Special Committee on JEA. Let me begin by introduction, starting on my far left. Colleen Hampsey, Council of Research. Mary Staphopoulos, Office of General Counsel. Brian Parks, Council Auditor's Office. Phillip Peterson, Council Auditor. Jason Teal, Council Legislative Counsel. Ron Salem, Group 2 at Large. Jacoby Pittman, District 10. Nick Howland, At Large, Group 3, just visiting. Welcome, Mr. President-elect. We 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, Ms. Brooks. I'd 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 affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth are the penalties of perjury? Thank you. The floor is yours, Ms. 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... I have 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 Erickson, our chief of electric systems. So that's systems, Jim Stanson, the director of energy production. Jamila Acree, 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 & Veatch Resource Innovations and Front Consulting and the law firm of Stearns & Weaver with our primary attorney being Brooke Humphrey. So part of this presentation... Can you see the slides or... Yes. Okay, I wasn't sure. The historical generation portfolio slide is what our 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 Northside Units 1 and 2, creating more fuel diversity. CTs use natural gas as their main fuel source, and Northside 1 and 2 burn coal, petcoke, and biomass. The combined cycle at Brandy Branch is currently our lowest cost unit. The benefit of a combined cycle is a higher level of efficiency. The turbines are used to generate electricity. Then exhaust is captured in a heat recovery steam generator to produce steam that drives a separate turbine, generating additional electricity from heat that would otherwise be wasted. 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, and with Florida Power and Light, SGRPP 1 and 2, and Shere Unit 4, FPL was in a period of retiring coal generation, and so that, coupled with a decrease in JEA's demand, led to an agreement to retire SGRPP 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 JEA'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'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 began 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 were 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 JEA 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 GE'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 in 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 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 like a billed 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 of 2025. Even following an extension of the response time, JA only received a proposal from one party, Florida Power & Light. The proposal included four responses by FPL. 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 2025 with the highest-ranked response from FP&L being for a 600-megawatt 30-year purchase power agreement. So self-build versus buy. How do we analyze those two options that were before JEA? 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 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 is 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. And Mr. Chair, we spoke before I started giving the presentation and we were going to hold questions until the end. I'm not sure that we announced that to the committee and to the visiting members of the council. 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. As part of the cost analysis, there's transmission investments that would need to be made and the transmission considerations are very important. You can see in the self-build scenario at top, the cost to connect the combined cycle to our system is about $7.7 million. The low cost is directly due to our ability to utilize an existing site that already has infrastructure in place to transmit the power. 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's side with an estimated cost for the infrastructure transmission investment to be about $78 million. 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 that 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 costs 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 Erickson 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 JA's 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 a debt-free facility. There's 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 Northside 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 up-front capital. There is a much, 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 and compliance. Conversely, with a power purchase agreement, there's no up-front 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 and operations are restricted by the contract terms. There's a delivery risk. Should there be a storm event that could cause some problems with delivery? The contract would be locked in for a fixed 30-year period, 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, but with an agreement for 600 megawatts of purchase power combined with an existing 406 megawatts from Vogel 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 SJRPP site and delegating authority to the CEO, managing director, to manage all activities. This comes with a not-to-exceed approval of $1.57 billion, 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 was the JEA presentation and the board approved the project to move forward. Then we recently, just last month, at the Capital Projects Committee, 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 & Veatch, 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 the EPC contract were due June 2nd. Last week, so last week, I'm trying to, my days are running together. So last week, 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, the regulatory 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. 