12-003369EPP In Re: Tampa Electric Company, Polk Power Station, Polk 2-5 Combined Cycle Conversion Project vs. * Status: Closed Recommended Order on Friday, August 23, 2013.

Summary: It is recommended that the Siting Board certify the Project because it favorably satisfies all of the statutory factors that are to be considered under section 403.509(3), Florida Statutes.

STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

IN RE: TAMPA ELECTRIC COMPANY,

POLK POWER STATION, POLK 2 - 5

COMBINED CYCLE CONVERSION Case No. 12 - 3369EPP

PROJECT

_______ /

RECOMMENDED ORDER ON CERTIFICATION

The certi fication hearing in this case was held on June 25 -

26, 2013, in Lithia and Bartow, Florida, before Bram D. E.

Canter, an Administrative Law Judge of the Division of

Administrative Hearings (ÐDOAHÑ).

APPEARANCES

For Tampa Electric Company:

Lawrence N. Curti n, Esquire

Holland & Knight LLP

315 South Calhoun Street, Suite 600

Tallahassee, Florida 32301

For the Department of Environmental Protection:

Toni Sturtevant, Esquire

Department of Environmental Protection

Mail Station 35

3900 Commonwealth Boulevard

T allahassee, Florida 32399 - 3000

For Hillsborough County:

Marva M. Taylor, Esquire

Hillsborough County Attorney's Office

601 East County Boulevard

County Center 27th Floor

Tampa, Florida 33602 - 4156

STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE

The issue to be determined i n this proceeding is whether the

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

the Polk 2 - 5 Combined Cycle Conversion Project (ÐProjectÑ) of

Tampa Electric Company ("TEC"), including its associated

electrical transmission lines, subject to the proposed Conditions

of C ertification.

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

On October 4, 2012, TEC filed its Application for Site

Certification ("Application") with the Florida Department of

Environmental Protection ("Department"). The Application was

distribut ed to various agencies for review. The Department

determined the Application was complete on December 17, 2012.

On January 28, 2013, following the submittal of reports and

proposed conditions for certification from the reviewing

agencies, the Department issued its Project Analysis Report for

the transmission line portion of the Project and, on April 26,

2013, issued its Project Analysis Report for the power plant

portion of the Project. The reports included the Department's

recommended Conditions of Cert ification. On May 21, 2013, the

Department filed a revised Project Analysis Report.

Hillsborough County, the Florida Fish and Wildlife

Conservation Commission ("FWC"), and the Southwest Florida Water

Management District ("SWFWMD") each filed notices of i ntent to be

parties. Of these agencies, only Hillsborough County appeared at

the hearing.

Hillsborough County requested that a p ublic h earing be held

within its boundaries so that members of the public who are not

parties to the certification hearing wou ld have an opportunity to

provide testimony regarding the proposed transmission line

corridors. The request was granted and the hearing was held on

June 25, 2013, in Lithia. Public testimony was received and

Public Testimony Composite Exhibit 1 was recei ved into the

record.

On June 26, 2013, the certification hearing was held in

Bartow. TEC presented the testimony of eleven witnesses and

TEC/Department Joint Exhibits 1 - 4 and TEC Exhibits 1 - 55 were

admitted into evidence. The Department presented the tes timony

of two witnesses and Department Exhibits 1 - 5, 6A, 6B, 7, and 8

were admitted into evidence. No other party presented testimony

or exhibits. Following the hearing, TEC requested and was

allowed to supplement TEC/Department Joint Exhibit 4.

The Tra nscripts of the public hearing and certification

hearing proceeding were filed with DOAH. TEC and the Department

filed a joint proposed recommended order, which has been

considered in the preparation of this Recommended Order.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. The p arties stipulated there are no disputed issues of

fact.

2. TEC is an investor - owned electric utility regulated by

the Florida Public Service Commission. It is headquartered in

Tampa and has supplied electricity to customers in the Tampa Bay

area since 18 99.

3. TEC's electric service territory covers approximately

2,000 square miles and includes all of Hillsborough County and

portions of Polk, Pasco, and Pinellas Counties. TEC has five

generating stations, Big Bend, HL Culbreath Bayside, JH Phillips,

Pol k Power Station, and Partnership Station. The Project is

proposed for the Polk Power Station.

Existing Facilities

4. The Polk Power Station was certified pursuant to the

Power Plant Siting Act in January 1994. It is located in

southwest Polk County, 17 miles south of the City of Lakeland and

28 miles southeast of the City of Tampa. The original site

consists of 4,348 acres bordered by the Hillsborough County line

on the west; County Road 663 (Fort Green Road) on the east;

County Road 630, Bethlehem Road , and Albritton Road on the north;

and State Road 674 and several former phosphate clay settling

ponds on the south.

