Special committee on JEA.

Let me begin by introductions, starting on my far left.

Colleen Hamsey, Council of Research.

Mary Stepopoulos, Office of General Counsel.

Brian Parks, Council Auditors Office.

Philip Peterson, Council Otter.

Jason Teal, Council Legislative Council.

Ron Salem, group two at large.

Jacoby Pittman, District 10.

Nick Allen at large group three, just visiting.

Welcome, Mr.

President Elect.

We're appreciate you being here.

We're going to have an approximate 20 to 30 minute presentation on combined cycle, and then we'll take the rest of the time with questions.

Let me swear in this Miss Brooks.

I just soon do it at the beginning, just so we're sure we cover it.

And as I indicated to her, anyone that comes up to answer any questions going forward will have to be sworn in as well.

Do you solemnly swear or form to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth on the penalties of perjury?

Thank you.

The floor is yours, Miss Brooks.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair and Committee members.

I'm going to give a presentation that was presented to the JEA board by Ricky Erickson and Julie Crawford on August 26th of 2025.

And instead of creating a new presentation for this committee, I'm going to walk through what the board saw and provide you with an update of this exciting project for the city of Jacksonville.

Sorry, starting off with a the JEA team here, the project team for the combined cycle.

I'm one of the chief champions of the project along with our chief financial officer Ted Phillips.

But I have with us today Ricky Ericston, our Chief of Electric Systems, Jim Stanson, the director of energy production, Jamila Akree, our project manager, Melinda Fisher, the director of electric systems planning, William Goodrich, our manager of resource planning, and Kevin Holbrooks, our senior director of environmental services.

This is the project team that's leading this project for the new combined cycle for the city of Jacksonville.

We're also supported by a host of consultants, Black and Beach Resource Innovations In Front Consulting, and the law firm of Sturms and Weaver with our primary attorney being Brooke Humphrey.

So part of this presentation.

Okay, I wasn't sure.

The historical generation portfolio slide is what the, you know, what for history has shown.

The chart shows JEA's electric capacity through the years, both assets that we own and operate and power purchase agreements we have with other utilities.

As you can see, there's been a lot of activity in the 2000s.

We added seven combustion turbines, which we call CTs, and converted two of those to a combined cycle at the Brandy Branch site, and we repowered north side units one and two, creating more fuel diversity.

CTs use natural gas as their main fuel source.

Looking past 2011, there was not much activity, mainly due to the decline in sales following the 2008 financial crisis, coupled with increasing energy efficiency.

There was just not a demand for additional capacity.

In fact, we had more capacity than we needed.

At that time, JEA co-owned two coal power plants with Florida Power and Light, SGRPP 1 and 2 and SHERE Unit 4.

FPL was in the period of retiring coal generation, and so that coupled with a decrease in JA's demand led to an agreement to retire SJRPP in 2018 and then the retirement of SHERE Unit 4 in 2022.

Since then, JEA has only added capacity through power purchase agreements.

We have not built new generation in 14 years.

So that's the history of our generation.

So now we're going to talk about the seasonal capacity and the reserve margin and what we need to look for in the future.

These charts represent JEA's projected capacity and reserve margin for both winter and summer.

The bars represent JA's existing resources.

Just like the previous slide, the black line shows our projected peak demand each year.

That is the maximum energy required from our customers at any point in time.

The red line is what we call the reserve margin.

It is simply 15% added to the black line.

The margin of capacity is required by the Florida Public Service Commission for all Florida electric utilities to ensure statewide reliability.

It is clear that we are short capacity in 2031.

Due to the retirement Northside 3, our 48, I guess 49-year-old, 524 megawatt natural gas and oil unit.

Looking out into the 40s, there's an even greater need for the current power purchase when the current power purchase agreements expire.

Another thing to note before we move on is that demand forecast is very conservative, only taking organic growth into account, but to the past couple of years, weather has had a larger impact on demand and sales, making it less predictable.

Last year, a hot summer and cold winter resulted in an all-time summer peak of 2,980 megawatts on July 29th of 2025, exceeding the previous summer high, which was in August of 2007.

Another data point we look at is megawatts produced in a day.

We have been tracking this since 2007, and at the top 40 peaking days in the last 18 years, six occurred in 2025, six out of 40.

And the all-time highest day was January of 2025.

All of these data points may indicate higher demand going forward.

We are also looking at potential economic development activity not included in the forecast that could also drive demand even higher.

So an integrated resource plan, a planning exercise that we do every two to three years.

The IRP, as we call it, the integrated resource plan, is a long-term planning process that that's an industry standard method of determining the best way to meet future needs.

This slide represents the history of plans and recommendations.

In every instance, a combined cycle has been included in the recommendations, specifically in the 2012 IRP.

The recommendations begin to include assessments of Northside 3 due to its age, and looking at 2019, the recommendation was clear to retire Northside 3 and replace it with an advanced class one-on-one combined cycle.

JEA did not act on this recommendation due to changes in leadership and discussions of privatization.

The 2023 IRP recommendations were identical, and JEA took steps and we're moving forward with the recommendations that's been advanced in the IRP over time.

