04-003209EPP In Re: New Hope Power Partnership Okeelanta Cogeneration Facilities Power Plant Siting Application No. Pa 04-46 vs. * Status: Closed Recommended Order on Thursday, March 31, 2005.

Summary: The uncontroverted evidence admitted during the local public certification hearing on New Hope Power`s power plant expansion project supported the approval of the project.

STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

IN RE: NEW HOPE POWER )

PARTNERSHIP OKEELANTA )

COGENERATION FACILITIES POWER ) Case No. 04 - 3209EPP

PLANT SITING APPLICATION NO. PA )

04 - 46. )

_______________________________ )

RECOMMENDED O RDER OF CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to notice, the Division of Administrative

Hearings, by its duly - designated Administrative Law Judge,

Charles A. Stampelos, held a certification hearing in the above -

styled case on March 21, 2005, in Palm Beach County, Florid a.

APPEARANCES

For Petitioner New Hope Power Partnership (”New Hope”):

David S. Dee, Esquire

Landers & Parsons

310 West College Avenue

Tallahassee, Florida 32301

For the Florida Department of Environmental Protection:

Scott A. Go orland, Esquire

Department of Environmental Protection

3900 Commonwealth Boulevard

Mail Station 35

Tallahassee, Florida 32399

STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE

The issue to be determined in this case is whether the

Governor and Cabinet, sitting as the Siting Board, should grant

certification to New Hope for the expansion of the Okeelanta

cogeneration facility to a total net steam electrical generating

capacity of 140 megawatts (”MW”).

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

On September 3, 2004, New Hope filed an a pplication

(”Application”) with the Florida Department of Environmental

Protection (”Department” or ”DEP”) for authorization to

construct and operate a 65 MW expansion (the ”Expansion Project”

or ”Project”) of the Okeelanta cogeneration facility in Palm

Be ach County, Florida. The Okeelanta cogeneration facility

(”Facility”) is an existing electrical power plant that burns

biomass ( e.g. , bagasse and wood) to generate 74.9 MW of

electricity. New Hope’s application is subject to the

requirements of the Flori da Electrical Power Plant Siting Act

(”PPSA”), Sections 403.501 - .518, Florida Statutes. (All

statutory references are to the 2004 codification of the Florida

Statutes.) The Department transmitted New Hope’s Application to

the Division of Administrative H earings for appropriate

proceedings under the PPSA. In compliance with Section

403.508(3), Florida Statutes, the certification hearing (the

”Certification Hearing”) in this case was scheduled for

March 21, 2005.

On March 9, 2005, a ”Prehearing Stipulatio n for Land Use

and Certification Hearings” (”Prehearing Stipulation”) was filed

by New Hope, DEP, the Florida Department of Community Affairs

(”DCA”), the Florida Department of Transportation (”DOT”), the

Florida Public Service Commission (”PSC”), the Flor ida Fish and

Wildlife Conservation Commission (”FFWCC”), the South Florida

Water Management District (”SFWMD”), the Treasure Coast Regional

Planning Council (”TCRPC”), and Palm Beach County (the

”County”). In the Prehearing Stipulation, all of the

signato ries either recommended certification of the Project, or

did not dispute, or took no position concerning the

certification of the Project, provided that the Project is

constructed and operated in compliance with the Conditions of

Certification. Prehearing Stipulation at 10 - 17.

On March 21, 2005, a Certification Hearing was conducted in

compliance with Section 403.508(3), Florida Statutes. At the

Certification Hearing, New Hope called one witness, Kennard

Kosky (accepted as an expert concerning the permit ting of

electrical power plants and air pollution control). New Hope

introduced Exhibits 1 - 39 (Ex.) into evidence without objection.

New Hope’s Amended Exhibit List was also admitted into evidence

as New Hope Power Exhibit A, and New Hope was permitted t o

supplement the record with the transcript of the land use

hearing in this case.

By Order dated March 3, 2005, the Administrative Law Judge

granted New Hope’s request to take official recognition of the

”Amended Final Order Granting Determination of Ne ed” (dated

November 18, 2004) of the PSC. This document was included with

the exhibits introduced into evidence at the Certification

Hearing. Ex. 22.

