98-22709 RESO
RESOLUTION NO. 98-22709
A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA, REQUESTING FLORIDA POWER
& LIGHT (FPL) TO UNDERGROUND OR PLACE UNDERWATER THE
IMPROVEMENTS TO THE EXISTING ELECTRICAL TRANSMISSION
SYSTEM IN THE CITY OF MIAMI BEACH, AT THE SOLE COST OF FPL,
IN LIEU OF THE PROPOSED OVERHEAD TRANSMISSION LINE.
WHEREAS, the existing electrical transmission system configuration selected to be installed
by FPL in the City of Miami Beach, is underground or underwater; and
WHEREAS, FPL has made no improvements to the City's electrical transmission system
in over thirty (30) years and therefore, have made no capital investments toward the betterment of
the electrical transmission system; and
WHEREAS, the residents of the City have suffered and continue to suffer as a result of the
frequent power outages; and
WHEREAS, FPL has the ability and discretion to elect to place the proposed transmission
line underground; and
WHEREAS, FPL should exhibit sensitivity and be responsive to the needs and desires of
its customers, the residents of the City, and mitigate previous disruptions to the lives and businesses
of the residents which have occurred in the past.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT DULY RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND CITY
COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA, that the Mayor and the City
Commission request FPL to underground or place underwater the improvements to the existing
electrical transmission system in the City of Miami Beach, at the sole cost of FPL, in lieu of the
proposed overhead transmission line.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 15th day of April
,1998.
IJ(
MAYOR
ATTEST
~~r~
APPROVED AS TO
FORM & lANGUAGE
& FOR EXECUTION
F:\WORK\$ALL IMAES\COMMEMOIFPLUNDG lWPD
1tt~
c, , Attorney
~
CITY OF MIAMI BEACH
CITY HALL 1700 CONVENTION CENTER DRIVE MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA 33139
http:\\ci.miami-beach.f1.us
COMMISSION MEMORANDUM NO. ~
TO:
Mayor Neisen O. Kasdin and
Members of the City Commission
DATE: April 15, 1998
FROM:
Sergio Rodriguez
City Manager
SUBJECT:
UPDATE 0 FPL'S FREQUENT POWER OUTAGES AND PLANNING TO
MEET FUTURE ELECTRICAL DEMAND AND REPORT ON FPL'S PLANS
TO UPGRADE THE ELECTRICAL TRANSMISSION SYSTEM
Attached is a report from FPL on service unavailability within the City of Miami Beach. This index
serves as a measurable indicator to monitor the results of the improvements which are contained in
the "Miami Beach Study", prepared by FPL in 1997.
As part of the effort to upgrade facilities and meet future electrical demand, FPL is planning to
install a transmission line that will run between 41 st Street and the area of 20th Street and West
Avenue. According to the study, this transmission line is needed by June, 2000 in order to provide
required capacity to the sub-stations. (see attachment) FPL is planning an overhead installation and
the City Administration has requested that this line be placed underground. A series of meetings has
been held with FPL to discuss alternate routes, methods of installation and estimated costs for the
new transmission line. FPL has advised the City that under present rules and regulations governing
the utility company, FPL is required to implement the lowest cost alternative for installation oflines.
In the case of the new transmission line, an overhead installation is the least costly. The City would
therefore have to pay for the cost differential for the underground installation of this line.
On February 18, 1997 this matter was referred by the City Commission to the Finance and Citywide
Projects Committee. At its March 12, 1998 meeting, the committee recommended that the City hire
a consultant to look at the various alternatives; develop financing options; and referred the item to
the City Commission. At the March 18, 1998 commission meeting, the City Commission directed
the Administration to hire a consultant to study and make recommendations on this matter; requested
the City Attorney's Office to research applicable Public Service Commission (PSC) rules which
might govern the installation of transmission lines; develop financing options; and report back to
the City Commission in 30 days.
Since that time, the City has hired the consulting firm of Resource Management International, Inc.
(RMI), to analyze and evaluate options available to the City to address the proposed installation of
the transmission line. RMI's report, dated April 9, 1998, is attached. As requested by the City
Commission, a response from the City Attorney's Office regarding PSC rules is attached. A
summary of financing options has been developed and is also attached.
AGENDA ITEM ~
DATE~
In reaching a determination the following should be noted:
o the existing transmission system serving Miami Beach is an underground system
o the improvements identified by FPL are in response to the need to upgrade the existing
transmission system to provide for single contingency design. FPL is proposing to
accomplish this upgrade by building an overhead transmission line which runs from the 40th
Street substation to the Venetian substation
o FPL, while desiring to contain its costs, is able to use its discretion in responding to a local
community's needs. In the case of Miami Beach, an additional overhead transmission line
running along one of the City's main arterial roadways is highly undesirable and
unacceptable to the residents of the City
o recently, FPL has completed several projects to upgrade its system and has selected to place
these installations underground, including a major duct bank along Collins A venue to serve
the Loews Hotel
o FPL should consider a different approach for implementing the improvements to the
transmission system, other than what has previously been suggested by FPL to the City, an
approach which would respond to FPL's needs as well as those of the City of Miami Beach.
Based on the foregoing, it is the Administration's recommendation that a formal request be made of
FPL that, any upgrades to the electrical transmission system serving Miami Beach be implemented,
at their sole cost, in a manner consistent with the existing underground configuration of the present
transmission system; namely, underground/underwater installations. This, we believe,FPL has the
ability to implement, by exhibiting sensitivity to the area, using its discretion under current
applicable PSC rules and State Statutes, and electing to place such installations underground.
SR\HM\JGdP\KM
T:IAGENDAIAPR1598\REGULARIFPLUPDA T HM
attachments
Florida Power & Light Company
Service Unavailability Indicator
City of Miami Beach
March 10th, 1998
The overall indicator that FPL uses to measure reliability performance is
Service Unavailability. Service Unavailability is the average number of
minutes that service is not available to our customers. The attached two graphs
represent Service Unavailability for the City of Miami Beach.
Chart 1 illustrates the average number of minutes a Miami Beach resident or
business was without electric service each month. This chart compares each
month in 1998 to the same month in 1997 and 1996. Each bar represents the
average number of ~inutes for that month that customers were without
electric service. In February 1998, Miami Beach customers were without
electric service an average of 6 minutes compared to 12 minutes in February
1997.
Chart 2 illustrates the average number of minutes a Miami Beach resident
or business was without electric service within the last twelve months. In
February 1998 Miami Beach customers were without electric service just
under three hours on average (177.1 minutes).
