Environmental and Land Use Information:
Supplemental Information
Relationship of Regional Hydrogeologic Units
to Major Stratigraphic Units
and
Florida Regions
Florida Power & Light Company 222
Note: This information is referred to in subsection k, Geological Features of Site and Adjacent Areas, for
each of the Preferred Sites.
Florida Power & Light Company 223
Florida Regions Map
Note: This information is referred to in subsection k, Geological Features of Site and Adjacent Areas, for
each of the Preferred Sites.
Florida Power & Light Company 224
Environmental and Land Use Information:
Supplemental Information
Preferred Site # 1: Babcock Preserve Solar Energy Center,
Charlotte County
Florida Power & Light Company 225
Florida Power & Light Company 226
Florida Power & Light Company 227
Florida Power & Light Company 228
Environmental and Land Use Information:
Supplemental Information
Preferred Site # 2: Blue Heron Solar Energy Center,
Hendry County
Florida Power & Light Company 229
Florida Power & Light Company 230
Florida Power & Light Company 231
Florida Power & Light Company 232
Environmental and Land Use Information:
Supplemental Information
Preferred Site # 3: Cattle Ranch Solar Energy Center,
DeSoto County
Florida Power & Light Company 233
Florida Power & Light Company 234
Florida Power & Light Company 235
Florida Power & Light Company 236
Environmental and Land Use Information:
Supplemental Information
Preferred Site # 4: Northern Preserve Solar Energy Center,
Baker County
Florida Power & Light Company 237
Florida Power & Light Company 238
Florida Power & Light Company 239
Florida Power & Light Company 240
Environmental and Land Use Information:
Supplemental Information
Preferred Site # 5: Sweetbay Solar Energy Center,
Martin County
Florida Power & Light Company 241
Florida Power & Light Company 242
Florida Power & Light Company 243
Florida Power & Light Company 244
Environmental and Land Use Information:
Supplemental Information
Preferred Site # 6: Twin Lakes Solar Energy Center,
Putnam County
Florida Power & Light Company 245
Florida Power & Light Company 246
Florida Power & Light Company 247
Florida Power & Light Company 248
Environmental and Land Use Information:
Supplemental Information
Preferred Site # 7: Echo River Solar Energy Center,
Suwannee County
Florida Power & Light Company 249
Florida Power & Light Company 250
Florida Power & Light Company 251
Florida Power & Light Company 252
Environmental and Land Use Information:
Supplemental Information
Preferred Site # 8: Hibiscus Solar Energy Center,
Palm Beach County
Florida Power & Light Company 253
Florida Power & Light Company 254
Florida Power & Light Company 255
Florida Power & Light Company 256
Environmental and Land Use Information:
Supplemental Information
Preferred Site # 9: Okeechobee Solar Energy Center,
Okeechobee County
Florida Power & Light Company 257
Florida Power & Light Company 258
Florida Power & Light Company 259
Florida Power & Light Company 260
Environmental and Land Use Information:
Supplemental Information
Preferred Site # 10: Southfork Solar Energy Center,
Manatee County
Florida Power & Light Company 261
Florida Power & Light Company 262
Florida Power & Light Company 263
Florida Power & Light Company 264
Environmental and Land Use Information:
Supplemental Information
Preferred Site # 11: Egret Solar Energy Center,
Baker County
Florida Power & Light Company 265
Florida Power & Light Company 266
Florida Power & Light Company 267
Florida Power & Light Company 268
Environmental and Land Use Information:
Supplemental Information
Preferred Site # 12: Lakeside Solar Energy Center,
Okeechobee County
Florida Power & Light Company 269
Florida Power & Light Company 270
Florida Power & Light Company 271
Florida Power & Light Company 272
Environmental and Land Use Information:
Supplemental Information
Preferred Site # 13: Magnolia Springs Solar Energy Center,
Clay County
Florida Power & Light Company 273
Florida Power & Light Company 274
Florida Power & Light Company 275
Florida Power & Light Company 276
Environmental and Land Use Information:
Supplemental Information
Preferred Site # 14: Pelican Solar Energy Center,
St. Lucie County
Florida Power & Light Company 277
Florida Power & Light Company 278
Florida Power & Light Company 279
Florida Power & Light Company 280
Environmental and Land Use Information:
Supplemental Information
Preferred Site # 15: Rodeo Solar Energy Center,
DeSoto County
Florida Power & Light Company 281
Florida Power & Light Company 282
Florida Power & Light Company 283
Florida Power & Light Company 284
Environmental and Land Use Information:
Supplemental Information
