The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My Public Portal AboutFPL Ltr to PSC April 20090 FPL Florida Power & Light Company, 215 S. Monroe St., Suite 810, Tallahassee, FL 32301 April 10, 2009 -VIA HAND DELIVERY - Ms. Ann Cole Commission Clerk Florida Public Service Commission 2540 Shumard Oak Blvd. Tallahassee, FL 32399-0850 Re: Docket Nos. 080244 -EI and 070321-E1 Dear Ms. Cole: John T. Butler Senior Attorney Florida Power & Light Company 700 Universe Boulevard Juno Beach, FL 33408-0420 (561)304-5639 (561) 691-7135 (Facsimile) E-mail: john_butier@fpl.com Enclosed please find an original and seven (7) copies of Florida Power & Light Company's ("FPL") Notice of Intent to Request Confidential Classification of certain information responsive to the Municipal Underground Utilities Consortium's First Set of Interrogatories to FPL. 5639. If there are any questions regarding this transmittal, please contact me at 561 -304 - Sincerely, John T. Butler Enclosures cc: Counsel for parties of record (w/o encl.) an FPL Group company BEFORE THE FLORIDA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION In re: Petition for approval of underground Conversion tariff revisions, by Florida Power & Light Company. In re: Petition for approval of 2007 revisions to Underground residential and commercial Distribution tariff, by Florida Power & Light Company. Docket No. 080244 -EI Docket No. 070321 -EI Filed: April 10, 2009 FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY'S NOTICE OF INTENT TO SEEK CONFIDENTIAL CLASSIFICATION (REVISED) Pursuant to Section 366.093 of the Florida Statutes and Rule 25-22.006 of the Florida Administrative Code, Florida Power & Light Company (FPL) hereby files its revised Notice of Intent to Seek Confidential Classification of certain information responsive to the Municipal Underground Utilities Consortium's (MUUC's) First Set of Interrogatories to FPL (Nos. 1-15), served on FPL electronically on March 20, 2009, Interrogatory No. 15 seeks production of confidential, proprietary business information of FPL. This information is intended to be and has been treated by FPL as private and confidential and has not been publicly disclosed. FPL intends to make available to Staff the confidential version of its answer to Interrogatory No. 15. Accordingly, FPL hereby gives notice of its intent to seek confidential classification of its answer to Interrogatory No. 15, pursuant to Rule 25- 22.006(3)(a). A copy of the confidential answer to Interrogatory No. 15 is enclosed in a separate envelope marked "Confidential." Respectfully submitted, Kenneth M. Rubin, Esquire Senior Attorney John T. Butler, Esquire Managing Attorney Florida Power & Light Company 700 Universe Boulevard Juno Beach, FL 33408-0420 Telephone: (561) 691-2512 Facsimile: (561) 691-7135 By: 11 John T. Butler Fla. Bar No. 283479 -2- CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE Docket Nos. 080244 -EI and 070231 -EI I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was served by electronic delivery on the 10th day of April, 2009, to the following persons: Ralph Jaeger, Esq. Office of the General Counsel Florida Public Service Commission 2540 Shumard Oak Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0850 rjacger(a�psc.state.fl.us esavler nsc.state.fl.us Brian P. Armstrong, Esq. David G. Tucker Nabors, Giblin & Nickerson, P.A. 1500 Mahan Drive Suite 200 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Telephone: (850) 2244070 Facsimile: (850) 2244073 dtucker(@,,nenlaw.com barmstrong@ngnlaw.com MIJUC/City of Coconut Creek Thomas G. Bradford, Deputy Town Mgr c/o Town of Palm Beach, Florida 360 South County Road Palm Beach, FL 33480 Telephone: (561) 838-5410 Facsimile: (561) 838-5411 Tbradford0,TownofPalmBeach.com Robert Scheffel Wright, Esq. Jay T. LaVia, III, Esq. Young van Assenderp, P.A. 225 South Adams Street Suite 200 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Email: swrieht(alwlaw.net ilavia(i4vvlaw.net Scott E. Simpson, Esq. Korey, Sweet, McKinnon, Simpson and Vukelja Granada Oaks Professional Building 595 West Granada Boulevard, Suite A Ormond Beach, FL 32174-9448 Telephone: (386) 677-3431 Facsimile: (386) 673-0748 simpson66(a.bellsouth.net City of South Daytona Joseph W. Yarbrough P.O. Box 214960 South Daytona, FL 32121 Telephone: (386) 322-3010 Facsimile: (386) 322-3008 