The first step in that was we issued two requests for proposals following the 2023 IRP.

This slide discusses the first of two proposals.

We released a solicitation of what's called the Power Island Equipment Purchase, which is the equipment necessary to build a one-on-one combined cycle.

The RFP was released in September, and JA received two bids, one from GE and one from Mitsubishi.

The evaluation was completed in April of 2025, and GE was the highest ranked vendor.

You can see on the right some of G8GE's information about the turbine.

It is incredibly efficient and flexible, especially when compared to the 1977 technology.

It will be replacing.

When we discuss efficiency and electric generators, it's comparable in miles per gallon in a car.

The new turbine will be approximately 40% more efficient than Northside 3, meaning it takes much less fuel, in this case natural gas, to get the same amount of energy or miles, which translates to about $50 million per year in fuel savings alone.

Another interesting point is at the very bottom of the the materials that GE provides is that these turbines can burn up to 50% hydrogen.

And while we know that utility scale hydrogen as a fuel source is not yet feasible, this would provide an option in the future.

The second request that we put out from a proposal perspective shortly following the RFP for the self-build was that we issued another solicitation called the market test.

A market test is only required on investor-owned utilities in Florida when they need additional capacity, not municipal utilities.

However, but we chose to do a market test to make sure we were aware of all options available.

The market test essentially solicits the market to see if anyone can provide the capacity needed in the future that could have been any solicitation suggestion.

It's like a build transfer, a jointly owned asset power purchase agreements, or an asset purchase.

The solicitation was released in October of 2024, and bids were received in April 25.

Even following an extension of the response time, JA only received a proposal from one party, Florida Power and Light.

The proposal included four responses by FPL, with the first three with varying forms of power purchase agreements, and the fourth was a short-term power purchase agreement with the potential for a jointly owned generating plant.

The fourth option was not evaluated due to a lack of information.

The evaluation for the market test option was completed in July of 25 with the highest ranked response from FPL being for a 600 megawatt 30-year purchase power agreement.

So self-build versus buy.

So once the responses were evaluated, we had those two options available.

Both JEA staff and our subject matter expert Black and Veach conducted an analysis comparing the two.

This was completed in August of 2025.

When during doing such a complex and long-term analysis, there are many assumptions and considerations that go into it.

Which you can see in the boxes in the middle of the page, the analysis done in three ways.

The first is a 30-year net present value of all cost components for each option, assuming each operates exactly the same, so you can get an apples to apples comparison.

But we know that the units will not be utilized in exactly the same way, which is why then we conduct a dispatch analysis.

This is done with an advanced integrated energy model software that simulates JEA's existing resources and new additions every hour, every day for the next 30 years.

This provides an indication of how each option would be utilized within JEA's full generation portfolio.

Once the analysis is complete, the 30-year financial forecast can be completed for each of the options.

But at the end, you'll have an opportunity to answer.

Well, I have the opportunity for the SMEs to answer any questions that you have after I give the presentation.

And the transmission considerations are very important.

For the power purchase agreement option, it requires transmission improvements, both on the FPL side that they proposed, and which include their, which was included in their pricing, but also on JEA side with an estimated cost for the infrastructure transmission investment to be about $78 million dollars.

So we take the two proposals, one for self-build and the other to purchase, and we put those into a net present value calculation and analysis.

And the self-build option came out to be about 6.24 billion with the PPA's $6.18 billion.

And that's for the 30-year time horizon.

When you take all the cost into account for each option for 30 years, there's less than a 1% variance.

You can see the components of the cost vary, but there's not a substantial difference between the two.

When comparing the self-build with the PPA, the purchase power agreement, we are not only looking at cost, there's also several pros and cons for each option.

With the self-build, the first and most important is full control over dispatch and operations.

And that's probably a Ricky Ericston question if you have a question about that.

Sorry, Ricky.

But that's a very important highlighted pro.

This is also the lowest long-term cost per megawatt.

It will support JEA system reliability, and we can hedge against market volatility.

Since it will be a JEA asset, if it runs longer than 30 years, we get the benefit of the debt-free facility.

There is potential for local jobs and economic benefits, specifically through the construction of the facility.

We have the site already available, and when compared to the North Side 3, this unit will be much more efficient and have lower emissions.

There's not a risk of depending on transmission from another entity.

And like we mentioned previously, it was the potential to burn hydrogen when that market materializes.

With this option also comes high upfront capital.

There's such a high demand on turbines and other infrastructure and supply chain is a risk.

As with any large construction project, there's also schedule risk, and we would be responsible for all operating expenses all operating expenses and compliance.

Conversely, with a power purchase agreement, there's no upfront capital investment, and the pricing is fairly predictable.

The contrast would be defined.

The contract would be defined, and we would not be exposed to construction or supply chain risk.

The start date is certain since the power would be provided from an asset that's already in operation.

But with this kind of agreement, there is limited control of and operations or restricted by the contract terms.

There's a delivery risk.

Should there be an a storm event that could cause some problems with delivery?

The contract would be locked in for a fixed 30-year period.

And there's substantial, and that's a substantial part of the agreement that the fixed cost, regardless if you use the power or not.