Preferred Site # 16: Discovery Solar Energy Center,
Brevard County
Florida Power & Light Company 285
Florida Power & Light Company 286
Florida Power & Light Company 287
Florida Power & Light Company 288
Environmental and Land Use Information:
Supplemental Information
Preferred Site # 17: Manatee County Site,
Manatee County
Florida Power & Light Company 289
Florida Power & Light Company 290
Florida Power & Light Company 291
Florida Power & Light Company 292
Environmental and Land Use Information:
Supplemental Information
Preferred Site # 18: Nassau Solar Energy Center,
Nassau County
Florida Power & Light Company 293
Florida Power & Light Company 294
Florida Power & Light Company 295
Florida Power & Light Company 296
Environmental and Land Use Information:
Supplemental Information
Preferred Site # 19: Orange Blossom Solar Energy Center,
Indian River County
Florida Power & Light Company 297
Florida Power & Light Company 298
Florida Power & Light Company 299
Florida Power & Light Company 300
Environmental and Land Use Information:
Supplemental Information
Preferred Site # 20: Palm Bay Solar Energy Center,
Brevard County
Florida Power & Light Company 301
Florida Power & Light Company 302
Florida Power & Light Company 303
Florida Power & Light Company 304
Environmental and Land Use Information:
Supplemental Information
Preferred Site # 21: Putnam County Site,
Putnam County
Florida Power & Light Company 305
Florida Power & Light Company 306
Florida Power & Light Company 307
Florida Power & Light Company 308
Environmental and Land Use Information:
Supplemental Information
Preferred Site # 22: Sabal Palm Solar Energy Center,
Palm Beach County
Florida Power & Light Company 309
Florida Power & Light Company 310
Florida Power & Light Company 311
Florida Power & Light Company 312
Environmental and Land Use Information:
Supplemental Information
Preferred Site # 23: Trailside Solar Energy Center,
St. Johns County
Florida Power & Light Company 313
Florida Power & Light Company 314
Florida Power & Light Company 315
Florida Power & Light Company 316
Environmental and Land Use Information:
Supplemental Information
Preferred Site # 24: Union Springs Solar Energy Center,
Union County
Florida Power & Light Company 317
Florida Power & Light Company 318
Florida Power & Light Company 319
Florida Power & Light Company 320
Environmental and Land Use Information:
Supplemental Information
Preferred Site # 25: Battery Storage,
Manatee County
Florida Power & Light Company 321
Florida Power & Light Company 322
Florida Power & Light Company 323
Florida Power & Light Company 324
Environmental and Land Use Information:
Supplemental Information
Preferred Site # 26: Dania Beach Clean Energy Center Unit 7,
Broward County
Florida Power & Light Company 325
Florida Power & Light Company 326
Florida Power & Light Company 327
Florida Power & Light Company 328
Environmental and Land Use Information:
Supplemental Information
Preferred Site # 27: Turkey Point Plant,
Miami-Dade County
Florida Power & Light Company 329
Florida Power & Light Company 330
Florida Power & Light Company 331
Florida Power & Light Company 332
Environmental and Land Use Information:
Supplemental Information
Potential Site # 1: Hendry County
Florida Power & Light Company 333
Florida Power & Light Company 334
Florida Power & Light Company 335
Environmental and Land Use Information:
Supplemental Information
Potential Site # 2: Martin County
Florida Power & Light Company 336
Florida Power & Light Company 337
Florida Power & Light Company 338
Environmental and Land Use Information:
Supplemental Information
Potential Site # 3: Miami-Dade County
Florida Power & Light Company 339
Florida Power & Light Company 340
Florida Power & Light Company 341
Environmental and Land Use Information:
Supplemental Information
Potential Site # 4: Okeechobee County
Florida Power & Light Company 342
Florida Power & Light Company 343
Florida Power & Light Company 344
CHAPTER V
Other Planning Assumptions & Information
Florida Power & Light Company 345
(This page is left intentionally blank.)
Florida Power & Light Company 346
Introduction
The Florida Public Service Commission (FPSC), in Docket No. 960111-EU, specified certain information to
be included in an electric utility’s Ten Year Power Plant Site Plan filing. This specified information includes
12 items listed under a heading entitled “Other Planning Assumptions and Information.” These 12 items
concern specific aspects of a utility’s resource planning work. The FPSC requested a discussion or a
description of each of these items.
These 12 items are addressed individually below as separate “Discussion Items”.
