikon>>ttIt <<>>>>t,aaI I O t<<C>>II
~ K>> Iel>>I>>>>I>> ~ e<>t JkCa I >ItCt tt'I I II't>>t ~ Qt jMQL<<
~
c>>>><<<<r<<t >> Noven>bur 13, 197 k ~ tent Mr. Ralph G. Mulholland Group Vice President I Flo rida Power 4 Light Company .,
P. O. Box 3100 I Miami, Florida.* 33101 I
t~
, ~
Dear Mr. Mulholland'.
t, r I
As you know, our consulting engineers have been evaluating t
f."
"* r Florida Power 4 Light's offer of participation in your St. Lucie No. 2 nuclear power facility. The Utilities Commission of New Smyrna Beach, tt Florida (Utilities Commission) hereby accepts Florida Power h Light's I
(FP4L) offer of participation subject to working out mutually satisfactory .
' "r.I<<>>' agreements to effect'the following proposal or mutually satisfactory I alternatives thereto:.','.
4 h I I.II Utilities Commission! s Proposal I "I >>
ation in St. L'ucie Unit No. for'artici 2
t
, WHEREAS the citizens of thy-State of Florida in approving Constitutional Amendment 86 on November 5, 1974, have, in effect, '>>t>>"
mandated that all electric utilities in the state achieve a greater degree ~
,of cooperation, through joint ownership of'generation and transmission, thereby achieving economies not otherwise available, to the benefit of I '"
the customers of all utilities and the ultimate consuming public, and
't.'3 ',".t e ~
t >> I' \t WHEREAS Florida Power 4 L'ight Company, like most large I
investor owned utilities, has experienced extreme difficulty in raising capital to finance needed, generation and transmission facilities to meet t )'I lt
t its electric load requirements, and I I f
I ge jtr WHEREAS t
Florida Power Ec Light, Company has offered to the
~
Utilities Commission the opportunity to participate in St. Lucie nuclear'nit No. 2 qnd.has agreed to certain commitments with respect to such
'"I
~
)' )/l <Qp,\j I', 'h
~
h h'2-
=, flW.I
'r, r 'I Mr. Ralph G. Mulholland November 13, 1974
. ~
J '
h participation <<s a conidition for obtaining <<n opi rating license for this ur>it from the Atomic Energy Co>>>mission (Al'C ), <<nd WHEREAS the electric systcnl operat~.d by thc Utilitics Con><<
h r>>ission for the benefit of its customers has u need for capacity and energy from )ai gc base loaded nuclear facilities which, although having high capital cost, produce low energy costs <~~>)heir l3, 1974 cost s')vings ovc)r thi 27 yc<<rs fc>llc)wi>>g c c>>>>i>li l ii>>) c>f;>t. L>>i ii~~
~~~ ~~~
~~Nn )'<<suiting Erc))n lhi'. sale cli sc)'il>i cl i)i p'iriig r.iph 2 abc>vi, FPh.l. agrees to exch'ingc 10 )>>w nf i <<l)iii:ity i)icl .issnci<<teel~~
'ivailable energy fran) its St. Liicii Ni>. 1 ))c)il,it that unit's fuel op<<ration and maintcna>>cc c.nsts fc) v 10>>)v nf capacity and associatccl available energy frnr)) lhc Utilities Gn>>)missin>>'s sharc of St. Lucie No, 2 at th<<t i)nit's fiii1, opi r<<linn <<nrl main-tenanc<<costs for the life of both iinils. 'I'hc cli livery of the 10 mw nf capacity anc1 associated av iil<<bli c)n<<rgy f) om St. Luc.'ie Unit Nn. I to thc Utilitics Camo)issic)>> will cnn)n)i ncc. upon transfer by the Utiliti<~~n lo VP8cL af the estimated capital cost of construction af St, I uric Unit Nn. 2 in $ /kw times 10, 000 kw on (a) the date of con)mi rci<<1 oper<<tin>> of St. Luci<<~~
~~Unit No. 1, or (b) thc..cffcctivc date c>f lhc final agrccmc.nts, whichev c r coma s later.~~

5. In light, of FPE L's cnmmitmcnt to thc Atc))))ic Energy Commission to provide for delivc ry of each p<<rticIpcint's sharc nf thc output of U))it Nn. 2 to that pa)'ticipant on tc rms which <<r<<reasonable and will fully compcnsat<<FPhL for thi: iisc of its facilities, the Utilitics Commission agrees ta inaki; a capital investment in transn)ission facilities of FPRL in th<<amount of $

(being approximately equal to thr. ratio of capacity dclivcrc.d from St. Lucic No. 2 to thc Utilities Commission divided by th>> Company's nct plant capability ancl multipliccl by the Con)-
pany's gross invcstmcnt in bulk pnw<<r supply transn~ission facilities, bring l15 kv facilitl.cs and ab'ove in voltage) which should fully compensate FPiIcL for the us<<of transmission facilities to deliver power over its bulk power supply trans-
)))ission system to N<<w Smyrna Beach, including reliability built intn FP@L's system for dcliv<<ry of load requirements and for generation.
)
back up.
I

6. FPS;L agrees to 'operate its system in parallel with thc Utilities Conw))ission's system pursuant to an interconnection and interchange agreement of thc form contained in Exhibit 76(I) in Federal Pawl r 'Commission Docket E-8008, which, in add-ition ta-being filed as part af Mr. Robert E. 13<<then's testimony in that docket, was sent to FP4L ac:companying a letter datecl December 14', 1973, from the Utilities Commission's attorney Mr. 1<obert A. Jablon,-requesting ncgotiatians Eor parallel interconnection and interchange agrcemc:nt.

~ I'
1 1
Mr. Ralph G. Mulholland
',;-4-' 1 Noven>bcr'13, t ~, 1974
'\ 7. Izz coz>side> ation oE lt>i IJtilitics ('t>>>>>>>issxon's e>>>>>>>>itzz>eat to
~ )
iz>vest f ' '- ~ in thc transmission facilities of tl>v Con! pany as sit forth in paragraph 5 abovv (which amount is to bv d<<ti r-1)
-")t' n>incd; but is estimated to bq in vivess of $ 750,000), I".Phl agrees to schedule. Eor ron!pletio>> at thv arlivst possiblr date following it:s acceptanc e of this props>s'>I, thv construction of the second Edgcwater 115 lcv tap lizzie described <>
~~Docket E-8008 and originally pre>joe(cd for t1>e su>>>n!er of 1')75~~
~~<> witl> the tJtilitics Com-~~
-~ 'mission, syst'm 'and subsequv'ntly witi>draw>> because oE FPhL's Einan'cial condition, or, alternatively, F'L~hL agrees to schedule foi. ~'.ornpletion at the earliest: possible date the. 115 kv lir>e from the evisting.Edgewater'tap po'int to thc Edgewater substation
~~~ ~~~
~~Q<<<<~~
describedin attachments to Mr. Mz>l}>t>lland's Jotter dated S')' Rover>>bur 7 1.974, 'to Mr. Robirt Harshen, which Eacilitics are part. of-='FPEcL's plan to serve th6 Exlgewater and Nvw Smyr'na
~~'each areas. following acquisition by FPhL=of the New Smyrna~~
~~~ ) ~~~
~~'-,:'Beach "electric. system'if its proposal to purehasv the system~~
~~" 's <<~~
~~cox>iuxnxnated.'-'":,"~~
~~~ I~~