There would also not be local economic benefit and no opportunity for future technology gains like the turbine's potential use of hydrogen.

Not noted on the slide that with an agreement for 600 megawatts of purchase power combined with an existing 406 megawatts from Vogel and F and FPL, JEA would be supplying a third of its current required capacity through power purchase agreements.

We mentioned supply chain issues in the previous slide.

There's a very high demand for combustion turbines right now due to the acceleration of data center activity.

The JEA board chose to build the proposed combined cycle.

We initially entered into a reservation agreement to keep JEA's place in line for the turbine, which is standard industry practice.

If we did not lock in our place, there was a potential for the project to be pushed out several years, increasing the risk of cost escalation in addition to the risk of not having the capacity we need to serve our customers.

So the staff formally requested that the board select the self-build option and approve a combined cycle generating facility at the former SGRPP site and delegating authority to the CEO managing director to manage all activities.

This comes from with a not to exceed approval of $1.57 billion dollars, which is the estimated full project cost in 2030 dollars.

This infrastructure investment will allow JEA to strengthen system reliability and meet future energy demands as Northside Florida, Northeast Florida grows and the energy load growth continues.

So we gave an update that that was the JEA presentation, and the board approved the project to move forward.

Then we recently, just last month at the Capital Projects Committee did it provided an update.

Some of the team members that are here today and myself gave an update to where we're at with the combined cycle.

I'll provide that same update to you today.

So our owner's engineer of record is Black and Beach, which we got under contract in August of 2025.

The equipment purchase agreement with GE was completed and executed on December 19th of 2025.

So we had talked about earlier the reservation agreement.

So the reservation agreement was to hold our spot until we got under contract, and now the contract is what controls.

The responses to the engineering procurement construction RFP that we like to call it the EPC contract was uh were due June 2nd, last the last week, so last week.

I'm trying to my days are running together.

So last week the the RFP responses were due with the target of getting a contract underway by February 2027.

Other large lead procurement items are being worked on by the project team and they're listed there.

And then one of the um the regulatory um approval process, which has been part of the discussion of late about the approvals necessary, two very important milestones happened last week on June 4th.

Um we submitted our and filed our need determination application with the Public Service Commission and our site certification application with DEP, and due to PSC procedural rules, it's anticipated that the public service commission will hold a hearing in September and issue the need determination and on November 1st of 2026.

And with that, Mr.

Chair, I think I got it under 20 minutes.

Thank you.

I appreciate that.

Let me mention that uh Vice President Gazanick Carlucci has joined us as well.

Um I'm gonna start off with some questions, and I think Mr.

Teal is going to jump in at some point, and maybe Miss Pittman will as well.

But uh I've just got some more factual type questions I want to get on out there if I can.

You're in charge of this project.

Is that correct?

I wouldn't say I'm in charge of the project.

I'm the chief champion for the project as the chief level, but we have a project team and project management team that's really the the front face of the project.

They report to you, correct?

No.

They report to Ricky Erickson.

Okay.

So ultimate decisions are Ricky's.

Is that what you're telling me?

It depends on what the decision is.

If it's an ultimate decision, like if a pricing were to change beyond the one 1.57 billion, that would be a board approval process that would go back to the board.

Um the day-to-day operational decision making would fault it to Ricky Erickson.

Okay.

Is it my understanding the turbine has been purchased?

Is that correct?

That is correct.

Okay.

Um, and you're waiting for PSC for final determination, correct?

The need for power, correct.

Um, in reviewing the board uh meeting from August 25th, there was a comment about a non-refundable deposit on the turbine.

Is that correct?

That would be correct in the the reservation agreement when we talked about the reservation agreement that was done pre-the-the final contract.

We had to put a deposit down to in order to hold our slot or our place in line for the turbine.

Can you tell me how much that was?

I cannot.

Um, we are not only under a non-disclosure agreement with GE Vernova, but we also are bound by the Florida statutes on trade secret protected items.

Um, and so the pricing and some very the very specific contract terms that GE Vernova has deemed kind of confidential, we can't talk about.

Okay, but if the project did not go forward, whatever, for whatever reason, we would lose that deposit, whatever dollar amount it is.

So there's an assignability provision in the actual contract that we can assign our position to another buyer or another party to where there may be an opportunity that we would not lose that deposit.

Might be.

Might be okay.

Okay.

And the the PSC has been um determination.

I've heard different um uh opinions on that in terms of I've heard some people say it's simply a rubber stamp, and I've heard other people tell me that um there may be entities that don't want us to get this turbine uh and would rather FPNL sell us the energy and may work against the uh the approval through the PSC.

Can you give me from your perspective the PSC determination and how how risky is that at this point?

Yeah, we've had lots of discussion with council, um Brooke Humphrey with Stearns Weaver about the the process with the the uh the knee determination, and I don't know if they use perfunctory is the right word to use, um, but the in the history of the need determination, my understanding in talking with her, there has never been um another utility that would fight against you.

Um, you know, that again that's coming from our outside council.

Um, there is anticipation that some of the the NGO groups like Sierra Club and others could um intervene into the end of the proceeding.

