01/16/2018 (2) - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

ORDER NO. PSC-2018-0028-FOF-EI DOCKET NO. 20180001 -El PAGE 5 transmission line. Further, if the reasoning in Woodford is applied to the FPUC facts, the Court would find the recovery of transmission lines through base rates appropriate since transmission is specifically listed as an activity engaged in by electric utilities. Section 366.02(2), F.S. Likewise, applying the reasoning of Woodford to the facts here, there is no question that we have the authority to allow recovery of the costs associated with solar generation projects. As with transmission, generation is listed specifically as an activity engaged in by electric utilities in Section 366.02(2), F.S. It is important to note that FIPUG is not arguing that FPL does not have the right to recover the solar project costs; it is arguing that solar project costs can't be recovered through fuel clause factors. Presumably, FIPUG would not object to FPL filing a separate docket seeking cost recovery for the 2017 and 2018 solar projects using an increase in base rates to do so. Indeed, FIPUG has agreed to such a mechanism to recover solar project capital costs as a signatory to Tampa Electric Company's 2017 Amended and Restated Stipulation and Settlement Agreement.2 Since FPL is not requesting recovery through the fuel adjustment clause factor, but is requesting recovery of costs for its solar projects through increases in base rates, FIPUG's complaint does not raise a jurisdictional question at all. Recovery of these costs through base rates is clearly appropriate under both the Woodford and FPUC decisions. We agree with FPL that placement of this issue in the fuel clause docket was purely administrative. We also agree with FPL that to the extent possible, an increase in base rates associated with the solar projects coming on line should be timed to coincide with any fuel savings which result from that solar generation. Litigating the cost effectiveness issues associated with the solar projects, Issues 2J - 2P, in this docket cost-effectively accomplishes this goal. When dissected and examined closely, FIPUG's issue boils down to insisting that rate base cost recovery for the solar projects be filed in a separate docket. FIPUG has not alleged that it did not have adequate notice of the solar project issues, or that it has been harmed in any way by the inclusion of those issues in this docket. Nor could it. FPL filed direct testimony of four witnesses on this point,3 Commission staff conducted extensive discovery on this issue,4 FIPUG cross examined FPL witnesses Enjamio and Brannen on this topic at hearing, and FIPUG filed a post hearing brief. Conducting these activities under a separate docket number does not change their nature or provide FIPUG any additional due process rights. Based on the above, we find that we have the authority to approve the recovery of FPL's 2017 and 2018 solar projects through base rates in this fuel clause docket. SoBRA PROJECT RECOVERY Overview FPL proposes to construct and operate 596 MW of solar generation by 2018 pursuant to its 2016 Stipulation and Settlement Agreement (2016 Agreement). FPL contends that the costs for the 2017 and 2018 projects are reasonable and fall below the $1,750 per kWac cost cap as required by the 2016 Agreement. To ensure reasonable capital costs, FPL completed a 2 Document No. 07947-2017 at % 6(f). 3Tiffany Cohen, Liz Fuentes, Juan Enjamio and William Brannen. 4EXH 84, 86, 87 and 89.