8. ', To the.event:the capital invi.stnzent in FPEcL's transmission facilitics as )dete'imined in paragraph 5 above is insufficient to coxnplet'e. whichever.of the alternative methods of improving

"'-" ser~ic'e':to'the.:Edgewater area described in paragraph 7 is the more'ractical';.".feasible and in the public interest and to finance
,, the necessary modifications of the best of these alternatives to
~ provid'e for"a;1:l5>hv,.pa,ralle) into<<r<<connection for the Utilities Con~zzission. ancE eliminate a three-tcrxninal line interconnection
'vith gt'.n'e'ration on'the Utilitics Commission's systenz, the Utilities, Commission agrees to 'make an additional capital
'nvestment':iri.those facilities to accon>plish such purposes,
~
~
The tr<<an'smission lines and substation facilities would be
'.financed and.owned by the Utilitics"Con!mission and would b>>
constructed','perated and maintained by ZPhL. The cost of
'operation and'maintenance'would be boxne annually by thc Utilities Commission undez a inutually agreeabl>> contractual
. ':.'~<< ar ran'gement:; .',,. I The a'bove propos'al is made subjc ct to (a) arriving at mutually t<<,,
"I satisfactory specific agreements and contracts to carry out thc proposed
~)
puiposes ~nd mutual commitments; (b) final verification and documentation
I Mr. Ralph G. Mulholland November 13, 1971
'I vf cost estimat<>el clclc r>>li>>.clio>> of the cc>st of facilitics co>union to St. Lucic Unit No, l a>>el LJ>>>t No. '; (c) both parti' being able to snec t thc rcquirenxents of local, stat>> a>>cl fe<lc ral laws, rules, regulations, licenses, permits, ctc., inc'luding spc'cifically FP8:L's ability to secure an operating lice nsc for St. Lucio Unit No. 2; (d) both parties'bility to successfully finan<<c their rc spc<<tive share of the costs of St.. Lucie Unit No. 2 and thc cocnr>>on facilitics <<t the St. Lucic plant; and (c) agrcemcnt as to a satisfactory interconnection and interchange agreement, including trans>>)ission service rights.
In making the above proposal, thc IJtilities Con>mission doc.s not waive any of its rights or give up any position taken in any regulatory proceeding or litigation that is presently pc ncling or may b<< initiated in thc future.
~~Thc'roposal offers the opportunity for cost savings for both parties to the economic benefit of their customers. The proposal should bc particularly attractive to FPEcL for thc following reasons:~~

1. The Utilities Commission would mak>> a capital contribution to FPAL's already planned construction program on the order of $ 20,000,000, of which approximate;ly one-thircl would bc advanced at thc,time the 10 mw of nuclear exchange capacity available from St. Lucie Unit No. 1 can bc delivered to Nc.w Smyrna Beach, and the balance would bc. advanced during the cornplction of constxuction of St. Lucie Unit No. 2.

2. FPL.L would be able to purchase approximately 25% of the Utilities Commission's entitlement from St. Lucic No. 2 over a 27-yeax period at considerable cost savings over what it would pay if the capacity were financed by FPGL.

3. The reliability of service to~a'll of FP8 L's customers from Deland to Daytona Beach would bc.; materially'mproved through the scctionalizing provided at thc point of interconnection and the additional transmission linc facilities to bc constructc cl, particularly those customers served from thc Edgewater Sub-station whose service is less reliable than other'customers of FP$ ;L becaus'c their service is presently proviclc:d from a long single radial.,tap linc.'he Utilities Commission>s consulting engineers and financial.