Um but the public service commission that the window of time based on their rules is a very short window of time.

They have to give us the knee determination with a hundred and thirty-five days, 35 or 145.

Uh one hundred and fifty days um the from the date we submitted our application.

So that's five months from now, basically.

So it's a fairly when you look at the regulatory process perspective, it's a fairly fairly short window of time that we'll know for sure.

Um I can't say never, you know, you never say never because you just don't know, but in the history of the public service commission need determinations, it doesn't appear that another utility has jumped in in opposition of a of a of an application now at the August 25th meeting, these type of issues were not discussed that the risk involved with PSC and DEP.

I went back and reviewed it that did not come up at all.

Are you aware of that?

Well, yeah, I would have been at all of those various meetings in the in the public, and but we have one-on-one discussions with our board members to talk through risk issues and some of those things and the one-on-one discussions with the board.

So even if it wasn't presented at a board meeting, um, there's discussions that were being had with the board about the the knee determination and the regulatory process.

And that's where I have a lot of concern.

Okay.

Having been through 2019, um, I know as council we have committees, those committee meetings are are streamed, the public can watch them, and the and of course our council meetings are streamed.

Um, I didn't see a a time when the public could uh watch the discussion on the PSC and DEP and how that process worked, it never came up.

Um, you might have had one-on-one meetings with your board, and I have no doubt that you did, but I in my opinion, there's an obligation, particularly for a public utility for those types of issues not only to come, it could come up at a committee meeting as long as it's streamed.

And a board meeting as long as it's streamed, and I know your board meetings are streamed, but for some reason your committee meetings were streamed under uh uh Jay Stowe, but from what I understand, it stopped soon after he left.

Is that correct?

I don't believe that we did stop screaming committee meetings.

Some of the workshops, yes, um, but I don't believe that the I'll have to check with Melissa Dalton on that as to the the streaming of the meetings, but there you know there's a a public participation element of every one of the agendas for the committees, and then at the Capitol Projects Committee, I did give a presentation about the regulatory process and where we're at in the approval process.

It is my personal feeling that any workshop committee meeting that JEA has should be streamed, that the public should be able to to look in from their home or their office or whatever it is and understand what's going on.

Uh the council does that.

Um we stream virtually everything to make sure that the public um we may go through an item uh at a council meeting that takes five minutes and though how could you have passed that with five minutes of discussion?

Well, go back to the neighborhoods meeting and you'll see you know 90 minutes of of discussion uh on that particular item.

And I I just think that's important, and I I wanted to make sure.

Now the DEP certification is that what is the risk involved in that as well?

So that's a regulatory approval process that's part of the the site certification of the siting of a new power plant.

Um, and I've got Kevin Holbrooks, our senior director of environmental is running with with that as well with um our outside counsel Brooke Humphrey.

Um again, it's the regulatory process that there's you know we believe that the outcome will be positive based upon um the the pre-application meetings that we've held, both with the public service commission and the um the with the with the state agency.

We've met them in before we filed the applications, and we're not getting any indication that there's going to be any issues.

Um the site of our public that the of the facility too is you know in the same location as the the former power plant power plant.

SGRP one s grpp one and two.

This is SGRP3 on that same um site, and that gives us an advantage as far as um you know location of the of the facility and and any concerns about the community um that could potentially come up in that process.

Okay, um next question.

Um I know that you recently met with the council members individually on um on this project, which I think is is just critically important when we're talking about 1.5 billion dollars.

Um my only comment would have been I wish it would have been done um at the time prior to approval last August versus once the project had already been approved and we started raising questions about it, um, that's just a a lot of money for this community to invest and for the legislative body not to be informed about it.

Just a just a comment from me.

Um I will stop there and I'll I'll go to Mr.

Teal.

Mr.

Teal.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Um, through the chair to Ms.

Brooks.

Um you said initially that this was the presentation that was given to the board on August 26th of 25, right?

That's correct.

And is this the exact board presentation?

Um the slides are exact, probably some of my commentary.

I may have added a couple of words, but for the most part it was exact.

Okay.

Um now what I didn't see in this presentation was the briefing memo um that was prepared for the board members.

Um is there a reason why that wasn't part of the discussion today?

No, again, we generally give the the package materials with a um a memo to the board about the the purpose of the of the presentation.

Uh the one-on-one discussions that you said uh occurred with the different board members, were all of the board members uh did they all receive that one-on-one uh meeting?

They would have, yes.

And who would have been involved from uh the staff side in those meetings?

It would have been the CEO, Vicky Cavey, um, the project team, um, some of the members of the project team, so if the finance team, um, Joe Rafano, Julie Crawford, um Ricky Erickson would have been would have participated, maybe.

Yeah, so Ricky Erickson shaking his head.

So nobody from legal.

Um legal typically doesn't sit in on those one-on-one discussions.

Periodically, if there's a specific legal concern or legal issue to be addressed.

And so if a board member during those discussions has a legal question, what would you do?

Then we would get um the legal counsel engaged and involved and have them answer the question.

So you or JEA presented to the city council uh at least to the TEU committee on a project called Water First, right?

Correct.