Discussion Item # 1: Describe how any transmission constraints were modeled and explain the
impacts on the plan. Discuss any plans for alleviating any transmission constraints.
FPL’s resource planning work considers two types of transmission limitations/constraints: external
limitations and internal limitations. External limitations involve FPL’s ties to its neighboring electric
systems. Internal limitations involve the flow of electricity within the FPL system.
The external limitations are important because they affect the development of assumptions for the amount
of external assistance that is available to the FPL system as well as the amount and price of economy
energy purchases. Therefore, these external limitations are incorporated both in the reliability analysis and
economic analysis aspects of resource planning. The amount of external assistance that is assumed to be
available is based on the projected transfer capability to FPL from outside its system as well as historical
levels of available assistance. In the loss of load probability (LOLP) portion of its reliability analyses, FPL
models this amount of external assistance as an additional generator within FPL’s system that provides
capacity in all but the peak load months. The assumed amount and price of economy energy are based on
historical values and projections from production costing models.
FPL addresses internal transmission limitations in economic analyses by identifying potential geographic
locations for potential new generating units that minimize adverse impacts to the flow of electricity within
FPL’s system. The internal transmission limitations are also addressed by: 1) developing the direct costs
for siting potential new units at different locations, 2) evaluating the cost impacts created by the new
unit/unit location combination on the operation of existing units in the FPL system, and/or 3) evaluating the
costs of transmission and/or generation additions that may be needed to address regional concerns
regarding an imbalance between load and generation in a given region. Costs for these site, region, and
system factors are developed for use in economic analyses. These factors are also considered in both
system and regional reliability analyses.
Florida Power & Light Company 347
When analyzing DSM portfolios, such as for a DSM Goals docket, FPL also examines the potential to
avoid or defer regional transmission additions that might otherwise be needed. In addition, transfer limits
for capacity and energy that can be imported into the Southeastern Florida region (Miami-Dade and
Broward Counties) of FPL’s system are also developed, as applicable, for use in FPL’s reliability analyses
and production costing analyses. (A further discussion of the Southeastern Florida region of FPL’s system,
and the need to maintain a regional balance between generation and transmission contributions to meet
regional load, is found in Chapter III.)
FPL’s annual transmission planning work determines transmission additions needed to address limitations
and maintain/enhance system and regional reliability. FPL’s planned transmission facilities to interconnect
and integrate generating units in FPL’s resource plans, including those transmission facilities that must be
certified under the Transmission Line Siting Act, are presented in Chapter III.
Discussion Item # 2: Discuss the extent to which the overall economics of the plan were
analyzed. Discuss how the plan is determined to be cost-effective. Discuss any changes in the
generation expansion plan as a result of sensitivity tests to the base case load forecast.
FPL typically performs economic analyses of competing resource plans using FPL’s levelized system
average electric rates (i.e., a Rate Impact Measure or RIM approach) as an economic criterion. In addition,
for analyses in which DSM levels are not changed and only supply options are analyzed, FPL uses the
12
equivalent criterion of the cumulative present value of revenue requirements (CPVRR) for its system.
In December 2018, FPL developed the load forecast that is presented in this 2019 Site Plan. The only load
forecast sensitivities analyzed during 2018 and/or early 2019 were extreme-weather sensitivities
developed to analyze potential near-term operational scenarios and a higher load forecast scenario that
was used to examine the projected future need for natural gas for the FPL system. These load forecast
sensitivities and scenarios did not result in a change in the resource plan.
12
FPL’s basic approach in its resource planning work is to base decisions on a lowest electric rate basis. However, when DSM levels are
considered a “given” in the analysis (i.e., when only new generating options are considered), the lowest electric rate basis approach and the lowest
system cumulative present value of revenue requirements (CPVRR) basis approach yield identical results in terms of which resource options are
more economic. In such cases, FPL evaluates resource options on the simpler-to-calculate (but equivalent) lowest CPVRR basis.
Florida Power & Light Company 348
Discussion Item # 3: Explain and discuss the assumptions used to derive the base case fuel
forecast. Explain the extent to which the utility tested the sensitivity of the base case plan to high
and low fuel price scenarios. If high and low fuel price sensitivities were performed, explain the
changes made to the base case fuel price forecast to generate the sensitivities. If high and low
fuel price scenarios were performed as part of the planning process, discuss the resulting
changes, if any, in the generation expansion plan under the high and low fuel price scenarios. If
high and low fuel price sensitivities were not evaluated, describe how the base case plan is tested
for sensitivity to varying fuel prices.