Page 1
City of Miami Beach
March 10th, 1998
Florida Power & Light Company
Service Unavailability Indicator
City of Miami Beach
Month to Month Comparison 1996 vs. 1997 vs. 1998
500
450
400
350
300
Ul
ell 236
:; 250
c:
~
200
150
100
50
0
Chart 1
68
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nav
Dee
Month
Florida Power & Light Company
Service Unavailability Indicator
City of Miami Beach
12 Months Ending Thru. February 1998
600.0
500.0
400.0
Ul
~ 300.0
t:
~
200.0
177.1
100.0
0.0
Jan-96 Apr-96 Jul-96 Oct-96 Jan-97 Apr-97 Jul-97 Oet-97 Jan-98 Apr-98 Jul-98 Oct-98
Month
3/12/98
g<JQe. 2
MBCH_IND.xLS
From FPL's "Miami Beach
Study"
Dated: February 1997
TRANSMISSION CAPACITY PLAN
BACKGROUND
A study of the transmission system in the Miami Beach and the Port of Miami area,
bounded by Normandy Beach substation in the north end to Key Biscayne in the south
end was performed in 1996. This study showed that the transmission system serving
the load in the northernmost stations 40th Street, Indian Creek, Deauville and
Normandy Beach was adequate for the next ten years. However, due to the rapid
load growth being projected for the southernmost area of Miami Beach a need to
expand the transmission capacity in this area was identified.
Loads in the southernmost Miami Beach area are served by two 69kV cable and one
138kV cable; The Miami - Miami Beach 69kV cable (rated at 113 MV A), the 40th
Street-Miami Beach 69kV cable (rated at 114 MV A) and the Miami-Miami Beach
138kV cable (rated at 243 MV A). There are six substations in the. area being served
by these cables, i.e., Simpson, Key Biscayne, Virginia Key, Miami Beach, Roney and
Venetian.
From 1991 to 1995, load growth in this area has been significant averaging 5.5% per
year. Also, projected load growth forecast continues to indicate that these high levels
of load growth will be sustained.
The need for this evaluation during the summer of 1996 was initiated due to concerns
over the ability of the transmission network in the area to reliably serve the amount
of load growth being projected.
From FPL's "Niami Beach
Study"
Dated: February 1997
The latest re-evaluation of the area led to the following:
Utilizing single contingency assessment methods (loss of a single element in the
system) the need for additional transmission capability to meet the growing needs of
the Miami Beach area was identified.
FPL's evaluation found the attached system improvement (see Map) to be the most
reliable and cost-effective way of meeting the short and long range capacity need of
the area. This system improvement entails the following:
By June 1, 1998:
- Shift 16 MV A of load from Simpson substation to Latin Quarter substation by
building additional distribution feeders.
By June 1, 20(\0:
- Build a 69kV line from 40th Street to Venetian substation of approximately 1.8
miles in length.
- Installing a 2.5 MV A series reactor at Miami substation.
Budget
- There is currently $7,140,000 in the budget for the 40th Street - Venetian
Project and Transmission cable.
The chart on the following page depicts the transmission grid on Miami Beach.
2
04/09/98 THU 16:18 FAX 407 895 6486
R M lOR LAN D 0
I4l 001
CITY OF MIAMI BEACH
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
PROPOSED FPL
TRANSMISSION LINE
REVIEW OF AL TERNA TIVES
AND COST ANALYSES
Prepared by:
RMI
REsoURCE MANAGEMENT INTERNATIONAL, INC.
ORLANDO, FLORIDA
Unpublished Work @ April 1998
04/09/98 THU 16:18 FAX 407 895 6486
R M lOR LAN D 0
I4J 002
TRANSMISSION LINE
REVIEW OF ALTERNATIVES
AND COST ANALYSES
BACKGROUND
Florida Power & Light Company (FPL) has provided electric service to the Miami
Beach area for many years. The existing submarine and underground transmission lines
serving the area were installed over 30 years ago. The lines provide multiple feeds to
the islands comprising the City of Miami Beach.
There are fOUI underground/submarine lines across the Intracoastal Waterway
connecting the mainland electric grid to the Miami Beach backbone transmission
system. The backbone is comprised of 69-kV underground/submarine cables linking
the northernmost Deauville substation to the southernmost Miami Beach Substation.
There is also a 1.3 mile section of 69-kV overhead line between the Deauville
substation and the Normandy Beach substation. This overhead line provides another
source of power to the Miami Beach 69-kV transmission backbone.
The existing transmission lines serve six substations within the Miami Beach City
limits. The Normandy Beach substation, although not located within <:::ity limits, also
serves loads within the City.
With minor vanations, the existing transmission, substation and distribution
systems have provided reliable service to the citizens of Miami Beach for a long time.
On January 20, 1982, the City Commission passed and adopted Ordinance No. 82-
2294 granting Florida Power &. Light Company an Electric Franchise that became
effective January 22, 1982. The franchise term is 30 years from the date of acceptance
and will expire in the year 2012.
FPL and the City are currently operating under this franchise which grants FPL the
right to generate and sell electric power and to construct, maintain and operate electric
light and power facilities within and beyond the City limits.
In 1996, as a result of complaints from the citizens of Miami Beach, the City asked
FPL to investigate the decline in the quality of electric service it provides customers
within the City. FPL responded by conducting transmission, substation, and
distribution systems studies. The results of the studies were summarized and presented
to the City in a Report on Frequent Power Outages and Planning- to Meet Future
Electrical Demand. The report also provides a plan for improving service reliability.
The proposed pIan identifies specific transmission, substation and distribution system
CITY OF MIAMI BEACH
APRIL 9, 1998
PAGE 2 OF 15
04/09/98 THU 16:19 FAX 407 895 6486
R M lOR LAN D 0
I4J 003
upgrades and modifications intended to improve service reliability and to meet future
electrical demands. FPL presented the report to the City Commission on February 14,
1997.
One of the projects proposed by FPL is to build a new 69-kV, overhead transmission
line from the 4()th Street substation to the Venetian substation. The line would be 1.8
miles in length, concrete pole construction, and routed along Alton Road on the west
side or the Bayshore Municipal Golf Course. According to FPL's report, this new line is
required "due to the rapid load growth projected for the southernmost area of Miami
Beach." .
Since FPL submitted their report to the City, several meetings were held between
FPL representatives and. City staff. In addition, FPL representatives have appeared
before the City Commission to explain various aspects concerning the justification, and
proposed routing, construction, and scheduled in-service date for the new line.
In March 1998, to assist in the evaluation of outstanding technical issues, the City
contracted Resource Management International, Inc. (RMI) to provide technical
assistance in evaluating various unresolved issues regarding the new line.
On March 24, 1998, RMI's representative, Frank Alonso, met with City staff to define
!:he City's main concerns regarding lhe proposed new line. Owi.ng the meeting, the
following areas of concern were identified:
· Are there any provisions in the City Charter or franchise ordinance that
reguJates the placement of new or replacement transmission lines?