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 on November 1st of 2026. With that, Mr. Chair, I think I got it under 20 minutes. Thank you. I appreciate that. Let me mention that Vice President, Desinette Carlucci has joined us as well. I'm going to start off with some questions. And I think Mr. Thiel is going to jump in at some point and maybe Ms. Pittman will as well. But I've just got some more factual type questions I want to get out there if I can. Ms. Brooks, 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 front face of the project. But 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 $1.57 billion, that would be a board approval process. That would go back to the board. The day-to-day operational decision-making would fault it to Ricky Erickson. Is it my understanding the turbine has been purchased? Is that correct? That is correct. Okay. And you're waiting for PSC for final determination, correct? The need for power is correct. In reviewing the board 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 reservation agreement, when we talked about the reservation agreement that was done pre the final contract, we had to put a deposit down in order to hold our slaughter, our place in line for the turbine. Can you tell me how much that was? I cannot. We are not under a non-disclosure agreement with GE Vernova, but we also are bound by the Florida statutes on trade secret protected items. And so the pricing and the very specific contract terms that GE Vernova has deemed confidential, we can't talk about. Okay. But if the project did not go forward 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 PSC has been determination. I've heard different 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 there may be entities that don't want us to get this turbine and would rather FP&L sell us the energy and may work against the approval through the PSC. Can you give me from your perspective the PSC determination and how risky is that at this point? Yeah. We've had lots of discussion with counsel, Brooke Humphrey with Stearns Weaver about the process with the need determination. And I don't know if they use perfunctory is the right word to use but in the history of the need determination my understanding and talking with her there has never been another utility that would fight against you. Again, that's coming from our outside counsel. There is anticipation that some of the NGO groups like Sierra Club and others could intervene in the proceeding. But the Public Service Commission the window of time based on their rules is a very short window of time. They have to give us the need determination with 135 days or 135 or 145? 150 days from the date we submitted our application. So that's five months from now basically. It's a fairly when you look at the regulatory process perspective it's a fairly short window of time that we'll know for sure. 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 an application. Now at the August 25th meeting these type of issues were not discussed. 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 public 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 there's discussions that were being had with the board about the need determination and the regulatory process. And that's where I have a lot of concern. Having been through 2019 I know as council we have committees those committee meetings are streamed the public can watch them and of course our council meetings are streamed. I didn't see a time when the public could watch the discussion on the PSC and DEP and how that process worked. It never came up. You might have had one-on-one meetings with your board and I have no doubt that you did but 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 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 but I don't believe that I'll have to check with Melissa Dalton on that as to the streaming of the meetings but there's a public participation element of every one of the agendas for the committees and then at the capital 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 look in from their home or their office or whatever it is and understand what's going on. The council does that we stream virtually everything to make sure that the public we may go through an item at a council meeting that takes five minutes and 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 discussion on that particular item and I just think that's important and 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 site certification of the siting of a new power plant and I've got Kevin Holbrooks our senior director of environmental is running with that as well with our outside council Brooke Humphrey again it's the regulatory process that there's you know we believe that the outcome will be positive based upon the pre-application meetings that we've held both with the public service commission and with the state agency we've met them before we filed the applications and we're not getting any indication that there's going to be any issues the site of our public of the facility too is you know in the same location as the former power plant SJRPP 1 and 2 this is SJRPP 3 on that same site and that gives us an advantage as far as you know location of the facility and any concerns about the community that could potentially come up in that process okay next question I know that you recently met with the council members individually on this project which I think is just critically important when we're talking about 1.5 billion dollars my only comment would have been I wish it would have been done at the time prior to approval last August versus once the project had already been approved and we started raising questions about it that's just 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 I will stop there and I'll go to Mr. Teal Mr. Teal thank you Mr. Chair through the chair to Ms. Brooks 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 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 now what I didn't see in this presentation was the briefing memo that was prepared for the board members is there a reason why that wasn't part of the discussion today no again we generally give the package materials with a memo to the board about the purpose of the presentation the one-on-one discussions that you said occurred with the different board members were all of the board members did they all receive that one-on-one meeting they would have yes and who would have been involved from the staff side in those meetings it would have been the CEO Vicki Cady the project team some of the members of the project team so the finance team Joe Rufano Julie Crawford Ricky Erickson would have been would have participated maybe yeah so Ricky