[NukeNet] Individual Action in progress, Florida Alliance update, Part 2b of 2A&B.

[Minimushomines at aol.com]

Additional  Issues 
FPL 
ISSUE 9:         If  the Commission grants Florida Power & Light Company’s 
petition to determine  the need for the proposed generating units, should the 
Commission’s order  expressly state support for the development of new nuclear 
generation, affirm  the need to take steps now to preserve new nuclear 
generation as a resource  option to meet future customer needs, acknowledge the risks 
and costs associated  with a project of such magnitude and the corresponding 
stepwise role of the  annual review process and emphasize the importance of 
continued regulatory  support throughout the process? (FPL 8) 
Position: It is our position, as stated  during the effort to identify 
issues, that issues 9-12 are not appropriately  placed in this docket.  In  
particular reference to issue 9 if we are incorrect in our assessment of the  
inappropriateness of the placement of these issues in this docket we have listed  an 
additional issue for ourselves that is identified in the pending motions  
portion of this document that requests specific actions by the PSC in the event  
they deny this petition. 
ISSUE 10:       If the  Commission grants Florida Power & Light Company’s 
petition to determine the  need for the proposed generating units, is it prudent 
for FPL to make advance  payments for such long-lead procurement items as are 
reasonably necessary to  preserve the potential for 2018-2020 in-service dates 
for the proposed  generating units? (FPL 9) 
Position: No, we believe  issue 10 is not appropriate for this docket. 
ISSUE 11:       If the  Commission grants Florida Power & Light Company’s 
petition to determine the  need for the proposed generating units, are prudent 
advancepayments made prior  to the completion of the proposed generating units’ 
site clearing work properly  characterized as “pre-construction costs,” to be 
recovered pursuant to the  mechanism provided in Rule 25-6.0423, F.A.C.? (FPL 
10) 
Position: No, we believe issue 11 is not appropriate for this docket 
ISSUE 12:       If  FPL were to file for  recovery by May 1, 2008, would 
pre-construction costs associated with the  proposed generating units that the 
Commission determines are reasonable and  prudent be included for cost recovery 
purposes as a component of the 2009  Capacity Cost Recovery Factor in the 
annual Fuel and Purchased Power Cost  Recovery proceeding, pursuant to Rule 
25-6.0423(5) (c), F.A.C.? (FPL  11) 
Position: No, we believe  issue 12 is not appropriate for this docket 
FMPA/FMEA 
ISSUE 13:       Does  FPL's nuclear power plant petition contain a summary of 
any discussions with  other electric utilities regarding ownership of a 
portion of the plant by such  electric utilities, consistent with the requirements 
of Rule 25-22.081, F.A.C.?  (FMPA/FMEA 7) 
Position: No, and the fact that FPL’s  petition does not contain a summary of 
any discussions they had with other  electric utilities regarding ownership 
of the portion of the plant should be  rectified by FPL amending their original 
petition to include the required  information or, if there have been no 
preliminary discussions as claimed, and no  summary is possible, FPL should be 
required to withdraw their present petition  and submit an accurate correct one 
starting from square one. 
OUC 
ISSUE 14:       Does  not 403.519(4)(b), Fla. Stat., stating that the 
Commission shall “take into  account matters within its jurisdiction, which it deems 
relevant” allow the  Commission to conclude that co-ownership is relevant 
especially in light of  (4)(b)(2) which requires the Commission to consider 
whether the approval will  enhance the reliability of power production within the 
state (not just in FPL’s  territory) and (4)(b)(3) requiring the Commission to 
take into account the  plant’s contribution to the long-term stability and 
reliability of the electric  grid? (OUC 1)   
Position: No. 
ISSUE 15:       Did Florida  Power and Light’s Petition, as required by Rule 
25-22.081 (2) (d) F.A.C.,  contain a summary of any discussions Florida Power 
and Light had with other  electric utilities concerning the other electric 
utilities’ ownership of a  portion of the Florida Power and Light nuclear plant? 
(OUC 2) 
Position: No, and the fact that FPL’s  petition does not contain a summary of 
any discussions they had with other  electric utilities regarding ownership 
of the portion of the plant should be  rectified by FPL amending their original 
petition to include the required  information or, if there have been no 
preliminary discussions as claimed, and no  summary is possible, FPL should be 
required to withdraw their present petition  and submit an accurate correct one 
starting from square one. 
ISSUE 16:       Does  403.519(4)(a)(5), Fla. Stat., and Rule 25-22.081(2)(d) 
F.A.C., create any duty  on Florida Power & Light (“FPL”) to initiate 
discussion with other utilities  that might have an interest in ownership of a 
portion of the nuclear plants or  is this legislation and rule meaningless and may 
be ignored all together (FPL  says they can satisfy law and rule by not having 
any discussions and reporting  that fact at FPL Response, Paragraph 2, page 
2)? (OUC 4) 
Position:  No, to the  following sentence, “Does  403.519(4)(a)(5), Fla. 
Stat., and Rule 25-22.081(2)(d)  F.A.C., create any duty on Florida Power  & Light 
(“FPL”) to initiate discussion with other utilities that might have  an 
interest in ownership of a portion of the nuclear plants.” 
No  to the following portion of issue 16  “or is this legislation and rule 
meaningless and may be ignored all  together.”                                   
                                         