. he there state or federal guidelines regarding underground or overhead
placement of new or replacement transmission lines?
· Is the new line required? Is it justified?
· Are overhead and underground versions of the proposed line the only
alternatives? Are there others?
· he FPL's cost estimates reasonable?
· Is the City required to pay the differential between overhead and
underground construction?
. Is FPL's in-service date reasonable?
On March 24, Oty staff and RMI's representative also met with FPL's
representatives to request additional information regarding justification of the line,
assumptions FPL made in preparing their cost estimates, and what alternatives they
considered. A written list of questions was provided to FPl representatives after the
meeting. They agreed to respond in writing by Friday, March 27, submitting their
responses directly to RMI with copies to the City. For the most part, the answers were
received as promised. Copies of the questions and responses are in Appendix A.
eln OF MIAMI BEACH
APRIL 9,1998
PAGE 3 OF 15
04/09/98 THU 16:20 FAX 407 895 6486
R M lOR LAN D 0
141 00 <I
ANALYSIS
Following is our analysis and evaluation of the areas of concern to the City that were
identified during the March 24 meeting.
Are there any provisions in the City franchise ordinance that regulates the placement
of new or replacement transmission lines?
We reviewed the existing franchise ordinance and it does not limit or specify the
placement of new or replacement transmission facilities within the City.
Section 3 of the ordinance does include the following:
"".The location or relocation of all facilities shall be made under the
supervision and with the approval of such representatives as the
governing body of the Grantor (City) may designate fOT the purpose,
but not so as to unreasonably interfere with the proper operation of
the Grantee's (FPL's) fllcilities Ilnd service."
Thus, the ordinance requires that FPL obtain the City's approval prior to building
any fadlities within City limits. Although we are not qualified to render a legal opinion
on this matter, we believe this requirement cannot be interpreted as giving the City the
right to require FPL to place new or replacement transmission and distribution facilities
underground.
In fact, the Cirys rights to regulate the placement of transmission and distribution
facilities within City limits were significantly constrained by the May 2, 1991, decisiun
by the Supreme Court of Florida in the Florida Power Corporation v. Seminole County
Case. In that decision, the Florida Supreme Court upheld the jurisdiction of the Florida
Public Service Commission (FPSC) to regulate rates and services of public utilities
versus the authority of cities and counties to require electric utilities to place their lines
underground.
Are there state or federal guidelines regarding underground or overhead placement
of new or replacement transmission lines?
Recent and past rulings by the Florida Supreme Court and the FPSC do not make a
distinction between transmission and distribution lines regarding the issue of line
placement. Currently, there are no federal regulations regarding the placement of new
transmission or distribution facilities overhead or underground.
CITY OF MIAMI BEACH
ApR.IL 9, 1998
PAGE" OF 15
04/09/98 THU 16:20 FAX 407 895 6486
R M lOR LAN D 0
141005
The State uf Flurida's Transmission Line Siting Act only regulates new transmission
lines rated 230-kV and above and does not include any provisions for requiring new or
replacement facilities to be installed underground. It also does not require that
replacement facilities be "like-for-like", Since the proposed line is rated 69-kV, it is not
covered by this siting act.
We contacted the FPSC to obtain information regarding any rules or reguIaUons
they have concerning the placement of new or replacement transmission or distribution
lines overhead or underground. According to the FPSC representative we spoke with,
the FPSC has no written rules or regulations that directly impact the construction,
maintenance, operation or placement of transmission or distribution facilities. The
FPSC regulates the rates charged by public utilities and the service they provide their
customers. These regulatory functions of the FPSC indirectly impact FPL's da.isiun to
place all new or replacement transmission lines overhead.
As an investor owned utility (IOU) in the State of Florida, FPL operates as a
monopoly. Within its service area it has no competition as an electric service provider.
To protect its customers, FPL's financial operations are closely regulated by the FPSC.
The commission approves all rate changes and decides which expenses FPL can include
in determining revenue requirements.
Following FPSC past rulings requiring utilities to provide reliable, low cost electrical
service and in keeping with past FPSC rulings regarding admissibility of expenses for
inclusion in the rate base, FPL established their standards for transmission line
construction so that all new 1i.nes are located overhead.
On the other side of the issue, the FPSC is vested with the authl?rity to require
conversion of overhead lines to underground where "feasible" if the conunission finds
this to be "cost-effective". It is also within FPL's discretion to make exceptions to their
standard transmission line design and construction practices. They have done so on
several occasions in the past.
CITY OP MIAMI BEACH
APRIL 9,1998
PAGE 5 OF 15
04/09/98 THU 16:21 FAX 407 895 6486
R M lOR LAN D 0
141 006
Recently, FPL chose to place underground several new and replacement lines in
Miami Beach. Following is a listing of some of those projects:
From To
1. 8th Street Alton Rd. Collins Ave,
2. 6th Street Alton Rd. Michigan Ave.
3. Michigan Avenue 6th Street 8th Street
4. Sub-aqueous feeder along Miami Beach Substation Aiton Rd.
East bridge on 5th Street
5. Pine Tree Drive 42nd Street 43ni Street
6. Collins Avenue Esplanade Way 19th Street
7. 15th Street Collins Avenue Ocean Drive
8. 4th Street Alton Lenox
9. Collins 4th Street Biscayne
10. South Lincoln Lane Lenox Pennsylvania
FPL representatives have not indicate under what conditions they would make an
exception to their standard overhead construction practice and locate a line
underground without the customer paying for the differential cost between
underground and overhead line construction.
According to information they provided,
"FPL is obligated to provide its customers 'With reliable, low
cost electrical service. Current electric utility industry
technology and FPL standards permit FPL to build overhead
transmission lines which meet this obligation to serve. This MS
al'ways been FPL' s standard far transmission lines. If a request is
made to deviate from this standard (underground) the requesting
party pays for the rosts of deviating from this stnndard. n
Obviously, since all the existing transmission lines in the City of Miami Beach are
underground, there have been exceptions to their standard practice in the past. .Why
were the existing lines placed underground or underwater? FPL representatives were
asked this question. TIley said th~y had researched their files, but were not able to
locate any documentation regarding FPL' 5 past decision (30 years ago) to place the lines
in Miami Beach underground.
CITY OJ:' MIAMI BEACH
APRIL 9,1998
PAGE 6 OF 15
04/09/98 THU 16:21 R~ 407 895 6486
R M lOR LAN D 0
@007
The existing facilities in Miami Beach show that exceptions to FPL and industry
standard practice were made in the past. Those past decisions to deviate from standard
practice must have been based on very strong reasons, because the comparative cost for
placing transmission lines underground 30 years ago was definitely higher than it is
today. FPL staff may not have documentation regarding the original decision to place
existing lines underground, but just the fact that they are i.. a very compelling reason to
place the new line underground at FPL's expense.