The basic assumptions that FPL used to derive its fuel price forecasts are discussed in Chapter III of this
document. FPL may use a single fuel cost forecast, or multiple fuel cost forecasts (Low, Medium, and
High), in its analyses as appropriate.
In cases where multiple fuel cost forecasts are used, a Medium fuel cost forecast is developed first. Then
FPL’s approach has been to adjust the Medium fuel cost forecast upward (for the High fuel cost forecast)
or downward (for the Low fuel cost forecast) by multiplying the annual cost values from the Medium fuel
cost forecast by a factor of (1 + the historical volatility of the 12-month forward price, one year ahead) for
the High fuel cost forecast, or by a factor of (1 – the historical volatility of the 12-month forward price, one
year ahead) for the Low fuel cost forecast.
The resource plan presented in this Site Plan is based on an updated fuel cost forecast developed in
December 2018.
Discussion Item # 4: Describe how the sensitivity of the plan was tested with respect to holding
the differential between oil/gas and coal constant over the planning horizon.
In its 2018 and early 2019 resource planning work, FPL did not utilize a forecast scenario in which the
differential between oil/gas and coal was held constant. This is, in part, because FPL is currently using,
and is projected to use, very little oil or coal (as shown on Schedules 5, 6.1, and 6.2 in Chapter III).
Discussion Item # 5: Describe how generating unit performance was modeled in the planning
process.
The performance of existing generating units on FPL’s system was modeled using current projections for
scheduled outages, unplanned outages, capacity output ratings, and heat rate information. Schedule 1 in
Chapter I and Schedule 8 in Chapter III present the current and projected capacity output ratings of FPL’s
Florida Power & Light Company 349
existing units. The values used for outages and heat rates are generally consistent with the values FPL
has used in its planning studies in recent years.
In regard to new unit performance, FPL utilized current projections for the capital costs, fixed and variable
operating and maintenance costs, capital replacement costs, construction schedules, heat rates, and
capacity ratings for all construction options in its resource planning work. A summary of this information for
the new capacity options that FPL currently projects to add over the reporting horizon for this document is
presented on the Schedule 9 forms in Chapter III.
Discussion Item # 6: Describe and discuss the financial assumptions used in the planning
process. Discuss how the sensitivity of the plan was tested with respect to varying financial
assumptions.
FPL used the following financial assumptions in its 2018 analyses: (i) an incremental capital structure of
40.40% debt and 59.60% equity; (ii) a 4.88% cost of debt; (iii) a 10.55% return on equity; and (iv) an after-
tax discount rate of 7.76%. In 2019, the incremental capital structure is 40.40% debt and 59.60% equity. In
addition, the cost of debt has changed to 4.79%, the cost of capital remains unchanged at 10.55%, and
the after-tax discount rate has changed to 7.73%. No sensitivities of these financial assumptions were
used in FPL’s late 2018/early 2019 resource planning work.
Discussion Item # 7: Describe in detail the electric utility’s Integrated Resource Planning
process. Discuss whether the optimization was based on revenue requirements, rates, or total
resource cost.
FPL’s integrated resource planning (IRP) process is described in detail in Chapter III of this document.
The standard basis for comparing the economics of competing resource plans in FPL’s basic IRP process
is the impact of the plans on FPL’s electricity rate levels, with the objective generally being to minimize
FPL’s projected levelized system average electric rate (i.e., a Rate Impact Measure or RIM approach). As
discussed in response to Discussion Item # 2, both the electricity rate perspective and the cumulative
present value of revenue requirement (CPVRR) perspective for the system yield identical results in terms
of which resource options are more economical when DSM levels are unchanged between competing
resource plans. Therefore, in planning work in which DSM levels were unchanged, FPL utilizes the
equivalent, but simpler-to-calculate CPVRR perspective.
Florida Power & Light Company 350
Discussion Item # 8: Define and discuss the electric utility’s generation and transmission
reliability criteria.
FPL uses three system reliability criteria in its resource planning work that address various resource
options including: utility generation, power purchases, and DSM options. One criterion is a minimum 20%
Summer and Winter total reserve margin. Another reliability criterion is a maximum of 0.1 days per-year
loss-of-load-probability (LOLP). The third criterion is a minimum 10% generation-only reserve margin
(GRM). These three reliability criteria are discussed in Chapter III of this document.
