The Issue Whether Petitioner is entitled to licensure as a certified electrical contractor pursuant to the provisions of Section 489.514, Florida Statutes.
Findings Of Fact At all times material hereto, Petitioner, William Davidson Schaefer (Petitioner), was a licensed electrical contractor, having been issued License No. ER-0008163. This license, issued to Petitioner after he fulfilled the competency requirements of the Pinellas County Construction Licensing Board, allows him to practice electrical contracting in Pinellas County, Florida. To meet the competency requirements of the Pinellas County Construction Licensing Board necessary to obtain an electrical contracting license, Petitioner had to successfully complete a written examination. In 1981, when Petitioner received his license, the test required by the Pinellas County Construction Licensing Board was administered by Construction Exams, Inc., the sole test provider for Pinellas County. Petitioner took the Electrical Contractor's Examination administered by Construction Exams, Inc. on June 26, 1981, and earned a passing score of 86.5%. Petitioner has practiced electrical contracting in Pinellas County since 1981 and has been sole owner of Lester Electric, Inc., an electrical contracting company, since 1983. Petitioner's license is active and in good standing. Moreover, during the time that Petitioner has practiced electrical contracting, he has not been the subject of any complaints filed with, or discipline imposed by, the Pinellas County Construction Licensing Board. On or about May 8, 2000, Petitioner applied to the Electrical Contractors' Board (Board) for certification as an electrical contractor pursuant to the "grandfathering" provisions of Section 489.514, Florida Statutes. On or about May 26, 2000, the Board denied Petitioner's application for certification as an electrical contractor because he did not provide information upon which the Board could determine that the examination administered by Construction Exams, Inc. is substantially similar to the state examination. The exam administered by Construction Exams, Inc. contained a technical section and a general business section. However, Petitioner does not recall if the examination included a section or questions on safety. On the Examination Verification Form submitted to the Board as part of Petitioner's application, the Pinellas County Construction Licensing Board verified that the examination taken by Petitioner in 1981 included a technical section and a general business section. However, in response to a question on the form asking if the examination had included "fire alarm questions," the Pinellas County Construction Licensing Board marked the response, "Not sure." The company, Construction Exams, Inc., that administered the examination that Petitioner took in 1981 is no longer in business. Petitioner sought to obtain a copy of the examination from the Pinellas County Construction Licensing Board, but learned that the local board did not have a copy of the examination. Except for the time he was taking the examination, Petitioner never had nor has he been able to obtain a copy of the examination from any source. Although Petitioner does not recall if the examination that he took in 1981 included questions on safety and/or fire alarms, he was able to obtain information about some of the areas covered on the examination. Based on the document Petitioner was able to obtain, it appears that the examination he took included questions relative to the mechanics' lien law, workers' compensation law, first aid, OSHA regulations, federal tax law and the national electrical code. The state's Certified Electrical Contractor Exam includes a technical section, a general business section, and a safety section. The examination consists of 150 multiple choice questions, is an open-book test, and includes both a morning session and an afternoon session. Given that Petitioner took the examination more than 20 years ago, it is understandable that he can not recall all the questions and/or sections that were covered on the examination, and that he was unable to obtain a copy of the examination from any source. However, without a copy of the examination or other documents which sufficiently detail the contents of the examination Petitioner took in 1981, it is impossible to determine if that examination is substantially similar to the state examination. Petitioner failed to provide the Board with any information upon which it could make a determination that the examination he took is substantially similar to the state examination required for certification as an electrical contractor.
Recommendation Base on the foregoing Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Board enter a final order denying Petitioner's application for licensure as a certified electrical contractor. DONE AND ENTERED this 31st day of January, 2002, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. CAROLYN S. HOLIFIELD 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.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 31st day of January, 2002. COPIES FURNISHED: Robert C. Decker, Esquire Decker Beeler, P.A. 25 Second Street, North, Suite 320 St. Petersburg, Florida 33701 Barbara R. Edwards Assistant General Counsel Department of Legal Affairs The Capitol, Plaza Level 01 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 Hardy L. Roberts, III, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2202 Anthony B. Spivey, Executive Director Electrical Contractors Licensing Board Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
The Issue The issue to be determined is whether the Governor and Cabinet, sitting as the Siting Board, should approve the Site Certification Application ("Application") submitted by Florida Power & Light Company ("FPL"), pursuant to the Florida Power Plant Siting Act ("PPSA"), sections 403.501 through 403.518, for the construction and operation of a new electrical power generation facility, Dania Beach Energy Center ("DBEC") at FPL's existing Lauderdale Site in Broward County, Florida; and, if so, the Conditions of Certification that should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact The Parties FPL is the applicant for site certification for the DBEC electrical power plant5/ at issue in this proceeding. FPL is the largest electric utility in Florida, serving approximately 4.9 million customer accounts. Its service territory covers approximately 28,000 square miles, in all or part of 35 counties in Florida, and in Georgia. Its 53 existing electrical power generating units are located at power plants throughout its service territory, and consist of diverse generation technologies, including nuclear units, coal-burning units, combined cycle units, oil/gas steam units, combustion turbines, gas turbines, and solar facilities. As of December 2016, FPL had a total system electrical power generation capacity of 26,267 megawatts ("MW"). DEP is the state agency charged with administering the PPSA, which is codified at chapter 403, part II. Specifically, the SCO administers the PPSA and coordinates the site certification process, including receiving comments from the affected agencies and preparing the PAR, which contains the proposed Conditions of Certification.6/ Sierra is a national non-profit environmental advocacy organization. A key component of Sierra's mission is to advocate for the use of clean energy sources. As discussed below, Sierra was granted intervenor status pursuant to section 403.508(3)(e), subject to proving that its substantial interests are affected in this proceeding. The DBEC Electrical Power Plant FPL's Lauderdale Site FPL owns and operates the Lauderdale Site, an existing electrical power generating facility site located on approximately 392 acres in the City of Dania Beach and the City of Hollywood, in Broward County, Florida. The Site is approximately one mile west of Interstate 95 and approximately 1/4 mile south of Interstate 595. It has served as an operating power plant site for more than 90 years, and has existing infrastructure consisting of a transmission switch yard, a gas yard, an existing gas transmission pipeline, an existing electrical transmission system, water lines, fuel storage tanks, and a sewer line. Currently, the Lauderdale Site features five electrical power generation units: Units 4 and 5, which consist of four combined cycle units comprised of four 1990s-vintage combustion turbines ("CTs"), four heat recovery steam generators ("HRSGs"), and two 1950s-vintage steam turbines; Unit 6, which consists of five 200-MW single cycle CTs used as "peakers" to generate additional electrical power during periods of peak demand; and two 35 MW units. Location of DBEC DBEC is proposed to be constructed on the portion of the Lauderdale Site that is located within the City of Dania Beach. The City of Dania Beach recently amended its Comprehensive Plan to add the Electrical Generation Facilities use category to the Future Land Use Element and to so designate, on its Future Land Use Map, the portion of the Lauderdale Site on which DBEC will be constructed. DBEC is proposed to be constructed and operated on the portion of the Lauderdale Site on which Units 4 and 5 currently are located. These units will be completely dismantled and removed before construction of DBEC commences.7/ DBEC will use much of the existing infrastructure that currently serves Units 4 and 5. This infrastructure includes existing fuel and storage tanks, an existing gas transmission pipeline, existing electrical transmission lines, existing cooling water intake at the Dania Cutoff Canal, and existing cooling water discharge structures. The major new components of DBEC will be constructed at an elevation of 11.5 feet above mean sea level. The existing infrastructure that will be used by DBEC will not be raised above its current elevation above mean sea level. Unit 7 Technology Unit 7, as proposed, will consist of a new two-on-one combined cycle electrical power generation unit with a nominal rating of 1,200 MW. A combined cycle electrical generation system generates electrical power in two cycles. In the first cycle, ambient air is drawn into the multistage compressor, where it is compressed, then directed to the combustor section, where fuel——in this case, natural gas——is introduced, ignited, and burned. The hot combustion gases are diluted with additional cool air and directed to the turbine section, where they expand, causing the CT, which is connected to a generator, to rotate, producing electricity. The captured gases are then routed to a HRSG, which begins the second cycle. In this cycle, the heat from the captured gases is used to convert water to steam, which drives a steam turbine generator ("STG"), producing additional electricity. Each CT/HRSG combination is termed a "train." Unit 7 will have two CT/HRSG trains, each having a gross generation capacity of 400 MW at an inlet air temperature of 75 degrees Fahrenheit. These two CT/HRSG trains will be connected to one STG having a generation capacity of 400 MW. The combination of the two CT/HRSG trains with one STG gives rise to the "two-on-one combined cycle" label for this type of power generation unit. Combined cycle systems, such as the one that will constitute Unit 7, are significantly more efficient than single cycle units that involve only combustion turbines. This increased efficiency is due to the addition of the second cycle, which uses captured exhaust heat from the first cycle to create steam, which is then used to turn a steam turbine, thereby generating an additional 400 MW of electricity per total amount of fuel burned. Operating efficiency for combined cycle units is measured in terms of "heat rate," which is an expression of how efficiently the fuel is converted to electrical energy. The lower the heat rate, the more efficient the electrical power generation unit. Unit 7 is a modern combined cycle plant and is expected to achieve a heat rate of approximately 6,119 British Thermal Units ("BTUs") per kilowatt hour. By contrast, Units 4 and 5——which are also combined cycle units but use older, less efficient equipment——have an average heat rate of approximately 7,800 BTUs per kilowatt hour. As noted above, Unit 7 will use natural gas as its primary fuel. The natural gas will be delivered to the DBEC site through an existing natural gas pipeline, which originates offsite and is not part of this site certification proceeding.8/ Ultra-low sulfur distillate ("ULSD") oil will be used as the back-up fuel. Unit 7 Effect on FPL System-wide Natural Gas Consumption As noted above, Unit 7 will use the most modern combined cycle technology. Dr. Steven Sim, FPL's director of Integrated Resource Planning, prepared a projection of the effect Unit 7 will have on natural gas consumption by FPL's electrical power generation units on a system-wide basis. Using a model that simulates the operation of all electrical generating units on FPL's system, FPL compared, for natural gas fuel consumption on a system-wide basis, two scenarios: one in which Units 4 and 5 continue to operate indefinitely and Unit 7 is not constructed and operated; and one in which Units 4 and 5 are retired in the fourth quarter of 2018, and Unit 7 is constructed and commences operation in mid-2022. The inputs to the model included a range of information, including the electrical load that FPL will serve in the future, on an hourly, monthly, and yearly basis, for a period of 30 years; information, for each of FPL's 53 electrical power generation units regarding individual generating capacity, fuel use efficiency, scheduled maintenance outages, and forced outages; fuel costs; environmental compliance costs; and the addition of other power-generation resources to meet future forecasted demand. The model was used to determine which of FPL's generating units operate during each hour, in order to determine how to most economically generate electrical power. The model projected a significant reduction in natural gas consumption by FPL on a system-wide basis over a 30-year horizon if Units 4 and 5 are retired in late 2018 and Unit 7 commences operation in 2022. Conversely, if Units 4 and 5 are not retired and continue to operate9/——which will be the case if Unit 7 is not certified——the model showed that FPL will consume substantially more natural gas on a system-wide basis over a 30- year horizon, from 2018 through 2047, than if Unit 7 is certified, constructed, and begins operating in 2022. Assuming Units 4 and 5 are retired in 2018 and Unit 7 commences operation in 2022, the model-generated comparative natural gas consumption amounts shows a consistent system-wide decrease in natural gas consumption in amounts ranging from slightly over two million cubic feet per year to slightly over six million cubic feet per year, for a projected total decrease in system-wide natural gas consumption of nearly 134 million cubic feet over the 30-year horizon. This is because the