Okay, and that's a billion dollar project.

I don't I don't know the exact cost, and I didn't prepare for the water first project in this meeting today.

Okay, and so why was that that project?

Why was that deemed um appropriate to present to the city council, but this one wasn't?

I believe the city council asked um for the to get a presentation on the water first project.

And how was the city council made aware of the water first project?

Um I don't know.

Uh similar with a project called the H 2.0.

Um you familiar with that project?

It's the water purification facility, yes.

Okay, and was that um was that presented to the city council?

I believe Brian Popco may have given a presentation, but I'm not 100% sure.

Okay, why was it determined that that one was significant enough to um to warrant a conversation with the council?

I think it's just an exciting pro have you had facility.

I don't know if I think Mr.

Chairman Salem has been out there.

Um it's just an incredible facility and a credible project, and we we wanted to promote it.

Okay.

So what other projects are you in charge of?

So when you say in charge of, um, through the chair to Mr.

Teal.

Um I am the chief administrative officer and I've got non-operational um folks that report through me on the regulatory and compliance side, like Kevin Holbrook's group reports to me from the environmental side.

I've got real estate, SIP compliance, electric compliance, legal ethics, public records, information governance.

Um I've got a host of disciplines that report through me, but I am not the project lead on any of those projects.

Are you familiar with a project called Mayo Clinic Transmission Corridor?

I'm familiar with it just from the real estate interest perspective since real estate reports through me.

Okay, so um, do you know whose approvals the JEA needs for that project?

What regulatory approvals?

I do not know.

I haven't been involved at all in the regulatory side of that.

Uh but you talked about the water first um project.

Where does that project currently stand as far as receiving uh regulatory approvals?

So the again I'm not really prepared to to talk about the water first project.

Um I'd have to go back and and look at my notes, but there's been some um legislative um changes that were made this past session um to approve that as a project um to meet minimum flows and levels um for the the springs through the springs initiative bill.

But again, I I don't want to talk specifics about that because I I didn't prepare for that today.

You do you know who uh from a regulatory standpoint would have to approve that project to move forward?

I I'm assuming it's gonna be DEP, but that's assumption on my part.

In two water management districts, and the Swane River Water Management District and the St.

John's River Water Management District, but I don't know if there's approval requirements necessary since they've already adopted the um the water plan.

So on any of any of these projects, the water first, the H2.0, the Mayo Clinic Transmission Corridor.

Um was there a requirement to pre-pay for any items uh in those projects?

Prepay and similar to what JEA had to do for the uh the turbine in the uh combined cycle plant.

Yeah, I believe there was a commitment that that JEA made or the board um present of the board signed a resolution on the water first project as a commitment, but um to potentially pick up some of the costs, but there wasn't any payment made.

Okay, but the I guess the one consistency with all of those projects is is that they're all speculative until they're approved by regulatory agencies.

Is that correct?

When define projects for me.

Okay.

Combined cycle, water first, H2.0, Mayo Clinic Transmission Corridor.

Those are all speculative unless and until they're approved by a regulatory agency, right?

That's a very difficult broad question to answer because it depends on the the positioning if the the water first project, but depending on the phases of it, um there might not be we can commit prior to getting any kind of formal final regulatory approval.

It's not that speculative.

Um so I guess I'm I'm a little um challenged as to how to truly respond accurately to that question.

Well, let's let's break it apart.

Combined cycle.

Is JEA solely the determiner as to whether or not that project can move forward?

No.

Water first is JEA the sole determiner as to whether or not that project can move forward.

Define project.

When we say the water first project, um there's various phases within that project that we could move forward with without any other kind of approvals necessary.

But there are portions of the project that cannot move forward unless and until you get approval.

Correct.

Okay.

And again, that's more of a phased opportunity.

It's an educational facility that we do have the ability to run educational programs through there without any kind of regulatory approval.

Um I don't know if you had an opportunity to visit the H2.0 facility.

So there are portions of that project that cannot move forward unless you get regulatory approval, right?

That is correct.

Okay.

Uh Mayo Clinic Transmission Corridor.

Is JEA the sole determiner as to whether that project can move forward?

I can't answer that.

Okay, who can?

Probably Ricky or Kevin or Melinda.

Someone on the team.

Can they come forward and answer that?

Can somebody?

Kevin Holbrooks is our senior director of environmental services.

Sir, let me put you under oath, okay?

You solemnly swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth on the penalties of perjury.

I do.

And put you state your name, please.

Kevin Holebrooks.

Okay, please go ahead.

Mr.

Holbucks, you heard the question about the Mayo transition corridor is uh whether or not that project can move forward solely by JEA or whether it's dependent on other regulatory approvals.

Well, like like any project, and if you're building a house or something like that, you need to get proper permits, right?

So it's same circumstances with that.

Um there's wetland permits and depending on easement rights, etc.

So you would work with the agencies to you know get the formal approval before you move forward.

So would it be fair to say that those projects are all speculative, is in unless and until you get whatever approvals are necessary.

I don't know if I'd call them speculative, because I mean you have to get permits for almost everything you do, especially from an environmental point of view.