5. The Polk Power Station has five electric generating

units and associated facilities. Polk Unit 1 is 260 megawatt

integrated gasificati on combined cycle facility fired with

synthesis gas or ÐsyngasÑ produced by gasifying coal and other

solid fuels. Polk Units 2 through 5 are 165 megawatt simple

cycle combustion turbine generators fueled primarily with natural

gas.

6. Support facilities at the Polk Power Station include a

755 - acre cooling reservoir, oxygen blown gasifier, air separation

unit, sulfuric acid plant, slag byproduct storage area, and

switchyard. The station is served by four 230 kilovolt (ÐkVÑ)

transmission circuits, a railr oad line, and a natural gas

pipeline. Water is supplied from four onsite groundwater wells

for the cooling water reservoir and other plant processes. Other

existing facilities include an administration building, control

room, warehouse, and construction management building.

The Proposed Project

Need

7. On January 8, 2013, the Florida Public Service

Commission issued its Final Order Granting Certification of Need

for Polk 2 - 5 Combined Cycle Conversion. The Commission

determined that the most cost effecti ve and reliable alternative

to meet future power needs is the construction of the Project at

the Polk Power Station. The Commission ' s Final Order is

TEC/Department Joint Exhibit 2.

8. Among other findings, the Commission determined that the

Project would improve fuel diversity and supply reliability,

incorporate renewable energy and conservation factors, and is

needed to maintain electric system reliability and integrity.

Power Generation

9. The Project involves the conversion of the four existing

simple cycle combustion turbine generator units to combined cycle

operation. The Project would be a four - on - one combined cycle

unit consisting of the four existing combustion turbine

generators, each combined with a new heat recovery steam

generator, and a new steam turbine generator.

10. The Project would achieve improved efficiency in

electrical power generation. When operated in a simple cycle

mode, a combustion turbine generator releases hot gases to the

atmosphere. In the proposed combined cycle configur ation, this

exhaust heat would be routed to the heat recovery steam

generators and the steam produced by the heat recovery generators

would be routed to the new steam turbine generator to produce

additional electricity.

11. The Project is designed to allo w the combustion turbine

generators to be operated in simple cycle mode when the steam

turbine generator is not in service. The combustion turbine

generators may also be operated in simple cycle mode to meet peak

power demands.

12. The conversion would i ncrease the nominal net

generating capacity of the four existing generators from 660

megawatts to 1,160 megawatts. Total capacity for the Polk Power

Station would be increased from 1,150 megawatts to 1,420

megawatts.

13. The proposed generating facilitie s would be state - of -

the - art, incorporating improvements in technology that have

occurred over the past 20 years. They are designed by Black &

Veatch, an internationally - recognized engineering firm with

significant experience in designing similar facilitie s.

Fuels

14. The four combustion turbine generators would be fired

with natural gas as the primary fuel. Ultra - low - sulfur diesel

fuel would be the backup fuel. The four heat recovery steam

generators would have natural - gas - fired duct burners for peaking

operations.

15. The existing onsite natural gas pipeline would provide

the natural gas for the Project and the backup ultra - low - sulfur

diesel fuel would be stored in existing onsite fuel storage

facilities.

Water Use

16. Groundwater withdrawals from f our wells are authorized

by the current Conditions of Certification for 4.3 million

gallons per day (ÐmgdÑ) on an annual average and 7.6 mgd on a

peak monthly average.

17. The Project will require additional water for cooling

and plant process water uses. To minimize use of groundwater,

TEC would treat and reuse 5.7 mgd of treated reclaimed water from

the City of Lakeland. The treated reclaimed water would

primarily be used to supply the makeup water for the proposed new

cooling tower and the existing 75 5 - acre cooling reservoir, as

well as some process water needs. The cooling reservoir would be

used for condenser cooling purposes. The new six - cell mechanical

draft cooling tower would provide cooling for the ProjectÓs

auxiliary systems, which would be m odified to use the new cooling

tower instead of the reservoir.

18. The reclaimed water would be initially provided by the

City of Lakeland through a 15 - mile pipeline. Later, reclaimed

water would be provided by the City of Mulberry and Polk County.

19. The Project systems are designed to maximize water

reuse and recycling to reduce groundwater consumption. However,

TEC requests that the maximum groundwater withdrawals currently

authorized -- 4.3 mgd on an annual average and 7.6 mgd on a peak

monthly basi s Î - be maintained in this certification to ensure

that TEC can reliably and safely operate the facilities and

manage water quality and levels in the cooling reservoir during

extended periods of low rainfall conditions and in the event

there is an interrup tion in the delivery of reclaimed water.