ivarbroueh(asouthdaAona.org By. o T. Bu er Fla. Bar No. 283479 Ism BEFORE THE FLORIDA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION In re: Petition for Approval of Underground ) Docket No. 080244 -EI Conversion Tariff Revisions. ) In re: Petition for approval of 2007 ) revisions to underground residential and ) Docket No. 070231 -EI commercial distribution tariff, ) Filed: April 9, 2009 by Florida Power & Light Company, 1 FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY'S OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO MUUC'S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES (NOS. 1-15) AND FIRST REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS (NOS. 1-2) Florida Power & Light Company ("FPL") submits the following Objections and Responses to the Municipal Underground Utilities Consortium's ("MUUC") First Set of Interrogatories (Nos. 1-15) and First Request for Production of Documents (Nos. 1-2). I. General Objections. FPL objects to each and every discovery request, to the extent it calls for information protected by the attomey-client privilege, the work product doctrine, the accountant -client privilege, the trade secret privilege, or any other applicable privilege or protection afforded by law, whether such privilege or protection appears at the time response is first made or is later determined to be applicable for any reason. FPL in no way intends to waive any such privilege or protection. The nature of the any such document(s) will be described in a privilege log filed/prepared by FPL. FPL objects to providing information that is proprietary, confidential business information without provisions in place to protect the confidentiality of the information. FPL in no way intends to waive claims of confidentiality. 1 FPL objects to each discovery request and any instructions that purport to expand FPL's obligations under applicable law. FPL is a large corporation with employees located in many different locations. In the course of its business, FPL creates numerous documents that are not subject to Florida Public Service Commission or other governmental record retention requirements. These documents are kept in numerous locations and frequently are moved from site to site as employees change jobs or as business is reorganized. Therefore, it is possible that not every relevant document may have been consulted in developing FPL's responses to the discovery requests. Rather, these responses provide all the information that FPL obtained after a reasonable and diligent search conducted in connection with these discovery requests. To the extent that the discovery requests propose to require more, FPL objects on the grounds that compliance would impose an undue burden or expense on FPL. FPL objects to each discovery request to the extent that it seeks information that is not relevant to the subject matter of this docket and is not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. FPL objects to each and every discovery request to the extent it is vague, ambiguous overly broad, imprecise, or utilizes terms that are subject to multiple interpretations but are not properly defined or explained for purposes of such discovery requests. FPL expressly reserves and does not waive any and all objections it may have to the admissibility, authenticity or relevancy of the information provided in its responses to MUUCs discovery requests. II. Responses A. First Set of Interrogatories (Nos. I-15). Pursuant to Rule 28-106.106, Florida Administrative Code and Rule 1.340, Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, attached hereto are FPL's 2 answers to MUUC's First Set of Interrogatories (Nos. 1-15), consistent with its prior objections, together with the affidavit(s) of the person(s) providing said answers. B. First Request for the Production of Documents (Nos. 1-2). Pursuant to Rule 28- 106.106, Florida Administrative Code and Rule 1.350, Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, and consistent with its prior objections, FPL will make available to MUUC the non -confidential documents responsive to MUUC's First Request for Production of Documents Nos. 1 through 2 at FPL's offices located at 215 South Monroe St. Suite 810, Tallahassee, FL, 32301 (850-521- 3900). The confidential documents responsive to No. 2 are being filed with a Request for Confidential