advisops gave concurred in thc preparation of this proposal and, subject
X~ r. Ralph G. Mulhollancl Novi i>>bur l 3, 1974 l(> cli'vc lop>>) c'nl ol tl >>ill cost ligilre s l)y l' & l l) i'() I' (i r('<<i'ilig fil'I il,iit'e
~ ~
>>ie>>t, fc!cl thai tlus proposal rc!prese)its n li>>.in'.z<<lly tc asil)li i>>c lhocl of
~
supplemontiiig the'tilitie" Co>>>>>>issioii's l)ri si'>>L powi'r supl)ly ri so>>roc s
~
)>>clucling purcluises fro>>> FP8;L uncler the "Sli" r<<tc", l)rovicleil, however, as contcimplatecl in thc proposi cl interconnect lie)>> <<grc i >>)c!nt, supplcnic i)tel
~
power purchases from I PAL are! contin<>-
bodied in this proposal, and that thc! Utilities Coii]iiiissii)n, subject to the conditions sc t forth above, can successfully>>>arkc)t th<<ni c cssary bonds to finance its commitmcnts hcreunde'r.
The Utilities Commission has instruc)teel its co>>suiting <<ngincers, financial advisors and attorneys to present to it by Dc)comber 10, 1974, their evaluation of which of, the alternative.s available to tlic Utilities Com-mission of New Smyrna Beach will result in the lowest ovi!rail c:ost to the citizens and customers of the Utilities Coniniission. As you are aware, one of those alternatives being stuclied is I'PE Lis propoHsl to purchase.
the New Smyrna Beach electric system, In orcler to evaluate fairly the alternative s to your proposal to purchase thc system, it. is i.ssc.ntial that in keeping with your commitments to the Atomic Encigy Commission as a condition of license foi St. Lucie No. 2, FPAL indicate its acceptance of this proposal as provided hereinafter, subject to the conditions listed above and providing any necessary up-dating <<)f cost estimates and com-pletion estimates set forth in your lettc.r of Augiist 21, 1974, to Mr. Jablon together with your best preliminary estimate. of the cost: of completing the second tap line to Edgewater and other facilities embodied in your Alternative 8 arrangement for a 115 kv interconnection, or alternativi ly, the 115 kv transmission line anticipated in your proposal to purchase the New Smyrna Beach electric system.
Your acceptance and the data rc!cluircci to complete; the evaluation is requested as soon as possible, but not later than November 21, 1974.
Very triily yours, UTILITIES COMMISSION OF H N SMYRNA BEAC11, FLORIDA Accepted:
FLORIDA POPOVER
',, K.
g LIGHT COMPANY Qgrt r John R. Kelly Dirc'.ctor of Utilities Date Title
x', ~
J J
~
I
~
/4t',*' ~
4 ~
'7-V v )'lph G;: 5, tulh~>Liard '
. ~
inc)vccnbc'r 13, 1974
\
g' c Lc'c. t)c:ivory,'Atoniic l'norl y (:ocul>>i~sic)n:italf lair. David= i'c.ski'i.,- Antit vcist Diviccioc>, Dc partt>>c:nt of . nation Lair<<nrc.
Il
'I Mr. l.loQ'ma>>, Fc.dora) .l'owe v Con>c>>i.~sion
.,'i Harry=Poth,'1 r., Esquire, Roid h Prie vt J'ohn E; 'Mathcivs, Jr., Esqicirc'., Mathc w~, ()vbornc',
Khrlich,'lcNatt, Ciobolman '8c Cobb
.T. A. I3occknight, J'r., Esqccirc' cubi
\, 'I 4
h ic I
'~
~t '
h"
'gp',':~-jf. ~ '. *
~,
<e ~; w,
~
e lC>
~ \>>', I' p'
,i, >, ~
~
~ ~k=>
P l~ '-c $4
~ 3,>>,>
I r
Vy 1 ~
.pit k
~ ~ j
L i/II>
FLQRIQA PQrr R 8t 'atlT QQ ~
-m's'Y'pril 26, 1974 Mr. R. W. Buck, City Manager
.City of New Smyrna Beach P. 0. Box 490 New Smyrna Beach, Florida 32069

Dear Mr. Buck:

r Florida. Power & Light Company has applied to the United States Atomic Energy Commission for permission to construct Unit No. 2 of the St. Lucie nuclea'r electric generating plant.
The Plant would be located'on Hutchinson Island, between Ft. Pierce and Stuart, Florida, is designed to p'roduce a new output of approximately 850 megawatts of electricity, and is planned for completion about 1980.
Enclosed is a set of license conditions which Florida Power 6 Light Company has agreed are to be incorporated into any licenses for Unit 2 of the St. Lucie Plant. In accordance with these license conditions, Florida Power 6 Light Company is prepared to offer to New Smyrna Utilities Commission an opportunity to pay for and own, in the form of an undivided interest, a reasonab'le share of the St. Lucie Plant, Unit No. 2.
If-New Smyrna Utilities Commission is interested in exploring this matter further, please contact me so that a meeting might be arranged for a mutually convenient time and place. In any event, a prompt reply would be appreciated.
Sincerely yours, Ben H. Fuqua Senior Vice President BHF'bc Enclosure HELPING 8VILO FLORIOA
City of %ew eSInyrna %each POST OFFICE BOX 490 N'W SMYRNA BEACH, FLORIDA 32069 LOWELL A HANKS> MAvoR coMMI55IO>>cR R. W. BUCK, ccrv M*NiccR

s. YICToR McDoNALD, vIcc Ma~oR- coMMI5$IO>I cA E. IRENE BECKHAM, ccrv cLcRR CARL W. COCHRAN, coMMI5$ IONE'R CHARLES A. HALL, CITY AT TORIICY FREDERICK DOSTER, coMMI$ $ Io>IcR HENRY A. RHODES, coMMI5$IO>ICR May 1, 1974 Mr. Ben H. Fuqua Senior Vice President Florida Power and Light Co.

P.O. Box 015100 Miami, Florida ~5101

Dear Mr. Fuqua:

Your letter to me of April 26, 1974, containing the offer of the Florida Power and Light Company to the City of New Smyrna Beach to participate in the ownership of the proposed St. Lucie Plant,. Unit 2, has been forwarded to the Chairman of the Utilities Commission of the City of New Smyrna Beach for consideration and reply directly to you, This matter has also
~
~
been referred for information to'members of the City Commis'sion.
~ I The opportunity to share in the St. Lucie Plant is appreciated
, I and I am confident that the Utilities Commission will give the offer its most serious consideration and will communicate with I
you at an early date.
C C
S'incerely yours, 5 ~
R. N. Buck City Manager RNB: jmc
UNITCD GTATCS ATOMl;: ENCFiGY COtv1MISSlON V "ASHlkGTON. D.C. 054S I' 1 ~
/
g ir I1arch 1, 1974 Virginia Robert Jablon, Esq.
2600 Ave., tI. it.
Washington, D. C. 20037

Dear tIr. Jablon:

On February 27, 1974 v:e forivarded to you a copy of' letter addressed to Nr. John F. O'eary from Ilr. Ben H. Fuqua, Senior Vice President, Florida PovIer 5 Light Company, indicating th company's acceptance of certain license conditions that had been forwarded to the company.
I am enclosing for your information the license conditions referred to in I1r. Fuqua's letter.
Sincerely, s h Rutberg ntitrust Counsel or AEC Regulatory S af f

Enclosure:

Subject license conditions
CGllllITtl"'ITS FOR FLORIÃ PO'"ER 8 LIG}fT ST. LUCIE U.'lIT 2 r

1. With regard to Clay County Electric Cooperative, Inc., Florida Keys Electric Cooperative, Inc., Glades Electric Cooperative, Inc., Lee County Electric Cooperative, Inc., OI:efenokee Rural Electric Hember-ship Cooperative, Inc., Peace River Electric Cooperative, Inc., and

~
Suwannee Yalley Electric Cooperative, Inc. and the municipalities
~
of Hew Smyrna Beach and Ho...estead:

a. Licensee will offer each the opportunity to purchase, at licensee's costs, a reasonable ownership share (hereafter, "Participant's Share" ) of the St. Lucie Plant, Unit "lo. 2 (the Uriit). *