20. The ProjectÓs proposed water uses comply with all

applicable agency requirements.

Stormwater and Wastewater Discharges

21. Stormwater and wastewater treatment systems are already

in use at the Polk Power Stat ion. These systems would be used

for the Project facilities.

22. The proposed facilities will not significantly affect

the quantity or quality of stormwater runoff at the Polk Power

Station.

23. The current wastewater streams include runoff from

industr ial areas and process wastewaters. Wastewaters would

continue to be collected and treated by the onsite industrial

wastewater systems , including the equalization basin,

neutralization basin, filtration system, and oil/water separator,

and then discharged to the cooling water reservoir.

24. With the addition of the Project, cooling water

blowdown from the new cooling tower and treated reclaimed water

will be introduced to the cooling reservoir. TEC has a permit

for underground injection control wells whic h it plans to test

for disposal of nonhazardous wastewater such as reverse osmosis

reject water from the reclaimed water treatment process.

25. The ProjectÓs stormwater and wastewater discharges

would comply with all applicable agency requirements.

Air Q uality Impacts

26. Construction of the Project facilities at the Polk

Power Station would generate fugitive dust emissions. These

would be controlled by dust suppression control measures such as

watering.

27. The vehicles used by construction workers w ould release

nitrogen oxide, carbon monoxide, and other fuel combustion -

related air pollutants. These kinds of emissions from

construction equipment would be minimized through the use of

ultra - low - sulfur - diesel fuel in various diesel engines.

28. Even un der worst - case conditions, the air quality

impacts caused by construction activities would be minimal,

temporary, and limited to the construction site.

29. The Project qualifies as a major modification to an

existing major source. Air quality impacts fro m plant operations

would be primarily nitrogen oxide, sulfur dioxide, and carbon

monoxide emissions from the four combined cycle units,

particulate emissions from the cooling tower, and various

combustion emissions from operation of the emergency diesel

ge nerator.

30. Air quality analyses were performed for nitrogen

oxides, sulfur dioxide, particulates, and carbon monoxide. The

dispersion modeling analyses demonstrate that the ProjectÓs air

quality impacts would not exceed the applicable regulatory limit s

and would not cause or contribute to an exceedance of any

Prevention of Significant Deterioration Increment or National

Ambient Air Quality Standard.

31. For certain air emissions, Best Available Control

Technology ("BACT") is required. BACT controls for nitrogen

oxide would include the use of dry, low - nitrogen - oxide burners

when firing natural gas and water injection when firing ultra -

low - sulfur diesel fuel, and the installation of selective

catalytic reduction technologies for the combined cycle

comb ustion turbines. For sulfur dioxide emissions and emissions

of sulfuric acid mist, BACT controls would include the use of

low - sulfur natural gas as a primary fuel and ultra - low - sulfur

diesel fuel as a backup fuel.

32. For carbon monoxide and volatile org anic compounds,

BACT calls for good combustion design and operation. BACT for

combustion particulates would be the use of low - ash natural gas

as a primary fuel and ultra - low - sulfur diesel fuel as a backup

fuel.

33. For the emergency diesel engine, propos ed BACT for all

pollutants would be compliance with the applicable Standards of

Performance for Stationary Combustion Ignition Internal

Combustion Engines, which are federal standards that have been

adopted by the Department.

34. Proposed BACT for particu late emissions from the

cooling tower is the use of high efficiency drift eliminators.

35. The proposed air quality control technology for the

Project and the expected emissions from the ProjectÓs

construction and operation would comply with all applicab le

agency requirements.

Transmission Lines and Corridors

36. The Project includes two new transmission line

corridors. The proposed ÐPolk - Pebbledale CorridorÑ is a

5.5 - mile, single - circuit 250 kV transmission line from the Polk

Power Station north to the Pebbledale substation in Polk County.

The proposed ÐPolk - Fishhawk CorridorÑ would be a single - circuit

250 kV transmission line running west from the Polk Power Station

to the Mines substation near the intersection of State Road 674

and County Road 39 in Hillsborough County; from there, north and

then west again to connect to a new Aspen switching station to be

located near the intersection of County Road 672 and Balm - Boyette

Road; and from the Aspen station, two separate 230kV transmission

lines wo uld run northeast to the existing Fishhawk substation

near the intersection of Fishhawk Boulevard and Boyette Road; a

total length of 27 miles.

37. TEC exercised its option under section 403.5064(1)(b),

Florida Statutes, to allow parties to file alternate transmission

line corridors. No alternate corridors were filed or reviewed in

this proceeding.