operation of Unit 7 will displace less-efficient gas burning units that otherwise would be used if Unit 7 does not operate. Further, because the model-generated projected natural gas consumption amounts simply compared the "with Units 4 and 5 and without Unit 7" scenario to the "without Units 4 and 5 and with Unit 7" scenario, with all other variables being held constant, the projected natural gas consumption differential between the two scenarios would not change, regardless of whether, and which, additional types of energy-generation resources were added to FPL's system. Dr. Sim acknowledged that the social costs of carbon were not considered as part of the modeling of FPL's system-wide projected natural gas consumption. However, he noted that as a practical matter, because Unit 7 will operate more efficiently, FPL will demand less natural gas on a system-wide basis to fuel its electrical power generating units. As a result of reduced demand, less natural gas will need to be produced and transported by pipeline to fuel FPL's electrical power plant generating system. Public Service Commission Need Determination Pursuant to section 403.519, FPL filed a petition for determination of need for DBEC with the PSC in October 2017. Sierra intervened into the need determination proceeding. The final hearing was held on January 17, 2018. The PSC issued the Need Determination for DBEC Unit 7 on March 19, 2018. This Order, which constitutes final agency action, was not appealed. During the need determination proceeding, Sierra contended, and presented evidence in an effort to show, that renewal energy sources and technologies, such as solar facilities, could be deployed incrementally to delay or potentially entirely forestall the need for Unit 7. Thus, as part of the need analysis, the PSC specifically considered the feasibility of using renewable generation options and sources, including solar facilities. The PSC specifically determined that the use of such generation options and sources, including solar facilities, was less cost-effective than DBEC. The PSC found that: "[n]o additional cost-effective renewable resource has been identified in this proceeding that can mitigate the need for new generation. Similarly, no additional cost-effective [Demand Side Management] has been identified in this proceeding that can mitigate the need for new generation." Based on the evidence and argument presented in the need determination proceeding, the PSC granted the Need Determination for DBEC Unit 7, specifically finding and concluding that "the Dania Beach Clean Energy Center Unit 7 is the most cost-effective alternative that maintains Florida Power & Light Company's system and Southeastern Florida area reliability compared to other alternatives[.]" Section 403.519(3) states: The commission shall be the sole forum for the determination of [need], which accordingly shall not be raised in any other forum or in the review of proceedings in such other forum. In making its determination, the commission shall take into account the need for electric system reliability and integrity, the need for adequate electricity at a reasonable cost, the need for fuel diversity and supply reliability, whether the proposed plant is the most cost-effective alternative available, and whether renewable energy sources and technologies, as well as conservation measures, are utilized to the extent reasonably available. The commission shall also expressly consider the conservation measures taken by or reasonably available to the applicant or its members which might mitigate the need for the proposed plant and other matters within its jurisdiction which it deems relevant. The commission's determination of need for an electrical power plant shall create a presumption of public need and necessity and shall serve as the commission's report required by s. 403.507(4). An order entered pursuant to this section constitutes final agency action. § 403.519, Fla. Stat. (emphasis added). Pursuant to this statute, the PSC is the only entity authorized to determine whether an electrical power plant is needed, and whether, given the need for the power plant, the applicant should be required to implement renewable energy sources and technologies, including the use of solar generation facilities. Here, the PSC determined that DBEC is needed, and further determined that the use of renewable energy sources and technologies, such as solar technology, was not cost-effective, and, therefore, was not reasonably available. Pursuant to the plain language of section 403.519(3), it is beyond the scope of this proceeding for the undersigned or the Siting Board to require, as a condition of site certification for DBEC, the use of alternative energy sources or technologies, such as solar or other forms of renewable energy, or to deny DBEC's site certification on the basis that such technologies are not proposed as part of the project. DBEC Emissions and Air Construction/Prevention of Significant Deterioration Permit Florida's Air Quality Regulatory Program In Florida, DEP implements the federal air regulatory programs under the Clean Air Act, subject to approval and oversight by the United States Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA"). Under this system, DEP is the permitting authority, while EPA retains commenting authority. DEP rules implementing the Clean Air Act consist of several air quality regulatory programs. Pertinent to this proceeding are the National Ambient Air Quality Standards ("NAAQS") and Prevention of Significant Deterioration ("PSD") programs. Under the Clean Air Act, EPA is required to promulgate NAAQS for certain air pollutants called "criteria" pollutants. The primary NAAQS establish levels of air quality that are necessary to protect the public health, with an adequate margin of safety to protect sensitive populations. Secondary NAAQS also may be established to protect the public welfare, which can include environmental impacts. 40 C.F.R. § 50.2(b). NAAQS have been developed for six air pollutants: sulfur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide, carbon monoxide, ozone, certain sizes of particulate matter, and lead. NAAQS have not been established for greenhouse gases ("GHGs"). For each of the six criteria air pollutants for which NAAQS have been developed, EPA has designated areas within each state that either meet or do not meet the NAAQS for that specific pollutant. Areas in which the NAAQS for a specific criteria air pollutant is met are termed "attainment" areas for that pollutant, while areas in which the NAAQS is not met for a specific criteria pollutant are termed "nonattainment" areas for that pollutant. Attainment areas are classified as Class I, which need special air quality protection; or Class II, which do not need special air quality protection. Everglades National Park and designated national wilderness areas are the only Class I attainment areas in Florida. All other attainment areas in Florida are designated as Class II. Broward County, including the DBEC site, is in a Class II attainment area for all NAAQS. The PSD program applies in attainment areas to limit the air quality impacts that may result from new or modified major sources of air pollution. Its purpose is to assure that the air quality in areas meeting the NAAQS does not significantly deteriorate below an established baseline. Under the PSD program, all major new sources of air pollution are subject to preconstruction review to determine whether significant air quality deterioration will result from the facility. As part of the PSD review, the new source is required to demonstrate compliance with PSD increments, which effectively constitute small amounts of air quality impacts that new or modified major sources of air pollution cannot exceed. PSD increments are more stringent than NAAQS, and, as such, they protect against air quality degradation in attainment areas. If an area meets the NAAQS for a specific criteria pollutant, PSD increments prevent the addition of that pollutant in greater than that incremental amount over an established baseline concentration for that pollutant. No PSD increments have been established for GHGs. The PSD program also requires demonstration that the air pollution source will use the Best Available Control Technology ("BACT"). BACT is defined, in pertinent part, as: an emission limitation based on the maximum degree of reduction of each pollutant subject to regulation under this chapter emitted from or which results from any major emitting facility, which the permitting authority, on a case-by-case basis, taking into account energy, environmental, and economic impacts and other costs, determines is achievable for such facility through application of production processes and available methods, systems, and techniques, including fuel cleaning, clean fuels, or treatment or innovative fuel combustion techniques for control of each such pollutant. 40 U.S.C. § 7479(3). More simply stated, BACT is the maximum degree of emission reduction that is available and feasible for the source, taking into account environmental, energy, economic impacts, and other costs. BACT requires a "top-down" analysis, which starts with the most stringent emission limits demonstrated feasible for a specific air pollution source category, as applied throughout the country. EPA has created a software tool accessible on its website, that enables a review of different source categories to determine the most stringent applicable control technology that meets the definition of BACT for that particular source type. BACT also must be at least as stringent as new source performance standards ("NSPS"), which are EPA-developed emissions limits for specific pollutants emitted by new or modified air pollution sources within a particular source category. The NSPS applicable to combined cycle combustion turbines, such as those that will comprise Unit 7, are nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide, and GHGs. DBEC Emissions DBEC will have several sources of air emissions. These consist of the two CTs that are part of the CT/HRSG trains discussed above; an auxiliary boiler; two emergency diesel generators, two natural gas heaters; a fire water pump diesel engine; a 14-cell auxiliary cooling system; and circuit breakers containing sulfur hexafluoride located in the Unit 7 power block. Of these, the CTs constitute the most significant air emissions source. DBEC's air emissions sources will emit nitrogen oxides, carbon monoxide, volatile organic compounds, sulfur dioxide, sulfuric acid, particulate matter ("PM") 10 and PM2.5, and GHGs. The GHGs emitted by DBEC will consist primarily10/ of carbon dioxide, with small amounts of methane.11/ DBEC's Air Construction/PSD Permit FPL applied to DEP for an air construction/PSD permit for DBEC in July 2017. DEP issued the air construction/PSD permit for DBEC ("Air Permit") in December 2017. The Air Permit was not challenged and became final agency action on December 24, 2017. It is valid through December 31, 2027. Pursuant to section 403.509(5), the Air Permit is not subject to revision or modification in this proceeding.12/ Because DBEC will emit 100 tons per year or more of regulated pollutants and is included in a source category to which the 100-tons-per-year threshold applies, it constitutes a major stationary source of air pollution. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 62-210.200(154)(a)1. Therefore, under Florida and federal law, FPL was required to obtain an air construction/PSD permit for DBEC. As part of the PSD review, FPL was required to perform a control technology review; to demonstrate that all applicable state and federal emission limiting standards would be met; and to determine and implement BACT to control the emissions. Projected emissions of carbon monoxide, volatile organic compounds, sulfur dioxide, sulfuric acid, PM10 and PM2.5, and GHGs underwent PSD review. Initial PSD modeling for projected carbon monoxide and sulfur dioxide emissions showed that these emissions would not exceed "significant impact levels," so no further review beyond the modeling was required. Initial modeling showed that PM10 and PM2.5 emissions would exceed the "significant impact level," so the modeling results were compared to the Class I and Class II PSD increments. This comparison showed that neither PM10 emissions nor PM2.5 emissions would exceed the increments for these pollutants. Accordingly, FPL demonstrated that DBEC would comply with the incremental standards for these pollutants. DBEC also meets BACT for volatile organic compounds emissions. The primary BACT for GHG emissions for Unit 7, as a combined cycle unit, is the efficiency of the unit itself in producing electrical power using low-GHG emitting fuels, such as natural gas. As previously discussed, Unit 7 will be an extremely efficient combined cycle unit that will use natural gas as its primary fuel. The Air Permit limits the emissions rates for, and amounts of, GHG emissions. These are consistent with BACT, as determined comparing DBEC's control technology to all other types of GHG control technology for CTs throughout the country. The Air Permit also imposes an extremely stringent methane monitoring requirement. Pursuant to these measures, DBEC was determined to meet the BACT requirement applicable to GHGs.13/ Additionally, DBEC will meet the NSPS applicable to CTs.14/ Specifically, DBEC emissions of nitrogen oxides will be 7.5 times lower than the NSPS limit for that pollutant, and DBEC emissions of sulfur dioxide will be ten times lower than the NSPS standard for that pollutant. Accordingly, DBEC will meet the NSPS for these pollutants. DBEC also will meet the applicable NSPS for GHGs.15/ The NSPS for GHG emissions applicable to combined cycle CTs is 1,000 pounds per MW hour ("lbs/MWh"). DBEC is projected to produce 727 lbs/MWh of GHGs when burning natural gas——well below the 1,000 lbs/MWh NSPS limit. The Air Permit also imposes emissions standards for carbon monoxide, PM10 and PM2.5, sulfur dioxide, sulfuric acid mist, volatile organic compounds, and GHGs. The competent, credible evidence established that replacing Units 4 and 5 with Unit 7 will reduce the emissions of nitrogen oxides, PM10 and PM2.5, volatile organic compounds, sulfur dioxide, and carbon monoxide by approximately 6.6 million pounds for the period from 2018 to 2047. The evidence also established that replacing Units 4 and 5 with Unit 7 is projected to result in an approximately 22-percent reduction in GHGs generated, measured in lbs/MWh, assuming Unit 7 is operated at the same frequency as Units 4 and 5. This comparative reduction in GHG emissions on a lbs/MWh basis underscores the efficiency of Unit 7 compared to Units 4 and 5. Additionally, the credible evidence established that the operation Unit 7 will result in a system-wide reduction of GHG emissions for the period from 2018 to 2047.16/ The retirement of Units 4 and 5 in 2018 and commencement of operation