.".Licensee's costs" will include all costs associated with develop-m nt, construction and op ration of the Unit, determined in accordance with the Federal Power Commission's Uniform System of Accounts.
"Purchase" means payment, within a reasonable time, of parti-cipant's share of licensee's costs incurred through date of acceptance of the offer, and, thereafter, regular payments of the participant's share of all costs incurred during development, cons ruction and operation of the Unit.
~ ~
1/ Two or more oi the referred-,to coops may determine to agg'regate their entitlements frcm the St. Lucie Unit .=2 throuoh a single represen:ative.'
In 'such event, the licensee shall allocate the delivery of said entitle-ments as designated by the representative to one or more existing or mutually agreeable Florida Power 6 Light Co.'delivery points on the cco~bined system provided that such delivery is technically feasible.

b. Participant will notify licensee of it's acceptance to particip,.te

$ n St. Lucie 2 within a reasonable time after receipt of the
.offer.

c. Licensee may retain cc".piete control and act for the other parti-cipants with respect to the design, engineering, construction, operation ard maintenance of St. Lucie Unit 2, and may make all decisions relevant thereto, in so far as they deal wi th the I

relationship between the licensee and the other participants, including, but not limited to, decisions regarding adherence to AEC health, safety and environmental regulations, changes in
'construction schedule, modification or cancellation of the project, and operation at such time'nd at such capacity levels as it de ms I
proper, all without the consent of any participant.

2. Licensee shall facilitate the delivery of each participant's share of the output of the Unit to that participant, on terms which are reason-able and will fully compensate it for the use of 'its facilities, to the extent that subject arrangements reasonably can be accommodated .

from a functional and technical standpoint.

3. Licensee shall Got refuse to operate .in parallel to the extent tf>at it is technically feasible to do so with the participants and shall provide emergency and maintenance power to participants as required I

&hen such power is or can be made available without jeopardizing
3 0
power supply to licensee's custc'ers or i s other pcwer supply cc:.:,".,i!-
recants. A separate rate schedule(s) shall be established for such emergency and maintenance power exchanges.

4. At a time'hen licensee plans for the next nuclear generating unit to be constructed after St. Lucie No. 2 has reached the stage of serious planning, but be ore firm d cisions have been made as to the size and desired completion date of the proposed nuclear unit, license will notify all non-affiliated utility systems with peak loads smaller than licensee's which serve either'i wholesale or at retail adjacent, to areas served by applicant ihat licensee plans to construct such nuclear unit.

5. It is recognized thai the foregoing conditions are to be implemen.ed in a manner consisient with the provisions of the Federal Power Act

'and all rates, charges or practices in connection therewith are to
/
be subject to the approval of regulatory agencies having jurisdiction over them.
~ ~
$ ~
I
1111f
'r UNITED STATES ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION WASHINGTON. O.C. 2054$
ri
~~IIII 1$
AEC Docket No. 50-389A Mr. Ben H. Fuqua Senior lice President Florida Power 8 Light Company "Post Office Box 3100, Miami, Flor ida 33101

Dear Mr. Fuqua:

By letter of November 14, 1973, the Departltent of Justice recommended that an antitrust hearing was not necessary in connection with the Florida Power 8 Light Company application for St. Lucie Unit 2 in view of the consideration of the granting of access to this facility to certain entities.
In view of your expressed intent to provide reasonable access to .the St. Lucie Unit with the necessary ancillary arrangements, the fact that no antitrust issues have been raised by another in a manner accord-ing with the Ccmmission's Rules of Practice, and that no finding has been made that an antitrust hearing is otherwise required, it is our position that the attached conditions would satisfy the staff with regard to the antitrust issues that. have been raised in connection with this application and the position of the Department of Justice as expressed in its letter of November 14, 1973, and accordingly obviate'n antitrust heari ng.
Accordingly, the attached conditions will be included in any license ishued in connection with the above application.
i S n cere ly, r
John F. O'eary Director of Licensing Encl osure:
Subject cori tments cc: Lon Bouknight, Esq.
COMMITMENTS FOR FLORIOA POWER & LIGHT ST. LUC IE UNIT 2 I.. With regard to Clay County Electric Cooperative, Inc., Florida Keys Electric Cooperative, Inc., Glad s Electric Cooperative, Inc., Lee County Electric Cooperative, Inc., Okefenokee Rural Electric Member-ship Cooperative, Inc., Peace River Electric Cooperative, Inc., and Suwannee Ialley I
Electric Cooperative, Inc. 1/ and the municipalities of New Smyrna Beach and Homestead:

a. Licensee wi 11 offer each the opportunity to purchase, at licensee's

/
costs, a reasonable ownership share (hereafter, "Participant's Share" ) of the St. Lucie Plant, Unit No. 2 (the Unit).
"Licensee's costs" will include all costs associated with develop-ment, construction and operation of the Unit, determined in accordance with the Federal Power Commission's Uniform System of I
Accounts.
"Purchase" means payment, within a reasonable time, of parti-cipant,'s share of licensee's costs incurred through date of acceptance of the offer, and, thereaft'er, regular payments of the participant's share of all costs incurred during development, construction and operation of the Unit.
1/ Two or more of the referred-to coops may determine to aggregate their entitlements from the St. Lucie Unit 92 through a single representative.
such event, the licensee shall allocate the delivery of said entitle-
'n ments as designated by the representative to one or more existing or mutually agreeable Florida Power 5 Light Co. delivery points on the ccmbined system provided that such delivery is technically feasible.

0

b. Participant will notify licensee of its acceptance to participate in St. Lucie 2 within a reasonable time after receipt of the

.of fer.

c. Licensee may retain ccmplete control and act for'the other parti-

~ ~ ~
cipants with respect to the design, engineering, construction, operation and maintenance of St. Lucie Unit 2, and may make all P
'L decisions relevant thereto, in so far as they deal with the relationship between the licensee and the other participants, I
~ S including, but-not limited to, decisions regarding adherence to AEC health, safety and environmental regulations, changes in construction schedule, modification or cancellation of the project, and operation at such time and at such capacity levels as it de ms proper, all ~itho~t the consent of any participant.