38. TEC used a multidisciplinary team to evaluate

alternative corridors for the new transmission lines. The team

conducted initial data collection, prepared regional screening

maps, identified alternate route segments, developed evaluation

criteria, evaluated the routes, and selected the preferred

routes. Public participation was a part of this effort.

39. A regional screening map was created to identify

ex isting infrastructure, roads, railroads, rivers and other water

bodies, and siting constraints within the study area. TEC has

existing transmission line rights - of - way in much of the study

area, which together with public road rights - of - way provided co -

loc ation opportunities.

40. The Polk - Pebbledale Corridor runs across former

phosphate mining lands and follows roads and existing

transmission line corridors to a point south of the town of

Bradley Junction where it turns to the northeast and follows a

tran smission line through reclaimed phosphate lands to the

intersection with another existing transmission line.

41. In this certification proceeding, no party or non - party

expressed opposition to the Polk - Pebbledale transmission line

corridor.

42. The Polk - Fishhawk Corridor runs across former and

active phosphate mining lands, along road rights - of - way, and

agricultural lands. As it approaches the Fishhawk substation,

however, it passes through a residential development, referred to

as the Fishhawk Communit y. The portion of the corridor that runs

through the Fish h awk Community follows an existing TEC - owned

transmission line right - of - way.

43. No developer, agricultural operator, commercial entity,

agency, or local government expressed opposition to the Polk to

Fishhawk transmission line corridor, but residents of the

Fishhawk Community testified in opposition to the corridor at the

public hearing held in the Fishhawk community center. Their

testimony at the public hearing is discussed later in this

Recommen ded Order.

44. The proposed transmission lines would be installed on

steel poles embedded in the ground. Guy wires are generally not

needed except where a transmission line makes a large angle turn

or guy wires are otherwise necessary for safety and sou nd

engineering. Pole heights would vary from 80 to 135 feet. The

typical span length between poles would be 500 to 700 feet, but

it can range up to 1 , 000 feet, when necessary to avoid natural or

manmade obstacles or other siting constraints.

45. The co rridors are wider than the rights - of - way that

will ultimately be determined in order to allow for flexibility

in the final selection of the rights - of - way. The proposed

rights - of - way would be reviewed by the agencies to insure

compliance with the Condition s of Certification.

46. Each transmission line would be designed, constructed,

operated, and maintained in compliance with good engineering

practices and all applicable codes, standards, and industry

guidelines, including the National Electric Safety Code , the

North American Electric Reliability Corporation, the American

Society of Civil Engineers, requirements of the Florida Public

Service Commission and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission,

the DOT Utility Accommodation Guide, applicable local and st ate

government requirements, and TEC's internal design standards.

TEC designs all of its 230 kV transmission lines to withstand a

130 - mile - per - hour wind band, which exceeds the criteria in the

National Electric Safety Code.

Electric and Magnetic Fields

4 7. The electric field produced by a transmission line is

relatively constant over time. The magnetic field fluctuates

over time depending on the load on the line. Electric and

magnetic fields have been calculated for each of the

configurations that may be used for the Project, based on the

maximum requested voltage and current. The maximum expected

levels for the electric and magnetic fields are within the limits

in Florida Administrative Code Chapter 62 - 814.

48. Considerable scientific research has b een conducted in

the past 30 years to understand the potential health effects

associated with electric and magnetic fields. There is general

agreement among scientists in national and international health

agencies that the available evidence does not show adverse health

effects can occur from exposure to the electric and magnetic

fields associated with transmission lines.

49. The DepartmentÓs limits for electric and magnetic

fields at the edge of a transmission line right - of - way are lower

than the limits recommended by the World Health Organization.

Noise Impacts

50 . The noise limits applicable to the Project are those

contained in the Polk Land Development Code and the in the rules

of the Environmental Protection Commission of Hillsborough

County. The Polk County noise limits are 75 decibels, A - weighted

measurement (ÐdBAÑ) from 7:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. for non -

residential areas and 65 dBA from 7:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. for

residential areas. The noise requirements applicable to

transmission lines in Hillsb orough County are 60 dBA from

7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. and 55 dBA from 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.

51. Noise levels measured at four locations in the vicinity

of the Project site varied between 41.9 and 51.1 dBA. Offsite

noise levels during construction of P roject facilities at the

power station would be minimal because of the distance from the

construction area to the site boundaries. Noise levels at the

power station during operation are not expected to differ

significantly from existing levels.

52. Audib le noise associated with transmission lines is

usually associated with Ðcorona,Ñ which is a phenomenon that

occurs when there is an irregularity on the surface of the

conductors, such as water droplets or other significant

particles. If the noise occurs d uring a rainstorm it is usually

masked by the noise of the rain. At other times, corona noise

will often be masked by other outdoor noises.