of Unit 7 in 2022 may not result in reduced total amounts of GHG emissions generated at the Lauderdale Site. This is because even though Unit 7 is substantially more efficient than Units 4 and 5——so will burn substantially less natural gas——it may operate more often because it will be the most efficient electrical power generating unit in FPL's electrical power generation system. However, the competent, credible evidence showed that the operation of Unit 7 will reduce GHG emissions across FPL's electrical power generating system because it will be operated more often than other, less efficient units, thereby displacing the use of those units across FPL's electrical power generation system. Stated another way, because Unit 7 will be a significantly more efficient electrical power generating unit—— meaning that it will produce more electricity per cubic foot of natural gas than FPL's less efficient units——it will be operated more frequently than FPL's less efficient units, resulting in reduced consumption of natural gas on a system-wide basis. Reduced natural gas consumption on a system-wide basis will result in a reduced total amount of GHGs generated on a system-wide basis from FPL's electrical power generating plants. The competent, credible evidence establishes that the retirement of Units 4 and 5 in 2018 and the addition of Unit 7 in 2022 will result in a total reduction of approximately 8.1 million tons17/ of GHG emissions in the form of carbon dioxide18/ across FPL's electrical power generation system for the period from 2018 to 2047.19/ Sierra contends that DBEC will "[e]mit millions of tons more [GHGs] every year than the units it replaces." As discussed above, the evidence shows that the operation of Unit 7 in conjunction with the retirement of Units 4 and 5 in 2018 may not result in reduced GHG emissions at the Lauderdale Site because, due to its efficiency, Unit 7 may be operated more frequently and at higher capacity. However, the competent, credible, and persuasive evidence establishes that the total GHG emissions from FPL's electrical power plant generating units will be reduced on a system-wide basis by approximately 8,123,624 tons over the period between 2018 and 2047. Further, Sierra's position that retiring Units 4 and 5 in 2018 and operating Unit 7 beginning in 2022 will result in a greater total amount of GHGs being emitted appears grounded in the assumption that if Unit 7 does not go into operation, FPL will retire Units 4 and 5 by 2033. However, this assumption is not supported by any competent substantial evidence in the record,20/ and was directly contradicted by Dr. Sim, who testified that Units 4 and 5 realistically could operate indefinitely. In sum, the competent, credible, and persuasive evidence shows that if DBEC does not commence operation in 2022, and Units 4 and 5 continue to operate indefinitely, FPL's GHG emissions on a system-wide basis will be approximately 8,123,624 tons more for the period between 2018 and 2047 than if Units 4 and 5 are retired in 2018 and Unit 7 commences operation in 2022. In sum, FPL demonstrated that DBEC meets all applicable state and federal air regulatory and permitting requirements for DBEC and, specifically, for Unit 7. As discussed above, FPL demonstrated that DBEC will meet the applicable BACT requirement——which literally means the best available control technology——for GHG emissions, as well as other emissions from Unit 7 and other emissions sources. Additionally, the air construction/PSD permit establishes emissions limits for DBEC, and, specifically, for Unit 7, and FPL demonstrated, to DEP's satisfaction, that its emissions control technology will meet the applicable standards, which are more stringent than applicable NSPS limits. Thus, FPL demonstrated that DBEC will meet state and federal law regarding emissions limitations for GHGs and other pollutants emitted by DBEC. Sierra's Contentions Regarding GHG Emissions from DBEC Notwithstanding that FPL demonstrated that DBEC meet all applicable air rules and regulations, Sierra contends that the Siting Board should either deny the site certification for DBEC or approve it with conditions (addressed below) because, it alleges, FPL and/or DEP failed to consider or address numerous environmental issues regarding projected GHG emissions for DBEC. These alleged deficiencies are: failure of FPL and/or DEP to perform modeling of the "the environmental impact" of DBEC's GHG emissions; failure of FPL and/or DEP to analyze the "social costs of carbon" emitted by DBEC; failure of FPL and/or DEP to perform a "life-cycle analysis" to analyze DBEC's GHG emissions "from start to finish, . . . from gas generation to gas burn"; failure of FPL and/or DEP to consider the cumulative impacts of DBEC's emissions combined with GHG emissions "from other existing and foreseeable permitted sources in Florida and elsewhere"; and failure of FPL and/or DEP to consider the use of solar electrical power generation.21/ Each of these challenges is addressed below. Failure to Model Endpoint Environmental Impact With respect to FPL's and/or DEP's alleged failure to perform modeling of "the environmental impact" of DBEC's GHG emissions, the evidence establishes that FPL and DEP complied with the applicable state rules and federal regulatory requirements in addressing GHG emissions from DBEC. To that point, Syed Arif, who performed the air construction/PSD permit application review, testified that modeling of the environmental impacts of DBEC's projected GHG emissions offsite was not performed because it is not required by the applicable state rules and federal regulations. Indeed, EPA's PSD Guidance document22/ specifically states that "[w]hen conducting a BACT analysis for GHG's, the environmental impact analysis should continue to concentrate on impacts other than direct impacts due to emissions of the regulated pollutant in question." This document further states, in pertinent part: When weighing any trade-offs between emissions of GHGs and emissions of other regulated NSR pollutants, EPA recommends that permitting authorities focus on the relative levels of GHG emissions rather than the endpoint impacts of GHGs. As a general matter, GHG emissions contribute to global warming and other climate changes that result in impacts on the environment and society. However, due to the global scope of the problem, climate change modeling and evaluations of risks and impacts of GHG emissions currently is typically conducted for changes in emissions orders of magnitude larger than the emissions from individual projects that might be analyzed in PSD permit reviews. Quantifying these exact impacts attributable to the specific GHG source obtaining a permit in specific places is not currently possible with climate change modeling. Given these considerations, an assessment of the potential increase or decrease in the overall level of GHG emissions from a source would serve as the more appropriate and credible metric for assessing the relative environmental impact of a given control strategy. EPA PSD Guidance, at pp. 41-42 (emphasis added). In sum, state and federal PSD permitting law does not require an analysis of endpoint impacts of GHGs, and, further, expressly recognizes that due to the global scope of GHG emissions' contribution to climate change, climate change modeling and risk/impact evaluation of GHG emissions is conducted on a scale orders of magnitude larger than the emissions from individual projects. Additionally, the guidance expressly recognizes that determining the exact climate change impacts due to GHGs emitted on a source-specific basis is not currently possible with climate change modeling. Sierra's contention that the site certification for DBEC should be denied or additional GHG-related conditions imposed due to project-specific environmental endpoint impacts is not persuasive, because it is not grounded in applicable law and, as discussed above, is not possible using current climate change modeling. Failure to Consider and Address Social Costs of Carbon Sierra also contends that the site certification for DBEC should be denied or additional GHG-related conditions imposed because FPL and/or DEP failed to analyze the social costs of carbon emitted by DBEC, particularly by Unit 7, and failed to mitigate or minimize those costs. The social cost of carbon is defined as the present monetary value of the additional damages caused by emitting one more ton of carbon dioxide. In general terms, the social cost of carbon is the economic cost per ton of emissions. For each incremental ton of carbon emissions, there is an incremental amount of harm. There are different methods, or models, for determining the social cost of carbon. They vary depending on the types of data used in the model, as well as how the models address issues such as the rate of climate change; whether the models adequately and accurately address catastrophic risk; and whether the models address "tipping points" at which climate change becomes abruptly and irreversibly worse. Sierra's expert on the social cost of carbon, Dr. Frank Ackerman,23/ presented the results of integrated assessment models used to estimate the social cost of carbon.24/ These types of models have been applied in various studies to estimate, in 2017 dollars, the cost per metric ton of carbon dioxide. These studies generated estimates of the social cost of carbon ranging from as low as $39 per metric ton in 2020 to as high as $1,821 in 2050, with each study generating a range of projected values for the first year modeled——either 2020 or 2025——through the last year modeled——either 2050 or 2055. These widely-ranging values for the modeled years over these 30-year periods are due to the substantial uncertainty and disagreement regarding the rate and extent of climate change, and whether there are tipping points that must be taken into consideration. Ackerman estimated the social cost of carbon, as of 2012, as ranging from $33 to $1,048 per metric ton of carbon dioxide in 2020, to $75 to $1,821 per metric ton of carbon dioxide in 2050. Ackerman prepared a report analyzing the social cost of carbon from DBEC's projected GHG emissions. He attempted to compare the costs of DBEC's emissions with the benefits of DBEC's operation. In assessing the social cost of carbon emitted by DBEC, Ackerman considered the damage to tourism; human health; unique wildlife and ecosystems, including the Everglades; and property loss due to sea level rise and exacerbated king tides. He acknowledged that while it can be very difficult to estimate the true monetary value of the social cost of carbon for a project due to the aforementioned uncertainties, it is possible to arrive at estimates that represent a "floor," or minimum value, of damage due to GHG emissions from a specific project. Ackerman used the federal government's estimated social cost of carbon of $70 per ton of carbon dioxide25/——which, in Ackerman's view, underestimates the value of damages due to carbon dioxide emissions——and multiplied it by the GHG emissions, in tons, for each year of the DBEC project's projected life. Using two different annual GHGs emissions projections for DBEC—— 4.13 million metric tons or 3.04 million metric tons——he determined that the value of damages due to carbon dioxide emitted by DBEC would range from $213 million to $289 million on an annual basis.26/ Ackerman testified that, according to a research project conducted by Columbia University and the Rhodium Group, out of the 48 contiguous states, Florida will experience the greatest damage from climate change——which is projected to negatively impact the state's gross domestic product ("GDP") by between 10 and 24 percent by 2100. Using this study's projected GDP impacts and assuming that Florida experiences, to the year 2100, the same growth rate it has experienced over the past 20 years, Ackerman estimated that the monetary impact to Florida's economy from climate change may be between $500 million to $1.1 trillion annually by 2100. Ackerman also attempted to quantify DBEC's proportion of that impact on Florida. Using the two values of projected carbon dioxide emissions from DBEC and comparing them to global carbon dioxide emissions projections, Ackerman estimated that DBEC accounts for approximately 1/115,000th to 1/120,000th of total global carbon dioxide emissions on an annual basis. Using those proportions and the valued damage of global climate change to Florida, he estimated that the present value of the damages resulting from DBEC's annual carbon dioxide emissions would range from $8.4 million and $27 million per year. Ackerman also compared these annual projected social costs of carbon dioxide to the assumed $8.29 million annual benefits of the DBEC project to FPL's ratepayers. Based on this comparison, he concluded that the damages from DBEC's carbon emissions greatly outweigh DBEC's benefits to FPL ratepayers. Ackerman did not perform any analysis of DBEC's economic effects on the local community. He also did not take in account the effect that the increased efficiency of Unit 7 would have on FPL's system-wide emissions of GHGs through 2040. He acknowledged that if greenhouse gas emissions are reduced as a result of Unit 7, then the overall harm and damage from the social costs of carbon would also be reduced. As he put it: "[t]he social cost is a per ton harm, so if fewer tons, smaller harm. . . . A reduction in emissions is a reduction in harm." Ackerman testified that emitting any amount of GHGs has a social cost, but that "[a] smaller amount of emission is better. A smaller amount of emissions represents a smaller harm." While the evidence shows that GHG emissions from DBEC will result in increased social costs of carbon on a per-ton basis compared to a zero emissions baseline, the competent, substantial, and persuasive evidence establishes that the operation of Unit 7 will reduce FPL's GHG emissions on a system- wide basis by approximately 8.1 million tons by 2047, due to the retirement of older, less-efficient Units 4 and 5 and the reduced use of older, less-efficient generating units that produce greater quantities of GHG emissions.27/ Based on the foregoing, it is determined that retiring Units 4 and 5 in 2018 and operating Unit 7 commencing in 2022 will result in a net total reduction in the amount of GHG emissions from FPL's electrical power generating units on a system-wide basis——which, in turn, will result in lower social costs of carbon than if Unit 7 is not operated and Units 4 and 5 continue to operate indefinitely into the future.28/ Failure to Perform Life-Cycle Analysis Additionally, Sierra contends that the site certification for DBEC should be denied or additional conditional GHG-related conditions imposed because FPL and/or DEP failed to perform a "life-cycle analysis" to analyze DBEC's GHG emissions "from start to finish, . . . from gas generation to gas burn," which would include GHGs emitted by natural gas production and transport by