In regard to its transmission reliability analysis, FPL has adopted transmission planning criteria that are
consistent with those established by the Florida Reliability Coordinating Council (FRCC). The FRCC has
adopted transmission planning criteria that are consistent with the Reliability Standards established by the
North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC). The NERC Reliability Standards are available on the
NERC internet site (http://www.nerc.com/).
In addition, FPL has developed a Facility Interconnection Requirements (FIR) document. This document is
available on FPL’s Open Access Same-time Information System (OASIS) website,
https://www.oatioasis.com/FPL/index.html, under the “Interconnection Request Information” directory.
Furthermore, all new transmission facilities within the FPL service territory used to meet FPL load are planned
to comply with Extreme Wind Loading Criteria as implemented in FPL Design Guidelines.
FPL generally limits planned flows on its transmission facilities to no more than 100% of the applicable thermal
rating. There may be isolated cases for which FPL may have determined that it is acceptable to deviate from
the general criteria stated below. There are several factors that could influence these criteria, such as the
overall number of potential customers that may be impacted, the probability of an outage actually occurring,
transmission system performance, and other factors.
The normal and contingency voltage criteria for FPL stations are provided below:
Florida Power & Light Company 351
Normal/Contingency
13
Voltage Level (kV) Vmin (p.u.) Vmax (p.u.)
69, 115, 138 0.95/0.95 1.05/1.07
230 0.95/0.95 1.06/1.07
500 0.95/0.95 1.07/1.10
Turkey Point (*) 1.013/1.013 1.06/1.06
St. Lucie (*) 1.00/1.00 1.06/1.06
(*) Voltage range criteria for FPL’s Nuclear Power Plants
Discussion Item # 9: Discuss how the electric utility verifies the durability of energy savings for
its DSM programs.
FPL periodically revises the projected impacts of its DSM programs on demand and energy consumption.
Engineering models, calibrated with current field-metered data, are updated at regular intervals.
Participation trends are tracked for all of FPL’s DSM programs in order to adjust impacts each year for
changes in the mix of efficiency measures being installed by program participants. For its load
management programs, FPL conducts periodic tests of the load management equipment to ensure it is
functioning correctly. These tests, plus actual load management events, also allow FPL to gauge the MW
reduction capabilities of its load management programs on an ongoing basis.
Discussion Item # 10: Discuss how strategic concerns are incorporated in the planning process.
The Executive Summary and Chapter III provide a discussion of a variety of system concerns/issues that
influence FPL’s resource planning process. Please see those chapters for a discussion of those
concerns/issues.
In addition to these system concerns/issues, there are other strategic factors that FPL typically considers
when choosing among resource options. These include: (1) technology risk; (2) environmental risk, and (3)
site feasibility. The consideration of these factors may include both economic and non-economic aspects.
13
Immediately following a contingency, steady-state voltages may deviate from the normal voltage range if there are known automatic or manual
operating actions to adjust the voltage to within the contingency voltage range. However, the steady-state voltage must never exceed voltage
System Operating Limits (SOLs), which have a lower limit of 0.88pu and a higher limit of 1.10pu for all transmission facilities, excluding nuclear
plant switchyards for which the SOLS are equal to the normal/contingency limits.
Florida Power & Light Company 352
Technology risk is an assessment of the relative maturity of competing technologies. For example, a
prototype technology that has not achieved general commercial acceptance has a higher risk than a
technology in wide use and, therefore, assuming all else is equal, is less desirable.
Environmental risk is an assessment of the relative environmental acceptability of different generating
technologies and their associated environmental impacts on the FPL system, including projected
environmental compliance costs. Technologies regarded as more acceptable from an environmental
perspective for FPL’s resource plan are those that minimize environmental impacts for the FPL system as
a whole through highly efficient fuel use, state-of-the-art environmental controls, and generating
technologies that do not utilize fossil fuels (such as nuclear and solar).
Site feasibility assesses a wide range of economic, regulatory, and environmental factors related to
successfully developing and operating the specified technology at the site in question. Projects that are
more acceptable have sites with few barriers to successful development.
All of these factors play a part in FPL’s planning and decision-making, including its decisions to construct
capacity or purchase power.
Discussion Item # 11: Describe the procurement process the electric utility intends to utilize to
acquire the additional supply-side resources identified in the electric utility’s ten-year site plan.
As shown in this 2019 Site Plan, FPL’s current resource plan reflects the following major supply-side or
generation resource additions: ongoing upgrading of the combustion turbine (CT) components at various
existing CCs throughout FPL’s system, projected addition of new PV facilities, projected addition of a
battery storage unit, addition of new CC capacity at the FPL Okeechobee Clean Energy Center, and
additional new CC capacity from the Dania Beach Energy Center Unit 7 through the modernization of
FPL’s existing Lauderdale plant site.