Classification. Respectfully submitted, John T. Butler Managing Attorney Florida Power & Light Company 700 Universe Boulevard Juno Beach, FL 33408 Telephone: (561) 304-5639 Facsimile: (561) 691-7135 By: /s/John T. Butler John T. Butler Fla. Bar No. 283479 K CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE Docket Nos. 080244-E1 and 070231 -EI I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was served by electronic delivery on the 9h day of April, 2009, to the following:, to the following persons: Ralph Jaeger Office of the General Counsel Florida Public Service Commission 2540 Shumard Oak Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0850 riaener(a.psc.state.fl.us esavlerftsc.state.fl.us Brian P. Armstrong, Esq. David G. Tucker Nabors, Giblin & Nickerson, P.A. 1500 Mahan Drive Suite 200 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Telephone: (850) 2244070 Facsimile: (850) 2244073 dtucker(a ngnlaw.com barmstrona(d),nanlaw.com MUUC/City of Coconut Creek Thomas G. Bradford, Deputy Town Mgr c/o Town of Palm Beach, Florida 360 South County Road Palm Beach, FL 33480 Telephone: (561) 838-5410 Facsimile: (561) 838-5411 Tbradfordna.TownofPalmBeach.com Robert Scheffel Wright Jay T. LaVia, M Young van Assenderp, P.A. 225 South Adams Street Suite 200 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Email: swriehtna.wlaw.net jlavia(a)wlaw.net Scott E. Simpson, Esq. Korey, Sweet, McKinnon, Simpson and Vukelja Granada Oaks Professional Building 595 West Granada Boulevard, Suite A Ormond Beach, FL 32174-9448 Telephone: (386) 677-3431 Facsimile: (386) 673-0748 simnson66na.bellsouth.net City of South Daytona Joseph W. Yarbrough P.O. Box 214960 South Daytona, FL 32121 Telephone: (386) 322-3010 Facsimile: (386) 322-3008 ivarbrough(@,souflidaytona.org 4 By: Is/John T. Butler John T. Butler Fla. Bar No. 283479 Florida Power & Light Company Docket No. 070231•El MUUC 1st Set of Interrogatories in Consolidated Dckt. Interrogatory No. 1 Page 1 of 1 M Referring to Exhibit TRK -2 to the testimony of Thomas R. Koch, please answer the following: a. Please explain the differences between the values shown in the tables on pages 1-3 of 23 and the values shown in the comparable analysis identified as "FAC 25-6.078 - URD Underground v. Overhead Operational Cost Differential" that FPL originally provided in Docket No. 070231 -EI. b. Please explain in detail the basis for the Underground Capital Expenditures shown on pages 2-3 of 23 of Exhibit TRK -2. c. Is it correct that these Underground Capital Expenditure values are based on averages for all of FPL's underground distribution facilities, as shown for the years 2003 through 2007, on pages 14 of 23 and 15 of 23 of Exhibit TRK -2? d. With regard to the Vegetation Management calculations shown on page 13 of 23 of Exhibit TRK -2: (i) Please explain in detail the basis for the 50% reduction in Vegetation Management costs attributed as an "Adjustment for FPL Policies (e.g., RTRP, etc.)" at line 143 on page 13 of 23. (ii) Please identify all such "FPL Policies" that FPL would assert justify this 50% Adjustment factor, including the proportion of the 50% Adjustment factor that, in FPL's or Mr. Koch's opinion, each policy contributes to the Adjustment factor. (iii) Please identify and provide any analyses, calculations, workpapers, or the like that show how this 50% Adjustment factor was arrived at. (iv) Please state any assumptions relating to this 50% Adjustment factor. e. What is meant by the term "Non-P&W" on page 12 of 23 of Exhibit TRK -2? f. (i) Please explain why FPL's expenses in Account 593, Maintenance - Overhead Line for the years 2006 and 2007 were so much greater than for the years 2003 through 2005. (ii) Do the greater cost values in 2006 and 2007 reflect FPL's implementation of its Storm Secure Plan and storm hardening initiatives that FPL announced in January 2006? 