pipeline to the DBEC site. This contention disregards that such an analysis is beyond the scope of this proceeding. This proceeding specifically applies only to "electrical power plants" as that term is defined in section 403.503(14). Pursuant to that definition, the scope of this proceeding is limited only to considering the impacts of, and imposing conditions on, facilities that fall within that definition. By this statute's plain terms, associated facilities that are directly or indirectly connected to the electrical power plant are to be considered only if they are owned by the applicant. As discussed above, the evidence establishes that Florida Gas Transmission Company owns the pipeline that transports natural gas to the DBEC site. No evidence was presented showing that FPL has any ownership interest in this pipeline, or that FPL has any ownership in sources which may produce gas that is ultimately transported to DBEC for use as fuel for Unit 7. Therefore, any GHG impacts associated with the operation of the pipeline to transport natural gas to DBEC are beyond the scope of this proceeding.29/ Failure to Consider Cumulative Impact of GHG Emissions Sierra also contends that the site certification for DBEC should be denied or additional GHG-related conditions imposed because FPL and/or DEP did not consider the cumulative impacts of DBEC's GHG emissions combined with those from "other existing and foreseeable permitted sources in Florida and elsewhere." As previously discussed, Florida and federal air statutes and rules do not impose cumulative impacts assessment in the PSD permitting process. Further, EPA's PSD Guidance expressly recognizes that climate change modeling and impacts evaluation of GHG emissions is conducted for changes in GHG emissions that are orders of magnitude larger than those from individual projects, and that determining the exact impacts attributable to a specific GHG source is not possible under current climate change modeling. Failure to Consider Using Solar Power Generation Technology Sierra also contends that the site certification for DBEC should be denied or additional conditions imposed because FPL and/or DEP "did not consider using solar generation." As discussed above, the PSC's Need Determination for Unit 7 considered and specifically rejected the use of photovoltaic (solar) facilities as a cost-effective alternative to Unit 7 as proposed. As discussed above, the PSC is the sole forum for determining need for electrical power plants subject to the PPSA. § 403.519, Fla. Stat. The PSC's need determination considers, among other things, the need for electric system reliability, the need for fuel diversity, whether the proposed plant is the most cost-effective alternative, and whether renewable energy resources may mitigate the need for the proposed electrical power plant. Thus, section 403.519 vests sole jurisdiction in the PSC to determine, as part of the need determination process, whether solar facilities should be required to be implemented as part of an electrical power plant's need determination. Therefore, the decision whether to impose a requirement for DBEC to implement solar facilities is beyond the scope of this proceeding. DBEC Stormwater Management System and Flooding Issues The stormwater management system for DBEC was designed to ensure that stormwater received onsite does not flood onsite facilities and to ensure that stormwater leaving the site does not cause offsite flooding or pollution. The stormwater management system for DBEC consists of a system of culverts, catch basins, ditches, storm sewer inlets, an underground storm sewer system, and ponds. The collection and conveyance structures collect the stormwater onsite and convey it to the ponds, which collect and store the water, then release it offsite at a controlled rate. Compliance with Applicable Stormwater Management Requirements The DBEC stormwater management system is designed in accordance with, and meets, all applicable stormwater management requirements of the City of Dania Beach, the City of Hollywood, Broward County, and the South Florida Water Management District ("SFWMD"), including regulations specifically directed toward protecting land uses against flooding. Broward County's land development code regulations require the floor elevation of the power plant facilities to be elevated to at least 5.5 feet North American Vertical Datum of 1988 ("NAVD88"), or approximately 6.5 feet above mean sea level, to withstand flooding from a 100-year, 72-hour storm event. The City of Dania Beach requires new or substantially improved power generation structures to be elevated three feet above the Federal Emergency Management Agency's ("FEMA") 100-year Base Flood Elevation established on the FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map ("FEMA Map"). FEMA's 100-year Base Flood Elevation is three feet NAVD88; thus, the City of Dania Beach requires DBEC's power generation structures to be elevated to six feet NAVD88, which is approximately seven feet above mean sea level. To be conservative, FPL proposes to elevate the minimum floor elevation of DBEC's power generation structures to 10.5 feet NAVD88, or 11.5 feet above mean sea level——an additional five feet above Broward County's flood elevation requirement. This far exceeds both Broward County's and the City of Dania Beach's minimum flood elevation requirements. Broward County also required FPL to compare the base elevation of the stormwater management ponds to future groundwater elevation established on the Broward County Future Conditions Average Wet Season Groundwater Map ("Groundwater Map"), to ensure that the ponds would be sufficiently elevated to hold enough water to prevent flooding during storm events. The Groundwater Map depicts a projected future average wet season groundwater elevation of 2.5 feet above mean sea level——i.e., 1.5 feet NAVD88——in the year 2060. The base of the onsite stormwater storage ponds will be constructed one to two feet above this elevation. Additionally, the stormwater management system ponds have been designed to provide adequate storage to accommodate a 100-year, 72-hour storm event, so that the project does not have stormwater offsite impacts. Projected Sea Level Rise and DBEC Design The design elevation of DBEC's power block and stormwater management ponds adequately accounts for sea level rise. At Broward County's request, FPL compared the base flood elevation of the DBEC power block to the 2015 Unified Sea Level Rise Projection for Southeast Florida ("USLRP") document. This document, which was prepared by a technical working group on behalf of Palm Beach, Broward, Miami-Dade and Monroe counties, projects future sea level rise in South Florida, including Broward County. The USLRP contains a graph30/ consisting of four curves31/ depicting projected sea level rise from 1992 (the baseline year) to 2100 for the southeast Florida region.32/ The table below summarizes the projected sea level rise corresponding to each curve on the USLRP graph for the year 206033/. Name of Sea Level Rise Projection Predicted Sea Level Rise by 2060 (inches) NOAA High Curve 34 USACE High Curve 26 IPCC AR5 Curve 14 NOAA Intermediate/Low Curve 10.5 The area between the IPCC AR5 Curve and the USACE High Curve is recommended in planning design elevation for most projects that fall within a short-term planning horizon, and applies to "most infrastructure projects, especially those with a design life expectancy of less than 50 years."34/ Additionally, the USLRP states that "[p]rojects in need of a greater factor of safety related to potential inundation should consider designing for the [USACE High Curve]. Examples of such projects may include evacuation routes planned for reconstruction, communications and energy infrastructure, and critical government and financial facilities."35/ DBEC has a design life of 40 years and constitutes energy infrastructure. Therefore, the USACE High Curve is appropriate to use in designing the DBEC project to account for projected sea level rise by 2060. By contrast, the NOAA High Curve is used to plan high- risk projects that will be constructed after 2060; projects that are not easily replaceable or removable, have a long design life— —i.e., more than 50 years; or are critically interdependent with other infrastructure of services. Examples of infrastructure expressly identified in the USLRP document to which the NOAA High Curve is appropriately applied include nuclear power plants,36/ wastewater treatment facilities, levees or impoundments, bridges along major evacuation routes, airports, seaports, railroads, and major highways. DBEC does not fall within any of these categories; accordingly, the NOAA High Curve is not recommended for use in designing the DBEC project to account for projected sea level rise by 2060. Nonetheless, FPL took a conservative approach in determining the appropriate design elevation for the project over its projected design-life. Specifically, FPL added one inch to the USACE High Curve projection to account for two additional years of sea level rise beyond the end of DBEC's design-life in 2060. This resulted in a projected 27 inches of sea level rise by 2062. FPL then added this projection to the Broward County existing flood level requirement of 6.5 feet above mean sea level to determine potential flood levels in 2062. This calculation showed that an elevation of 8.75 feet above mean sea level is necessary to protect against sea level rise by 2062, using the USACE High Curve as the design benchmark. Because the minimum concrete base on which the power block will be elevated to 11.5 feet above mean sea level, it will be sufficiently elevated to protect against projected sea level rise by 2062. To further ensure that the design elevation of 11.5 feet above mean sea level is adequate to protect against a realistic, reasonably-projected "worst case" scenario, FPL compared the design elevation of 11.5 feet above mean sea level to the 34-inch sea level rise projected by the NOAA High Curve by 2060. Adding the 34 inches to Broward County's existing flood level requirement of 6.5 feet above mean sea level results in a design elevation of approximately 9.5 feet above mean sea level needed to address the NOAA High Curve projection by 2062. Thus, DBEC's minimum floor elevation of 11.5 feet above mean sea level exceeds the recommended design elevation, even when compared to sea level rise projected by the NOAA High Curve in 2062. FPL also used the NOAA Sea, Lake, and Overland Surges from Hurricanes ("SLOSH") model to address potential storm surge in determining the design elevation for DBEC's power block. This model projects storm surges for different categories of hurricanes and tidal events. FPL applied the SLOSH model to sea level rise projected by the USACE High Curve to predict storm surge height at the DBEC site by 2060, and then compared those results to the FEMA Map. The SLOSH model indicated lower elevations than the FEMA Map, which takes storm surge into account in determining the 100-year flood elevation. Accordingly, the 11.5 foot above mean sea level design elevation on which the DBEC power block will be constructed is more conservative than, and, thus, more protective than, a design based on the SLOSH model. As discussed above, FPL used the Groundwater Map to establish the bottom elevation of DBEC's stormwater ponds. The Groundwater Map, which relies on the USACE High Curve, projects groundwater levels at the DBEC site will be at approximately 1.5 feet NAVD88 by 2060. Because the bottom elevation of the stormwater ponds will be one to two feet above this projected level, they will adequately account for projected sea level rise by 2060. As noted above, certain existing infrastructure is not being replaced, so will not be elevated. These structures, which were constructed in compliance with the regulatory requirements in effect at the time they were approved, are constructed at six to seven feet NAVD88 above mean sea level. The highest flood elevation on the FEMA Map is at elevation 5.5 feet NAVD88 in 2060. Thus, it is unlikely that these structures will be subject to flooding by 2060. In designing DBEC, FPL reasonably relied on the sea level rise projections in the USLRP. That document, which was developed specifically for use in structural design and land use planning to address projected sea level rise, was created by the local governments in south Florida and provides the best scientific consensus view of future sea level rise.37/ FPL's expert, Dr. George Maul,38/ concurred that FPL reasonably relied on the USACE High Curve in designing the floor of DBEC's power block at 11.5 feet above mean sea level. In Maul's opinion, the USACE High Curve's projection for sea level rise is reasonable and appropriate for use in southeast Florida over the next 60 years.39/ Maul questioned the reliability of the NOAA High Curve, which predicts a rate of sea level rise twice as high as that experienced exiting the last Ice Age. He further noted that, in any event, the USACE High Curve and the NOAA High Curve differ by only a few inches in projected sea level rise by 2060. Dr. Harold Wanless40/ testified on behalf of Sierra regarding the relationship between climate change and sea level rise, hurricanes, and their effects on coastal marine environments. Specifically, Wanless testified regarding a range of factors that may cause the rate of sea level rise to accelerate. According to Wanless, research shows that sea level rise began to accelerate in approximately 1993 due to melting of the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets.41/ Based on this research, Wanless disputes the accuracy of government predictions that do not take this phenomenon into account. In his testimony regarding the projected rate and extent of sea level rise over time, Wanless presented a graphic adapted from a January 2017 NOAA publication showing three global sea level curves——the "intermediate/high," "high," and "extreme" curves——projecting sea level rise through the year 2100. All of these curves on Wanless' adapted graphic assume Greenland and Antarctic ice sheet loss. Based on the extreme curve, Wanless projected that global sea level rise "could be" three feet by 2059. Notably, no evidence was presented regarding the probability of this projected sea level rise scenario. To depict local sea level rise in southeast Florida through 2100, Wanless added "local influences" to the 2017 NOAA curves, which consisted of higher water levels on the western side of the Gulf Stream due to its deceleration, and the gravitational redistribution of water due to decreasing ice sheet mass in Antarctica and Greenland. Specifically, Wanless added to the 2017 NOAA extreme curve sea level rise projection of three feet by 2062, 15 percent additional sea level rise to account for deceleration of the Gulf Stream, and 52 percent additional sea level rise to account for redistribution of water due to decreased gravitational