We work with the agencies.

I mean, we go and have pre-discussions with them, you know, saying, hey, this is what we're thinking, what do you know what permits are needed?

Um we get the right con consultants on board, contractors, to ensure that we have the information to get those permits so the reason I'm asking about all of this uh and Kevin thank you for your time you're good um is because of the fact that the it seems like the combined cycle project uh was unique in that um it required a um hundreds of millions of dollars of commitment on JEA's part in order to uh before uh any of those regulatory um to receive regulatory approvals that were necessary so um would you agree that uh that the combined cycle project was is the only one that I uh out of the ones that I mentioned that required that that upfront financial commitment by JEAR I don't know that I would 100% agree because the equipment um we needed to get a spot in line for the equipment purchase um and it was standard industry practice on the reservation agreements um and so again we did we had to have a secure pricing of the equipment before we could even file our need determination um and to do the apples to apples comparison between the the build versus purchase option to have the actual fixed price or know the equipment pricing um before we could even run the the analysis in order to file the need determination this is standard it's not anything that we've done um out of sequence or out of out of norm so according to the board presentation the uh turbines were sold out for lack of a better word for 2025 right okay and and the the the whole reason for the investment was to get in line if you will for 2026 and 2027 is that correct that's correct okay but the project itself is uh the time horizon on the project itself was was out to what twenty thirty two the twenty thirty one 2031 so why was it so critical and in looking at the regulatory timeline here um it looks like you're going to have uh at least a determination from most of the regulatory agencies that are necessary by sometime in 2026 right so why was there a need to get in line for 2026-2027 when the project horizon was out towards 2031 we because uh you you get in line I mean you know the the longer we waited the the longer that got pushed out it would have been actually beyond um our our our need when we need the actual power to to get the power island up and running by 2031.

So you put the project out for bid.

And the company that won the bid I guess if you will uh that was awarded when or determined when the GE Vernova um was the evaluation was completed in April 21st of 2025.

Okay so April of 25 was when JEA knew who it wanted to move forward with and but the project horizon goes out to 2031 and you were able to secure a spot for basically a year later right?

Correct.

So what would be the have been the harm in waiting until mid 2026 when you had all your regulatory approvals before uh committing that investment for a turbine that seems like you can just looks like it's running about a year out in terms of getting in line.

Yeah no if we didn't get a place in line it would have been much late much later um so again from a timing perspective it was we had needed it to lock in the the turbine now um and not wait for the regulatory approvals but we needed that that known number too in order to file for the regulatory approvals and so uh you know I'm I'm not sure what your the concern is that we bought the equipment too far in advance um but we had to.

There wasn't an option for us to wait um if we waited price escalation and the inability to for them to perform these again these turbine it's like my team can all shake their heads back here that's you know there wasn't an opportunity for us to wait for the regulatory approval process all the questions I have I'd like to jump back there's no one in the queue you want can I ask a couple questions and I'll go to you Ms.

Pittman please just to follow up at the board meeting uh in in August having gone back and reviewed it and read the transcript um there's a lot of talk about we don't want another vocal by several of your board members and we all can appreciate that um we've got a price for this of approximately 1.5 billion dollars that was approved by the board is that correct that is correct and if the costs escalate beyond that board approval but will be required is that correct that is correct and they'll have to make a presentation to the board and go through that whole process.

Yes sir and you're looking at bringing this online uh in 2031 correct that is correct and you need it in 2031 correct what what happens for for whatever reason the project gets delayed beyond 2031 into 2032 or 2033 what what how would you obtain the power to take care of this community it would be very challenging um because we'd have to go out and purchase it from the market and then also do the transmission upgrades that we talked about.

I'm sorry and we'd have to do the transmission upgrades that we talked about previously and the timing to get that up and running by 2031 it would be a a big lift and then also then you'll know you'll see if you read through the need determination part of my testimony and others in the in the consulting group equates a one year delay to be about 91 million dollar hit to JEA just one year.

And that's based on getting the power from another source and upgrading the transmission so that you can get that power.

Correct.

91 million dollars a year it would cost us delay.

And that 91 million dollars is on top of the normal power costs I mean that's the quote lack of a better term penalty for not having this thing on time.

Correct.

Is the team pretty comfortable that we're gonna get this on time.

Yeah this this is not another plant vocal and I'm not suggesting it is but but I am concerned of uh having all our eggs in one basket and if for some reason a hurricane or God knows some natural disaster occurs and this thing gets delayed uh we are really in a in a in a pickle so to speak correct um we again we this has been on the books to try to get a combined cycle built all the way back to 2012 we gotta out we got to go now in order to be able to meet the needs in the future and so the the idea that you know we are self-building so there's some risk associated with price escalation um all those different things and so we're it's a managed risk and we have control we are we are building this facility we have built facilities in the past it's known equipment it's a known site there's a lot of positives related to this project um that I believe we will be able to to accommodate the the schedule um I have don't have a whole lot of control over some of the pricing and the price escalations and wars and fuel costs and all those different things but we're managing all of those expectations and there's risk um watching it on a daily basis and making sure that we're gonna be able to to fulfill um the the purchase and building of this facility in a time you know, timely manner.