1` a. The only difference is the values results from the change in the discount rate. b. FPL used a 5 -year average of its actual, historical underground capital expenditures. To aid transparency, the analysis started with the total distribution underground costs reported in FPL's FERC Form 1. Adjustments were made to this total to remove costs not associated with operating the facilities included under the rule (e.g., installation costs for new growth which are already reflected in the pre -operational cost differential). These calculations are shown on pages 14 and 15 of 23 of Exhibit TRK -2. c. See FPL's response to Question l.b. d. (i) There are two basic reasons. First, only limited vegetation is typically present in residential utility easements when new overhead facilities are constructed. By contrast, well-established neighborhoods tend to have higher tree density. Therefore, green field developments will have lower than average vegetation management requirements. Second, over the past several years and particularly since the 2004-2005 storm seasons, FPL has developed policies and programs which it believes could reasonably reduce vegetation management costs by 50% for new, green field -constructed, overhead lines compared to existing overhead lines (ii) FPL has an integrated set of multiple vegetation policies and programs. FPL does not track the effect of each individually. a. Design Arborists — FPL's arborists participate during the design phase of new overhead line construction to identify any existing trees that conflict with the new facilities. They then work with the customer/developer to effect any needed removals. b. Right Tree -Right Place Program (RTRP) — RTRP is an aggressive communication program which includes information to educate our customers on the importance of placing trees in the proper location. This information is provided to residential customers, developers/builders, and municipalities through a variety of distribution channels (e.g. brochures, bill inserts, web -sites, direct customer contacts, etc). c. FPL has also initiated more aggressive practices for removing trees in conflict with its overhead facilities which cannot be effectively trimmed in conformance with arborist standards. (ii) See FPL's response to Question Ld.(ii). (iii) See FPL's responses to Questions l.d.(i) and l.d.(ii). e. Non -Pole & Wire. These calculations compute the adjustment percentage used to remove the supervision and engineering expenses related to the O&M costs not included under the rule. f. It is to be expected that there will always be year-to-year variances in expenses, which are driven by many factors. Dampening the effect of this natural variation is the main reason why the analysis uses 5 -year averages. The increases in Account 593 for the years 2006 and 2007 vs. the years 2003-2005 are primarily the result of. (1) 2004 and 2005 expenses being lower than they normally would have been due to shifting resources, and their associated costs, to support hurricane restoration efforts; and (2) beginning in 2006, higher expenses due to make-up work deferred as a result of the prior years' storms plus costs associated with implementing FPL's new pole inspection program, vegetation management program, and hardening plan. Florida Power & Light Company Docket No. 070231 -EI MUUC let Set of Interrogatories In Consolidated Dckt. Interrogatory No. 2 Page 1 of 1 al With regard to Exhibit TRK -4 to Mr. Koch's testimony: a. Is it correct that the only substantial difference between the spreadsheets previously provided as "FAC 25-6.115 -Underground v. overhead Operational Cost Differential -O&M" is the different discount rate used in TRK4? b. There is a small difference in the Total Adjustments shown in line 45 of page 6 of 17 of Exhibit TRK -4 as compared to the value shown in the same location in the original document. Which value is correct? c. Is it correct that no adjustment factor such as that used on page 13 of 23 of Exhibit TRK -2 was used in Exhibit TRK -4 with regard to vegetation management cost differentials for underground conversions? d. With regard to Exhibit TRK -4, please explain why FPL applied the Mileage Ratio adjustment to the feeder tree -trimming cycle. Was it because the $73,825,144 value includes tree -trimming costs for both feeders and laterals? e. Please explain and show the calculations for the dollar values shown in line 145 on page 10 of 17 of Exhibit IRK -4, i.e., the $73,825,144 value in the Feeder column and the $75,205,991 value shown in the "Fdr & Lats" column. A. a. Yes. b. TRK -4. C. Yes. d. Yes. e. These estimates come from FPL's Tree Trim Model and are the product of a large number of multi -variant optimization calculations. The modeling is done at the circuit level using variables such as: historical trim