Erickson shaking his head so nobody from legal legal typically doesn't sit in on those one-on-one discussions has legal ever sat in on board member briefings on issues that come before the board 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 the legal counsel engaged and involved and have them answer the question so you or JEA presented to the city council at least to the TEU committee on a project called Water First right correct okay and that's a billion dollar project well 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 it that project why was that deemed appropriate to present to the city council but this one wasn't I believe the city council asked to get a presentation on the Water First project and how was the city council made aware of the Water First project I don't know similar with a project called the H2.0 are you familiar with that project it's the Water Purification Facility yes okay and was that was that presented to the city council I believe Brian Popko may have given a presentation but I'm not 100% sure okay and why was it determined that that one was significant enough to warrant a conversation with the council I think it's just an exciting facility I don't know I think Chairman Salem has been out there it's just an incredible facility an incredible project and we wanted to promote it so what other projects are you in charge of so when you say in charge of through the chair to Mr. Thiel I am the chief administrative officer and I've got non-operational 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 I've got a host of disciplines that report through me but I am not the project lead on any of those projects Water First is in the water services department of Rob Zamatero and then the combined cycle is through Ricky Erickson 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 so do you know whose approvals JEA needs for that project what regulatory approvals I do not know I haven't been involved at all on the regulatory side of that but you talked about the Water First project where does that project currently stand as far as receiving regulatory approvals so again I'm not really prepared to talk about the Water First project I'd have to go back and look at my notes but there's been some legislative changes that were made this past session to approve that as a project to meet minimum flows and levels for the Springs through the Springs Initiative Bill but again I don't want to talk specifics about that because I didn't prepare for that today do you know who from a regulatory standpoint would have to approve that project to move forward I'm assuming it's going to be DEP but that's assumption on my part and two water management districts and the Swannay River Water Management District and the St. Johns River Water Management District but I don't know if there's approval requirements necessary since they've already adopted the water plan so on any of these projects the Water First the H2.0 the Mayo Clinic Transmission Corridor was there a requirement to prepay for any items in those projects prepay similar to what JEA had to do for the turbine in the combined cycle plant I believe there was a commitment that JEA made the board signed a resolution on the Water First project as a commitment to potentially pick up some of the costs but there wasn't any payment made I guess the one consistency with all of those projects is that they're all speculative until they're approved by regulatory agencies is that correct when defined 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 Water First project depending on the phases of it there might not be we can commit prior to getting any kind of formal final regulatory approval it's not that speculative so I guess I'm a little challenged as to how to truly respond accurately to that question 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 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 or until you get approval correct okay H2.0 project is JEA the sole determiner as to whether or not that project can move forward 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 have 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 Mayo Clinic Transmission Corridor is JEA the sole determiner as to whether that project can move forward I can't answer that 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 do you solemnly swear or affirm to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth under the penalties of perjury and would you state your name please Kevin Holbrooks okay please go ahead Mr. Chair Mr. Holbrooks you heard the question about the Mayo Transition Corridor is 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 same circumstances with that 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 you know what permits are needed we get the right 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 Kevin thank you for your time you're good is because of the fact that the it seems like the combined cycle project was unique in that it required a hundreds of millions of dollars of commitment on JEA's part in order to before any of those regulatory it received regulatory approvals that were necessary so would you agree that the combined cycle project was the only one that I out of the ones that I mentioned that required that up front financial commitment by JEA 100% agree because of the equipment we need to get a spot in line for the equipment purchase and it was standard industry practice on the reservation agreements and so again we had to have a secure pricing of the equipment before we could even file our need determination and to do the apples to apples comparison between the build versus purchase option to have the actual fixed price or know the equipment pricing before we could even run the analysis in order to file the need determination this is standard it's not anything that we've done out of sequence or out of out of norm so according to the board presentation the turbines were sold out for lack of a better word for 2025 right and 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 the time horizon on the project itself was out to what 2032 2031 2031 so why was it so critical looking at the regulatory timeline here it looks like you're going to have at least a determination from most of the regulatory agencies that