The Department called one witness, Hamilton S. Oven

(accepted as an expert concerning power plant site certification

in the State of Florida). The Department introduced three

exhibits (DEP Exhibits 1 - 3) into evidence, without objection.

No one contested the evidence presented by New Hope and DEP

at the Certification Hearing. None of the signatories to the

Prehearing Stipulation participated at the Certification

Hearing, except New Hope and DEP. Except for New Hope and DEP,

the parties to this proceeding did not call any witnesses or

proffer any exhibits.

The public was given an opportunity to provi de oral and

written comments at the Certification Hearing. However, no

members of the public appeared or testified at the Certification

Hearing. No one testified or proffered any exhibits in

opposition to the Project at the Certification Hearing.

The on e - volume Transcript (T) of the Certification Hearing

was filed with the Division of Administrative Hearings on

March 25, 2005, and the parties were allowed until March 28,

2005, to submit proposed recommended orders. New Hope and DEP

timely filed a joint proposed recommended order on March 28,

2005. No other party filed a proposed recommended order.

FINDINGS OF FACT

The Applicant

1. The Applicant, New Hope Power Partnership, is a Florida

partnership that owns the existing Okeelanta cogeneration

Facility . Ex. 1 at 1 - 1, 3 - 1. New Hope will also own the

Project. See id.

The Site

2. The Facility is located in an unincorporated area in

western Palm Beach County, Florida. Ex. 1 at 2 - 1; Ex. 4 at 6; T

17. It is approximately six miles south of South Bay and two

miles west of U.S. Highway 27. Id. The Facility is located on

a site (the ”Site”) that is approximately 82.1 acres in size.

Ex. 1 at 2 - 1; Ex. 4 at 8; T 19. The Site is adjacent to

Okeelanta Corporation’s existing sugar mill, sugar refinery, and

su garcane fields. Ex. 1 at 2 - 1; Ex. 4 at 6; T 17, 20.

The Surrounding Area

3. There are large buffer areas around the Site. See Ex.

1 at 2 - 1, 2 - 2, 2 - 4; Ex. 4 at 6; T 17 - 18. Almost all of the land

within five miles of the Site is used for agricultural pu rposes

(sugarcane farming). Id.

4. The community nearest the Site is South Bay. Ex. 1 at

2 - 2; Ex. 4 at 6; T 17. The nearest home is more than 3.5 miles

northeast of the Site. Ex. 1 at 2 - 4; Ex. 5 at 9; T 17 - 18.

5. The Facility is adjacent to an exis ting electrical

substation (Florida Power & Light Company’s Okeelanta

Substation). See Ex. 1 at 1 - 2. An existing electrical

transmission line connects the Facility to the substation.

Ex. 1 at 3 - 1.

The Existing Facility

6. The Facility uses biomass fu els ( e.g. , bagasse from the

sugar mill; clean wood waste) to generate steam and up to 74.9

MW of electricity (net). Ex. 1 at 1 - 1, 3 - 1; Ex. 4 at 6 - 7; T 18.

The Facility supplies steam to the sugar mill during the

sugarcane harvest (October through March) and it supplies steam

to the refinery throughout the year. Ex. 1 at 1 - 2, 3 - 1; Ex. 4

at 7; see T 18. Excess steam from the Facility is used to

generate electricity, which is sold to utility companies,

including Florida Power & Light Company. Ex. 1 - 3; E x. 4 at 7;

See T 50 - 51.

7. The existing Facility includes three steam boilers, one

steam turbine/electrical generator, a cooling tower, an

electrical switchyard, materials handling and storage facilities

for biomass fuels, and ancillary equipment. Ex. 1 at 2 - 1, 3 - 1;

Ex. 4 at 7; T 20 - 21.

The Expansion Project

8. The Expansion Project will increase the Facility’s

electrical generating capacity by 65 MW (net), creating a total

generating capacity of 140 MW (net). Ex. 1 at 1 - 1, 1 - 3, 2 - 1;

Ex. 4 at 7; T 18 . The Expansion Project will involve the

installation of a new turbine/electrical generator, a cooling

tower, and related equipment at the Site. Ex. 1 at 1 - 3, 2 - 1;

Ex. 4 at 8; T 19.