costs; last trim date; vegetation -related interruption data, contractor resource availability; labor premiums and overtime rates, storm restoration data, etc. Added to these direct field costs is approximately $2.5-3.0 million for staff -related expenses. Florida Power & Light Company Docket No. 070231 -EI MUUC list Set of Interrogatories in Consolidated Dckt. Interrogatory No. 3 Page 1 of 1 With regard to the spreadsheet submitted by FPL in Docket No. 060150 -EI, titled "Government Adjustment Factor V. Storm Restoration Costs" (copy attached), please state the approximate percentage of FPL's service area that was impacted by one or more storms in 2004 and 2005? Will FPL agree that approximately 100 percent of its service area was impacted by at least one storm in either 2004 or 2005? AL Essentially every portion of FPL's territory was impacted by at (east one storm event during 2004-2005. See FPL's response to Question 3 above. Florida Power & Light Company Docket No. 070231 -El MUUC 1st Set of Interrogatories In Consolidated Dckt Interrogatory No. 4 Page 1 of 1 N On pages 6 and 8 of Exhibit TRK -9, there are two parenthetical notations, "(a)" and "(b)" that appear to refer to a footnote or to some other explanatory information. Please explain what these notations indicate. A. These refer to the respective allocation percentage calculations found on page 9 of 17, lines 104-126. Florida Power & Light Company Docket No. 070231 -EI MUUC 1st Set of Interrogatories In Consolidated Dckt Interrogatory No. 5 Page 1 of 1 El This question refers to Exhibit TRK -4 and also to the Staff's data request No. 17 from its July 31, 2008 data requests. Is it correct that the percentages shown in lines 124-125 on page 9 of 17 of Exhibit TRK -4 are the percentages used to allocate or apportion the costs in Accounts 580, 588, 590, 595, and 598 between Overhead and Underground costs? If not, please answer the following: a. Please explain in detail how EEL made the allocations of the values in the distribution operation and maintenance accounts that contain both overhead and underground costs. b. Please provide specific numeric calculations that show how the values in each of Accounts 580, 588, 590, 595, and 598 were allocated into the Underground CIAC-Related 0&M and the Overhead CIAC-Related 0&M categories. Fc! Yes. a. N/A. b. N/A. Florida Power & Light Company Docket No. 070231 -EI MUUC 1st Set of Interrogatories In Consolidated Dckt. Interrogatory No. 6 Page 1 of 1 Cq Please provide or state the number of crews, including both FPL crews and contractor crews, that FPL had working on; a. overhead distribution operation and maintenance in each of the years 2007 and 2008; b. underground distribution operation and maintenance in each of the years 2007 and 2008; C. overhead distribution construction in each of the years 2007 and 2008; and d. underground distribution construction in each of the years 2007 and 2008. A. FPL's crew sizes and make -ups vary from day-to-day depending on the scope of work needed to be performed. Additionally, none of the crews work exclusively on overhead or underground facilities. Finally, crews may work either construction or maintenance on any given day. Florida Power & Light Company Docket No. 070231 -EI MUUC 1st Set of Interrogatories in Consolidated Dckt. Interrogatory No. 7 Page 1 of 1 Q. Do FPL's overhead distribution crews (including both FPL crews and contractor crews engaged by FPL) work exclusively on overhead facilities? If not, please state the approximate percentage Of such crews' time that is spent on overhead work and the approximate percentage that is spent on underground work. A. No. See FPL's response to Question 6. For the reasons identified previously, FPL does not track the percentage of time spent on overhead v. underground work. Florida Power & Light Company Docket No. 070231 -EI MUUC 1st Set of Interrogatories in Consolidated Dckt Interrogatory No. 8 Page 1 of 1 Iq Do FPL's underground distribution crews (including both FPL crews and contractor crews engaged by FPL) work exclusively on underground facilities? If not, please state the approximate percentage of such crews' time that is spent on underground work and the approximate percentage that is spent on overhead work. A See FPL's response to Questions 6 and 7. Florida Power & Light Company Docket No. 070231 -EI MUUC 