pull by Greenland and Antarctica. Applying these local influences, Wanless projected that there "could be" an approximate 5.2 feet of local sea level rise by 2062. Again, no evidence was presented regarding the probability with which this projected local sea level rise scenario may occur. Upon full consideration of the testimony by Maul and Wanless, the undersigned concludes, based on the competent, substantial, and persuasive evidence, that the USACE High Curve, rather than Wanless's local influence sea level projection curve, is the more reasonable benchmark to apply in determining the appropriate design elevation for the DBEC power block. Wanless's local sea level rise projection is substantially based on the assumption that redistribution of the Earth's mass will significantly contribute to local sea level rise; however, Wanless himself noted that this phenomenon only recently has become the focus of research, and that "we're still learning."42/ Maul counseled against attempting to project long-term sea level rise using short periods of record data. To that point, he testified that trends derived from short records are less reliable as projections because they are affected by inter- annual and decadal climate and oceanographic patterns that are superimposed on the long-term rise of global sea level. Maul's research of historical 19-year periods43/ over which sea level rise rates have been observed by use of tidal gauges shows significant variability between 19-year periods. He testified, credibly, that in his recent review of tidal and sea level records for Key West, "I found we can pick a 19-year period where that particular 19 years is twice the long-term [sea level] range and other times where it's half the long-term range." He also testified that in looking at 19-year records a year at a time, "I find times when that short time scale is much, much higher than a long-term average and other times when it's much less than the long-term average. So you can either overestimate or underestimate what's happening when choosing short records." On that basis, Maul disputes that "since the year 2000, there has been a rapid acceleration in sea level rise." He testified, credibly, that he has not observed any statistically significant increase in sea level at Key West since 2000. Maul also opined, based on his own research, that there is no statistically significant slowing of the Gulf Stream. Sierra did not present persuasive evidence specifically refuting Maul's conclusion regarding slowing of the Gulf Stream.44/ In any event, the DBEC power block minimum floor elevation has been set at 11.5 feet above minimum sea level—— well above the 34- to 37-inch global sea level rise projected by the 2015 NOAA High Curve and the 2017 NOAA Extreme Curve, and also well above Wanless' projected local 5.2-foot local sea level rise by 2060. Sierra also contends that the minimum design elevation for the DBEC power block does not adequately consider storm surges associated with hurricanes. In support, Wanless presented graphics generated using LiDar, a light-detection and ranging technology, showing the elevation above mean sea level of Broward County, including the DBEC site. One graphic shows the current elevation of the DBEC site as approximately two feet above mean sea level. Other graphics assume a two-foot global mean sea level rise by 2060; a four-foot rise by 2089; a six-foot rise by 2110; an 8-foot rise by 2127; and a ten-foot rise in 2142. Each of these graphics shows the DBEC site as being inundated by sea level rise by 2060. Wanless also presented graphics for the period from 2018 to 2060, depicting the effect of adding storm surges of four feet and nine feet to regional sea level influences, king tides, and global mean sea level. According to these graphics, adding a four-foot storm surge may result in water heights of as much as 11 feet above present global mean sea level on the DBEC site by 2060, and adding a storm surge of nine feet may result in water heights of as much as 15 feet above present global mean sea level on the DBEC site by 2060. Wanless's storm surge scenarios entail layering contingencies on top of contingencies——each contingency fraught with uncertainty. Stated another way, each assumed condition on which Wanless relies to project storm surge heights of 11 and 15 feet has its own inherent uncertainty. To that point, the evidence showed that while it is well-accepted that climate change is occurring and that, as a result, global sea levels are rising, there is substantial lack of consensus in the scientific community and regulatory agencies regarding the extent and rate of global sea level rise in the future. Further, as discussed above, currently there is not a consensus that the Gulf Stream is slowing or that water mass is being redistributed due to the melting of the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets——two contingencies that substantially contributed to Wanless' projection of a 5.2-foot local sea level rise by 2060. Additionally, as with Wanless's other projections, no evidence was presented regarding the probability that his projected water height scenarios on the DBEC site, assuming four- and nine-foot storm surges, would occur. Based on the foregoing, it is determined that the 11.5 foot above mean sea level design elevation for DBEC adequately addresses future storm surges. As previously discussed, certain existing infrastructure will be used for DBEC. These components were built years ago, complied with code requirements for elevation at the time they were constructed, and currently comply with those code requirements.45/ In sum, the competent substantial evidence establishes that the DBEC site design, as currently proposed, complies with all applicable state and local regulatory requirements. The competent, substantial, and persuasive evidence further establishes that DBEC site design elevation, which exceeds all applicable regulatory requirements, will adequately protect against flooding and inundation due to global and local sea level rise and storm surges. Other Impacts Water Resource Impacts The construction and operation of DBEC will not adversely impact water resources. The primary water uses for DBEC consist of cooling water, process water, service water, irrigation, and potable water. The cooling system for DBEC will use cooling water withdrawn from the Dania Cutoff Canal, which currently serves, and since 1927 has served, as the cooling water source for the electrical power generating facilities on the Lauderdale Site. DBEC will not require an increase in the rate or amount of cooling water withdrawn from the canal. Because the withdrawal rate will not increase, the through-screen velocity through the cooling water intake structure will not increase. This helps ensure that the project will not adversely impact fish or shellfish by impingement or entrainment. Additionally, no increase in the authorized quantity of industrial wastewater discharge will be required. The cooling system has been designed to ensure that DBEC will meet existing permitted National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System ("NPDES") thermal discharge limits. The average amount of process water used is anticipated to decrease. DBEC will continue to receive potable water from the City of Hollywood, and potable water use is not anticipated to increase. Sanitary Waste Disposal and Solid and Hazardous Waste The City of Hollywood will provide sanitary waste disposal services to DBEC. The operation of DBEC will generate small amounts of solid waste, which will be recycled, reused, disposed onsite, disposed in licensed offsite landfills, or otherwise appropriately disposed via approved disposal methods. The Lauderdale Site is a conditionally-exempt small quantity generator of hazardous waste and is anticipated to remain so during the construction and operation of DBEC. Hazardous waste generation by DBEC is anticipated to be less than 100 kilograms per month. FPL will contract with an approved and licensed hazardous waste disposal entity to handle and dispose of any hazardous waste generated by DBEC in a manner that complies with all federal, state, and local environmental regulations. Terrestrial Impacts The DBEC project will affect approximately 134 acres of the 392-acre Lauderdale site, which has continuously been used for industrial activities for the past 90 years. As such, the Lauderdale site is disturbed and does not constitute prime wildlife habitat for unique wildlife species. The upland and wetland habitat onsite is low-quality, and consists of a mixture of nuisance exotic and native species. Due to the disturbed nature of the site and the lack of significant wildlife habitat, no change in floral or faunal populations, including commercially- or recreationally-important species, is anticipated due to DBEC. Additionally, the site does not contain significant areas of preferred habitat for nesting, roosting, or foraging by state and/or federal endangered, threatened, or candidate species. Approximately 18.67 acres of low-quality wetlands, 0.12 acres of disturbed exotic and native hardwood systems, and a small area of low-quality isolated freshwater marsh will be impacted by dredging and filling. These wetland impacts will be mitigated through purchase of mitigation credits from the Everglades Mitigation Bank. Impacts on Aquatic Species DBEC project will continue to withdraw water from the existing Dania Cutoff Canal and to discharge cooling water into ponds and, ultimately, offsite. Proximate aquatic systems are subject to tidal influences and fresh water discharges through SFWMD canals. The waters in the vicinity of the DBEC site are designated Class III marine waters. Existing stresses on aquatic systems in the vicinity of DBEC include altered hydrology, altered salinity, elevated nutrient and organic loads, power plant intake/discharge, physical alterations, and pressures from fishing and boating. DBEC will address impacts to these aquatic systems, as appropriate, through obtaining an NPDES permit for the cooling water discharge. Additionally, FPL will use best management practices during construction to control erosion, sedimentation, and runoff to prevent water quality degradation. Significant impacts to aquatic resources and biological communities are not anticipated. During DBEC construction, FPL will continue to discharge warm water consistent with the Manatee Protection Plan established under the NPDES permit for the existing electrical power plant facility. The Lauderdale Site will continue to provide a warm water refuge for manatees during and after DBEC is constructed. Transportation Impacts A traffic analysis for construction and operation of DBEC was performed and provided in the site certification application. During peak construction, approximately 500 vehicles per day are anticipated to enter and exit the DBEC site. A traffic impact analysis showed that additional construction-related traffic will not degrade roadway system operating conditions. FPL will develop a traffic management plan to minimize level of service deficiencies due to construction traffic. FPL has agreed, pursuant to the Conditions of Certification, to work with the City of Hollywood to improve roadway operations at site access locations. No adverse impacts to traffic flow are anticipated from DBEC operation. Archaeological and Historical Site Impacts A cultural resource assessment of the DBEC site determined that no archaeological or historical structures that are listed, eligible, or potentially eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places, are present. Noise A computer program predicted environmental noise impacts from DBEC. Most of the noise sources, which consist of the steam turbine, the gas turbines, the electric generators, and the compressors, are located in enclosed structures, which helps mitigate impacts. The DBEC sound profile will not be significantly different than that for Units 4 and 5. The Lauderdale Site is in a highly-developed area having other proximate industrial and urban uses, including a waste-to-energy center, a shipping center, a recycling center, the Fort Lauderdale-Hollywood International Airport, and several major highways. DBEC is projected to comply with the Broward County and City of Hollywood noise ordinances. DBEC's normal operation is not anticipated to exceed the City of Dania Beach's maximum permissible noise levels. However, as part of the site certification application, FPL has requested a variance from the City of Dania Beach noise ordinance, chapter 17, article IV, sections 17-79 through 17-90, for noise levels that may occur on an infrequent and short-term basis during startup, shutdown, and upset conditions. The City of Dania Beach does not object to FPL's request for the variance. The undersigned recommends approval of FPL's request for a variance from the City of Dania Beach noise ordinance, chapter 17, article IV, sections 17-79 through 17-90. Climate Change "Climate change" is a term used to describe changes in global temperature, global sea level rise, and other conditions associated with those effects, including changes in precipitation, winds, waves, and climates. Climate change is occurring globally and locally, including in southeast Florida. Climate change is caused, in substantial part, by the emission of GHGs. Water vapor, carbon dioxide, and methane are the most significant GHG contributors to climate change. Atmospheric concentrations of gaseous carbon dioxide and methane are increasing. Since the Industrial Revolution, the global atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide has dramatically increased, from 280 parts per million ("ppm") to 410 ppm at present——almost 100 times faster than historical increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration during previous interglacial periods. Most of the increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration has occurred since World War II and is primarily due to human population increase, global industrialization, and increased burning of fossil fuels on a global basis. GHGs cause climate change by trapping solar radiation in the Earth's atmosphere, thereby warming the atmosphere. Once carbon dioxide is emitted, it persists in the atmosphere for approximately 4,000 years. Climate change is responsible for causing sea level to rise on a global and local basis. The main drivers of sea level rise are atmospheric and ocean warming, which increase the ocean's mass through melting land and sea ice and increase the ocean's volume through thermal expansion. Increasing the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere increases the rate of climate change, which, in turn, accelerates sea level rise. The last time atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide were at or above 400 ppm, sea level was approximately 20 meters, or 70 feet, higher than current level. At that level, a substantial portion of the land