2. Licensee shall facilitate the delivery of each participant's shar of the output of the Unit to that participant; on terms which are reason-able and wi 11 fully compensate it for the use of its facilities, to the extent that subject arrangements reasonably can be acccmmodated from a functional and technical standpoint.

3. Licensee shall not, refuse to operate in parallel to the extent that it is technically feasible to do so with the participants and shall provide emergency and maintenance power to participants as required when such power is or can be made available without jeopardizing

Exhibit (Ei)
A~v SI STAMP A~ANCYCC!ClAL, FPC Docket E'-8008 ANTlil:V~iDIVIS!ON (8-Page Letter)
Pi'JJHi Jl!!!!1!t Of J!!5!!CC Qaa)u>@foe, P.5. 20530 NPy 14 1973 Howard I:. Shapar, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Licensing and Regulation U. S. Atomic Energy Commission Ha shing ton, D, C. 20545 Re; Florida Power 6 Light Company
=St. Lucie Plant, Unit No. 2 AEC Docket iso. SO-389A D .artment of Justice File 60-415-65

Dear )fr,

Shapar:
You have requested ou- advice pu.. suant to the provisions of Section 105 of the Atom' Energy Ac" of 1954, as amenced by P. L. 9 -560, in regard to the above-captions.d application.
Florida Po;~er & Light Company ("Applicant") has apolied for a construction pe~!it fo its St. Luc e Piant, Unit <io. 2, an, 810-.-..egavatt nuclear steam gene: ating unit Lo be locaLed on Hutchiason Island off Florida s east coast. Ope ation oz the facil'ty is presentiy scheduled for Septemoer, 1979, The At3nlicant Applicant 's by fa the largest electric utili"y 'n the State of i'lorida> it serves appro::i.",!ately half oz the state-1)ide e ectric load, Headauartered i!3 1~!iami, its area oz operation includes most o 'outhern lorid'nd e.".tends 13p trio east coas" Lo the Geor"-ia bore,er. As oz the ein it500,000 1,
provided retail electric pollex 0 574 commun3.ties cus to<<!e s, Its total ~encratic.Q~
f sales '-
'fi i972, ith over energy 1972 1;ere 28,927,8;"iG me."a!att hours. Applicanc's sun=;,ex 1972 peak load
~ ~
was 6,0 1 mega<iatts; 's depe!idable gencraLin capacity at that t;.I:.e Nas 6>oo5 mega!atts--over /0 t3ercnnt of Lhn gencra-L3.on i!! the ax e ~ Its Gys tem 0 s LB t3.0BG G integ'! Lcd by over 3,400 m les 0 high "vo 'age transmiss'Q lines, a'i'>ro n!ately -90 '~erccnt of the high-volt"-ge tx'aQs-mis" ion ~> id 'r P.." Gs.'Q:Il t!!Q area --inc '1!din> the 230-kilo':ia tf 11!a Q t ans-sotit1!!3x Q j'orida and the cas L coast.
3
Apolicant ca 1 ls J ts elf the na tiari s fa t es Cro:Wing electric utiliLy," Flor'da's rapid <<roi"th has been'concen-
.trated in the area in r:h3ch it Ge>>~i=; and for the past 0 evera 1 years the App 1 ica nt ha s added r.")ore ne>) cus t Q.".lers th n any other electric utility in the L?n3.ted States, Applican)t'G projected peek load for 1980 is 14)475 !r!ega "att s--
aver twice its 1972 Load--and gene>>rating caoacity is planner'o ir'crease Bore Lhan 10,000 me~<<a<~atts to meet that load.
Jl~plicant's syGLez is directly interconnected 'an)d cocrdinat d tc Gc-..e de<<r e i)it!:. r.".0"-t of t:':e o"her electric
<<enera "in<<G-~stems in Florida: 'lo 3.c';8>>'a(rer Car~ara~ "cl.,
Ta!-.)pa ..lectric Co.~anv, and tn< ):!un).c3.pal svst eQG af <Bczsan-vil"e, 0"lan.lo, Fo"..t Pierce; Vera i)each and r Lake Harth, Appl'ar! L ceo'ina tes Q))era t" 0:)s r>>)i Lh s Lill oLher sys Le!)s
.throu<<h Lhe activities 0>> t!he Florida Qp roti)>><<CO;;z".:ittee.
So". c-" th' caord'nat ng arrange;:,ents hav 'en ente ed inLo O..ly .ecent" y.
Ao~licallt sl;p";.lies electr3.c t)c:rer in bul!i aL s hol Gale 0 seven u>> 0 <<electr3c coop 3. a L"'e dies t<<" out" on Gys tel as CQ'!nty) Clay, Ghat'es, O.tezc )0;:e peace Pi2ver Su('>>ance
.'ee gall" y) arl '.'or3.da c>>,eys ith ).ne e: cent3.0".? Oz Qr" QR ).ieys )
).
<"h3.ci> has Ga".!e genera' Qn 0' ts OUn) hese cQQpera't3.v '8 a e e .clu ively d!ist" ioutian sy te-; and pu.=cnase a
