Reso 2009-1419 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MEMORANDUM January 30, 2009 FROM: MUNICIPAL UNDERGROUND UTILITIES CONSORTIUM THOMAS G. BRADFORD, DEPUTY TOWN MANAGER ~H-7 P ~ ~~ TOWN OF PALM BEACH /-- TO: SUBJECT: FPL UNDERGROUNDING PROCEEDINGS & ESTIMATED COSTS As discussed in our conference call on January 22, this memo provides an overview of what we've accomplished so far, issues that remain to be addressed in the three pending dockets at the Florida PSC, and estimated costs to pursue those issues through to conclusion. Per our recent discussions and news reports today that Florida may be receiving something like $2 billion in federal stimulus funding for infrastructure projects, I also mention below the issue of trying to get FPL to amend its tariff (or to get the PSC to amend FPL's tariff) so that we would not lose the GAF credit if federal support were in fact to come through. Accomplishments 1. The 25% GAF credit was approved by the PSC. Even though FPL had proposed it, there was substantial skepticism on the part of the Commission Staff and one or more Commissioners, and many of us believe that the efforts of our elected officials and city/town management carried the day in getting the PSC to approve the GAF credit, albeit as a pilot project. 2. Following negotiations with FPL, the PSC extended the availability of the GAF credit by a year, to agreements signed before October 30, 2009. 3. Following negotiations with FPL, FPL agreed and the PSC approved some less stringent eligibility criteria for the GAF credit. FPL has also proposed 3 tiers of credits now - no size minimum, 1 to 3 miles converted, and 3 or more miles converted to UG - although we still have issues with the strict application of the FPL-defined breakpoints. 4. FPL agreed to use local government rights of way for UG facilities, whereas their initial position was "No way, we've never done that, and we have to have easements." Mayor Falcone of Jupiter Island gets a lot of the credit for this success. 5. After the MUUC and Coconut Creek protested FPL's lack of GAF-type credits for new UG construction, FPL implemented such credits. 6. In the face of ambiguity within the PSC's rule, we successfully negotiated with FPL, and got the PSC to agree, in a declaratory statement, that where a city or town does the UG work itself, it will receive an appropriate payment from FPL based on the cost of the UG facilities constructed, plus applicable credits and less applicable debits. 7. After much correspondence and wrangling, FPL has thus far agreed to a 12% reduction in the "Direct Engineering, Supervision and Support" ("DESS") costs that it previously proposed to charge to municipalities where they do the UG work with their own or city-contracted forces. (We believe that we are entitled to another 40% reduction in this charge.) 1