mass that constitutes the state of Florida was inundated. The evidence shows that global sea level does not rise in a gradual linear manner, but instead rises in rapid pulses followed by pauses. Although it is well-established that sea level is rising on a global and local basis, there currently is little consensus regarding the rate of sea level rise. Due to its low elevation, southeast Florida is particularly vulnerable to sea level rise. Many urban areas in southeast Florida experience substantial flooding during rainfall events. The evidence shows that sea level rise is likely a contributing cause. Sea level rise causes substantial coastal hazards, including inundation of land, higher storm surges, higher king tides, increased flood height and frequency, coastal erosion and destruction of coastal mangroves and other ecosystems, erosion and destruction of coastal barrier islands, and saltwater intrusion into freshwater aquifers and ecosystems. These impacts will worsen or accelerate with sea level rise. The cumulative addition of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere is warming the atmosphere, which, in turn, is causing ocean temperatures to rise on a global basis. In particular, the upper ocean has warmed substantially on a global basis since 1997, due to increasing human population and the corresponding increased burning of fossil fuels. Increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is being transferred to the oceans, causing them to acidify. Some scientific studies indicate that climate change will cause more severe storm and weather events. Some scientific studies indicate that climate change will result in threats to human health, native wildlife and ecosystems, agriculture, and the tourism industry. In sum, the competent, persuasive evidence establishes that climate change is occurring, that it is primarily caused by GHGs emissions, and that every ton of GHGs emitted into the atmosphere contributes to climate change. The competent, persuasive evidence also establishes that as a result of climate change, sea level is rising globally, and, to a certain extent, locally,46/ and that sea level rise already is causing environmental adverse impacts.47/ SCO and Affected Agencies' Review of Application The PPSA establishes a centralized, coordinated process for licensing electrical power plants that generate 75 MW or more of electrical power. §§ 403.502, 403.503(14), Fla. Stat. Site certification for an electrical power plant constitutes a license that addresses and encompasses the regulatory requirements of the agencies that are involved in the site certification application review process. The SCO is an office within DEP's Division of Air Resource Management. It is responsible for coordinating and overseeing the electrical power plant site certification application review process. The SCO also serves as administrative staff for the Siting Board. The SCO's responsibilities include receiving site certification applications, preparing a schedule of deadlines and milestones applicable to the site certification application review process, determining completeness48/ of the application based on the recommendations of affected agencies,49/ receiving each affected agency's preliminary statement of issues, receiving each affected agency's report, and preparing the PAR.50/ §§ 403.5064, 403.5066, and 403.507, Fla. Stat. The PAR addresses the proposed electrical power plant's compliance with all applicable non-procedural requirements of the affected agencies51/ and contains copies of the affected agencies' reports; comments from other agencies or persons; any variances and waivers from applicable regulatory requirements that have been requested and the SCO's recommendation regarding the request; the SCO's recommendation regarding whether site certification should be approved, denied, or approved with conditions; and proposed conditions of certification. § 403.507(5)(a), Fla. Stat. The affected agencies' reports provide the agencies' specialized knowledge on matters within their jurisdiction and expertise, so are a crucial component of the PAR. Each affected agency conducts a substantive review of the site certification application to determine whether the electrical power plant complies with that particular agency's applicable substantive rules, regulations, ordinances, standards, and criteria. The affected agency's report must specifically address these topics and must state whether, based on its substantive review, the agency recommends that the electrical power plant be approved, denied, or approved with conditions. The report also must include any conditions of certification that the agency recommends be imposed regarding matters within that agency's jurisdiction. § 403.507(3), Fla. Stat. Conditions of certification are regulatory requirements imposed to minimize and mitigate the potential adverse effects of the construction and operation of the electrical power plant with respect to the environment and public health. Because the conditions of certification are regulatory requirements, each affected agency that recommends a specific condition of certification must possess the legal authority to impose that condition. § 403.507(3)(c), Fla. Stat. To that end, the affected agency is required to cite the specific statute, rule, or ordinance that authorizes the imposition of that specific condition. Because each affected agency possesses legislatively or constitutionally delegated regulatory authority over specific matters, the SCO does not conduct an independent review as to whether the proposed electrical power plant meets those affected agencies' nonprocedural requirements, and instead relies on each affected agency's specific regulatory knowledge and expertise regarding matters that are within its substantive regulatory jurisdiction. FPL submitted the Application for DBEC to the SCO on July 27, 2017. The Application was referred to DOAH and was distributed to the affected agencies for review and comment regarding completeness of the Application. The affected agencies needed additional information, so the Application was determined incomplete. After FPL provided the requested information, the Application was deemed complete on October 27, 2017. Pursuant to section 403.507(3), the SFWMD; Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission ("FFWC"); Florida Department of Transportation ("DOT"); Florida Department of Economic Opportunity ("DEO"); Florida Department of State, Division of Historical Resources ("DHR"); DEP; Broward County; the City of Dania Beach; and the City of Hollywood reviewed the Application and submitted agency reports to the SCO. Each of these affected agencies submitted recommended conditions of certification to be included in the site certification as conditions specifically designed to address matters within that particular agency's regulatory jurisdiction. Each agency concluded that if DBEC complies with the conditions of certification recommended by that agency, it will meet all applicable non-procedural requirements, rules, and ordinances within that agency's jurisdiction. Each affected agency recommended that DBEC be approved, subject to the conditions of certification recommended by that agency. Each agency report is briefly discussed below. PSC Need Determination As previously noted, the PSC issued the Need Determination for DBEC on March 19, 2018. Pursuant to section 403.507(4)(a), the Need Determination constitutes the PSC's agency report for DBEC. In determining the need for DBEC, the PSC considered critical components of need, including forecasted load, necessary reserve margin, projected load generation and imbalance, and area reliability margin. The PSC determined that FPL demonstrated the need for DBEC Unit 7 in the 2024-to-2026 timeframe, in order to maintain its electrical system reliability and integrity. The PSC found that: No cost-effective [Demand Side Management] or renewable resources have been identified that could mitigate the need for DBEC Unit 7. DBEC Unit 7 is expected to provide adequate electricity at a reasonable cost to FPL's customers. DBEC Unit 7 is projected to reduce overall natural gas consumption and reduce emissions compared to maintaining the existing Lauderdale units. DBEC Unit 7 is the most cost-effective alternative that maintains FPL's system and Southeastern Florida area reliability compared to other alternatives. South Florida Water Management District SFWMD determined that there will be no increase in water use for DBEC, and that the cooling water, potable water, and process water sources will remain the same as for the units currently existing at the Lauderdale Site. SFWMD determined that if DBEC complies with SFWMD's recommended conditions of certification, it can be constructed and operated in compliance with the applicable statutes and rules within SFWMD's jurisdiction. Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission FFWCC's report noted that several listed wildlife species were observed onsite or have a moderate to high likelihood of occurrence onsite. Additionally, the West Indian Manatee will be affected by ceasing operation of Units 4 and 5 before the construction of DBEC. FFWCC recommended conditions of certification requiring biological surveys, monitoring for impacts to listed species, and also recommended a condition of certification to require temporary heaters to be used during DBEC construction to maintain a warm water refuge for manatees. Department of Transportation DOT determined that, with the exception of construction-related traffic, DBEC is not anticipated to adversely affect the State Highway System in the vicinity of the plant. DOT recommended certification of DBEC, contingent on DBEC's compliance with its recommended conditions of certification. Department of Economic Opportunity DEO anticipates that DBEC will provide economic and fiscal benefits to the City of Dania Beach, Broward County, and the surrounding area. DEO recommended approval without any recommended conditions of certification. Division of Historical Resources DHR did not object to DBEC, noting that all current matters pertaining to historical resources were addressed. Department of Environmental Protection DEP reviewed solid waste and hazardous waste, environmental resource permitting, industrial wastewater, and stormwater management issues within its jurisdiction and determined that DBEC will meet all applicable regulatory requirements, provided it complies with the proposed conditions of certification. DEP recommended conditions of certification to address solid waste and hazardous waste, environmental resource permitting, industrial wastewater, and stormwater management issues within its jurisdiction. Local Governments Broward County, the City of Dania Beach, and the City of Hollywood each recommended approval of DBEC, subject to recommended conditions of certification regarding matters within its regulatory jurisdiction. The City of Dania Beach did not object to the variance sought by FPL related to noise limits in the City of Dania Beach's Code of Ordinances for transient and infrequent noises associated with unit startup, shutdown, and upset conditions. Preliminary Analysis Report and Recommended Approval with Conditions of Certification On April 2, 2018, the SCO issued the PAR for DBEC. The PAR describes the project and summarizes the affected agencies' substantive review of DBEC. Based on the agencies' reports, recommended conditions of certification, and unanimous approval recommendation, the SCO determined that FPL has provided reasonable assurance that, considering and balancing the factors in section 403.509(3)(a) through (g), DBEC can be certified. The PAR recommends approval of the site certification for DBEC, subject to the proposed Conditions of Certification ("COC") attached thereto, which were compiled from the affected agencies' recommended conditions of certification submitted as part of their agency reports. Sierra contends that because the SCO did not conduct an independent review of whether DBEC meets the nonprocedural requirements of the affected agencies, it was not able to determine whether FPL provided reasonable assurance that the site certification complies with the agencies' applicable statutes, rules, regulations, and other requirements. This contention is rejected. The purpose of the affected agency's review and report submittal requirement in section 403.507 is to ensure that the agency legally and factually vested with the substantive jurisdiction and expertise over a specific regulated area is an integral part of the site application review process. To that end, each agency is charged with submitting recommended conditions of certification that are specifically keyed to addressing issues within that agency's substantive jurisdiction and expertise. The purpose of affected agency involvement in the site certification process would be defeated if the SCO——which is not an expert over the matters within the various affected agencies' substantive jurisdiction—— was authorized to second-guess these agencies' determinations and to modify or reject their recommended conditions of certification. Further, and fundamentally, the SCO is not statutorily authorized to conduct such an independent review. Notably, Sierra has not cited any statutory, rule, or case law authority to support its position.52/ Notice, Public Outreach, and Public Hearing All public notices required by the PPSA were provided. FPL timely published the notice of filing of the Application, as required by section 430.5115(1)(a), and notice of the certification hearing, as required by section 403.5115(1)(e). DEP published notice of the filing of the Application and the certification hearing in the Florida Administrative Register, as required by section 403.5115(4). Additionally, FPL provided direct written notice that the Application had been filed to property owners and residents within three miles of the project area, as required by section 403.5115(6)(a). FPL also engaged in public outreach for the project, including providing a toll-free phone number at which information regarding the project could be obtained, a website containing information about the project, and electronic mail contact information. Additionally, FPL sent 310 letters to residents of the neighborhood closest to the project and sent 1,600 mailers to residents and property owners in the vicinity of the site, inviting them to an open house that was held on May 24, 2017. FPL hosted another open house in June 2017 for residents of the neighborhood immediately south of the project site. A public hearing was held on May 15, 2018, from 6:00 p.m. until 8:03 p.m. Many members of the public provided comments on the DBEC project,53/ and were able to ask questions of representatives from FPL and DEP. The public hearing comments were recorded and transcribed as part of the Transcript of the certification hearing.54/ Federal Permits As discussed above, an air