~ ll bu! Uoi'jer re fu3 e;,.en/ G 1 / A, 'D licanL a ls Q sup,) ].ig>>$ g!3lt>>~
j>>,
of t!1ei-po!~er to supple.,)ent the irene'ration of ti;o small murlicipal systevs,'ar)lesLead and .il w Srlyrna Beach.
~Co,".: a'Scion There ).s suos tant:ia 1 a ..d v3.go ous ac Lua 1 and potential co.'!!petit" o)! aBong e ect "c "J t3.1>> ties 3.n Flcrida 3.n bat)) bul!'.
po!"er supply and eLail distr" butian r::ar.iets. F ] cr xda la'r does not reailile electr).c u) ilities ta res areas, The Fla"ida Public Service CG;i.Hliss3.an ha G a ppraved tri ct t'lleir serv'ce certain volun ary territorial agree:!:ents bete een Applicant and neig.lborin: syste!.".s. 2/
1/ Applicant'supplies the total reoui ..,ents of Lee of t.he rr quire~ents of Clay, Florida Keys, and Glades, Ccunty','ost and a portion o.": the reauire.-.)ents of Okefena,ce, Peace Pive and Su! ance Valley.
2/ Same territo'al .agree),ents ir.volving the c'.pplicant appax'entl have ta!>>erl Lhc zolii oz ala 1 un( el. 8 i anQLilgs and j) have never been sub;,:itLcd to the Ca-,.=..issian.
Even ivherQ these territo.-ial a.oreements exist neighbor-ing smaller sqstc;s do co.-..peto <3ith Aaol3.cant "t etail T,icy st 1'o-;.,pete- to att"act nQ 3 lo ds '. ho can choose to locate Ql ther )n tLicir service lreas or in Aplicant s. They still co-.,pctc to e..;tend sQ vice 'n develoe:illg areas on the "n, Qs 0. t..Qi1 systQ"'.!s 1'"1a" ly, 'tL1ey co..petQ to stay 3.n business; i2 their costs and retail rates bcco..e too high, their customers may *orce them to sell out to the ilppl cant.
Th re is also co.,.petition '.n bulk po;3er supply, i3here territorial ag "Qements c'nnot la.3fully ope -a te. The smaller systcr:.s have t<30 bas'c co!;!)Gtitivc alterllatives'l lie1 t'My p oduce their Gi n bu1k pcU"r supp1y or they buy their bulk pol3er requir -:.Gnts from i he Applicant.
Anti47."U '..Dlic t3.0Qs oi: '
s .. 'Qe se AT)olicat3 oil The Depa rf::.Vent ref,ards Appl3.cant 8 o<7nersh~p 03: the ~i.Bin h'~cl vo" <a~e 1allSRiSS On Qei l"3or 3.n,southe1!'l a!1d east coast P cr1da as a s". ~~!D33 icant 3":actor in this all tL t1us t :QV1e>3 07 tne St. T.~cic Un't O'Oe 2 L3.cenSC aPPllCat" One P.s vc havQ ".'Viscd you !) Gviousl'- 3/ there arQ s l')stant3al econo21es or scale ii" the b".siness ot. r eBQ t3.0"I -nd bulk -
supply oi G1cctric po:,3er, i<uclca po;3cr (.,hich is ez>'ected to be the cheapest l."'*'nd of base-load electric po'..-e availabl.
to R Qt future load pro;.3th, may be produced economically only
~rom large gencrat=ne un).ts--s nits l ith a caaacity l o." 500 megai3attv O e Ore. llOSt e GCtriC generating SyStenS CannOt insta a!1d r;,ar;iet po';;er. 'rom such large units on their own.
They can e;~1ploy large units--and achieve the economic>> oz
'sc le .1ecessary to col;,pctc Q=". Gcti.vely in today'lectr.ic po't3Qr Blara.e s ~
0;1lp th o"..gh coord311ai on l3ith 0'thQr genQrating
~
systeiPs H ~h-vo: ge trGns;lissio'l 3.s the necessary f."QdiuDl
~
for such coo1d1l18 t3.on ~
applicant's 't control oiler th transmissio'etwork in its area has given t.1G po< er to grant o- deny access to coordina-tion--and thereby acce s to the bene"its 02 l.arge-scale 3/ E.p., leaser o.": advice of June 28, i)71, regarding Consu-:,era po::e'o:::.pany (-'i'dland Unirs 1 and 2), AiC Doc(en Nos. 50-329K and 50-330.'h.
..0:7-cost, base-load nuclear generaLion--to neigi'borin~ smalle-"
sys'els. There have been so!!le allegations that <'applicant ril u" Qd this po(7er to deny coordina tin<" benef iLS to 'smaller J'ave sys< cms or f,0 ta' thc prcdominan" sil. re o2 he bene "its oi sliCii Cool.dine>f ioii aS ila been Qiitcred 3.nLOO The pr nCLpal a Qga L3.0ns of this na tu 8 are (1) tha L Li.pp 1LcanL 3.ns 3.s ted upon retai territorial allocat3 on agreenc'-les as a prerequi-si' to GGLGL3ng 3! 0 3nte coLlnecf ions and bul?c po:;er supply transactions <7i< h other systems; (2} that ApDlicant once rebus "d 3ntcrconnectLon arrange;-:,ents to Caine"ville i.
ao.lcrence 0 i"iiolesale tP LiLor..al a,llo aLLon Pit il. Flo-'3.d 1