53. Noise calculations were conducted for the proposed

transmission lines and ranged from 32.0 to 45.2 dBA. Thes e

levels do not exceed the applicable limits.

Wetlands and Terrestrial Ecology

54. The areas proposed for the ProjectÓs generating and

associated facilities have been altered by the construction and

operation of the Polk Power Station. These areas are a lso

surrounded by lands altered by phosphate mining and reclamation.

Wildlife habitats have already been destroyed, altered, or

diminished by these activities and no longer have high functional

values.

55. Construction activities at the power plant site would

not disturb any native or reclaimed wetland or upland habitats.

56. Wildlife species expected to be found onsite would be

common species for the region. Only two listed species of

special concern were documented at the power station, the

American A lligator and Tricolored Heron. They are both found in

the reclaimed wetland west of the construction area and would not

be affected. Impacts to other wildlife caused by construction at

the Polk Power Station would be temporary and insignificant.

57. The re are no known threatened or endangered plant

species at the Polk Power Station. No reclaimed or natural

upland or wetland habitats are proposed to be affected.

58. Wildlife habitats along the proposed transmission line

corridors includes pine flat woo ds, mixed forested uplands, and

various wetlands, including cypress forests, mixed hardwood

swamps, and marshes. Surrounding land covers are dominated by

current or former phosphate mining, farmsteads, or landscaped

residential properties. The Balm - Boyet te Scrub Preserve, Little

Manatee River, Hurrah Creek, Fishhawk Creek, and Little Fishhawk

Creek provide the best wildlife habitats along the transmission

line corridors, but the corridors would cross these areas where

there are already existing transmissi on line rights - of - way or

roads.

59. Wildlife found along the corridors are species commonly

found in the region. No listed species are known to occur.

Construction and maintenance of the transmission lines within the

corridors would not significantly im pact the habitats of fish and

wildlife found in these areas.

60. Impacts to vegetation along the transmission line

corridors would be minimized by siting the rights - of - way within

the most disturbed areas or on existing road and transmission

line rights - o f - way. TEC would span all open waters such as

streams and tributaries. For smaller water crossings and

wetlands, the facilities would be co - located with existing linear

facilities to minimize impacts. Restrictive clearing practices

on forested wetlands would be utilized, removing vegetation

selectively. Impacts from filling would be avoided or minimized

to the greatest extent practicable through a careful alignment of

the transmission line rights - of - way and through the choice of

span distances between s tructures. Where wetland impacts cannot

be avoided, the impacts would be minimized and mitigation would

be provided.

61. Prior to the final selection of rights - of - way and the

beginning of construction, surveys would be conducted to

determine the presenc e of protected plant and animal species and

the results would be shared with the FWC to determine if

mitigation may be required in accordance with Conditions of

Certification.

Archeological and Historic Sites

6 2 . When the Polk Power Station was first cer tified and

subsequently, archeological surveys were conducted to determine

the presence of cultural and historical resources of

significance. No such resources were identified.

6 3 . Cultural and historical resources in the study area for

the transmission line corridors were evaluated during the

corridor selection process. All National Register of Historic

Places sites and districts as well as other known cultural

resources were mapped and candidate corridors were laid out to

avoid those resources. Corrid ors were laid out to co - locate with

other transmission lines and linear facilities that have already

disturbed the land to reduce the potential for new disturbances

to cultural resources.

6 4 . After the rights - of - way within the corridors have been

determin ed, cultural resource surveys would be conducted to

identify the location of any archeological or historical

resources and determine potential impacts whether they can be

avoided. The surveys would be submitted to the Division of

Natural Resources for its review and consideration.

Transportation Impacts

6 5 . No additional transportation impacts are expected from

the operation of the Project because there would be no addition

to the current Polk Power Station staff of 78 employees to

operate all facilitie s.

6 6 . The construction phase would generate 357 daily trips

by construction workers and 50 additional delivery trips. The

trip distribution per day is expected to be 228 northbound trips

on State Road 37, 82 southbound trips on State Road 37, 75

northb ound trips on Fort Green Road, and 22 southbound trips on

Fort Green Road. Even at the peak of construction activities,

the surrounding roadway network is expected to operate at

acceptable levels of service.

Land Use Compatibility

6 7 . The Project facili ties would be located within the

existing power station site, which is the logical and efficient

location for the Project. There are no conflicting land uses in

the vicinity of the Project site.

6 8 . Most of the land uses along the corridors are former

a nd active phosphate mining lands, undeveloped lands,

agriculture, and rural residences. The key exception is the

segment of the Polk - Fishhawk Corridor that runs through the

developed Fishhawk Community, which is a suburban residential

areaansmission lines of the types proposed are frequently

located in proximity to all of these affected land uses,

including the suburban residential areas.