Construction of the Expansion Project

9. Approximately 0.5 acres of t he Site will be occupied by

the new equipment that will be installed for the Expansion

Project. Ex. 1 at 2 - 1; Ex. 4 at 8; T 19. The construction of

the Project will occur in disturbed upland areas that already

are used for industrial operations. Ex. 1 a t 3 - 2, 4 - 1; Ex. 4 at

9; T 20. No construction will take place in any wetland,

wildlife habitat, environmentally sensitive area, or 100 - year

flood plain. Ex. 1 at 2 - 2, 2 - 18, 4 - 1; Ex. 4 at 9; T 20.

10. No new electrical transmission lines will need to be

built to accommodate the additional electrical power generated

by the Expansion Project. See Ex. 1 at 3 - 1, 6 - 1.

11. During construction, there will be a temporary

increase in sound levels due to the heavy equipment associated

with the construction pr ocess. Ex. 1 at 4 - 9 through 4 - 10; Ex. 5

at 9; T 42 - 43. Given the remote location of the Site, the

sounds generated by the construction of the Expansion Project

will not interfere with human activities or otherwise cause a

nuisance at any residential loca tions. Id.

12. The construction of the Expansion Project will result

in a temporary increase in traffic on some roads near the Site,

but these roads will continue to operate at acceptable traffic

levels. Ex. 1 at 4 - 8 through 4 - 9; Ex. 5 at 9; T 42.

Oper ation of the Expansion Project

13. The Facility currently operates at its full capacity

during the sugarcane harvest. See Ex. 30, Technical Evaluation

at 2. The Expansion Project will enable the Facility to operate

at its full capacity year - round. See Ex. 1 at 3 - 1 through 3 - 2;

Ex. 30, Technical Evaluation at 2. Although the Facility will

generate more electricity after the Expansion Project is

completed, the basic operation of the Facility will not change.

Ex. 4 at 10; Ex. 5 at 6; T 22.

14. The Faci lity has a water use permit issued by the

South Florida Water Management District, which authorizes the

Facility to use water from the Miami/North New River Canal

System, the surficial aquifer, and the Floridan aquifer. Ex. 1

at 3 - 11; Ex. 5 at 7; T 40 - 41. The Okeelanta Corporation also

may provide water to the Facility, in accordance with the SFWMD

water use permit for the Okeelanta Corporation’s sugar mill.

Ex. 5 at 7; T 41. After the Expansion Project is completed, the

amount of water used by the Faci lity will increase, commensurate

with the increased use of the Facility. Ex. 5 at 7; DEP Ex. 2,

Staff Analysis Report at 3; T 41. The additional water will be

obtained from the cooling pond/rock pit located at the adjacent

sugar mill. Id. In March 2005, the SFWMD issued a water use

permit that allows the Okeelanta Corporation to increase the

amount of water provided to the Facility from 0.4 mgd to 2.0

mgd. Ex. 37; see T 41.

15. The Facility’s stormwater and process water are routed

to a 600 - acre area that is divided into four percolation basins.

Ex. 1 at 3 - 16; Ex. 5 at 8; T 41. Each basin is used on a

rotating basis -- i.e. , the basin is used for percolation for one

year and then it is used for growing sugarcane for three years.

Ex. 5 at 8; T 41. Eac h percolation basin is designed to hold

all of the Facility’s process water, plus all of the contact and

non - contact stormwater runoff from a 100 - year, three - day storm

event. Id. The Facility does not discharge any stormwater or

process water to any surf ace water. Ex. 1 at 5 - 9; Ex. 5 at 8; T

41 - 42. The Facility’s use of the percolation ponds has not

caused and is not expected to cause any violations of any ground

water quality standards. Ex. 5 at 8.

16. The Facility generates fly ash and bottom ash from the

combustion of biomass fuels. Ex. 1 at 3 - 16, 5 - 10; Ex. 5 at 9;

T 42. These materials are taken to a landfill for disposal. Id.

17. The operation of the Expansion Project will not have

any significant impacts on traffic. Ex. 1 at 5 - 17; Ex. 5 a t 9;

T 42. The local roads will continue to operate at an acceptable

level of service. Id.