0<7er Corporation; I-./ and (3) that on on."; occas 'on 3. the 1<)CO s, Appl fcanf: re"'used to rnalce available to " xural electric coo-:;"..rc'.tive the coordi!latin@ arrangements necessary to "firm i!D 'Ls 0"7n 3.sola ted Qencrat" on ~

c!ppl" cant s contro"'ver regional t -ansmission and over access to necc .sary coordinating arraniel".Gnts for si;.all sos c:)i 3.$ Lllust ated Dy tne cu'cn'L DLobLQ ls of Li'DunL ipal 1 ~
s",stems, ljomes tea d and axed'7 Smyrna Beach 30th have gene a f-Lon of their o'. n and i!ave endeavored to -ema in in the bus ines s 0'":
producin~<~ theiL oi7n bull~ power suppky and f:o G.-.par!d "hei" gene-xaf 3.n" Jaci .ties to co!!DQte zor nGT7 Gild -10>'7il ~ load- 5/
Aj3pl" can has Li!Lerconnecf Gd i'7ith Lhese tf70 !:"unicip " svste ls Lor the sa..c o"" !'7holesale bul?: poi'7er. 6/ The natu 8 02 f:i.e nLGrconnecLion and i he tc 2's under 'BhLch the poh'Qr Ls sold app .ar to D des ned 03 s Js teii s i if houL any genera Lion or systems planning f:o cease self-generation, rather tilail for.
systczs seelcing to coordinate vLth others.
4/ PurLng the course 07: our antitrusL- rev3.97, Lhe .:iunicipa1 JlstLibution system 0;". Jacicsonvil:i.c Beach {<'7hich presently obta":ns its full bull.- Do':7er require.":.Qnts f'om the* Jacksonville mun cipal sysLQm) advised us OP. a pending xeaucst f:o hpplicant (i'7hich has ix'ansiliss3.0n lines close Dy) Lo cons Leer n lnf:82.-.
coP'ilcctLon i'7iLn 3.t for thQ sale Of bul!< pof'7cr, Appli ant s ulL3rnate response t o thi request should indicate its current policy 't~itil rc'!Brd to sellin~ '.~holcselQ buliw poi~er Lo a letail distribution s~Jstcm seekin~ a'l. alLernativc sou ce oz bulk p OUer s"'
5/ jjomestcad no':7 has barely u zicicnt generation to iiieet it:s Toad requir Gme its ancl lt lacKs res Qx'vcs, ',cH Smyrna Beacil gencraLi'on 's su" icicnt to sexve appro ir..aL. ly hali oz 3. s load.
6/ There is so"..':8 cvidcnce tnat Applicant earlier had a policy of Qfusing to sell po!,'er at ( hol sale to riunicipal systenis.
Pe are advised that: Hoi.estead end '.tew smyrna Beach are Qer;OLiating with the <<opirant for j)a>>rallel inter onn ct:ions at Lra!Si.ission vo talc and aopropriate coordinating arran~~e-meQLS. Since the instant application was filed Hio.:,estead and hew S ..yrna Be-cn have sought cwncrsh3.D pc'rticioat>> on in or unif pcwer purci>>ases from..~t. Luc e t:nit <lo. 2 as a means of Sat3.. iying their future poi'Gr supp y needs 3 n coord>> Qa tl OQ 1
'4'iti! their OWQ +Gne).8 t3.0Q ~ Homestead c Qd i!.GW SF!y>> Qa BeaCh also hav asked thc Appl).cant to agree Lo D ovide trans;-.,ission serv).c's ~ whee J.ihr ) to accommodate iutu power tra..sacti>>ons
~ ~
w:t Lh other syst:cms as anof her means of satisfying th"i power SuP1).Ly e:;Pc:QS ~on QGGQS ~
'Zhe zollow3.Q<= GxamDle indicate'ow wheeling might. be used 3'ie a..n adv" sed th: t the Jacz!sonville elect=. c sys tern proposes to ccn ':;"-. t t;;0,150-mecawatt nuclear units and
.'as in(tui). Cd 0" c'her "lox ida sys tel.". ) iQc udin'7 +Omr stead 3
Jnd 'ie".7 -my . Qa,'ach >
whe Lhe they would be>> n teres ted i:1 1)art c .')a l." i! ~ 3.Q tnos G un3.Ls ox'ure ..0 s QP'.!n" t: powex su). 01U.s Lo Jac 0 lv ' needs ~ Applic'.n'-, which a lready !.as a vo..Lac'e iiitexcon;1ecL" on with JPc.csonville could trans r<~t: th>>s Qzc Gar power to Ho..:"stc"d and iiew S."..!yrna Beach.
Apollc Q has Qot ~'9'f):c"Gd ho"evex'o D"<<Ovide sue!1 Lransmiss>>on services t:0 110mestead or ~llew S!DyrLla Beach.
Lie have noted ".bove tha" seven rural electric coopc=at:iv RysLGms pux'chase some 0 a ll of their bulk ')ower requirements from t: he Zipplicant. Six cf these sy"tems, 7/ and s).x oLhe t.isLribution cooperat'ves who dc noL obta 'n "ny oower f 'om Appl'> cant ) are Fiei"..hers OX Serai.lnole !'.1ec ir3.c CoopGx'a ivc ) Inc )
a corporaLion ~0>>med to act fox'ts members in salving their
~ ~
po'wer suj)p1y problv.;.8 e Sem3 Qo" G has at var)ous t>> mes 1Q the past: conc'ucted studies to determine ti!G feasibility oi altex-
~ Q,tive means of power suoply or 3.Ls members, It appears t:hat: the possibiliLy of sel~-generaLion by these cooperatives as an 1",.Grnativ to pu chased po<<er has had the effect of 1ceep).ng wholesa e purchase raies relat3.yely low and th xefore t: he cooperative h"ve ccntinued to pu chase ti1eir powe" require:-.,"nts from the Applicant and other large generating syst:ems, Recently, both Applicant and 1'lor>>ida Power Cox'poration have filed l;holesalc race increases wiLh t: he "ederal Power Co..~..ission; and, as a result:, Sewinole is a"-ain e::plo in@
7/ The exception is Florida Keys.
ernat ves to Gt the goof in'oads of iLs po<"er r..etnh acclL\iK a r,supplysha Cne a1< t":.
"lte'nat" ve fol. t he coope"atives l)ould t)c to e of 03. Durchase Unit Do'ie3. rofA> ApDlican s St. L >cie Unit ".o. 2 {in conjunction ~
~i'ith
~ g appronr3.ate ~
provz-5'iis f0)." po':)e" de 've'> 3.eserve sharing and other >.Orms
'a i
of coox 03 Ila i oii) i A 5 ecol1d a Lt nu le '" PGHer ro'fl Jcicli Ol'1V311G or 0'le SysteEIS l'>hkch flav t'> ve (')ou 1Q l)e to ooi'a 2Q co}1tc.Bpla te ins ' lling nuclear genera 't" on Hith px'ov153.on for deliveri.- of that po:fe over Applicant high-voltage t):ansmissi.on

s";sic~.l to those coope -atives ")~th <;h3.c.. 3.t ~ 5 intcrconl1cc tee i s).nce tne 8 ling oz th3.5 llcens G app13.cation Seminole has advised the Applicant t of its interest in pa-tici-patin> in S' Lucia Unit Yo. 2 and in other orr,s .o coo dinaticn to achieve a ='.casible lf)n"-range pol)er supply f)ro~>rafa.