I'll make it clear.

I'm I'm not I'm not questioning the decision the board made I I think that uh building the plant and all the pros involved in that would appear to be a better situation for this community.

I but I do worry about um cost escalations, delay and and and getting it built and the impact on our community um four or five years from now.

That's that's my concern, and you just as I understand you just can't reach out and FPL, we now need some power, and it just doesn't happen like that.

There's a lot that needs to occur um well ahead of time if you anticipate getting in that situation.

Is that correct?

That is correct.

And I and again, I am the chief champion along with um Ted Phillips on the finance side, and this project keeps me up at night, Chairman.

I mean that the this is a big project for the community and the needs to be able to serve the community in the future, and it's a big responsibility, and um, but I I truly believe that our our team is got the expertise, and we're gonna get it done.

Okay, I'm gonna go to Miss Pittman and then I'm gonna go to uh uh Joe Carlucci.

Well, I must say, but I say President Carico joined us if I did not ask.

Thank you, Chairman.

So I must say there is a lot, a lot of moving parts.

So first of all, I'd like to ask, can you share with us some information about lesson learns so far from other sites and the work that you that you've done?

Um well, lesson learns again.

It's been a while since we've built a new facility, but we have um a known track record of of building um these types of facilities.

Um the let we got a lot of we got a lot of lessons learned from plant vocal.

One is the um the type of process that was being done was the first of its kind.

This is not first of its kind technology, these turbines have been around for a while.

We've got a really strong partner in GE Vernova that's gonna be providing the turbines.

Um, you know, from a lessons learns perspective, I don't I don't none is pop into the top of my head specific to this project, um, but we've got the wherewithal and knowledge um that but again if we learn learn as we go and we learn from history the the biggest history lesson was plant vocal, which the board has brought up, um but nobody could anticipate um uh a name brand um company going out of business and you know the contract flipping from a a fixed price to a cost plus contract.

In this situation, we control the contracts, we control the development and the and the process of the the programming for the project site.

Um we again we're this is not a power purchase agreement um that we have no real control over.

We'll we will be the owners and we'll have an asset in the ground um for us to to tout and be very proud of for years to come.

So you feel 100% sure that you can control all of the un some of the unknowns as well.

Through the chair to councilwoman Pittman, I have not 100% control um of things that are happening around us, um, and but again, we can manage those um things and the expectations.

Um we couldn't have you know, imagine from a war perspective to some of the things that have happened on the national level.

Um so we have we have no control of those things, but we watch and monitor and analyze what the impacts are gonna have to the project.

Um we look at tariffs is another big thing that we look at.

We look at um fuel prices, we do that on a daily basis, and so we're we're managing those things and the expectations, but I cannot stand here and say I'm 100% confident.

Um there's some things that are completely out of my control.

And so, um, and I appreciate that in you being honest um about that.

I I do want to go back to what you inquired about.

You know, how does this project improve resiliency and doing hurricanes and extreme weather conditions?

Um can you talk a little bit about that a little bit more?

So I'm not quite sure.

But so if there's a hurricane um that comes, how do we ensure that that project is protected?

So I don't know if there's someone on the team that can talk through that a little bit better than I can, but we currently have the generation fleets that we we do curricane exercises and making sure that we still have the the gas supplies and the things that are necessary to keep the the generation up and running.

In extreme weather events.

Um there is opportunities that we will have to or challenges as far as shutting down the plants for a short time.

But again, we we do um lots of drills and programming for just that um scenario.

Because you know, I just think it's important.

Um I consider myself a lay person, so to make sure that I understand um how this works and how this will impact um our community, I'm just very curious and some of the questions that I'm asking.

So and the other thing I would like to ask if the cost exceeds projects, who bears the financial risk and um the utilities or the rate pairs if this project exceeds so if the the project the cost overruns will be you know, it will it will go to the ratepayers.

Um, you know, the the we are funded primarily through our our rates.

That's how we get funded.

Um so again, we try to cost control and keep the rates down and the the impacts to a customer.

Um, but again, the the if you looked at that one slide that compared the buy option versus build option, they're almost the exact same number.

So regardless if we build versus buy, um, the customers are still gonna to fund, and then if it exceeds you know the expectations, it'll be a policy call for the board to make if it doesn't come in in the 1.57 billion dollars.

Um the board will have to make a policy call then depending on how far off the target it is.

Okay, and I guess one of my questions also what concerns have residents expressed that you're aware of um regarding um this project and how will JEA address those um concerns?

Unfortunately, I was not able to attend the community workshop that was held uh a couple months ago.

Can someone address can I can I get um Greg Corcoran to come up and and speak to that?

Thank you.

Mr.

Corcoran, let me swear you in, please.

Sure.

You solemnly swear reform to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth under the penalties of pearl tree.

I do.

Okay.

Please introduce yourself.

Sure.

Uh Greg Corcoran, director of community affairs at JEA.

Yeah, I would like for you to answer that question.

Sure.

I can give you some background.

We had a town meeting scheduled on February 19th.

So two-hour open house that was open to the community.