1st Set of Interrogatories in Consolidated Dckt. Interrogatory No. 9 Page 1 of 1 Q Please describe the typical make-up (number of crew members and functional job description) and equipment support (vehicle and other major equipment) for an overhead distribution ODM crew. A FPL's overhead crews typically are comprised of 2-3 journeymen and/or an apprentice. In general, the crew would use a truck equipped for handling the electrical material and a material trailer Florida Power & Light Company Docket No. 070231 -EI MUUC 1st Set of Interrogatories in Consolidated Uckt. Interrogatory No. 10 Page 1 of 1 19 Please describe the typical make-up (number of crew members and functional job description) and equipment support (vehicle and other major equipment) for an overhead distribution construction crew. A. See FPL's responses to Questions 6 and 9. R Please describe the typical functional job description) other major equipment) for an A. Florida Power & Light Company Docket No. 070231 -EI MUUC 1st Set of Interrogatories in Consolidated Dckt. Interrogatory No. 11 Page 1 of 1 make-up (number of crew members and and equipment support (vehicle and underground distribution 0&M crew. PPL's underground crews typically are comprised of 2 journeymen, which may include a cable splicer. In general the crew would be equipped similarly to the overhead crew, though they may also be supported by splicing van. Florida Power S Light Company Docket No. 070231 -EI MUUC 1st Set of Interrogatorles In Consolidated DckL Interrogatory No. 12 Page 1 of 1 L Please describe the typical make-up (number of crew members and functional job description) and equipment support (vehicle and other major equipment) for an underground distribution construction crew. A. See FPL's response to Questions 6 and 11. HI LIP Florida Power & Light Company Docket No. 070231 -EI MUUC 1st Set of Interrogatories in Consolidated Dckt. Interrogatory No. 13 Page 1 of 1 a.Why did FPL assume that, for underground conversion projects, pole inspection and remediation cost savings would not start until the eighth year of the study period? b. Will FPL agree that, since any given underground conversion project must be assumed to replace an OH system of average age, it would be more correct to include the first pole inspection and remediation cost savings from an underground conversion project in Year 4 (i.e., 2011 in the analyses shown in Exhibit TRK4), followed by including such pole inspection and remediation cost savings in Year 12 (2019), Year 20 (2027), and Year 28 (2035)? c. If so, please provide an updated Exhibit TRK -4 that shows this revision. a. FPL's pole inspection program is based on an 8 -year cycle. Therefore, FPL would not make the first inspection of a newly -installed pole until the 8th year. b.No. The underground conversion differential cost is based on installing a brand new underground v. hypothetical brand new overhead system. As a result, the inspection cycle begins at installation. c. N/A. Florida Power & Ught Company Docket No. 070231 -EI MUUC 1st Set of Interrogatories In Consolidated Dckt Interrogatory No. 14 Page 1 of 1 0. a. Why did FPL assume that, for underground conversion projects, vegetation management cost savings would not start until the third year of the study period? b. Will FPL agree that, since any given underground conversion project must be assumed to replace an OH system of average age, it would be more correct to include the first (feeders only) amount for vegetation management cost savings from a UG conversion project in Year 2 (2009) and every 6 years thereafter and the second (feeders and laterals) amount for vegetation management cost savings in Year 5 (2012) and every 6 years thereafter. c. If so, please provide an updated Exhibit TRK -4 that shows this revision. U a. FPL's feeders are on a 3 -year cycle. Therefore, FPL would not make the first trim of a newly -installed line until the 3rd year. b. See FPL's response to Question 13.b. C. N/A. Florida Power & Light Company Docket No. 070231 -EI MUUC 1st Set of Interrogatories in Consolidated Dckt. Interrogatory No. 15 Page 1 of 1 501 In response to the MUUC's Data Request No. 23, FPI, responded that the litigation costs that are embedded in Exhibits TRK -2 and TRK -4 include only settlements paid to or on behalf of claimants and damages awards. Please provide