Is the new line required? Is it justified?
The FPL report, dated February 1997, justifies the addition of the new line based on
the need for additional transmission capacity required to serve the increasing loads in
the southernmost area of Miami Beach. In our discussions with FPL personnel, we now
understand that the line is mostly required to satisfy reliability concerns.
Line Capacity Retfuirements
FPL's report states that the new line is required to "expand the transmission
capacity" to the southernmost area of Miami Beach. In their most recent appearance
before the City Commission, FPL representatives said the line is required to improve
system reliability. 1his discrepancy was explained by FPL representatives during our
March 24 meeting. Their revised load growth forecast now indicates that if the
additional capacity provided by the new line is not in-service by June 1999, there could
be extensive and prolonged outages Iesultin~ in reduced service reliability.
According to FPL's report, trom 1991 to 1995, loads in the southern part of the City
increased an average of 5.5% per year and will continue to grow at the same high levels
through the time scope of their load growth forecast. If system capacity is not increased,
the continued high load growth will eventually result in system overload conditions
during peak consumption periods.
Currently, there are three substations serving the south Miami Beach area. They are
Roney, Venetian, and Miami Beach substation. There are another three substations fed
by the same sources. Those six substations are fed by two 69-kV cables rated 113-MV A
and one 138-kV cable rated 243-MV A. The total capacity of the three cables is 470-:MV A.
According to information provided by FPL, the metered load in 1997 for the
southern area of Miami Beach was 234-MVA (assuming a power factor of 85%). FPL
anticipates the total load in south Miami Beach to reach 258-MV A by the summer of
1999. With all three cables in service, their combined 470-MVA provides sufficient
transmission capacity to serve even the projected 1999 load (234-MV A).
Based on the previous comparison between projected load and existing line
capacities, there is no need for additional transmission capacity.
CITY OF MIAMI BEACH
APRIl 9, 1998
PAGE 7 OF 15
04/09/98 THU 16:22 R\X 407 895 6486
R M lOR LAN D 0
I4J 008
Reliability Concerns
Because the Miami Beach area is geographically isolated from the Florida mainland,
the reliability of power supply systems and local transmission and distribution systems
is critical. For this reason, the original transmission/ substation system serving Miami
Beach was designed as a fully redWldant or si.ngle contingency system so that the loss of
any single component will not result in an extended service interruption. Such a system
provides redundant, backup facilities so that interrupted service can be restored in less
than 1 minute. This single contingency design is costly and not current FPL practice.
However, as stated in their report, FPL "will rebuild the substations serving Miami
Beach in accordance with the original design."
Using the single contingency design criteria, if a fault develops in the 138-kV
submarine cable serving the south Miami Beach area, the remaining two 69-kV cables
would not have sufficient capacity to serve the projected 1999 load of 258- MY A. This
shortage will cause long extended outages within the service area Wltil the 138-kV
submarine cable is repaired. TIus situation would severely impad system reliability and
justifies the addition of transmission capacity to serve the area.
Are overhead and underground versions of the proposed line the only alternatives?
Are there other alternatives?
FPL AlternatifJes
FPL representatives said they have looked at various alternatives for providing
additional transmission capadty for the southern area of Miami Beach. They have
provided descriptions fur two overhead routes, one underground route, and one
submarine route as. examples of feasible alternatives they considered. One of the
overhead routes is the currently proposed route along Alton Road. The other overhead
route is mostly along Dade Boulevard and Pine Tree Drive. Both of these routes can be
can be considered one alternative, since the only difference between them is the line
route. Cost wise, they are very similar. The underground route is the same ac; the
proposed overhead route with minor variations. The submarine route goes from
Venetian substation north through Sunset Lake and Sunset Lake Bay following the
water's edge to 40th Street substation.
FPL also considered other alternatives that were discarded for various reasons. The
main ones being cost and scheduling. We asked FPL why they had chosen not to
upgrade the existing 69-kV underground line. Their written response is that the new
proposed line is the most efficient based on cost, capacity, reliability, and feasibility.
Other Alternatives
The alternatives described by FPL are limited to interconnecting the 40th Street
substation and the Venetian substation. However, the goal is to provide additional
power to the southern part of Miami Beach so that if a fault occurs on the existing 138-
CITY OF MIAMI BEACH
APRIL 9,1998
PAGE 8 OF 15
04/09/98 THU 16:23 FAX 407 895 6486
R M lOR LAN D 0
@009
kV cable the load can still be served without significant impact to service reliability. The
following alternatives are all capable of satisfying future service requirements;
· Upgrading existing 69-kV cable between 4lJth Street substation and Venetian
substation.
· Upgrading existing 69-kV underground/submarine cable from Miami
substation to Miami Beach substation.
· Install new underground/ submarine cable from Miramar substation
(assuming it has sufficient capacity) to Venetian substation along Venetian
Causeway.
Evaluation of Alternatives
The following listing of alternatives consolidates those considered by FPL and the
additional ones listed above They are repeated and numbered here to simplify the
Wscussion that follows.
· Alternative No.1 This alternative is the proposed 1.8 miles of 69-kV, single
concrete pole, overhead line with 954 kcmil ACSR/ A W phase conductors.
Proposed route is mostly along Alton Road or along Dade Boulevard and
Pine Tree Drive.
· Alternative No.2 Construct a new underground, 69-kV line with three 2000-
kcmil, copper cables in 3 - 6" conduits. T otalline length = 1.8 miles. Line
route will be similar to the proposed overhead line along Alton Road.
· Altenuztive No.3 Construct a new submarine, 69-kV line v.ith three 2000-
kcmil, copper cables in 3 - 6" conduits. Line goes north from Venetian
substation to SWlSet Lake then Sunset Lake Bay. Line will follow water
running parallel to the shoreline in the bay and canal. Line then heads east
along north side of 40th Street to 40th Street substation. Line length = 1.8
miles.
· Alternative No.4 Replace existing 69-kV underground cable between 40th
Street substation and Venetian substation with a double circuit, 69-kV,
underground line each circuit consisting of three 2000 kcmil, copper cables in
3 - 6/1 conduits. Line to follow existing routing from 40th Street substation to
Venetian substation. Line length = 20 miles.
· Alternative No.5 Replace existing 69-kV underground/submarine cable
between Miami substation and Miami &ach substation with double circuit,
69-kV, underground/submarine line each circuit consisting of three 2000
kcm.il, copper cables in 3 - 6" conduits. New line routed along same route as
exiting line. line length = 3.7 miles.
