jurisdictional) for the 2018 depreciation reserve excess half-year impact. An additional adjustment to increase rate base should also be made to reflect OPC witness adjustment of $.615 million ($.615 million jurisdictional) for Schultz’s the 2018 storm hardening plant. (Smith, Pous, Schultz) AARP: No position. FEA: FEA adopts the position of OPC. FIPUG: Adopt position of OPC. FRF: Agree with OPC. Larsons: The Larsons agree with and adopt preliminary position on this issue. OPC’s SFHHA: proposed Accumulated Depreciation for the 2018 test year should be FPL’s reduced by $294.247 million, consistent with SFHHA witness Kollen’s recommendations, as set forth in his testimony and Exhibit LK-27. SFHHA also supports additional reductions to proposed Accumulated Depreciation as FPL’s recommended by OPC. Sierra Club adopts position. Sierra Club: OPC’s Walmart: Walmart takes no position. Staff: Staff has no position pending evidence adduced at the hearing. ISSUE proposed adjustments to move certain CWIP projects from base rates FPL’s to the Environmental Cost Recovery Clause appropriate? FPL: Yes, proposed adjustments to move CWIP balances associated with FPL’s Commission approved ECRC projects from rate base to clause is appropriate. The adjustment removes these projects from CWIP in rate base and reflects them in ECRC throughout its lifecycle. (Ousdahl) OPC: No. proposed adjustments to move certain CWIP projects from base rates FPL’s to the ECRC should be denied. As a general matter, and absent any countervailing consideration that would be to the detriment of customers, OPC favors placing capital items in rate base rather than in cost recovery clauses. AARP: No position. No position. FEA: FIPUG: CWIP should be removed from rate base because it is not used and useful, and it is not needed to preserve financial integrity. Further, pursuant to Rule FPL’s F.A.C. it should be removed from rate base to prevent rate shock.
jurisdictional) for the 2018 depreciation reserve excess half-year impact. An additional adjustment to increase rate base should also be made to reflect OPC witness Schultz’s adjustment of $.615 million ($.615 million jurisdictional) for the 2018 storm hardening plant. (Smith, Pous, Schultz) AARP: No position. FEA: FEA adopts the position of OPC. FIPUG: Adopt position of OPC. FRF: Agree with OPC. Larsons: The Larsons agree with and adopt OPC’s preliminary position on this issue. SFHHA: FPL’s proposed Accumulated Depreciation for the 2018 test year should be reduced by $294.247 million, consistent with SFHHA witness Kollen’s recommendations, as set forth in his testimony and Exhibit LK-27. SFHHA also supports additional reductions to FPL’s proposed Accumulated Depreciation as recommended by OPC. Sierra Club: Sierra Club adopts OPC’s position. Walmart: Walmart takes no position. Staff: Staff has no position pending evidence adduced at the hearing. ISSUE FPL’s proposed adjustments to move certain CWIP projects from base rates to the Environmental Cost Recovery Clause appropriate? FPL: Yes, FPL’s proposed adjustments to move CWIP balances associated with Commission approved ECRC projects from rate base to clause is appropriate. The adjustment removes these projects from CWIP in rate base and reflects them in ECRC throughout its lifecycle. (Ousdahl) OPC: No. FPL’s proposed adjustments to move certain CWIP projects from base rates to the ECRC should be denied. As a general matter, and absent any countervailing consideration that would be to the detriment of customers, OPC favors placing capital items in rate base rather than in cost recovery clauses. AARP: No position. FEA: No position. FIPUG: CWIP should be removed from rate base because it is not used and useful, and it is not needed to preserve FPL’s financial integrity. Further, pursuant to Rule F.A.C. it should be removed from rate base to prevent rate shock.
06885-2016_16-0341.ord.docx