Air Quality Regulations

18. The Facility must comply with New Source Performance

Standards (”NSPS”) and Best Available Control Technology

(”BACT”) requirements, b oth of which impose strict limits on the

Facility’s airborne emissions. See Ex. 1 at 3 - 5; Ex. 30,

Technical Evaluation at 3. The Facility also must comply with

Ambient Air Quality Standards (”AAQS”) and Prevention of

Significant Deterioration (”PSD”) sta ndards, which establish

criteria for the protection of ambient air quality. Id. The

Facility previously was reviewed and approved under the PSD

program. Ex. 1 at 3 - 5; Ex. 5 at 6; Ex. 30, Technical Evaluation

at 2; T 39 - 40.

19. The DEP has determined t hat the Expansion Project is

not subject to PSD pre - construction review. Ex. 5 at 6; Ex. 30,

Technical Evaluation at 5; T 38. The cooling towers will be the

only new source of air pollution associated with the Expansion

Project. Ex. 1 at 3 - 5; Ex. 5 at 6 ; T 38. The water droplets

leaving the cooling tower will evaporate, causing small amounts

of particulate matter to enter the atmosphere near the Site.

Ex. 5 at 6; T 38. However, the emissions from the cooling tower

are so small that the cooling tower i s exempt from the

permitting requirements established by the DEP. Id.

Best Available Control Technology

20. A BACT determination is required for each pollutant

for which PSD review is required. Ex. 1 at 3 - 5; Ex. 5 at 7; DEP

Ex. 2, Staff Analysis Report at 15. BACT is a pollutant -

specific emission limit that provides the maximum degree of

emission reduction, after taking into account the energy,

environmental, and economic impacts and other costs. Ex. 1 at

3 - 5; Fla. Admin. Code R. 62 - 210.200(38).

21. As part of its BACT analyses for the Facility, DEP

determined that mechanical cyclone dust collectors and an

electrostatic precipitator (”ESP”) will control the Facility’s

emissions of particulate matter, a selective non - catalytic

reduction system (”SNCR” ) will control oxides of nitrogen

(”NOx”), use of low - sulfur fuels will control sulfur dioxide

emissions, and proper facility design and operating methods will

control other pollutants. Ex. 1 at 3 - 6 through 3 - 8; Ex. 30,

Draft Permit at D - 1; T 40. Accordi ngly, these air pollution

control systems and techniques are utilized at the Facility.

Id.

22. The Facility also uses an array of continuous

emissions monitors to ensure that the Facility is continuously

in compliance with the BACT emission limits. Ex. 1 at 5 - 14;

Ex. 30, Draft Permit at E - 1 through E - 2.

Protection of Ambient Air Quality

23. The EPA has adopted ”primary” and ”secondary” National

Ambient Air Quality Standards (”NAAQS”). See Ex. 1 at 2 - 21.

The primary NAAQS were promulgated to protec t the health of the

general public with an adequate margin of safety. See Ex. 1 at

2 - 21; see also 42 U.S.C.A. § 7409(b) (1997). The secondary

NAAQS were promulgated to protect the public welfare, including

vegetation, soils, visibility and other factors, from any known

or anticipated adverse effects associated with the presence of

pollutants in the ambient air. Id. Florida has adopted EPA’s

primary and secondary NAAQS, and has adopted some Florida AAQS

(”FAAQS”) that are more stringent than EPA’s NAAQS. See id.

24. The Facility’s potential impacts on ambient air

quality were evaluated by DEP, based on the continuous operation

of the Facility at full load, following completion of the

Project. Ex. 30, Technical Evaluation at 4. DEP concluded that

the maximum impacts from the Facility will not cause or

contribute to any violations of AAQS. Ex. 1 at 5 - 10 through 5 -

14; Ex. 5 at 6 - 7; Ex. 30, Technical Evaluation at 4; Ex. 5 at 6;

T 39.

Other PSD Analyses

25. The PSD program provides protection for those areas

that have good air quality. See Ex. 1 at 2 - 22; Ex. 30,

Technical Evaluation at 3 - 4. Different areas of Florida have

been designated as PSD ”Class I” or ”Class II” areas, depending

upon the level of protection that is to be provided under the

PSD p rogram. Id. In this case, the Project is located in a PSD

Class II area. Id. The nearest PSD Class I area is the

Everglades National Park (”Everglades”), which is approximately

92 kilometers (”km”) south of the Site. Ex. 1 at 2 - 22.