· Alternative No.6 Construct a new 69-kV, underground/submarine line with
three 2000-kcmil, copper cables in 3 - 6" conduits. Line route to go south
CITY OF MIAMI BEACH
APRIL'. 19'8
PAGE 9 OF 15
04/09/98 THU 16:23 FAX 407 895 6486
R M lOR LAN D 0
~010
from Miramar substation to 15th Street, east on 15th Street/Venetian
Causeway to 17th Street in Miami Beach, continue east on 17th Street to West
Avenue, north on West Avenue to Venetian substation. This alternative
assumes Miramar substation has sufficient capacity to provide power to
Venetian substation. Line length = 4.4 miles (1.7 miles underground cable on
land and 2.7 miles submarine cable).
Although cost and scheduling seem to be the main factors considered in the
evaluation of the alternatives, there are additional tangible and intangible factors that
should be considered. Intangible factors are those that cannot be meaningfully
evaluared in monetary terms. Two such factors are consumers' interests and public
relations.
Tangible factors include cost and scheduling, but there are others such as reliability
improvement, permitting, environmental impact, and electromagnetic field limitations.
Our subjective evaluation of the six alternatives considered is presented in Table I on
the following page. Each alternative is assigned a rating on a scale from 1 to 10 for each
of the factors listed. A must value of 10 is assigned to the alternative or alternatives
ranked highest for each evaluation factor. The other alternatives are then ranked in
comparison to the highest ranked one. Each evaluation factor is also assigned a
numerical weight that defines its relative importance with respect to the other factors.
Weights range from 1 to 10 with the most important evaluation factor assigned a weight
oflD.
The estimated cost of each alternative is also included in the table but is not part of
the subjective evaluation.
The cost estimates show that Alternative No.1, the overhead line along Alton Road,
is the least expensive. Alternative No.2 is the least expensive when compared to other
underground and submarine cable Construction alternatives.
Our estimates were prepared using information provided by contractors and
vendors in the South Florida area. We also relied on Westem Area Power
Administration's (W AP A) Conceotual Planning and Budget Cost Estimating Guide.
The guide provides per mile costs for overhead and underground transmission line
construction. Where necessary, old construction, material, and equipment prices were
updated using the industry accepted Handy - Whitman Index of Public Utility
Construction Costs published by Whitman. Requardt and Associates, LLP; Engineers
- Consultants.
In the evaluation section of Table-I, the evaluation factors listed are those considered
most relevant to the purpose of this report. Reliability improvements is a factor that
indicates the level of reliability that can be expected from the different line designs for
each Alternative. It does not refer to the improvement in system reliability that would
result from the implementation of each Alternative. For example, generally. overhead
lines in Florida have a lower reliability than underground lines. Underground lines are
slightly less reliable than submarine line. Based on this criteria, Alternative No.6, the
CITY OF MIAMI BEACH
APRIL 9, 1998
PAGE 10 OF 15
04/09/98 THU 16:24 FAX 407 895 6486
...
5
~i
= Q..
..... u
5Q
~
~!J
'S~
.e-~
U,.O
::l
I:l...
'l>
,::
..::l '"
lI:: ~
.~ ;c
'" l:I
.~ ]
~~
F-O Q
~~
'-L, ~
1~
'" l:I
2.~
e
~
"~&II,i
'" l:l ~.
;::<1. ~
.;I... on'
_...~"".".':If')>...wt
1ft
j
:c
.f!
~ ~
~:;o :!
~.~ ~
" "a ..~... ~;
",glla""..l:~.j:
~IJ~~~~jj~
<u
-
1ft
o
U
R M lOR LAN D 0
:8~~~~~i
~~~~~~i
,.;
liI!tvt "" """"flIIt..
~;;(;jt~ill!ill!
~<D("tNIt")cr,
.... -.-4_
-~~_.""f\I
;;Ii1ii...lI'!;;:;:~
~:g'~~!!l'~ .
..N....f""4~~~
...
w..,tll!tvtvt~e
ill!ll'!~~ill!~
t.... CI) to r-.. II) CI
... ...
~~g:~;::;~c>
~~~a"t .~
t:.:..,(<i",i!!~....
~'.-lrl"N~,.l
""~V't...."....,,1:
ill!iI'!ill!~ill!ill!
'lI:I'IOOC"tNU1C')
'f"'f....,... ...-t
. ~ ' ~ fij :t
~ U; g:' ~ ~
"'It' rtt'-o&nQll.
....
V'l-Wt_ftWflttlt
ill!ill!~ill!ill!ill!
CQOOVJU")Q
.... ...
g~~Cl:lft;!il"l
o;.lI! ;:;.~;!- ~.
;::<-1;.:3 ~
ec:t.t _oft",.
""'."...". ..~.......,
ill!ill!ill!~ill!""
...."It).....~U")
II
:02
~ Ii .s i
..!C :c .~ <
~~ ~ i~
ii!";! i J!:O
8];; !~"'3
= .:3 ~ 00- .[: :a 0
~~e.~,.~~~.;
<....s~_.""~'"
J!~J1~~~
i5
B
...
...
...
'"
'"
""
..,
o
..,
'"
g;
...
....
~
'"
~
;:::
..,
~
...
~
'"
a-
Ii
r
"
a
i
=
~
i
c
~....
=;) ~"''''R~~ii';r::l '"
0'" l;
~~
~Ot"f(t")OClClCOlilCl")
..... ...
c
~3 f1:lX)~~~~~N It>
~~ ~
~
~ an C"t ..0 S t... t-.. C":l C')
..
Q
~3 gllil~:a~~~~ f.!
0<
~..
~.,..t'ooQOO"lO\O\rr..1O
..
Q
~3 g::l~R~~~~ ~
0<
~..
~hC"")IO~QC"""'.
III
C
~S :il~:il~~~!;lflll ~
,,'"
.,~
~
~QD\OOO'oOOf""U')
as ...............
.:l
"'",
...;) ~
:.... ;;j~"l\l::l"'!lJR
~~
~
~.ONII)M"O:)
a::..... ,....~
~l:i ~"I:I'~t-..\().\Dl'
~;:;
011
.. .. .~
.. -
B ~ i ~ ..
'"
< i i:~E ~ ..
,.
.. -.. ~i '"
Q. -.::=1: ~
~.! ~t:-,g.-2> 2-
"2>"l! IC-Sw_ g
;;",:s=l!~~~i'l
3:S1C~".~~~ u
<.9 .1: i2 :c J ~
~~~ .!ld~ ...
.. a.,tLlkl ..;
;:
~'
.,;'
tit
!
F;.
...
tit
...
S
:(
c
.
tit
i
~.
...
~
11
l
~
I:l
o
1i
I:l
;;
~
l4JOll
-
"
:E
~
:lO
..
-;/n
.~
.3 I
;81
J 0'-
...:;:.