or state, with the understanding that EPL's response will be subject to the Confidentiality Agreement executed by the parties in June 2008, the total of (a) legal fees and costs, plus (b) expert witness fees and costs, plus (c) any and all other costs that are incurred as a result of litigation. A. FPL's response to the MUUC's Data Request No. 23 indicated that the "litigation costs" embedded in the O&M Worksheets included damage awards (i.e., verdicts) and settlements paid by FPL to or on behalf of claimants. Interrogatory #15 now asks FPL to provide other forms of costs incurred in connection with litigation. To answer this interrogatory, FPL identified the other forms of litigation costs and fees (i.e., legal fees, expert witness fees and costs, and other litigation fees and costs) paid by FPL and associated with those verdicts and settlements embedded in the O&M Worksheets. In house legal fees, though not technically "paid" by FPL, are included in the totals provided in this answer. Following this methodology, FPL has identified the following annual average total of legal fees, expert witness fees and costs, and other litigation fees and costs for the 5 -year period of 2003-2007, paid in conjunction with the verdicts and settlements referred to in this interrogatory: Litigation involving overhead facilities: $[REDACTED] Litigation involving underground facilities: $[REDACTED] AFFIDAVIT State of Florida County of Miami -Dade) THOMAS R. BCH I hereby certify that on this 9th day of April, 2009, before me, an officer duly authorized in the State and County aforesaid to take acknowledgments, personally appeared Thomas R. Koch , who is personally known to me, and he acknowledged before me that he sponsored the answer(s) to Interrogatory No(s). 1-15 from MUUC'S 151 Set of Interrogatories to Florida Power & Light Company in Docket No. 080244 -EI, and that the response(s) is/are true and correct based on his personal knowledge. In Witness Whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and seal in the State and County aforesaid as of this 9th day of April, 2009. Notary Public-, State of Florida -t_ Notary Stamp: FUrl— MONICA LYNN PADRON �Notary Public - State of Florida My Comnbelon Esplies Dec 16, 2010 Commission N DD 6201]7 BwdEd Through Natural Notary Am. BEFORE THE FLORIDA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION In re: Petition for Approval of Underground ) Docket No. 080244 -EI Conversion Tariff Revisions. 1 In re: Petition for approval of 2007 ) revisions to underground residential and ) Docket No. 070231 -EI commercial distribution tariff, ) Filed: April 9, 2009 by Florida Power & Light Company. ) FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY'S NOTICE OF SERVING OBJECTIONS AND RESPONSES TO MUUC's FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES QUOS. 1-151 AND TO MUUC'S FIRST REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS (NOS. 1-2) Florida Power & Light Company ("FPL") hereby gives notice of service of its objections and responses to the Municipal Underground Utilities Consortium's (MUUC) First Set of Interrogatories (Nos. 1-15) and to MUUC's First Request for Production of Document (Nos. 1-2) to Robert Scheffel Wright, Esq. and Jay T. LaVia, III Esquire, counsel for MUUC, on April 9, 2009. Respectfully submitted, John T. Butler, Esquire Managing Attorney Florida Power & Light Company 700 Universe Boulevard Juno Beach, FL 33408-0420 Telephone: (561) 691-2512 Facsimile: (561) 691-7135 By:_/s/John T. Butler John T. Butler Fla. Bar No. 283479 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE Docket Nos. 080244 -EI and 070231 -EI I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was served by electronic delivery on the 9s' day of April, 2009, to the following:, to the following persons: Ralph Jaeger Office of the General Counsel Florida Public Service Commission 2540 Shumard Oak Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0850 njaeger@pse.state.fl.us esayler@ysc.state.fl.us Brian P. Armstrong, Esq. David G. Tucker Nabors, Giblin & Nickerson, P.A. 1500 Mahan Drive Suite 200 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Telephone: (850) 224-4070 Facsimile: (850) 224-4073 dtucker@ ,ngnlaw.corn barmstrong@jignlaw.com MUUC/City of Coconut Creek Thomas G. Bradford, Deputy Town Mgr c/o Town of Palm Beach, Florida 360 South