26. The DEP’s ana lyses demonstrate that the Facility’s

impacts on ambient air quality will not violate any applicable

PSD requirement for the Class I and Class II areas. Ex. 1 at 5 -

14; Ex. 5 at 6; Ex. 30, Technical Evaluation at 4; DEP Ex. 2,

Staff Analysis Report at 16 - 17; T 39.

Compliance With Air Standards

27. New Hope has provided reasonable assurance that the

Expansion Project and the Facility will comply with all of the

applicable air quality standards and requirements. Ex. 5 at 7;

Ex. 30; DEP Ex. 2, Staff Analys is Report at 17; T 38 - 40.

Environmental Benefits of the Project

28. The Expansion Project will provide environmental

benefits. Ex. 1 at 7 - 3 through 7 - 4; Ex. 5 at 10; T 43 - 44. For

example, the Project will be capable of producing approximately

65 MW ( net) of electricity in Southeast Florida, which needs new

electrical generating capacity. Ex. 1 at 7 - 3 through 7 - 4; Ex. 5

at 10; T 43 - 44. The Expansion Project will also enhance fuel

diversity by using renewable biomass fuels to generate

electricity. Id . Over 20 years, the Project may displace the

use of approximately 5,600,000 barrels of oil worth nearly

$170,000,000 (assuming oil prices of $30 per barrel). Id. In

addition, the Expansion Project will beneficially reuse clean

wood waste, which otherwi se would likely be placed in a landfill

for disposal. Ex. 1 at 7 - 4; Ex. 5 at 10; T 44. The Facility

receives wood waste and biomass materials from Miami - Dade

County, the Palm Beach County Solid Waste Authority, and

approximately 25 private recycling comp anies, thus assisting

them with their solid waste management programs. Ex. 5 at 10;

T 44. The Facility also burns melaleuca trees that have been

removed pursuant to land clearing programs for the eradication

of this nuisance species. Ex. 5 at 10.

Socioe conomic Benefits of the Project

29. The Expansion Project will provide jobs for an average

of 70 construction workers during the 12 - month construction

phase of the Project. Ex. 1 at 7 - 1 through 7 - 2; Ex. 5 at 10;

T 43. Approximately $3.5 million will be paid in wages for

construction employees working on the Expansion Project. Id.

Consistency with Land Use Plans and Zoning Ordinances

30. The proposed use of the Site is consistent and in

compliance with Palm Beach County’s comprehensive land use plan

a nd zoning ordinances. Ex. 1 at 2 - 2 through 2 - 4; Ex. 4 at 16;

Ex. 23; Ex. 24; Ex. 38; Ex. 39; T 28 - 29. The Facility and

Project have both been reviewed and approved by the Palm Beach

County Board of County Commissioners. Ex. 4 at 11 - 12; Ex. 23;

Ex. 24; T 23 - 25.

Compliance with Environmental Standards

31. New Hope has provided reasonable assurance that the

Facility and Project will comply with all of the nonprocedural

land use and environmental statutes, rules, policies, and

requirements that apply to th e Project, including but not

limited to those requirements governing the Project’s impacts on

air quality, water consumption, stormwater, and wetlands.

Prehearing Stipulation at 24, paragraph 5.B.3.; Ex. 5 at 11; DEP

Ex. 2, Staff Analysis Report at 22; T 44 - 45, 60. The location,

construction and operation of the Facility and Project will have

minimal adverse effects on human health, the environment, the

ecology of the State’s lands and wildlife, and the ecology of

the State’s waters and aquatic life. Ex . 5 at 12; DEP Ex. 2,

Staff Analysis Report at 20; T 45 - 46, 61 - 62. The Facility and

Project will not unduly conflict with any of the goals or other

provisions of any applicable local, regional or state

comprehensive plan. Ex. 4 at 16; Ex. 23; Ex. 24; Ex. 38; Ex.

39; T 28 - 29. The Conditions of Certification establish

operational safeguards for the Facility and Project that are

technically sufficient for the protection of the public health

and welfare. Ex. 5 at 13; T 46 - 47, 61.