04/09/98 THU 16:25 FAX 407 895 6486
R M lOR LAN D 0
~012
new underground/submarine cable from Miramar substation to Venetian substation,
would have the greatest reliability and is therefore, rated 10. The proposed overhead
line would be the least reliable type of construction of all the other alternatives. It is
rated 4.
Permitting is evaluated from the point of view of which alternative would require
the least effort to obtain the required permits. Because of the environmentally sensitive
areas within the Miami Beach city limits that any underground or submarine
construction will require extensive pennitting from the FDEP and other state and local
authorities. For this reason, Alternative No.1 is rated highest. It will require the lowest
effort in securing the required permits since it will be located on public right-oi-way.
Environmental impact refers to the permanent impact each alternative will make on
the environment. The highest rating goes to the alternative that will have the lowest
impact on the environment. Alternative No.2 will be installed underground and all the
soil disturbance and construction problems associated with the initial construction of
the line will disappear once the line is installed and the trench is backfilled. The
overhead line, Alternative No.1, will leave a significant visual impact on the
environment. Submarine construction can create a greater impact on the environment
than an underground line because the sea, river, or lake bottom is disturbed during the
installation of the cable.
Electromagnetic fields, while not a new concern within the electric utility industry,
have become more prominent public concern during the past 10 to 15 years. Typically,
overhead distribution lines generate the strongest electric a.nd magnetic fields. The
increased height of transmission line conductors reduces the strength of magnetic and
electric fields they produce at ground level. Transmission lines usu~y carry lower
currents so they produce weaker magnetic field than distribution lines. The State of
Florida has established maximum allowable magnetic field strengths that can be
produced by transmission lines at the edge of the right-of-way. However, those
guidelines do not apply to 69-kV lines. Underground and submarine cables do not
produce significant levels of electric or magnetic field strengths. The earth or water
covering, the cable shielding and in some cases the metallic conduits mitigate any
electric or magnetic fields produced by underground or submarine cables.
Consumers' interest refers to the impact on home and property values resulting
from the construction of each alternative. It also accounts for negative impact on public
property as a result of constructing the new line. The alternatives resulting in the least
amount of impact is Alternative No.2. It is a simple Ul)derground line requiring
minimal excavation and will be completely out of site once installed. For this reason it
is rated the highest of all the alternatives. The overhead line will result in the most
impact to the consumers. In some cases overhead lines close to homes have decreased
significantly their market values.
Public relations refers to how the project will be accepted by the general public.
Typically, overhead lines are the least accepted. In this case, Alternative No. 2
represents the least objectionable alternative and is ranked the highest
CITY OF MIAMI BEACH
APRIL 9,1998
PAGE 12 OF 15
04/09/98 THU 16:26 FAX 407 895 6486
R M lOR LAN D 0
~013
Ease of maintenance relates to how quickly the line can be restored when the line
has been damaged. While underground lines usually experiences less problems over
their expected life, they are much more difficult to repair. Cable splices require more
time to install and are more expensive. Locating a problem in an underground cable is
much more complicated than with an overhead line. Overhead lines can be inspected
visually and can be worked from a bucket truck parked on the side of the road.
Therefor, Alternative No.1 is the highest rated with respect to maintenance.
Accessibility is interrelated with ease of maintenance. Obviously overhead lines are
more readily available than underground lines. For this reason, Alternative No. 1 is
rated the highest with respect to this evaluation factor. The lowest rated alternatives are
those involving submarine cables.
Overall, Alternative No.2 is the highest Tated. It provides the additional reliability
required causing the least impact to the environment.
Are FPL's cost estimates reasonable?
The cost estimates for the different alternatives discussed previously were
determined based on independent information obtained from vendors and contractors
serving the South Florida area. As explained previously, prices that were not current
were brought up to date using the Handy - Whitman Index of Public Utility
Construction Costs which is an industry accepted indexing service that provides a
system for up dating or back dating construction costs.
FPL's cost estimate for Alternative No.1 is $600,000. Our estimated cost for this
alternative, as shown on Table I, is $674,303 which is 12% higher than FPL's estimate.
The difference is pr~bably attributable to the differences in pricing infonnation. FPL
has access to quantity pricing through their project estimating data base. The prices we
obtained from vendors and contractors are off-the-sheif prices that tend to be higher.
FPL's cost estimate for Alternative No.2 is 53,600,000. Our estimate for this
Alternative is also shown on Table I as $4,048,012. The difference is also 12% and is due
to the same reasons as discussed previously.
We believe, FPL's cost estimates for the two alternatives are reasonable.
Is the City required to pay the differential between overhead and underground
construction?
FPL's report explains that a single contingency design is costly and is not currently
their standard design. They chose to make an exception and rebuild the substation..
serving Miami Beach in accordance with the fully redundant or single contingency
original design. The report does not indicate why or how they arrived at such a
decision. Similarly, the determination to build a the new 69-kV transmission line is also
CITY OF MIAMI BEACH
APRIL 9) 1998
PAGE 13 OF 15
04/09/98 THU 16:27 FAX 407 895 6486
R M lOR LAN D 0
I4J 014
based on single contingency design criteria - the loss of the 138-kV submarine cable.
Otherwise, the new line is not required since the existing lines provide sufficient
capacity for current load and projected future loads.
In a similar way, the original design criteria fur the transmission system in Miami
Beach was to place the lines underground, but for some reason, in this case, FPL chose
not to follow the original design criteria. Placing transmission lines underground is also
costly and not FPL's current standard design, but, except for the 1.3 mile section of 69-
kV line from Deauville substation to Normandy Beach substation, all other transmission
lines on Miami Beach are underground or submarine construction. Why did FPL
choose to deviate from the original design in this case?
Is FPL's in-service date reasonable?
The original report prepared hy FPL stated that the new 69-kV line from 40th Street
substation to Venetian substation had to be in-service by June I, 2000. However during
the City Commission meeting on March 18,1998, FPL representatives expressed a high
sense of urgency to begin designing and constructing ilie new line b~ause it had to be
in-service by June 1, 1999.
The discrepancy was explained by FPL's representatives during our March 24
meeting. FPL explained that the results of the original studies have been revised to
reflect the results of a new load growth forecast based on more recent information. The
new load growth forecast indicates the required completion date for the new
transmission line i'i now June I, 1999.
According to FPL, this change will require starting construction on the new line as
soon as possible. F~r this reason they have attributed a high sense of urgency to this
project. They anticipate a total project duxation of 18 months and stated in the
Commission meeting that a thirty day delay in the start of line design and construction
could delay the in-service date by the same amount of time. According to FPL, a thirty
day delay could result in excessive and prolonged outages in the summer of 1999.
This may be a moot point since the City Commission has delayed their approval of
the project for thirty days to review the remaining unresolved issues. However, it may
become a point of discussion at a later date and should be addressed at this time.