are necessary by sometime in 2026 right correct so why was there a need to get in line for 2026 2027 when the project horizon was out towards 2031 because you get in line I mean the longer we waited the longer that got pushed out it would have been actually beyond our need when we need the actual power 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 that was awarded when or determined when the GE vernova 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 have been the harm in waiting until mid 2026 when you had all your regulatory approvals before 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 later so again from a timing perspective it was we needed to lock in the turbine now and not wait for the regulatory approvals but we needed that known number too in order to file for the regulatory approvals and so you know I'm not sure what your the concern is that we bought the equipment too far in advance but we had to there wasn't an option for us to wait if we waited price escalation and inability for them to perform these again these turbine it's like my team can all shake their heads back here there wasn't an opportunity for us to wait for the regulatory approval process that's all the questions I have I'd like to jump back there's no one in the queue can I ask a couple questions and I'll go to you Ms. Pittman please just to follow up at the board meeting in August having gone back and reviewed it and read the transcript there was a lot of talk about we don't want another Vogel by several of your board members and we all can appreciate that 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 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 and you're looking at bringing this online in 2031 correct and you need it in 2031 what happens for whatever reason the project gets delayed beyond 2031 into 2032 or 2033 how would you obtain the power to take care of this community it would be very challenging because we'd have to go out and purchase it from the market and then also do the transmission upgrades that we talked about 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 would be a big lift and then also you'll see if you read through the need determination part of my testimony and others 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 and that 91 million dollars is on top of the normal power cost I mean that's the lack of a better term penalty for not having this thing on time is the team pretty comfortable that we're going to get this on time this is not another plant local and I'm not suggesting it is but I am concerned of 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 we are really in a pickle so to speak correct again this has been on the books to try to get a combined cycle built all the way back to 2012 we got to go now in order to be able to meet the needs in the future and so the idea that we are self building so there's some risk associated with price escalation all those different things and so it's a managed risk and we have control 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 that I believe we will be able to accommodate the schedule I 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 those risks watching it on a daily basis and making sure that we're going to be able to fulfill the purchase and building of this facility in a timely manner let me make it clear I'm not questioning the decision the board made I think building the plant and all the pros involved in that would appear to be a better situation for this community but I do worry about cost escalations delay and getting it built and the impact on our community four or five years from now that's my concern and you just as I understand you just can't reach out and FP&L we now need some power and it just doesn't happen like that there's a lot that needs to occur well ahead of time if you anticipate getting in that situation is that correct that is correct and again I am the chief champion along with Ted Phillips on the finance side and this project keeps me up at night chairman I mean 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 but I truly believe that our team has got the expertise and we're going to get it done okay I'm going to go to Ms. Pittman and then I'm going to go to Joe Carlucci well I must say did I say President Carrico joined us if I did not 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've done well Lesson Learns again it's been a while since we've built a new facility but we have a known track record of building these types of facilities we got a lot of lessons learned from Plant Vogel one is 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 going to be providing the turbines from a lessons learned perspective none is popping to the top of my head specific to this project but we've got the wherewithal and knowledge that again if we learn as we go and we learn from history the biggest history lesson was Plant Vogel which the board has brought up but nobody could anticipate a name brand company going out business and the contract flipping from a fixed price to a cost plus contract in this situation we control the contracts we control the development and the process of the programming for the project site again this is not a power purchase agreement that we have no real control over we will be the owners and we'll have an asset in the ground for us to tout and be very proud of for years to come so you feel 100% sure that you can control all of the some of the unknowns as well through the chair of the councilwoman Pittman I have not 100% control of things that are happening around us but again we can manage those things and the expectations we couldn't have imagined from a war perspective some of the things that have happened on the national level so we have no control of those things but we watch and monitor and analyze what the impacts are going to have to the project we look at tariffs is another big thing that we look at we look at fuel prices we do that on a daily basis and so we're managing those things and the expectations but I cannot stand here and say I'm 100% confident there's some things that are completely out of my control and so and I appreciate that and you being honest about that I do want to go back to what you inquired about how does this project improve