Agency Positions and Condit ions of Certification

32. On November 18, 2004, the PSC issued an Order (No.

PSC - 04 - 1105A - FOF - EI) granting New Hope’s petition for

determination of need for the Expansion Project. Ex. 22; DEP

Ex. 2, Staff Analysis Report at 4 - 6, 12 - 13. The PSC determin ed,

consistent with the criteria of Section 403.519, Florida

Statutes, that the Expansion Project is needed. Id.

33. The DEP, DOT, DCA, and SFWMD all recommend

certification of the Expansion Project, subject to the

Conditions of Certification. Preheari ng Stipulation at 10 - 11,

13 - 16. New Hope has accepted, and has provided reasonable

assurance that it will comply with, the Conditions of

Certification. Prehearing Stipulation at 24 - 25, paragraph

V.B.4; Ex. 5 at 11 - 12; T 45, 61 - 62.

Public Notice of the Ce rtification Use Hearing

34. On September 29, 2004, New Hope published a ”Notice of

Filing of Application for Electrical Power Plant Site

Certification” in the Palm Beach Post , which is a newspaper of

general circulation published in Palm Beach County, Fl orida.

Ex. 31; see also Ex. 5 at 16; T 49.

35. On October 1, 2004, the Department published ”Notice

of Receipt of Application for Power Plant Certification” in the

Florida Administrative Weekly . Ex. 35; see also Ex. 5 at 16;

T 49.

36. On February 2, 2 005, New Hope published notice of the

Certification Hearing in the Palm Beach Post . Ex. 33; see also

Ex. 5 at 16; T 49.

37. On February 4 and 11, 2005, the Department published

notice of the Certification Hearing in the Florida

Administrative Weekly . Ex. 36; see also Ex. 5 at 16; T 49.

38. The public notices for the Certification Hearing

satisfy the informational and other requirements set forth in

Section 403.5115, Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative

Code Rules 62 - 17.280 and 62 - 17.281(4). Prehearing Stipulation

at 24, paragraph V.B.2,3; Ex. 5 at 17; T 49, 63 - 64.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

39. The Division of Administrative Hearings has

jurisdiction over the parties to and subject matter of this

proceeding pursuant to Sections 120.569, 120.57( 1), and 403.508,

Florida Statutes.

40. New Hope and DEP provided timely public notices

concerning the Expansion Project and the Certification Hearing,

which satisfied the notice requirements contained in the PPSA,

Chapter 120, Florida Statutes, and Flori da Administrative Code

Chapter 62 - 17. Prehearing Stipulation at 26, paragraph VI.B.3.;

Ex. 5 at 16 - 17; Ex. 31; Ex. 33; Ex. 35; Ex. 36; T 49, 63 - 64.

All necessary and required governmental agencies participated in

the certification process, and the requir ed reports and studies

were issued by the DEP and the other agencies in accordance with

their statutory duties. DEP Ex. 2, Staff Analysis Report at 12 -

14, 21 - 22; T 56, 62.

41. The PSC determined there is a need for the electrical

generating capacity to be supplied by the Expansion Project, as

required by Sections 403.508(3) and 403.519, Florida Statutes.

Ex. 22; DEP Ex. 2, Staff Analysis Report at 4 - 6, 12 - 13.

42. The issue for determination in this case is whether

certification should be granted to New Hope to construct and

operate the Expansion Project on the Site. Under Section

403.502, Florida Statutes, the Legislature provides in part:

It is the policy of this state that, while

recognizing the pressing need for increased

power generation faci lities, the state shall

ensure through available and reasonable

methods that the location and operation of

electrical power plants will produce minimal

adverse effects on human health, the

environment, the ecology of the land and its

wildlife, and the ecol ogy of state waters

and their aquatic life and will not unduly

conflict with the goals established by the

applicable local comprehensive plans. It is

the intent to seek courses of action that

will fully balance the increasing demands

for electrical power plant location and

operation with the broad interests of the

public. Such action will be based on these

premises:

(1) To assure the citizens of Florida that

operation safeguards are technically

sufficient for their welfare and protection.

(2) To ef fect a reasonable balance between

the need for the facility and the

environmental impact resulting from

construction and operation of the facility,

including air and water quality, fish and

wildlife, and the water resources and other

natural resources of t he state.