Yes  to the following portion of issue 16 “FPL says they can satisfy law and 
rule  by  not having any discussions and reporting that fact” (See our  
position on issue 14) 
ISSUE 17:       Does  OUC, a utility that presently has ownership in two 
nuclear power plants, have a  substantial interest in having meaningful 
discussions with Florida Power &  Light regarding ownership of a portion of the nuclear 
power plants at issue here  as required by 403.519(4)(a)(5), Fla. Stat.?? (OUC 
5) 
Position: No, no such  requirement exists 
ISSUE 18:       Should  the Commission infer any intent by Legislature from 
actions that were not taken  by the Legislature (an amendment was proposed but 
withdrawn)? (OUC 6) 
Position: No. 
Seminole 
ISSUE 19:       Has FPL  engaged in meaningful discussions with other 
electric utilities regarding  ownership of a portion of the proposed nuclear plants 
by such utilities?  (SEMINOLE 7) 
Position: Yes, FPL has stated in their  petition on page 37 IX that “FPL has 
held preliminary discussions regarding the  potential for ownership 
participation with several Florida utilities who  have expressed interest. As FPL 
proceeds through the licensing phase and begins  dedicated commercial negotiations 
with the selected vendor, opportunities for  partnership with Florida utilities 
will continue to be  explored.” The fact that FPL’s petition does not 
contain a summary of any  discussions they had with other electric utilities 
regarding ownership of the  portion of the plant should be rectified by FPL amending 
their original petition  to include the required information or, if there have 
been no preliminary  discussions as claimed, and no summary is possible, FPL 
should be required to  withdraw their present petition and submit an accurate 
correct one starting from  square one. 
ISSUE 20:       If not,  should the Commission require such discussions?  
(SEMINOLE 8) 
Position:  No, only a summary is provided by  law.   
5.  Stipulated issues 
None at this time. 
    1.  Pending motions and other matters upon  which action is sought
If the commission denies  FPL’s petition for the determination of need for 
the proposed units, should the  commission order expressly state support for a 
comprehensive analysis of all  energy efficiency and conservation 
opportunities, all clean renewable generating  options and the value of an expanded net 
metering/ distributive energy program  and research into the application of 
innovative methods of reordering the  competitive marketplace in Florida to more 
effectively and prudently address the  energy needs of the State’s residents 
financed with the billions of that would  have been used to pay for the nuclear 
power plants? 
7. Pending claim for  confidentiality 
None  at this time 
8. Objections to witness  qualifications as an expert, none. 
None at this time 
9. Compliance with Order  No, PSC-07-0869-PCO-El, 
At this time persons who are intervenors  are unaware of any requirements of 
the    Order Establishing  procedure with which they can not comply. 
Respectfully submitted this 4th day of January, 2008. 
s/ Bob Krasowski 
s/  Jan Krasowski 
Bob and Jan Krasowski 
1086 Michigan  Ave. 
Naples,  FL.34103-3857 
239-434-0786



**************Start the year off right.  Easy ways to stay in shape.     
http://body.aol.com/fitness/winter-exercise?NCID=aolcmp00300000002489
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mail.energyjustice.net/pipermail/nukenet_energyjustice.net/attachments/20080107/1c4b5792/attachment-0001.html