69 . It is officially recogni zed that many people, if given

a choice, would prefer not to have high voltage transm ission

lines near their homes, primarily based on aesthetic

considerations. However, it is also official ly recogni zed that

many people are willing to live near transmission lines. Until

there is a practical alternative to above - ground transmission

lines, they will have to be located in developed areas in order

to supply electricity to residences. The proposed transmission

lines are not incompatible with residential uses.

7 0 . Polk County and Hillsborough County do not oppose the

Project on any basis, inc luding land use compatibility. The

Project is consistent with the comprehensive plans and the land

development regulations of these counties.

Soci oe conomic Impacts

7 1 . The Project would provide additional clean and reliable

energy, additional jobs durin g construction, an increased

property tax base, and increased economic activity in the form of

purchases of goods and services.

7 2 . Local revenues from property taxes levied on the new

plant facilities would primarily benefit Polk County. The

estimated additional property tax revenue is between $6 million

and $6.5 million annually.

7 3 . Significant revenues are also expected from sales taxes

on goods purchased directly for the plant or indirectly from

purchases of goods and services by the construction w orkers.

Sales taxes are estimated to be $105,000 per year.

7 4 . Construction of the Project would employ an average of

250 workers, with a peak projected in 2015 of about 500 workers.

Most of the construction workers would be drawn from an area

within a commuting distance from the Project site. The

construction payroll for the overall Project is expected to be

$88 million and much of this would likely be spent in Polk County

and the region.

Site Boundaries

7 5 . TEC requests that the boundaries of the P olk Power

Station site be reduced from 4,348 acres to 2,837 acres to

reflect that the original certification required a donation of

1,511 acres to the Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement

Trust Fund as a wildlife management area and recreation are a.

The donation was completed in 2012.

Construction Schedule

7 6 . Construction of the project is anticipated to begin in

January 2014 and be completed in time to allow commercial

operation in January 2017.

Public Notice and Participation

7 7 . TEC enga ged in extensive public outreach for the

Project, using direct mail, a survey, public meetings, newspaper

advertisements, a project webpage, a toll - free telephone number

for information, and communications with agencies and public

officials.

7 8 . TEC used two direct mailings, totaling over 10,000

letters in both English and Spanish. The letters were mailed to

landowners and residents within one - quarter mile of the proposed

transmission line corridors, all homeowners' associations within

one mile, and all landowners and residents within three miles of

the plant site boundaries.

79 . Three public meetings were held regarding the Project.

The first meeting was held on April 10, 2012 , at the Little Union

Baptist Church. The second was on April 12, 2012 , at the

Fishhawk Fellowship Church. The third was on April 19, 2012 , at

the Wimauma Senior Center.

8 0 . TEC held meetings with county commissioners, mayors,

state senators, and state representatives to inform them of the

Project and the certification process . TEC representatives also

met with developers in Hillsborough County who could be affected

by the corridors to provide information and answer questions.

8 1 . Copies of the Application were available for inspection

at the Polk County Library in Bartow an d the John Germany Public

Library in Tampa. A copy was also available for public review at

TECÓs offices in Tampa.

8 2 . On October 24, 2012, public notice of the filing of the

Application was published in The Tampa Tribune and The Ledger .

On April 18, 2 013, notice of the Certification Hearing was

published in The Tampa Tribune and The Ledger and on April 19,

2013 , in the Tampa Bay Times . When the certification hearing was

rescheduled, TEC published notice of the rescheduling in The

Tampa Tribune , The Le dger , and the Tampa Bay Times on June 16,

2013.

8 3 . The Department published notices of the Application,

the certification hearing, the public testimony hearing, and

rescheduling the certification hearing in the Florida

Administrative Register . Hillsbor ough County published notice of

the public testimony portion of the proceeding in The Tampa

Tribune on June 19, 2013.

Public Testimony

8 4 . A hearing was held in Lithia, Florida , on June 25,

2013, in the Fishhawk Community to provide members of the public

who are not parties to the certification proceeding an

opportunity to present sworn testimony concerning the

transmission line portion of the Project. Twelve members of the

public testified. Eight comment letters were received into the

record as Public Testimony Composite Exhibit 1.

8 5 . A number of the residents expressed anger about what

they perceived as the failure of the developer who sold them

their homes, and TEC, to disclose to them that a transmission

line might be constructed near their homes. As previously

stated, the corridor is on property owned or controlled by TEC

for the installation of transmission lines. The record evidence

does not indicate any duty to disclose, any misrepresentation, or

any obfuscation by TEC in this regard. If ther e was a failure to

disclose or a misrepresentation by the developer, those are

matters between the homeowners and the developer and beyond the

scope of this proceeding.

