COMMENTARY
MARK SCHUMANN
After reading Florida Power & Light Vice President Sam Forrest’s March 27 email to Orlando Utilities Commission Vice President Jan Aspuru, it is hard not to see Forrest’s April 15 letter to Vero Beach Mayor Richard Winger as anything other than a public relations stunt. Read before the Council and the cameras by FPL’s Amy Brunjes, Forrest’s letter took great pains to pin blame on the Florida Municipal Power Agency for the slow pace of the negotiations to sell Vero Electric.
While Forrest took a few shots at the FMPA for a $52 million proposal no longer being considered, he never bothered to mention that FPL and the OUC are discussing a $41 million alternative. “If I do mention your proposed buy-out amount for the first three years, I will make it clear there are still hurdles with FMPA that need to be overcome in terms of FMPA’s proposed redlines to the transfer agreement between you and Vero,” Forrest wrote to Aspuru.
Perhaps Forrest did not want the people of Vero Beach to get out their calculators. After all, as a part of FPL’s initial offer to buy Vero Electric, the company proposed to pay a $30 million premium to buy the city’s 38 megawatts of Stanton I and II power entitlement shares for three years. The $30 million, FPL spokesperson said, was over and above what it would cost the company to generate the power at its own plants.
When that proposal was shelved because of likely tax issues, FPL then offered to pay the FMPA $52 million to take on the power, with the cost to be shared equally by FPL and the 34,000 customers of Vero Electric. Now, the OUC is apparently offering to take on the power for $41 million.
One question Forrest may not want the people of Vero Beach to ask is how much of the $41 million FPL will propose to pass on to the customers of Vero Electric. Accounting for the initial $30 million FPL included in the value of its offer for Vero Electric, that should leave no more than $11 million to be paid by the customers of Vero Electric to help cover the cost of resolving the short term power supply issue.
While the OUC and FPL appear to be in “active and constructive” discussions on a possible resolution to the short-term power issue, Forrest’s email to Aspuru makes clear significant issues remain — not the least of which is FPL’s unwillingness to backstop Vero Beach on its contingent liabilities. Despite the fact that the 34,000 customers of Vero Electric for whom those obligations were assumed are to become part of FPL’s customer base, the company does not seem interested in taking on even the slightest risk. At the same time, though, FPL spokespersons continue to be critical of the FMPA for not assuming more risk.
FPL is run by bright men and women, so you have to assume they know what they are doing. I just wonder if what they are doing is trying to structure a deal that advantages FPL to the detriment of the other parties.
Indian River Guardian 
Of course FPL is structuring a deal with advantages to FPL. They don’t care how much it will hurt Vero Beach…Not their problem.
At this point, members of the public are simply confused. So many of the circumstances and issues have changed since the signing of the contract that is obviously most beneficial to FP&L that the public needs more than just calculators.
The FP&L issue is comparable to the All Aboard Florida initiative and to the implementation of Common Core. The public is not being allowed to be a participant in any relevant fact finding. The “facts” are being spooned out in a manner that is most beneficial to the one with the largest megaphone. It is to the benefit of the competitors to keep the public confused.
The old mantra learned from the Watergate era is now badly needed — follow the money.