We actually sent out notices to all customers within three miles of the actual uh location of the combined cycle.

So with that, we sent out postcards, we sent out emails, we sent out reminder emails as well right before.

We had 16 folks attend the meeting uh in addition to the Sierra Club, also attended.

Um as far as phone calls into our project outreach team, we only received three phone calls.

Two were about the actual location, one customer had an issue thinking it was something like a nuclear power plant, which we were able to just dispel pretty quickly.

So I'm gonna say you know that's not a whole lot of people.

So I'm concerned about input from residents, and it probably means that a lot of them don't even understand this project.

So, and I don't know if it's too late to even get some more information, but I'm always on the sides of the residents.

And, you know, and the reason why I asked that question because it's kind of like an after-a-t effect, you know, the project is up, and the residents don't even understand because they didn't realize how important it was.

So that also means that we have to try something different, you know, that may go through other nonprofits or through churches or something.

I'm I gotta tell you, I'm a little bit taken back with that information with not that many um residents being able to participate.

And I just speak to the uh kind of the conversations I had with those folks that did.

I can't hear what you said.

You can't hear me.

If I could speak to some of the conversations that we had with those that came to the meeting, you know, due to the location being a previous uh location of our power park, people are understanding of that that is what happens at that location.

Um that is a lot of the feedback that we received.

Um, knowing that the height and the size of this is gonna be smaller, it's gonna be at the same location.

I think that a lot of the folks that we were able to speak to, um, that's their understanding of it.

The location isn't an area that's primarily uh has a lot of commercial development, there isn't a lot of uh residential around that area.

Okay, um, within three miles, we're only looking at about uh 5300 um customers.

Okay.

That sounds a whole lot better.

Yes, ma'am.

And I know that you've been with me too.

Go on into a little detail because I'm sitting up here getting a little antsy.

I understand.

I understand.

I appreciate thank you very much.

And you and I work together with once you take out how you know we're out there talking about it.

But I appreciate it.

Thank you so much.

I just want to add reinforce the comments I made earlier.

You had a and this is not you, this is more to um to Miss Brooks.

She you had a workshop on capacity issues and your rate increase that was not streamed, and I just think that's terrible.

Okay.

I will look into it.

And I just think um, and I was getting calls.

What where's the link?

People wanted to watch that.

Uh that the they you they had to come down to your building in order to to view that, and I don't think that should ever happen again.

I'm gonna go to Mr.

Teal for a couple more questions, then over to Mr.

Okay, go ahead, Mr.

Carly.

So you go first.

All right, thank you, Mr.

Chair.

And it actually goes right along with what you were saying, and um, because you brought it up earlier, and that's just the one thing that I I would like to see.

Um, Ms.

Brooks is there's no video and no minutes for any committee meetings or any workshops.

And I know that's that's something that you're kind of directly over, so you can you can actually pull up the board meeting video and the board meeting minutes, but if you want to actually go and see any committee meetings or anything, um you have to email and ask for the minutes, and usually the minutes are like one page only.

Um, so for me, and I'm sure any other you know, members out there of the community, it's um it seems like it would be an easy thing because on the on the website you can just put the video on there.

Um so I don't know if they're recorded or not, but if they are great, then I guess it just has to be uploaded.

But I just wanted to reiterate that that that's something that I'd like to see.

Thank you to the chair to Councilmember Carlucci, we'll we'll make sure that that happens in the future.

Thank you.

Okay, great.

Thanks, Ms.

Brooks.

And I think the what concerns me, I think they were all this was occurring up until a year or two ago.

I'm not sure what stopped them.

That's that's also bothersome to me.

Somebody made a conscious decision not to do this anymore, and uh I'm not sure why that was, but the that's concerning to me.

So I'm gonna go to Mr.

Teal.

We have a 12 15 stop.

Mr.

Teal, we got about 10 minutes left.

Thank you.

I only have like three questions.

Uh Ms.

Brooks, how was the board made aware of the risks associated with the combined cycle project?

I think through presentations and one-on-one dialogue.

I'm sorry, the presentations and the one-on-ones.

Presentations to the board and one-on-one dialogue, okay.

And um was Kurt Wilson in those one-on-ones?

Um, probably some of them, yes.

Board services falls under you, correct?

That's correct.

So as far as the decision to uh stream or not stream, that's your decision, right?

It will be, yes.

Okay.

When you say will be, who's has it now?

Well, board services had reported to to Kurt Wilson for a short time, and so I'm not sure if the change happened during that time.

I I'm unaware.

I'll I'll I'll track the history and uh making sure that with that we that gets put back onto the agenda.

Okay, thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

Okay.

I see no one else in the queue.

Uh Miss Brooks, thank you so much for for coming today.

Um, as you know, the meeting at one o'clock will be wide ranging and will not be probably there won't be any focus on combined cycle unless people have those questions, but there'll be a lot of questions on a lot of different issues.

Uh, Mr.

President, I hope this met your uh your charge in terms of getting into combined cycle and uh having this presentation and these questions and answers.

Thank you.

All right.

Well, we will adjourn and be back at uh at one o'clock.

Thank you.

No, I don't know.

Yes.