8 6 . Several residents expressed concern about possible

adverse health effects from ex posure to electric and magnetic

fields associated with the transmission lines. However, no

speaker referred to personal knowledge or to any study results to

support their comments on this subject. It is likely, therefore,

that their concerns are based on rumors or speculation. As

discussed above, independent scientists have not been able to

substantiate the occurrence of adverse health effects from

exposure to the electric and magnetic fields associated with

transmission lines.

8 7 . There is a tennis cou rt and there are nature trails

underneath existing transmission lines located in another part of

the Fishhawk Community, indicating that the fear of electrical

and magnetic fields is not universal.

8 8 . Some residents urged that TEC be required to install

the portion of the transmission line in the Fishhawk Community

underground. There are substantial engineering difficulties

associated with underground installation of high voltage

transmission lines. TEC has never installed this type of

transmission lin e underground. The cost for underground

installation could be as much as 15 times greater than for

overhead installation.

Agency Reports

89 . Agency reports with proposed conditions of

certification were submitted to the Department by SWFWMD, FWC,

Florid a Department of Transportation, Hillsborough County, and

Hillsborough County Environmental Protection Commission.

9 0 . Agency Reports without recommended conditions of

certification were submitted by the Florida Department of

Economic Opportunity, Central Florida Regional Planning Council,

Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council, and Polk County.

9 1 . The Department of State, Division of Historical

Resources did not file an agency report, but recommended

conditions in its Completeness Review.

9 2 . On January 28, 2013, The Department issued its Project

Analysis Report for the transmission line portion of the Project,

incorporating the reports of the reviewing agencies and proposing

Conditions of Certification.

9 3 . On April 26, 2013, the Department issued its Project

Analysis Report on the power plant and proposed Conditions of

Certification. The Report was modified on May 21, 2013.

9 4 . No agency opposes certification of the Project.

Conditions of Certification

9 5 . The Department recommends certification of the Project

subject to the revised Conditions of Certification set forth in

Department Exhibit 8, which supersedes all prior statement s of

conditions. The Conditions of Certification address numerous

subjects and are designed to e nsure that the construct ion and

operation of the Project is protective of the public and the

environment.

9 6 . The Conditions of Certification provide for post -

certification reviews and investigations to confirm, for example,

that sensitive areas will be avoided and that transmis sion lines

structures will avoid or have minimal adverse impacts.

9 7 . TEC has agreed to construct, operate, and maintain the

Project in compliance with the Conditions of Certification. No

variances or exemptions from applicable state, regional, or local

standards or ordinances have been requested or are needed for the

construction, operation, and maintenance of the Project.

Certification Considerations

98 . In determining whether TEC's application for the

Project should be approved, approved with conditi ons, or denied,

the Siting Board must determine whether, and the extent to which,

the location, construction, and operation of the Project would:

(a) Provide reasonable assurance that the

operational safeguards are technically

sufficient for the public we lfare and

protection.

(b) Comply with applicable nonprocedural

requirements of agencies.

(c) Be consistent with applicable local

government comprehensive plans and land

development regulations.

(d) Meet the electrical energy needs of the

state in an orderly, reliable, and timely

fashion.

(e) Effect a reasonable balance between the

need for the facility as established pursuant

to s. 403.519 and the impacts upon air and

water quality, fish and wildlife, water

resources, and other natural resources of the

state resulting from the construction and

operation of the facility.

(f) Minimize, through the use of reasonable

and available methods, the adverse affects on

human health, the environment, and the

ecology of the land and its wildlife and the

ecology of state waters and their aquatic

life.

(g) Serve and protect the broad interests of

the public.

§ 403.509(3), Fla. Stat.

99 . The evidence presented demonstrates that the location,

construction, and operation of the Project would provide

reasonable as surance that the operational safeguards are

technically sufficient for the public welfare and protection.

10 0 . The evidence presented demonstrates that the location,

construction, and operation of the Project would comply with

applicable nonprocedural req uirements of agencies.

10 1 . The evidence presented demonstrates that the location,

construction, and operation of the Project would be consistent

with applicable local comprehensive plans and land development

regulations.

10 2 . The evidence presented de monstrates that the location,

construction, and operation of the Project would meet the

electric energy needs of the state in an orderly, reliable, and

timely fashion.

10 3 . The evidence presented demonstrates that the location,

construction, and operatio n of the Project would effect a

reasonable balance between the need for the facility as

established pursuant to section 403.519 and the impacts upon air

and water quality, fish and wildlife, water resources, and other

natural resources of the state.