construction/PSD permit has been issued for DBEC. FPL has applied for an NPDES permit and a permit from the United States Army Corps of Engineers under section 404 of the Clean Water Act. These permits and approvals are not part of, or subject to revision, modification, or revocation in, this proceeding. Variance As discussed above, FPL has requested a variance from the City of Dania Beach noise ordinance in Chapter 17-86 of the City's Code of Ordinances, which establishes the permissible sound levels for receiving land use categories. Specifically, FPL requested a variance from the City's maximum permissible sound levels for: Noise due to emergency or upset conditions for all time periods and all receiving land use categories; Noise due to transient conditions associated with unit startup and shutdown shall be limited to 70 dB(A) for all time periods and all receiving land use categories, except for Industrial land use which shall retain a limit of 75 dB(A). Currently, the area in which the Lauderdale Site is located experiences significant noise from the combined effect of a range of industrial and urban activities, including the operation of Units 4 and 5 at the Lauderdale Site. DBEC's projected noise profile is not materially different than that of the existing power plant operation at the Lauderdale Site. Transient and infrequent conditions at the Lauderdale Site, including unit startup, shutdown, and upset conditions occasionally occur for short periods of time. These conditions also are expected to occasionally occur at DBEC. The variance is limited in nature, and the noise levels necessitating a variance are expected to be infrequent and short-lived during unit startup, shutdown, or upset conditions. The City of Dania Beach does not oppose the variance. Given the limited nature of the variance, lack of opposition, and that similar noise levels currently occur at the Lauderdale Site, it is determined that the requested variance is reasonable, and, therefore, should be granted. The Siting Board's Role and Authority Section 403.509(3) sets forth the Siting Board's authority and duty under the PPSA. In considering whether to approve, approve with conditions, or deny a power plant site certification license, the Siting Board must consider all factors in section 403.509(3)(a) through (g). The Siting Board possesses broad authority under the PPSA in considering whether to certify an electrical power plant. With the exception of the need determination and federal permits, the Siting Board is not bound by the conditions of certification proposed by the SCO or the affected agencies, and may modify, remove, or add conditions of certification, as authorized, to protect the broad interests of the public and minimize adverse impacts of the electrical power plant on the environment and human health. See § 403.502(2), Fla. Stat. Comparative Impacts and Benefits of DBEC As discussed above, DBEC will emit GHGs into the atmosphere. Therefore, DBEC's emissions will increase the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere when compared to a zero emissions scenario——i.e., no GHG emissions at all. However, the alternatives in this proceeding do not entail a zero GHG emissions alternative to DBEC. As discussed above, the PSC found and concluded, in the Need Determination, that with the retirement of Units 4 and 5, DBEC is needed to meet a projected future electrical power demand. As part of the Need Determination, the PSC concluded that no additional cost-effective renewal resource——such as solar or wind generation technology——could mitigate the need for DBEC. The PSC also concluded that no new demand side management——i.e., conservation——could mitigate the need for DBEC. In so determining, the PSC established, as a baseline condition to this proceeding, that DBEC, a natural gas-fueled facility, is the most cost-effective means of meeting projected future electrical power demands if Units 4 and 5 are retired. Thus, given the Need Determination, the only alternative available to constructing DBEC is to continue operating Units 4 and 5 indefinitely.55/ As previously discussed, Units 4 and 5 are less efficient units that burn substantially more natural gas than will Unit 7. Therefore, if Units 4 and 5 continue to operate indefinitely——as will be the case if DBEC is not certified——they will burn more natural gas, resulting in the emission of greater amounts of GHGs over their operation life than would the construction and operation of Unit 7, combined with FPL's reduction of the use of less-efficient units in its system. The competent, substantial, and persuasive evidence establishes that the retirement of Units 4 and 5 in 2018, along with the construction and operation of DBEC in 2022 and FPL's concomitant reduction in the use of other less-efficient, more- polluting units in its system, will result in the emission of approximately 8.1 million tons less GHGs into the atmosphere over a 30-year period than if DBEC is not approved and Units 4 and 5 continue to operate indefinitely. Because DBEC will, through system-wide reduced GHG emissions, result in a net environmental benefit as compared to the alternative of continuing to operate Units 4 and 5 indefinitely into the future, DBEC should be weighed as a net positive in considering and balancing the site certification criteria in section 403.509(3). Other measures, discussed above, that DBEC will include and implement to minimize offsite impacts include using the existing transmission line system, existing natural gas pipeline, existing site access, and using a previously-developed power generation site. DBEC will not require new water sources, will not result in a new or expanded surface water discharge, and will reduce the use of processed water by approximately 22 percent. Additionally, upon its operation, DBEC will provide a warm water refuge for manatees.56/ In sum, the undersigned finds that DBEC's benefits, discussed at length above, outweigh its adverse impacts. This determination is more fully addressed in the Conclusions of Law, below. Sierra's Standing Sierra has intervened in this proceeding pursuant to section 403.508(3)(e), which confers party status on persons or entities who demonstrate that their substantial interests will be affected by this proceeding. Sierra is a national non-profit organization. Sierra and its members are committed to protecting the environment. Sierra focuses extensive effort and resources toward combating climate change through advocating the displacement of fossil-fuel energy sources, which emit GHGs, in favor of renewable energy sources and energy sources, such as solar power, wind power, and energy storage and batteries. Consistent with that mission, Sierra's members are concerned about climate change resulting from GHG emissions and the adverse impacts of climate change on human health, property, wildlife, and sensitive ecological systems, and many are actively involved in efforts aimed at reducing GHG emissions on a global and local basis. Several Sierra members testified at the certification hearing regarding the environmental and personal harms they allege they will suffer due to climate change——to which, Sierra alleges, DBEC will contribute. These alleged harms include rising sea level, saltwater intrusion, contamination of drinking water aquifers, property damage due to flooding and increased storm intensity, adverse impacts on recreational activities due to degradation of coral reef and mangrove ecosystems, algal blooms, and human health impacts. Sierra has nearly 38,000 members who live in Florida. Approximately 18,000 Sierra members live in FPL's service territory.57/ The relief Sierra requests in this proceeding is set forth below. Generally, Sierra requests either that the site certification for DBEC be approved, subject to additional conditions that Sierra proposes, or be denied. Relief Requested by Sierra On May 2, 2018, Sierra filed Sierra's Statement on Relief ("Statement on Relief"), identifying the relief it seeks in this proceeding. That relief was set forth in nine sequentially-numbered paragraphs. On May 8, 2018, FPL filed Florida Power & Light Company's Motion to Strike paragraphs 1 through 7 of the Statement on Relief. On May 11, 2018, Sierra filed Sierra Club's Opposition to Florida Power & Light Company's Motion to Strike. At the commencement of the certification hearing, the undersigned struck paragraphs 6 and 7 of the Statement on Relief and reserved ruling on the other forms of relief requested in paragraphs 1 through 5, 8 and 9, pending development of the evidentiary record in this proceeding. The undersigned has ruled on these paragraphs in the Conclusions of Law, below. Sierra requests the following relief in paragraphs 1 through 5, 8, and 9 of its Statement on Relief, which remain at issue in this proceeding: Paragraph 1 of Sierra's Statement of Relief requests the Siting Board to require FPL to limit the annual emission of GHGs from DBEC to the existing annual GHG emission levels from Units 4 and 5, and require FPL to terminate GHG emissions from DBEC at the same date that FPL planned to retire Units 4 and 5, in 2033, subject to any required operation to meet electric reliability needs. Paragraph 2 of Sierra's Statement of Relief requests the Siting Board to require FPL to comply with FPL's stated system- wide GHG commitment to DEP and the PSC, and upon which FPL relies in seeking approval for DBEC——specifically, that DBEC's operation reduces FPL's system-wide annual emissions of GHGs from its current baseline by at least the amount committed to by FPL. As part of this requirement, approval of DBEC should be conditioned on FPL's system-wide annual emissions of GHGs being lower than its current baseline by at least the amount committed to by FPL, and never exceeding that reduced level of GHGs during each year of the lifespan of DBEC. Paragraph 3 of Sierra's Statement of Relief requests the Siting Board to require FPL to develop a locally-sited public stakeholder process that provides municipalities and other governmental entities that have adopted, or that in the future adopt, carbon reduction or clean energy commitments, a means to work with FPL to develop a binding plan to meet the commitments of the municipalities and other governmental entities, subject to any governmental approvals required by law, and that such processes allow interested persons, including non-governmental organizations, a meaningful opportunity to participate. Paragraph 4 of Sierra's Statement of Relief requests the Siting Board to require FPL to evaluate, every five years, in a detailed, transparent process with opportunity for meaningful public participation, the Climate Change Damages resulting from 40 years of GHG pollution from building and operating DBEC as proposed, and approve DBEC subject to the opportunity for the Siting Board to reevaluate the approval of DBEC, including whether there are additional reasonable and available methods that should be adopted to minimize the Climate Change Damages caused by DBEC, and to impose further conditions, including future emissions reductions of DBEC. The impacts of DBEC must be evaluated individually, as well as in the context of cumulative impacts from other GHG emissions. In this evaluation, FPL must examine reasonable and alternative methods to minimize the adverse effects of DBEC's emissions, including sequestration of GHGs and the ability to avoid the emissions. Paragraph 5 of Sierra's Statement of Relief requests the Siting Board to require FPL and DEP to reevaluate, on a five-year basis, and in a detailed, transparent process with opportunity for meaningful public participation, the Climate Change Damages which pose a risk to the DBEC facility specifically, and approve DBEC subject to the opportunity for the Siting Board to reevaluate the approval of DBEC, including whether there are additional reasonable and available methods that should be adopted to minimize the Climate Change Damages to the DBEC facility, and to impose further conditions, including future emissions reductions of DBEC. Paragraph 8 of Sierra's Statement of Relief requests the Siting Board to deny DBEC's site certification. Paragraph 9 of Sierra's Statement of Relief requests that the ALJ and the Siting Board provide such relief as is just and reasonable.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law it is RECOMMENDED that the State of Florida Siting Board enter a final order approving DBEC, subject to the Conditions of Certification contained in the PAR, and approving the variance to the City of Dania Beach Code of Ordinances, Chapter 17, Article IV, Noise, Section 17-86, as set forth in the PAR. DONE AND ENTERED this 30th day of July, 2018, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S CATHY M. SELLERS Administrative Law Judge Division 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 30th day of July, 2018.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner, Edward W. Horsman, filed an application August 14, 1984, pursuant to Chapter 489, Florida Statutes, for certification by examination as an electrical contractor. On October 12, 1984 Respondent denied Petitioner's application on the basis that he lacked sufficient experience in the trade to qualify for the licensure examination. Section 489.521, Fla. Stat., and Rule 21GG-5.02(1), F.A.C. Petitioner filed a timely request for a hearing pursuant to Section 120.57, Fla. Stat. Petitioner has 20 years experience in the electrical construction industry. From 1965-1980 Petitioner was employed by Spaulding Electric Company, an electrical contractor in Detroit, Michigan. While employed by Spaulding, Petitioner worked as a wireman for one and one-half years, a foreman for one and one- half years, a field superintendent for four years, an estimator for one and one-half years, chief estimator for one and one-half years, and as manager of electrical construction for five years. Petitioner's managerial and supervisory experience included supervision of draftsmen in plan preparation, bid estimates, negotiation of contracts, overall supervision of construction, scheduling and purchasing. From 1980-1982 Petitioner was employed by Lastar Electric Company, an electrical contractor in Madison Heights, Michigan. Petitioner's managerial and supervisory experience at Lastar comported with his duties at Spaulding. In December 1982 Petitioner was laid off by Lastar, due to an economic recession which plagued Detroit, Michigan. From December 1982 until February 1984, Petitioner operated his own consulting firm in Rochester, Michigan, providing estimating and project management services for electrical contractors. Business was poor, and few contracts were acquired. In February 1984 Respondent relocated to Englewood, Florida, and undertook his current employment with Baldwin Electric, Inc. Respondent seeks to be licensed as the qualifying agent for Larry's Electric, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of Baldwin Electric, Inc.