resiliency and during hurricanes and extreme weather conditions can you talk a little bit about that a little bit more so I'm not quite sure so if there's a hurricane that comes how do we ensure that that project is protected 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 do hurricane exercises and making sure that we still have the gas supplies and the things that are necessary to keep the generation up and running in extreme weather events there is opportunities that we will have to or challenges as far as shutting down the plants for a short time but again we do lots of drills and programming for just that scenario I just think it's important I consider myself a lay person so to make sure that I understand how this works and how this will impact 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 the utilities or the rate payers if this project exceeds so if the project the cost overruns will be it will go to the rate payers you know we are funded primarily through our rates that's how we get funded so again we try to cost control and keep the rates down and the impacts to a customer but again 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 the customers are still going to to fund and then if it exceeds the expectations it'll be a policy call for the board to make if it doesn't come in in the 1.57 million dollars the board will have to make a policy call 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 regarding this project and how will JEA address those concerns unfortunately I was not able to attend the community workshop that was held a couple months ago can someone address can I can I get Greg Corcoran to come up and speak to that thank you he's our director of community affairs Greg Corcoran Mr. Corcoran let me swear you in please do you solemnly swear or affirm to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth under the penalties of perjury I do okay please introduce yourself sure Greg Corcoran director of community affairs at JEA 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 it's a two hour open house that was open to the community we actually sent out notices to all customers within three miles of the actual 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 in addition to the Sierra Club also attended as far as phone calls into our project outreach team we only received three phone calls two were about the actual location thinking it was something like a nuclear power plant which we were able to dispel pretty quickly so I'm going to 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 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 ask that question because it's kind of like an after 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 residents being able to participate and I just speak to the conversations I had with those folks that did I can't hear me if I could speak to some of the conversations that we had with those that came to the meeting due to the location being a previous location of our power park people our understanding of that is what happens at that location that is a lot of the feedback that we received knowing that the height and the size of this is going to be smaller it's going to be at the same location I think that a lot of the folks that we were able to speak to that's their understanding of it the location isn't an area that's primarily has a lot of commercial that sounds a whole lot better yes ma'am and I know that you've been with me going into a little detail because I'm sitting up here getting a little antsy I understand I appreciate thank you very much and you and I work together with on subject 10 phase out you know we're out there talking to customers and say something different but I appreciate it thank you so much I just want to reinforce the comments I made earlier you had a workshop on capacity issues and your rate increase that was not streamed and I just think that's terrible and I just think and I was getting calls where's the link people wanted to watch that they had to come down to your building in order to view that and I don't think that should ever happen again I'm going to go to Mr. Teal for a couple more questions then over to Mr. Okay go ahead Mr. Carlucci you go first Thank you Mr. Chair and it actually goes right along with what you were saying and because you brought it up earlier and that's just the one thing that I would like to see meeting video and the board meeting minutes but if you want to actually go and see any committee meetings or anything you have to email and ask for the minutes and usually the minutes are like one page only so for me and I'm sure any other you know members out there of the community it seems like it would be an easy thing because on the website you can just put the video on there so I don't know if they're recorded or not but if they are great then I guess it has to be uploaded but I just wanted to reiterate that that that's something I'd like to see thank you to Councilmember Carlucci we'll make sure that that happens in the future thank you okay great thank you what concerns me I think they were all this was occurring up until a year or two ago to do this anymore and I'm not sure why that was but that's concerning to me so I'm going to go to Mr. Thiel we have a 12 15 stop Mr. Thiel we got about 10 minutes left thank you I only have like three questions 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 and was Kurt Wilson in those one on ones probably some of them yes board services falls under you correct that's correct so as far as the decision to stream or not stream that's your decision right it will be yes okay when you say will be who has it now well board services had reported to Kurt Wilson for a short time and so I'm not sure if the change happened during that time I'm unaware I'll track the history and making sure that gets put back onto the agenda thank you Mr. Chair I see no one else in the queue Ms. Brooks thank you so much for coming today 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 will be a lot of questions on a lot of different issues Mr. President I hope this met your charge in terms of getting into combined cycle and having this presentation and these questions and answers thank you all right we will adjourn and be back at one o'clock thank you