Arpl'decant has recently installed genera t" n" 'u'1 ts, Turtle'> 'in os, its:irst nd 4 each ti)o nuc ='"r Hiih 0 i 3 cc'paDi 3 ity of: 7 3 Bl c-, t 5 c 2 o.third nuclea'n).i: ~t
'~af"8 f ~
> o Luc" e tJnit iso. 1, <)ith 81G f;epaUai ts capacity, 3.5 projected to d ~
ente). service " .Septellocr 1975 Unit Fo 2, ti1c suo:j Get
> ~ ~
oP. the prose'.!" license application, and also 010 r,.egaM.".tts in si:=.'s s"hodul d for ope~at:Lon in ~cote-,,lber> 1-:79. tThen t..ni.t l 0 . cof'e 011 1" ne xpQlic" li: h3. 1 have ovex' >000 f! i cotta Oi: ": are'e-Scale 10'(')-COG ~
baSG-1 ad nuclea c'erie). Gt"
"~'he;;clarke'in' pol)er produced oy th' su'ostani."al Bc'apacity.
bi ocsf. of nuc lee $ enera tioil clear ly cou1d ifaf)a 3r ti e viability o= L.':.e other systens in Applicant s area t}ley are una i) le to ezerc se a 5 flilar oppori unity i.o co;ij)et'ive obtain if thei.r polvcr fro".,1 nuclear genera t2.0Q o X>. Syst . ".!5 suCh cs Homestead and HGP SiliVrna BGBCh are den" ed Dotil access to nuc lear cc'energy ting lnits 13 l G il QD-'> c'ant 5 St, Lucre,o. 2 arid access to other systeii.s n clear generation thxough the use of Applic".Qt s transr::ission systet'1, tl..ey noi. b ai)le i.o tat e ac 'antae'e oi: nucle r gene"a" ion to n:Get l)ill pro';Iinc loads as bul!i po':e'er suppl e s. Lifcemise, le.thout 59.Rile r access to nuclea='enexat on Set~inole'5 rle:-;,oers ente" ill~; the oullc poi)er supply business h '. 52 03 12 t) 0L as an a3ternative to full-="quirelncn~ uflolesale purclase appears greatly diminished.
Conclusion Our antitrl.st revie':) led us to the folio",ing conclus'ons:
(1) Apj)lical t is the dorilinant electric utility ill 1'lorida and because I of li s 0'vne ship of transl iss3 on, has tt e poMcr to
grrnt or oeny oLhcr systens in Ls area the access f=o coordi-a
~
nation--and tt,us the nuclear pc:ier-.-needed to co;".,pete in bulk poi.er supply and rctai.l distr'bution var'ets'2) there is so.-'..e indication;applicant's domi, lnce I,",ay hr".ve been enhanced throu>h conduct ir,hib tin<'he co@petit ve oooortunities of the ss,.aller syst eB.S 3.n 3.ts Qxea; encl (3) construcLi.on and C'
~
Ope;~tion o. St. Luci i',o. 2, and the sale of pointer therefrom to .,leeL ApplicanL's load groi Lh and compete lrith th smaller incon"is"ent with the antitrust la~;s i>> access to nuclear 1 i systePi.s il1 LLs area could crea te 0x la Lail) a si'uGL3.oil generation I;cxe denied thos smaller. systems, ~

le related oux concern ove those Iilatters to represe>>ta-t3ves 0'ile AD,)licrlnt, i hile dcIl} in

'e construct 3.0n and 0 ex'a
~
tion of Gt. Lu Unit Ho, 2 could have Lhe e~::":ect '.e e" red, they acvised us that App3.ican'- Iiould ncvert'1 3.ess seriously consider o'" erin'articipaLion in St. Tucie Unit i~~<o. 2 (s:ith trans".ission servi.ces, re erve sharing, and OLher coo:di-nation necessary to supp'0 "t such part'cipation) to the th ee utilities I ho, prior to our rendering this advice, have driven
..pp icant I.otnce o= th ir interest 3.n uch particioation to' mac~ a poetic. o theist "utu"a pouat ."upply teouiramian'a--
C ~
i.o. >.
c.>.o~~
l.o;..aatoad> ce Smyrna B."."ch and "-or:;inola -~set'ic oopax'at~un. ""3.thoz) bac'!uaa of tho a catu9 QZ Applicant a x'Qnsfi)iss ion neti70'< Qs tile 1cey to coord3. a t3.on 'by these systems 'lith othe=s, the Departn nf: rendu sted PDDlicant also o conside- adop in~ a policy to facilitate thei" eZforts to obtain access to othQX econo'.:,ical; po~;-er soux.ces. Xt was J QGic ed that ne Appl3.cant ':".ina 1 pos
~ ~
wi be deter. lined w3.thin the ne:ct 90 days'his it'n m )
on these I. a t ters irould ~pea Lo fe.ave su~": '3.C3.ent t3.I1e to Porn;ulate such license conditi.ons as may be appropriate.
Tn vie(> o. the con~idexation Applicant is noir givin< Lo the au stion 06 access by other Pnii>> es to nuclear go.1era ticn, and the pl obab3.13.ty Lilat part3.cipa t3.on ln St Luc3.e Un3.f:
No.;>il..
~
t.j be mac!e ava3.lable to cerLain of these entiti.es, the Dep lrtI1ent does not af: Lh s tii e recoI< end an'nLiLrus L hearing. Considering tha t issuance of: the construction e rmi t 8/ 3.n this connection ire note also that Applicant Isil.l almost cexta "3ivr";Dply t0 Lhe Co!".".iission for 13.ccnses to construcf: and operate addiLional nuclear <.eaeratn on un'f=s Further oucstions concc.nin;., t:1e opportunitie o- its neighboring syst:ebs (including sysf:0-;,.s other than iionesteaci, Ne? ~:;>yxn~~ >erich> and Sc-,'.insole) for access to f he bc"lcf its o nuclear generation liny bc ripe for.resolution in the antitrust review oi sucix 1 cense applicati.ons.
&or St. Lucie Unit ~lo. 2 is not conten~nlated until earlv in 1975, i~e believe it reasonable to a"'.c the Commission to a'oide the outco!".,e oc i.pplicant s 90-cay consideration uli ipa t e ly dec ic!in~ ~'he ther ol not to hold Qn an p:inr to t" tl us t hearin'.~. Tiie OepaL t~~ent 'uld oC course be pleased to advise the Con=".,ission "urther'n this aues'-ion or other rele-vAlit questions in the light 0 <"ha tever 0" Per Applican" may m~ke and other intervenin~ developp:;ants.
itin()erclg j~ou~ q BRUCE B, ~ TLSOli Acting As"istant Attorne- C neral Antitrust Division
'l

ML18088A899: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 11:36, 23 February 2020

Contents

Text

Dear Comm ss i one r s:

Dear Ken:

Subject:

Dear Mr. Fuqua:

Dear '.:

Dear Mr. Kelly:

Dear Mr. Buck:

Dear Mr. Fuqua:

Dear tIr. Jablon:

Enclosure:

Dear Mr. Fuqua:

Dear )fr,

Navigation menu

ML18088A899: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 11:36, 23 February 2020

Text

Dear Comm ss i one r s:

Dear Ken:

Subject:

Dear Mr. Fuqua:

Dear '.:

Dear Mr. Kelly:

Dear Mr. Buck:

Dear Mr. Fuqua:

Dear tIr. Jablon:

Enclosure:

Dear Mr. Fuqua:

Dear )fr,

Navigation menu

Search