The Issue The primary issue for determination in this case is whether Respondent, Bruce P. Boston, engaged in the unlicensed practice of electrical contracting in the State of Florida without being certified or registered in violation of Chapter 489, Part II of the Florida Statutes; and secondarily, if Respondent committed that violation, what penalty should be imposed?
Findings Of Fact The Department of Business and Professional Regulation (Petitioner) is a state agency charged with the duty and responsibility of regulating the practice of electrical contracting in the State of Florida. Respondent's address is 18204 Southwest 200 Street, Archer, Florida 32618. At no time material hereto was Respondent certified or registered in the State of Florida to engage in the practice of electrical contracting or to perform electrical contracting work. Mrs. Dawn Wingert is the owner of the residence located at what is currently designated as 16675 Southwest 143rd Avenue, Archer, Florida. Mrs. Wingert, as lawful owner, had the authority to enter contracts regarding the residence. The Wingert residence was previously known as 110 Park Avenue, Archer, Florida, prior to the assignment of the current address. Wingert entered into a contract with Respondent to perform construction of a carport and perform electrical contracting work at Wingert’s residence subsequent to assignment of the address of 110 Park Avenue, Archer, Florida. Respondent received compensation for the contracted work directly from Wingert via personal check, which Respondent then cashed. Terry Vargas, a licensed electrical contractor having been issued license number ER 13012448, was subsequently contacted by Respondent to perform the electrical contracting work at the Wingert residence. Vargas installed an electrical outlet on the back porch, put a flood light on the back porch, moved the switch board to a more convenient location, and put a security light in the front of Wingert’s residence. All work required electrical fixtures to be permanently affixed and become a permanent part of the structure of the Wingert residence. Although Vargas completed the electrical contracting work at the Wingert residence, Wingert paid the Respondent for the services because the work was contracted for through Respondent. At no time pertinent to this matter did Terry Vargas contract with Wingert to complete the electrical services enumerated above. After he completed the work at Wingert’s residence, Vargas invoiced Respondent for the electrical contracting work. Respondent, however, refused to pay Vargas for the electrical contracting work performed, despite having received compensation for the work from Wingert.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law set forth herein, it is RECOMMENDED that Petitioner enter a final order, in accordance with Section 489.533(2)(c), Florida Statutes, requiring that Respondent pay an administrative fine in the amount of $5,000.00 to the Department of Business and Professional Regulation. DONE AND ENTERED this 20th day of February, 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S DON W. DAVIS 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.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 20th day of February, 2007. COPIES FURNISHED: Bruce P. Boston Post Office Box 331 Williston, Florida 32696 Drew F. Winters, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Nancy S. Terrel, Hearing Officer Office of the General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Josefina Tamayo, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
The Issue The issues to be resolved in this proceeding concern whether the Respondent committed the charged violations of Section 489.127(1)(f), Florida Statutes (2006), and Section 489.531(1)(a), Florida Statutes (2006), and if so, what penalty, if any, is warranted.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner is an Agency of the State of Florida charged with regulating the practice of contracting and the licensure of those engaged in the practice of contracting of all types, in accordance with Section 20.165, Florida Statutes, as well as Chapters 455 and 489, Florida Statutes. The Respondent engages in re-modeling and other construction-related work both as his own business and employment by a certified general contractor. This case arose upon a Complaint filed with the Petitioner Agency by Mr. Kenneth Hatin. The Complaint asserted his belief that the Respondent had engaged in a contract to construct an addition on his home, and after being paid substantial sums of money, had wrongfully left the job and never finished it. The residence in question is co-owned by Mr. Hatin and his fiancée, Ms. Beverly White. Ms. White's first cousin is Ms. Julie Crawley. Ms. Crawley is the Respondent's fiancée. Mr. Hatin and the Respondent were introduced by Ms. Crawley and Ms. White. Mr. Hatin and the Respondent thus met socially and as they got to know each other discussed Mr. Hatin's desire to have an addition placed on his home. The addition consisted of a pool enclosure to be constructed on his property located at 33 Botany Lane, Palm Coast, Florida. Mr. Hatin expressed the desire to have the Respondent assist him in constructing the pool enclosure. The Respondent agreed to do so. The Respondent is employed by his brother, who is a Florida-Licensed General Contractor, but neither the Respondent nor his business, JR. Wittmer's Remodeling, Inc., are licensed or certified to engage in contracting or electrical contracting. In accordance with his agreement with Mr. Hatin, the Respondent provided labor and assistance with the renovation project, including digging ditches, picking-up supplies and being present at the work site. In addition to the Respondent, other friends and family members of the protagonists assisted with the project, including the Respondent's son, Ms. Crawley's son, Mr. Hatin's employer, Ms. White's brother-in-law, and Mr. Hatin himself. This was, in essence, a joint family/friends cooperative construction project. Over the course of approximately five months during the construction effort, Mr. Hatin wrote checks to the Respondent in the total amount of $30,800.00. All contractors or workmen on the job were paid and no liens were placed on Mr. Hatin's property. The checks written were for the materials purchased and labor performed by tradesmen or sub-contractors engaged by the Respondent and Mr. Hatin for various aspects of the job such as roofing, tile or block laying, etc. The Respondent received no fee or profit in addition to the amounts paid to the material suppliers, contractors, and laborers on the job. It is not entirely clear from the record who prepared the contract in evidence as Petitioner's Exhibit four, or the document that the parties treated as a contract. It is not entirely clear who actually signed it, but the document was drafted relating to the work to be done on Mr. Hatin's home (the contract). Mr. Hatin maintained that the Respondent prepared and signed the contract. Ms. Crawley testified that the contract was actually prepared by herself and Ms. White (for "tax purposes"). It is inferred that this means that the contract was prepared to provide some written evidence of the amount expended on the addition to the home, probably in order to raise the cost basis in the home to reduce capital gains tax liability potential at such time as the home might be sold. The term "tax purposes" might mean other issues or consequences not of record in this case, although it has not been proven that the contract was prepared for a fraudulent purpose. Ms. Crawley testified that the Respondent did not actually sign the document himself but that she signed it for him. What was undisputed was that there were hand-written changes made to the contract so as to include exhaust fans, ceiling fans, sun tunnels, a bathroom door and outside electrical lighting. Although there was a change to the contract for this additional scope of work, there was no increase in the amounts to be paid by Mr. Hatin for such work. After the project was commenced and the addition was partially built, Mr. Hatin and Ms. White were involved in a serious motorcycle accident. Work was stopped on the project for a period of approximately seven weeks, with Mr. Hatin's acquiescence, while Ms. White convalesced. The Respondent, during this time, dedicated all of his time to his regular job and other work commitments. It was apparently his understanding, expressed in Ms. Crawley's testimony, that, due to injuries he received in the accident and more particularly the more serious injuries received by his fiancée, that Mr. Hatin was not focused on the project at that time, but let it lapse until the medical emergency was past. After approximately seven weeks of inactivity Mr. Hatin contacted the Respondent requesting that he begin work on the project again. A meeting was set up between Mr. Hatin and the Respondent. The Respondent however, was unable to attend the meeting with Mr. Hatin that day, tried to re-schedule and a dispute arose between the two. Additionally, family disputes over money and interpersonal relationships were on- going at this time leading to a lack of communication and a further dispute between Mr. Hatin, Ms. White, the Respondent, and Ms. Crawley. A threat of physical harm was directed at the Respondent by Mr. Hatin (he threatened to put out the Respondent's "one good eye" if he came on the subject property again). Because of this, the Respondent elected not to return to the project. Inferentially, at that point the process of filing the subject complaint soon ensued.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses, and the pleadings and arguments of the parties, it is, therefore, RECOMMENDED that the Administrative Complaint filed herein be dismissed. DONE AND ENTERED this 12th day of June, 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S P. MICHAEL RUFF 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.fl.us Filed with Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 12th day of June, 2007. COPIES FURNISHED: Ned Luczynski, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 E. Renee Alsobrook, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1007 Garvin B. Bowden, Esquire Gardner, Wadsworth, Duggar, Bist & Wiener, P.A. 1300 Thomaswood Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Nancy S. Terrel, Hearing Officer Office of the General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation Northwood Centre 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
Findings Of Fact There is no dispute as to the facts involved in this rule challenge. Johnson Controls, Inc. is a large corporation operating throughout the United States. It engages in the business of manufacturing electrical components and in constructing, installing and servicing electrical control systems and other phases of electrical contracting work. As its name implies, Johnson Controls' primary emphasis in the electrical field is in selling, installing, and maintaining systems for fire, security, heating, air conditioning, and energy consumption controls. Johnson Controls is presently licensed to do electrical contracting work by 23 counties and municipalities in Florida and in 49 of the 50 states. Winfred Allen Infinger holds a B. E. degree in Technology and Construction, a journeyman electrician's license in Pinellas County, and is fully qualified by training and experience to be the qualifying agent of Johnson Controls in this application. In its letter of May 8, 1979 denying petitioner's application, Respondent, through its executive director, stated the following grounds: Your application failed to meet the qualification as that of a Florida licensed electrical contractor (468.181(5)) whose services are unlimited in the Electrical Field. The review of your application reflects that Johnson Controls, Inc., is a specialty contractor and presently Florida Statutes, Chapter 468, Part VII does not provide for licensure of specialty contractors.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent, Joseph B. Smith is the holder of a registered electrical contractor's license, number ER 0007369, issued by the State of Florida. During the month of May, 1981, the Respondent obtained an electrical permit for work on apartments located at the corner of Stockton and Forbes Streets, in Jacksonville, Florida. The work was contracted for by Ronnie D. Norvelle. Gary Moore performed the electrical work on the project. Neither of these men was employed by or under the supervision of the Respondent. On March 3, 1982, the Construction Trades Qualifying Board for the City of Jacksonville, Florida, directed that a letter of reprimand be placed in the Respondent's permanent record. The basis for the action taken by the Construction Trades Qualifying Board for the City of Jacksonville, Florida, was the violation of Section 950.111(a), Code of Ordinances of the City of Jacksonville.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that license number ER 0007369 held by the Respondent, Joseph B. Smith, be revoked. THIS ORDER ENTERED this 28th day of June, 1983, in Tallahassee, Florida. WILLIAM B. THOMAS, Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of June, 1983. COPIES FURNISHED: Stephanie A. Daniel, Esquire 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Mr. Joseph B. Smith 6335 Park Street Jacksonville, Florida 32205 Allen R. Smith, Jr., Executive Director Electrical Contractors Licensing Board 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Fred M. Roche, Secretary Department of Professional Regulation 130 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32301