Load growth forecasts are based on future load information obtained from permit
applications and other such data submitted by property owners, developers and City
staff. Through various statistical methods, those estimates of future loads are converted
into a load growth forecast. Regardless of the accuracy of the forecasting tools used to
develop the load growth forecast, the overall accuracy of the results cannot be very
precise and certainly would not be accurate enough to pinpoint the requireu in-service
date for the line to a less than thirty day window.
While there is a sense of urgency associated with this project, the June 1, 1999, date
may not be as firm as FPL indicates. Unless there are other more compelling reasons,
CITY OF MIAMI BEACH
APRIL 9, 1998
PAGE 14 01' l~
04/09/98 THU 16:27 FAX 407 895 6486
R M lOR LAN D 0
~015
that FPL has not provided to the City, it is not possible, based on norma1load growth
forecasts, to determine the precise moment in the future when new or additional
capacity must be available. There are typically a "best<ase" scenario and a "worst-
case" scenario that define a range of time during which system modifications are
required. A thirty day period is too short a time period and not a realistic interpretation
of the results obtained from a load growth forecast.
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Our analysis indicates that to maintain a fully redundant (single contingency
reliability) service to the southernmost area of Miami Beach, additional transmission
capacity will be required. We have also concluded Ulat FPL is not required by any state
agency, statute or rulings from the FPSC to place any new or replacement transmission
or distnbution lines underground.
On the other hand, at FPL' 5 discretion. it can elect to place new or replacement
facilities underground at their expense. They have done this recently at other locations
in the Miami Beach area.
Our independent cost estimates confirm that the proposed overhead transmission
line is the most cost effective alternative for providing the additional transmission
capacity needed to maintain the single contingency reliability criteria in serving south
Miami Beach. Furthermore, the proposed underground line alternative proposed by
FPL is the least expensive of all the underground or submarine alternatives investigated.
Since it is within FPL's discretion to place the new line underground a,nd all existing
transmission lines within the Miami. Beach City limits are underground, we recommend
the City formally request FPL to place the new 69-kV line underground at FPL'g sole
expense to match the existing line design criteria and construl.1ion practices within the
City.
CITY OF MIAMI BEACH
APRIL 9, 1998
PAGE 15 OF 15
04/09/98 THU 16:28 FAX 407 895 6486
CITY OF MIAMI BEACH
ApR.lL 9, 11198
R M lOR LAN D 0
Appendix
PAGE 16 OF 16
@016
04/09/98 THU 16:28 FAX 407 895 6486
R M lOR LAN D 0
I4J 017
REQUEST FOR INFORMATION
FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT TRANSMISSION SYSTEM UPGRADE
I) What is the justification for the line?
2) What is the existing load? What is the project load by the year 2000?
3) What are cost estimates based on? Assumptions.
4) What options did FP&L look at?
5) What is FP&L's position on underground of transmission lines? When did it change?
6) Why did FP&L decide notto upgrade existing lines?
7) Is there legal justifiCation that allows FP&L to go overhead? PSC/State.
8) How does FP&L determine least cost alternative?
9) How long do you expect existing lines to last?
I 0) How old are they?
II) Clarification of required completion date. Is it June 1999 or June 2000, as indicated in FP&L's
Miami Beach Study?
04/09/98 rRY l~:~~ f;~ !QZ ~~~ ~1~~
:/
-"
R H lOR LAN D 0
&VnUA U~~AWQA~ OCA'~~~~
~018
IWaIU"'llio
1.
Q.
Wl1at is the justification for the line?
A. The line is needed for capacity and rcliabilir:, improvement.
2.
Q.
What is the existing load? What is the projec:t load by the year 19997
A. 1997 metered load was 190 MW. 1999 forecast load is 219MW.
3.
Q.
What are cost estimates based on? Assumptions?
A. The overhead transmission cost estimates are based on the use of single pole concrete structures with polymer po3t
insulators and a conductor ampacity requirement of 1455 amps.
The underground tranamiuion cost estimatc5 are based on the avera~e cost of submittals made by
vendors/contractors for overland mutes (absent any soil studiea) uring both pipe lype and XLPE construction.
4. Q. M What options did FPL look at?
A. Overhead: 2 routes, (A) From Venetian Substation: WestA~ south to Dade Blvd., northeast (0 Pine Tree Dr~
north on Pine Tree Dr. and Sheridan Ave. (folJowing FPL overl1ead distributionJceder) to 40th St Substation.
(B) East from Venetian Substation to Alto Rd., nOrth along the east side of AJtoIJU:I. (west side of golf course) to
Chase Ave., eBSt and north along the south and west sides of Oue Ave. (foJloWing FPL ovechClld distribution
feeder) to 40th St.. east long north side of 40th SL to 40th 8t. Substation.
Underground: (A) Essential same route as (B) overhead; suggest allernative using 34th St. and Royal Palm Ave.
in lieu of Chase Ave. and 40th St. (portion Wl.'oSt ofRayal Palm Ave.). (B) From Venetian Substation: north to
Sunset Lake (bay), follow water parallel to moreline ill bay/canal Dortb to 40th St. (no subaqueous studies), east to
40th St. Substation along north side of 40dt St.
5.
Q.
What is FPL's position on underground of transmission lines? When did it change?
A. FPL is obligated to provide its cusCDmen willl reliable, low cost electrical seei~. Current electric utility industry
technology and FPL standards pennit FPL 10 build overhead transmissiou.1io1lS which meet this obligation to
serve. Thie has always been PPL's standard for traosmission Unes. If a request is made to deviate from this
standard (underground) the requesting party pays for the costs of doviating from this standard.
6.
Q.
Why did FPL decide not to upgrade existiDg lines?
A. The most efficient project based on cost, capac:.i!!, .reliability, and feasibility is the recommended project
8.
Q.
How does FPL determine least cost alternatives?
A. Cost estimates, based on FPL's design standards, ~ pR;parcd by transmission design experts.
9.
Q.
How long do we expect the existing lines to last?
A. Based on historical operating data of the underground pipe cables in the Miami Beach area, FPL expects an
operating life span range of 80 to 160 years.
10. Q.
How old are they?
A. The existing transmission lines on Miami Beach all exceed 30 years of age.
11. Q.
Clarification ofrequin:d completion date.
A. lune 2000 was the required dare in the original Miami Beach planning study. The June 1999 date i3 a Icviscd
date based upon updated information.
03/27/98 FRI 11:27 lTX/RX NO 8184] ~002
04/09/98 . THU 16:29 FAX 407 895 6486
I J.UI'~ .1:>>: 4!l r'll 56~ 694 42&2
. . _","._"H ........,_.__..__.._..__ .........__.....__k ___
R M lOR LAN D 0
POWRR DELIVERY SERVICES
1d.1019
airou:.!