CT upgrades are currently taking place at various CC units throughout the FPL system. The original
equipment manufacturer (OEM) of the CTs approached FPL regarding the possibility of upgrading these
units. Following negotiations with the OEM and economic analyses that showed upgrading was cost-
effective for FPL’s customers, FPL decided to proceed with the CT upgrades and the supporting balance
of plant modifications. FPL completed the first series of upgrades in 2015. Additional upgrades are in
progress and will continue for several years as discussed in other chapters of this Site Plan.
For new solar facilities, the selection of equipment and installation contractors has been, and will continue
to be, done via competitive bidding. FPL consistently seeks bids from multiple suppliers for major
Florida Power & Light Company 353
components such as PV panels, inverters, and step-up transformers. Where possible, FPL aggregates
and executes component purchases as a portfolio to achieve cost synergies. However, this must be
balanced against rapid technology changes and potential future cost reductions. Therefore, FPL
strategically manages the bundling of purchases over the planned construction horizon.
The remaining balance-of-system (BOS) purchases, such as racking and cabling, as well as engineering
and construction services, are typically bid out to a number of contractors to determine the best value.
Based on its extensive experience in building new, highly efficient universal solar facilities, FPL may elect
to self-perform the engineering, procurement, and construction (EPC) of PV project execution if the
company determines it can self-manage the EPC work at a lower cost than the bids it receives.
The selection of equipment and installation contractors for the projected battery storage facilities is
expected to be done in a manner similar to that described above for the projected solar facilities.
FPL selected the Okeechobee CC, which is scheduled to begin commercial operation at approximately the
same time this Site Plan is filed with the FPSC in 2019, after analyses of other potential FPL self-build
generation options and after issuing a capacity Request for Proposals (RFP) in accordance with the
FPSC’s Bid Rule.
The modernization project at FPL’s existing Lauderdale site received an FPSC waiver from the Bid Rule
due to attributes specific to modernization projects (such as the ability to use existing gas and/or
transmission infrastructure, ability to use land at an existing plant site, no incremental water requirements,
etc.). In addition to these attributes, the Lauderdale modernization project, which will result in the addition
of a new combined cycle unit (FPL Dania Beach Clean Energy Center Unit 7) is also projected to result in
significant economic benefits for FPL’s customers. Additionally, the new unit is projected to lower natural
gas usage in the FPL system, and lower system emissions of SO2, NOx, and CO2 compared to continuing
to operate the existing Lauderdale generating units. The waiver from the Bid Rule was granted in
Consummating Order No. PSC-2017-0431-CO-EI.
On March 19, 2018, the FPSC issued a final order granting an affirmative need determination for the
planned new Dania Beach Unit 7 (Order No. PSC-2018-0150-FOF-EI). FPL will utilize a competitive
bidding process to select equipment suppliers and installation contractors based on its assessment of
price and supplier capability to realize the best generation option for its customers.
Discussion Item # 12: Provide the transmission construction and upgrade plans for electric
utility system lines that must be certified under the Transmission Line Siting Act (403.52 – 403.536,
F. S.) during the planning horizon. Also, provide the rationale for any new or upgraded line.
Florida Power & Light Company 354
FPL has identified the need for a new transmission line that required certification under the Transmission
Line Siting Act (as shown on Table III.E.1 in Chapter III). The new transmission line is being constructed
in a 500 kV line corridor that was certified in April 1990. The project, when fully constructed, will provide
an additional connection between FPL’s Midway Substation and its Levee Substation in Miami-Dade
County. A portion of this corridor was utilized in 1994 to connect FPL’s Corbett Substation (located along
the corridor) in Palm Beach County to its Conservation Substation in western Broward County.
The next phase, called the Corbett-Sugar-Quarry (CSQ) line project, includes adding a 500 kV line from
FPL’s Corbett Substation in western Palm Beach County to a new 500 kV section of FPL’s existing Sugar
Substation (also in western Palm Beach County) and adding a 500 kV line from Sugar to FPL’s Quarry
Substation in Miami-Dade County. The Quarry 500/230 kV Substation is adjacent and connected to FPL’s
Levee Substation. The CSQ project, which will utilize another portion of the corridor from Corbett to
Levee, is currently scheduled to be in service by June 2019. The CSQ line project is needed to increase
transmission import capability into the Southeastern Florida region.
Florida Power & Light Company 355