10 4 . The evidence presented demonstrates that the location,

construction, and operation of the Project would minimize,

through the use of reasonable and available methods, the adverse

effects on human health, the environment, and the ecology of the

land and it s wildlife and the ecology of state waters and their

aquatic life.

10 5 . The evidence presented demonstrates that the location,

construction, and operation of the Project would serve and

protect the broad interests of the public.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

10 6 . The parties stipulated that there are no disputed

issues of law.

10 7 . This certification proceeding is governed by the

Florida Electrical Power Plant Siting Act, chapter 403, Part II,

Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Chapter 62 - 17.

108 . TEC, the Department, Hillsborough County, SWFWMD, and

FWC have standing to participate as parties.

1 09 . Public notice was provided in compliance with the

requirements of section 403.515 and other applicable law.

1 10 . The evidence presented in this pr oceeding demonstrates

that the Project favorably satisfies all of the factors in

section 403.509(3) that the Siting Board must consider in

determining whether to certify the Project.

RECOMMENDATION

Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of

Law, it is

RECOMMENDED that the Siting Board enter a final order:

a. approving TEC's application for certification to

construct, operate, and maintain the Polk 2 - 5 Combined Cycle

Conversion Project, including its associated transmission lines,

subjec t to the Conditions of Certification set forth in

Department Exhibit 8;

b. approving the increase in ultimate site capacity for the

Polk Power Station site from the previously approved 1150

megawatts to 1420 megawatts; and

c. modifying the Polk Power St ation site boundaries from

4 , 348 acres to 2 , 837 acres, as depicted in TEC Exhibit 5.

DONE AND ENTERED this 23rd day of August , 2013 , in

Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida.

S

BRAM D. E. CANTER

Administrative Law Judge

Divis ion of Administrative Hearings

The DeSoto Building

1230 Apalachee Parkway

Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 3060

(850) 488 - 9675

Fax Filing (850) 921 - 6847

www.doah.state.fl.us

Filed with the Clerk of the

Division of Administrative Hearings

this 23rd day of Augus t , 2013 .

COPIES FURNISHED:

Lawrence N. Curtin, Esquire

Holland and Knight LLP

Suite 600

315 South Calhoun Street

Tallahassee, Florida 3230 1

Toni Sturtevant, Esquire

Department of Environmental Protection

Douglas Building, Mail Station 35

3900 Comm onwealth Boulevard

Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 3000

Kimberly Clark Menchion, Esquire

Department of Transportation

Mail Station 58

605 Suwannee Street

Tallahassee, Florida 32399

Anthony Justin Pinzino, Esquire

Florida Fish and Wildlife

Conservation C ommission

620 South Meridian Street

Tallahassee, Florida 32399

Adam Teitzman, Esquire

Florida Public Service Commission

2450 Shumard oak Boulevard

Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 0850

Michael S. Craig, Esquire

Polk County Attorney ' s Office

330 West Church Street, Drawer AT01

Post Office Box 9005

Bartow, Florida 33831 - 9005

Marva M. Taylor, Esquire

Hillsborough County Attorney`s Office

27th Floor

601 East Kennedy Boulevard

Tampa, Florida 33602 - 4156

Richard Tschantz, Esquire

Environmental Protection Comm ission

of Hillsborough County

3629 Queen Palm Drive

Tampa, Florida 33619

Patricia Anderson

Department of Health

Environmental Engineering

4042 Bald Cypress Way

Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 1742

Laura Kammerer

Bureau of Historic Preservation

R. A. Gray Building

500 South Bronough

Tallahassee, Florida 32399

Manny L. Pumariega

Tampa Bay Regional Planning Council

Suite 100

4000 Gateway Center Boulevard

Pinellas Park, Florida 33782

Patricia M. Steed

Central Florida Regional

Planning Council

555 East Ch urch Street

Bartow, Florida 33830 - 3931

Forrest Watson

Department of Agriculture and

Consumer Services

Division of Forestry

3125 Conner Boulevard

Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 1650

Martha A. Moore, Esquire

Southwest Florida Water Management District

7601 Highway 301 North

Tampa, Florida 33637

Herschel T. Vinyard, Jr., Secretary

Department of Environmental Protection

Douglas Building, Mail Station 35

3900 Commonwealth Boulevard

Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 3000

Matthew Z. Leopold, General Counsel

Depar tment of Environmental Protection

Douglas Building, Mail Station 35

3900 Commonwealth Boulevard

Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 3000

Lea Crandall, Agency Clerk

Department of Environmental Protection

Douglas Building, Mail Station 35

3900 Commonwealth Boulevar d

Tallahassee, Florida 32399 - 3000

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 ag ency that

will issue the Final Order in this case.