-
I=PL
P.O. 8a_14000. Juno Be.dI, Fl 334CB-042lI
March 3', 1998
Frank Alonso
Resource Management International. Inc,
3113 Lawton Road, The Carr Building, Suite 130
Orlando, FL 32803-3619
Dear Frank:
The answers to your two pending questions are as follows:
1. Q, What level do we allow our underground transmission cables to be loaded
to?
A. FPL's operational philosophy Is to not allow underground transmission
cables to be loaded In excess of their nominal ampacity rating.
2. Q. What Is FPL's policy for replacing existing underground transmission lines
in the future?
A. In the f~re, the alternative chosen for the replacement of an existing
underground transmission line will depend upon the available technology,
environmental factors. and regulations and statutes in effect at the time
replacement Is required. . '-
Please call me at (561} 694-3902 should you have any questions.
Sincerely,
0/J~ ~ .,~.
Jeffrey R. Young
Power Delivery Project Manager
JRY Inmb
cc: Julio Grave de Paralta
.... ff'l 61'0." ,,,..,,,,a..y
03/31198 TOE 14:50 [TX/RX NO 8226] ~002
CITY OF MIAMI BEACH
OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY
MEMORANDUM
FROM:
Julio Grave de Peralta
Engineering and Construction Management Director
Raul J. Aguila tJC\~
First Assistant city AttoJiiey
TO:
SUBJECT:
PROPOSED FPL TRANSMISSION SYSTEM UPGRADEIUNDERGROUND
UTILITY LINE
DATE:
April 8, 1998
Pursuant to your request, this memorandum is provided pursuant to the ongoing negotiations
between the City and FPL with regard to the installation of a new transmission line that will run
between 41 st Street and the area of 20th Street and W est Avenue. While FPL is planning an
overhead installation, the Administration has requested that this line be placed underground.
Concurrent with these negotiations, the City-wide underground conversion of electric lines has also
been an ongoing matter of discussion.
FPL has advised the City that it is only required to implement the lowest cost alternative of
the installation of lines. In the case of the ongoing negotiations for the aforestated new transmission
line, an overhead installation is the less costly alternative; the City therefore would have to pay for
the cost differential for the underground installation of this line. You requested that the Legal
Department provide you with an opinion as to whether FPL is legally justified in seeking the least
costly alternative and, additionally, whether the City can compel FPL to pay for the additional cost
of undergrounding the proposed transmission line.
My initial research has been based upon an overview of case law in the State of Florida,
regulations promulgated by the Public Service Commission, as well as conversations with City
Attorneys in other municipalities currently dealing with the underground utility issue including the
City of Coral Gables, Sunny Isles, Jupiter, and Key Biscayne.
In Florida Power Cor:poration v. Seminole Countv, 579 So.2d 105 (Fla. 1991), the Supreme
Court of Florida held that the jurisdiction of the Public Service Commission to regulate rates and
services of public utilities precluded the authority of cities and counties to require an electric utility
to place its lines underground. In that case, FPC brought an action against Seminole County and the
City of Lake Mary against the enforcement of ordinances which required it to underground its
overhead power lines, which were along a right-of-way of road which was to widened. The case
stated in pertinent part
Thus, the Public Service Commission is vested with the authority to
require conversion of distribution lines to underground where
"feasible" if the Commission finds this to be "cost effective."
Permitting cities or counties to unilaterally mandate the conversion
of overhead lines to underground would clearly run contrary to the
legislative intent that the Public Service Commission have regulatory
authority over this subject. [Florida Power Cor:poration v. Seminole
County at p. 108]
The Florida Power Cor:poration case affirmed the jurisdiction of the Public Service Commission to
regulate rates and services of public utilities, preempting the authority of the City and County to
require an electric utility to place its lines underground. The case recognized that while the authority
given to cities and counties in Florida is broad, both the constitution and the statutes recognize that
cities and counties have no authority to act in areas that the legislature has preempted. See also, e.g.,
Art. VIII, S l(t), leg), 2(b), Fla. Const.; SI25.01, 166.021, Fla. Stat. (1989); Tribune Company v.
Cannella, 458 So.2d 1075 (Fla. 1984), appeal dismissed subnom.; Deperte v. Tribune Company, 471
U.S. 1096, 105 S.Ct. 2315, 85 L.Ed.2d 835 (1985); Speer v. Olson, 367 So.2d 207 (Fla. 1978).
In similar negotiations with city attorneys in other municipalities currently negotiating with
FPL on the issue of conversation to underground utilities, FPL has consistently taken the position
that the additional costs from overhead to underground must be borne by the governmental entity
seeking the conversion. I have also reviewed the City's current Franchise Agreement with FPL and
fmd no requirement mandating conversion of overhead utilities to underground utilities, nor is there
an express provision as to the apportionment of cost for same to the utility company. Therefore it
is my opinion that the issue of the additional cost from overhead to underground of the transmission
system at issue here remains a point of negotiation between the City and FPL. At this time I find
no legal authority which ~ould obligate FPL to pay for this additional cost.
Should you have any questions or comments regarding the above, please do not hesitate to
contact me.
RJA \kw
F:IA TTOIAGURIMEMOS\FPLLINES.1GP
cc: Murray H. Dubbin, City Attorney
2
CITY OF MIAMI BEACH
1700 Convention Center Drive, Miami Beach, FL 33139
http:\\ci.miami-beach.f1.us
Finance Department
Telephone 673-7446
Facsimile 673-7795
MEMORANDUM
DATE: April 15, 1998
TO: Julio Grave de Peralta, Public Works Director
FROM: Trish Walker, Finance Di~or
SUBJECT: Financing Options for ,Yn1~~ Utilities
If the City Commission deci~ to participate in the installation of an underground
transmission line by FPL to provide the required capacity for the City there are a number
of options for financing the cost of such a project. They are as follows:
Option 1 - FPL has advised that they will participate with the City in the financing of this
project by loaning the funds to us at a competitive tax exempt interest rate.
Based on our research FPL extended funds to the City of Jupiter in the
amount of $1.2 million over a four year period at 3.75%.
Option 2 - The City could propose a General Obligation Bond issue. This project along
with other non-revenue generating public purpose projects prioritized from
the CIP process could be packaged for an additional tax exempt general
obligation bond issue.
Option 3 - The City co.uld request a tax exempt loan from either the Sunshine State or
Gulf Breeze municipal bond pools.
Additionally, a special taxing District or Special Assessment Area was considered,
however, the benefit of the increased capacity must be allocated to the properties that
receive the benefit. As this transmission line increases the capacity for the City, it would
be appear that the allocation of this benefit to specific properties would be most difficult.
I would recommend that Options 1-3 be considered and the most cost effective method be
selected based on the amount of funding required and the interest rates available to the
City at the time the funding is required.