(3) To meet the need for electrical energy

as established pursuant to s. 403.519.

43. The competent, substantial, and uncontested evidence

presented by New Hope and DEP at the Certification Hearing

demonstrates that the Expansion Project ha s met all of the

criteria required to obtain certification under the PPSA. New

Hope has provided reasonable assurance that the Project, if

constructed and operated in accordance with the Conditions of

Certification, will comply with all of the non - procedu ral

requirements that are applicable to the Project. Certification

of the Project will serve and protect the interests of the

public, and the benefits of the Project will outweigh the

negative impacts. New Hope has accepted, and demonstrated that

it will be able to comply with, the Conditions of Certification.

44. In the PPSA review process and the Conditions of

Certification for the Project, the State of Florida has ensured

through available and reasonable methods that the location,

construction and o peration of the Expansion Project will produce

minimal adverse effects on human health, the environment, the

ecology of the land and its wildlife, and the ecology of State

waters and their aquatic life. If the Project is built and

operated in accordance w ith the Conditions of Certification, the

Project will not unduly conflict with the goals in any

applicable local, regional or state comprehensive plan. The

Conditions of Certification establish safeguards that are

technically sufficient for the protection and welfare of

Florida’s citizens, and the Conditions of Certification ensure

that the potential adverse effects of the Project will be

minimized.

45. Certification of the Expansion Project is consistent

with the legislative intent to balance the incr easing demands

for electrical power plant location and operation with the

interests of the public. Certification of the Project

reasonably balances the need for the Project, as determined by

the PSC, with the environmental and other impacts resulting from

the construction and operation of the Project.

RECOMMENDATION

Based on the foregoing Findings of Facts and Conclusions of

Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Governor and Cabinet, sitting as

the Siting Board, enter a Final Order granting certification for

th e expansion of the Okeelanta Cogeneration Facility to a total

capacity of 140 MW (net), in accordance with the Conditions of

Certification, DEP Exhibit 3.

DONE AND ENTERED this 31st day of March, 2005, in

Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida.

S

CHARLES A. STAMPELOS

Administrative Law Judge

Division of Administrative Hearings

The DeSoto Building

1230 Apalachee Parkway

Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 3060

(850) 488 - 9675 SUNCOM 278 - 9675

Fax Filing (850) 921 - 6847

www.doah.state.f l.us

Filed with the Clerk of the

Division of Administrative Hearings

this 31st day of March, 2005.

COPIES FURNISHED :

David S. Dee, Esquire

Landers & Parsons

310 West College Avenue

Tallahassee, Florida 32301

Scott Goorland, Esquire

Office of Genera l Counsel

Department of Environmental Protection

3900 Commonwealth Boulevard

Mail Station 35

Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 3000

James V. Antista, General Counsel

Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation

Commission

620 South Meridian Street

Tallahassee, Flor ida 32399 - 1600

Roger Saberson, General Counsel

Treasure Coast Regional Planning

Council

70 Southeast 4th Avenue

Delray Beach, Florida 33483

Jennifer Brubaker, Esquire

Public Service Commission

Division of Legal Services

2540 Shumard Oak Boulevard

Tal lahassee, Florida 32399 - 0863

Leslie Bryson, Esquire

Department of Community Affairs

2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard

Tallahassee, Florida 32399

Sheauching Yu, Esquire

Department of Transportation

605 Suwannee Street

Mail Station 58

Tallahassee, Florida 3239 9 - 0458

Sarah Nall, Esquire

9341 Southeast Mystic Cove Terrace

Hobe Sound, Florida 33455

Denise M. Nieman, Esquire

Palm Beach County Attorney's Office

302 North Olive Avenue, Suite 601

West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 - 4705

Raquel A. Rodriguez, General Co unsel

Office of the Governor

The Capitol, Suite 209

Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 1001

Kathy C. Carter, Agency Clerk

Department of Environmental Protection

Office of General Counsel

Mail Station 35

3900 Commonwealth Boulevard

Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 300 0

NOTICE OF RIGHT TO SUBMIT EXCEPTIONS

All parties have the right to submit written exceptions within

15 days from the date of this Recommended Order. Any exceptions

to this Recommended Order should be filed with the agency that

will issue the Final O rder in this case.