Florida Power & Light Drops Winter Power Proposal
Florida Power & Light said it developed the proposal after studying massive outages caused by cold weather in February 2021 in Texas.
July 12, 2022 at 11:17 AM
4 minute read
Florida Power & Light backed away from a controversial proposal that would have used a severe winter storm in 1989 as a basis for future power-plant projects.
FPL filed a notice at the state Public Service Commission that said it was withdrawing the proposal from a normally routine process of utilities updating what are known as "10-year site plans" for projects.
Under the proposal, the 1989 storm would have been factored into plans for expanding the capacity of power plants and making other changes to handle "peak" electricity demand during the winter. But the proposal drew opposition from the state Office of Public Counsel, which represents consumers in utility issues, and other groups as it could have helped lead to potentially costly projects.
FPL said it developed the proposal after studying massive outages caused by cold weather in February 2021 in Texas. In a statement Monday about withdrawing the proposal, FPL cited the Texas storm, as well as the 1989 storm and a 2010 winter storm in Florida.
"FPL has a duty and responsibility to deliver 24/7 electricity to more than half of Florida, and we constantly plan for both hot and cold weather scenarios which could realistically impact our ability to keep the lights on," the statement said. "The 2021 Texas winter weather event that took the lives of more than 240 Texans is an example of an extreme scenario that could affect Florida — just as it did in 1989 and 2010. Ensuring there is adequate electric generation during extreme weather scenarios is never an exact science. It requires long-term planning and forward thinking. The winterization approach we filed as part of our Ten-Year Site Plan and Storm Protection Plans was created to protect our customers from these potential scenarios, but the feedback offered by the Florida Public Service Commission staff, the Office of Public Counsel and other organizations indicates that they don't share our concerns."
During a hearing last month, state Deputy Public Counsel Charles Rehwinkel said the proposal would deviate from a planning process that electric utilities have long used. He and other opponents also disputed a connection to the Texas outages, pointing to issues such as a different regulatory structure in Texas.
Rehwinkel called the FPL proposal a "novel hypothesis."
"The past 33 years, neither FPL nor any other utility has seen fit to apply this historical [1989] event to its expansion, so why now?" Rehwinkel said during the hearing. "Well, the answer is, there's no good evidence-based reason to change the process.'"
The FPL proposal called for upgrading existing power plants to add 700 megawatts of generation capacity to help meet peak winter demand. Also, it would have sought to "repurpose" five plants that had been slated to be shut down so they could be used if extreme winter weather is forecast.
During last month's hearing, Andrew Whitley, manager of integrated resource planning at FPL, said it would cost an estimated $140 million to make the upgrades and that the repurposing costs would be "minimal."
FPL has used a planning process that involved looking at a 50% probability that a "peak load" will be higher than forecast and a 50% probability that it will be lower than forecast. But in the proposal, FPL said severe cold over several days could lead to electricity use that is far higher than expected.
"In the 1989 event, the electrical heating loads were so high that FPL could not serve all of the customer demand," the proposal said. "This resulted in large numbers of customers experiencing periods in which power to their homes could not be delivered, i.e., customers experienced 'rolling blackouts.'"
The December 1989 storm brought snow to parts of the state and caused problems such as airports and interstates being shut down.
Jim Saunders reports for the News Service of Florida.
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllMiami’s Arbitration Week Aims To Cement City’s Status as Dispute Destination
3 minute readThe Inflation Reduction Act: Evaluating Its Impact on Renewable Energy Producers and Analyzing Emerging Needs
Caribbean Energy Needs Are on the Rise, and Plenty of That Work is Headed For U.S. Law Firms
5 minute readTrending Stories
- 1'Largest Retail Data Breach in History'? Hot Topic and Affiliated Brands Sued for Alleged Failure to Prevent Data Breach Linked to Snowflake Software
- 2Former President of New York State Bar, and the New York Bar Foundation, Dies As He Entered 70th Year as Attorney
- 3Legal Advocates in Uproar Upon Release of Footage Showing CO's Beat Black Inmate Before His Death
- 4Longtime Baker & Hostetler Partner, Former White House Counsel David Rivkin Dies at 68
- 5Court System Seeks Public Comment on E-Filing for Annual Report
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250