County Road Palm Beach, FL 33480 Telephone: (561) 838-5410 Facsimile: (561) 838-5411 TbradfordATownofPalmBeach.com Robert Scheffel Wright Jay T. LaVia, III Young van Assenderp, P.A. 225 South Adams Street Suite 200 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Email: swright(a.vvlaw.net ilavia@vvlaw.net Scott E. Simpson, Esq. Korey, Sweet, McKinnon, Simpson and Vukelja Granada Oaks Professional Building 595 West Granada Boulevard, Suite A Ormond Beach, FL 32174-9448 Telephone: (386) 677-3431 Facsimile: (386) 673-0748 simpson66(a bellsouth.net City of South Daytona Joseph W. Yarbrough P.O. Box 214960 South Daytona, FL 32121 Telephone: (386) 322-3010 Facsimile: (386) 322-3008 iyarbrougb@southdavtona org By: /s/John T. Butler John T. Butler Fla. Bar No. 283479 BEFORE THE FLORIDA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION In re: Petition for approval of underground Conversion tariff revisions, by Florida Power & Light Company. In re: Petition for approval of 2007 revisions to Underground residential and commercial Distribution tariff, by Florida Power & Light Company. Docket No. 080244 -EI Docket No. 070321 -EI Filed: April 9, 2009 FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY'S NOTICE OF INTENT TO SEEK CONFIDENTIAL CLASSIFICATION Pursuant to Section 366.093 of the Florida Statutes and Rule 25-22.006 of the Florida Administrative Code, Florida Power & Light Company (FPL) hereby files its Notice of Intent to Seek Confidential Classification of certain information responsive to the Municipal Underground Utilities Consortium's (MUUC's) First Set of Interrogatories to FPL (Nos. 1-15) and First Request for Production of Documents (Nos. 1-2), served on FPL electronically on March 20, 2009. Interrogatory Number 15 and Production of Documents Reqeust Number 2 (as it relates to Interrogatory Number 15) seek production of confidential, proprietary business information of FPL. This information is intended to be and has been treated by FPL as private and confidential and has not been publicly disclosed. Pursuant to the request of Staff, FPL is to provide Staff with copies of answers to the subject Interrogatories and documents responsive to the subject Request for Production of Documents. Accordingly, FPL hereby gives notice of its intent to seek confidential classification of its answer to Interrogatory Number 15 and documents responsive to Production of Documents Number 2 (as it relates to Interrogatory Number 15), pursuant to Rule 25-22.006(3)(a). Respectfully submitted, Kenneth M. Rubin, Esquire Senior Attorney John T. Butler, Esquire Managing Attorney Florida Power & Light Company 700 Universe Boulevard Juno Beach, FL 33408-0420 Telephone: (561) 691-2512 Facsimile: (561) 691-7135 By:_/s/John T. Butler John T. Butler Fla. Bar No. 283479 -2- CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE Docket Nos. 080244 -EI and 070231 -EI I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was served by electronic delivery on the 9s day of April, 2009, to the following nersons- Ralph Jaeger, Esq. Office of the General Counsel Florida Public Service Commission 2540 Shumard Oak Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0850 jaeger@psc.state.fl.us esayler@psc.state.fl.us Brian P. Armstrong, Esq. David G. Tucker Nabors, Giblin & Nickerson, P.A. 1500 Mahan Drive Suite 200 Tallahassee, Florida 32308 Telephone: (850) 224-4070 Facsimile: (850) 224-4073 dtucker(a,ngnlaw.com barmstronRO),nenlaw.com Robert Scheffel Wright, Esq. Jay T. LaVia, M, Esq. Young van Assenderp, P.A. 225 South Adams Street Suite 200 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Email: swright(7a.wlaw.net ilavia@wlaw.net Scott E. Simpson, Esq. Korey, Sweet, McKinnon, Simpson and Vukelja Granada Oaks Professional Building 595 West Granada Boulevard, Suite A Ormond Beach, FL 32174-9448 Telephone: (386) 677-3431 Facsimile: (386) 673-0748 simpson66Rbellsouth.net MUUC/City of Coconut Creek City of South Daytona Thomas G. Bradford, Deputy Town Mgr Joseph W. Yarbrough c/o Town of Palm Beach, Florida P.O. Box 214960 360 South County Road Palm Beach, FL 33480 Telephone: (561) 838-5410 Facsimile: (561) 838-5411 Thradford(a)TownotPalmBeach com South Daytona, FL 32121 Telephone: (386) 322-3010 Facsimile: (386) 322-3008 ivarbrough(@southdaytona.org By: /s/John T. Butler John T. Butler Fla. Bar No. 283479 IRIE