01/16/2018 (2) - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

ORDER NO. PSC-2018-0028-FOF-EI DOCKET NO. 20180001 -EI PAGE 11 2018 solar projects. Specifically, FPL cited changes in tax law effective as of July 1, 2017, that allowed an exemption from property taxes for qualifying solar installations which applied to three of the planned 2018 solar generation project sites, and resulted in a $34 million CPVRR reduction. This testimony resulted in a revised $106 million CPVRR base case scenario. The terms of the 2016 agreement also require FPL to adhere to a $1,750 per kWac cost cap for any solar project. This cost cap includes the cost of the components, engineering, and construction for each site. In the initial filing, the 2017 and 2018 solar generation projects had a total anticipated capital cost of $435 million and $457 million, respectively. The 2017 projects were projected to fall under the cost cap with an average cost of $1,461per kWa, and a $1,534 per kWa, average cost for the 2018 projects. In witness Brannen's revised testimony of August 2, 2017, the completion of design competitive solicitations for the construction of the interconnection facilities for the 2017 solar construction projects reduced the projected construction cost by $16 Million. Witness Brannen stated that these same factors also reduced the projected construction cost by $14 million for the 2018 solar construction projects. For the 2017 projects, the new construction cost was a $419 million total with a revised average $1,405 per kWa, cost. The new cost per kWac is $56 per kWa, less than the initially filed cost and $345 per kWac less than the $1,750 per kWac cost cap. For the 2018 projects, the new construction cost was a $443 million total with a revised average $1,485 per kWac cost. The new cost per kWac is $49 per kWac less than the initially filed cost and $265 per kWa, less than the $1,750 per kWac cost cap. Having reviewed the cost cap assumptions discussed above we find them to be reasonable. FPL's revised testimony from August 2017 did not include the planned Dania Beach Clean Energy Center. As such, an updated CPVRR evaluation was requested that included the planned Dania Beach Clean Energy Center and updated fuel and environmental compliance sensitivities evaluations. The result of this updated sensitivity analysis is illustrated in Table 6 below: Table 6 Revised CPVRR Analysis Source: EXH 87 Table 6 above shows that in seven of the nine scenarios, the 2017 and 2018 solar projects are cost effective. Notably the base fuel case (medium), ENV I scenario contains no cost for CO2, but is also cost effective. When comparing the change in savings on a CPVRR basis between the initial filing and the revised analysis, there is a substantial increase in savings for all forecasted scenarios. In all forecsted scenarios, avoided fuel costs was the major driving force in producing overall savings for the projects. This fact manifested in even the "worst" case scenario of Low Fuel Cost, ENV I, where there are projected fuel savings in every forecasted year. The first cumulative benefit occurs in 2025. This benefit seems to be driven by the Environmental Compliance Cost Forecast Fuel Cost Forecast ENV I ENV II ENV III High ($119) ($195 $348 Medium ($24) ($96 ($249 Low $76 $6 ($147). Source: EXH 87 Table 6 above shows that in seven of the nine scenarios, the 2017 and 2018 solar projects are cost effective. Notably the base fuel case (medium), ENV I scenario contains no cost for CO2, but is also cost effective. When comparing the change in savings on a CPVRR basis between the initial filing and the revised analysis, there is a substantial increase in savings for all forecasted scenarios. In all forecsted scenarios, avoided fuel costs was the major driving force in producing overall savings for the projects. This fact manifested in even the "worst" case scenario of Low Fuel Cost, ENV I, where there are projected fuel savings in every forecasted year. The first cumulative benefit occurs in 2025. This benefit seems to be driven by the