The issues and associated risks and uncertainties described above are not the only ones FPL Group and FPL may face. Additional issues may arise or become material as the energy industry evolves.  The risks and uncertainties associated with these additional issues could impair FPL Group's and FPL's businesses in the future.

In addition to the voluntary initiative, the U.S. Congress is considering several legislative proposals that would establish new mandatory regulatory requirements and reduction targets for greenhouse gases.  Based on reference data from government sources, FPL Group is among the lowest emitters of greenhouse gases measured by its rate of emissions to generation (lbs/mwh).  However, these legislative proposals have differing methods of implementation and the impact on FPL Group's generating units and/or the financial impact to FPL Group and FPL could be material (either positive or negative), depending on the eventual structure of a mandatory program.

Multi-Pollutant Legislation - The U.S. Congress and the Bush Administration are considering several legislative proposals that would establish new regulatory requirements and reduction targets for sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxide, mercury, and in some proposals, carbon dioxide.  Based on reference data from government sources, FPL Group is among the lowest generators of these emissions when measured by its rate of emissions to generation (lbs/mwh).  However, these multi-pollutant proposals have differing methods of implementation and the impact on FPL Group's generating units and/or the financial impact to FPL Group and FPL could be material (either positive or negative), depending on the eventual structure of any legislation enacted.

The basic costs of providing electric service, other than fuel and certain other costs, are recovered through base rates, which are designed to recover the costs of constructing, operating and maintaining the utility system.  These basic costs include O&M expenses, depreciation and taxes, as well as a return on FPL's investment in assets used and useful in providing electric service (rate base).  The rate of return on rate base approximates FPL's weighted-average cost of capital, which includes its costs for debt and preferred stock and, typically, an allowed ROE.  The FPSC monitors FPL's actual ROE through a surveillance report that is filed monthly by FPL with the FPSC.  The FPSC does not provide assurance that an allowed ROE will be achieved.  Base rates are determined in rate proceedings, which occur at irregular intervals at the initiative of FPL, the FPSC, Public Counsel or a substantially affected party.

In March 2002, the FPSC approved a new rate agreement regarding FPL's retail base rates, which became effective April 15, 2002 and expires December 31, 2005.  The 2002-2005 rate agreement replaced a rate agreement that was effective April 15, 1999 through April 14, 2002.  Both agreements include a revenue sharing mechanism for each of the twelve-month periods covered by the agreement, whereby revenues from retail base operations in excess of a stated threshold are required to be shared on the basis of two-thirds refunded to retail customers and one-third retained by FPL.  Revenues from retail base operations in excess of a second threshold are required to be refunded 100% to retail customers.

The 1999-2002 rate agreement allowed FPL at its discretion to recover, as special depreciation, up to $100 million in each year of the three-year agreement period.  The additional depreciation recovery was required to be applied to nuclear and/or fossil generating assets based on future depreciation studies.  See Note 1 - Revenues and Rates and Electric Plant, Depreciation and Amortization.  During the term of the agreement, FPL's ROE was from time to time outside the 10%-12% authorized range.  However, the revenue sharing mechanism described above was specified as the appropriate and exclusive mechanism to address that circumstance.  The agreement included provisions which limited depreciation rates and accruals for nuclear decommissioning and fossil dismantlement costs to the then approved levels and limited amounts recoverable under the environmental clause during the term of that agreement.

The 2002-2005 rate agreement provides for a $250 million annual reduction in retail base revenues allocated to all customers by reducing customers' base rates and service charges by approximately 7%.  The revenue sharing thresholds specified in the 2002-2005 rate agreement are as follows:

During the term of the 2002-2005 rate agreement, FPL will not have an authorized regulatory ROE range for the purpose of addressing earnings levels.  However, FPL will continue to file monthly earnings surveillance reports with the FPSC and if the reported ROE falls below 10% during the term of the 2002-2005 rate agreement, FPL may petition the FPSC to amend its base rates. The 2002-2005 rate agreement would terminate on the effective date of any final order issued in a proceeding that changes FPL's base rates.  See Note 1 - Revenues and Rates.  Under the 2002-2005 rate agreement, depreciation will be reduced on FPL's plant in service by $125 million in each year 2002 through 2005.  See Note 1 - Regulation and Electric Plant, Depreciation and Amortization.

In April 2002, the South Florida Hospital and Healthcare Association and certain hospitals filed a joint notice of administrative appeal with the FPSC and the Supreme Court of Florida appealing the FPSC's approval of the 2002-2005 rate agreement. The appellants contend that the FPSC rushed to judgment and approved the settlement without the benefit of any evidentiary record to support its actions, and requested that the Supreme Court remand the case to the FPSC for additional proceedings. In November 2003, the Florida Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the appeal.  There is no specified time by which the Supreme Court of Florida must rule.  FPL intends to continue to vigorously contest this appeal and believes that the FPSC's decision approving the 2002-2005 rate agreement will be upheld.

Fuel costs are recovered from customers through levelized charges per kwh established under the fuel clause.  These charges are calculated annually based on estimated fuel costs and estimated customer usage for the following year, plus or minus a true-up adjustment to reflect the variance of actual costs and usage from the estimates used in setting the fuel adjustment charges for prior periods.  An adjustment to the levelized charges may be approved during the course of a year to reflect a projected variance based on actual costs and usage.  In 2003, approximately $3.3 billion of costs were recovered through the fuel clause.  During 2003, the FPSC approved fuel adjustment increases of $347 million effective April 1, 2003 and $214 million effective July 31, 2003, both of which were recovered in 2003.  These increases were due to higher than projected oil and natural gas prices.  During 2002, the FPSC approved a risk management fuel procurement progra m which became effective January 1, 2003.  The program is intended to reduce the risk of unexpected fuel price volatility by locking in fuel prices for a portion of FPL's fuel requirements.  The results of the program are reviewed by the FPSC as part of the annual review of fuel costs. See Energy Marketing and Trading, Management's Discussion - Results of Operations, Note 1 - Regulation and Note 3.

Capacity payments to other utilities and generating companies for purchased power are recovered from customers through the capacity clause and base rates.  In 2003, approximately $595 million of costs were recovered through the capacity clause. Costs associated with implementing energy conservation programs totaled approximately $169 million in 2003 and were recovered from customers through the energy conservation cost recovery clause. Costs of complying with federal, state and local environmental regulations enacted after April 1993 are recovered through the environmental clause to the extent not included in base rates.  The 1999-2002 rate agreement limited recovery of costs through the environmental clause.  There is no similar provision in the 2002-2005 rate agreement; consequently prudent environmental costs incurred during this period and not included in base rates are recoverable under the environmental clause.  In 2003, approximately $18 million was recovered fr om customers through the environmental clause.

The FPSC has the authority to disallow recovery of costs that it considers excessive or imprudently incurred.  Such costs may include, among others, O&M expenses, the cost of replacing power lost when fossil and nuclear units are unavailable and costs associated with the construction or acquisition of new facilities.

The FPSC promotes competition for building major new steam generating capacity by requiring investor-owned electric utilities, such as FPL, to issue an RFP.  The RFP process allows independent power producers and others to bid to supply the needed generating capacity.  If a bidder has the most cost-effective alternative, meets other criteria such as financial viability and demonstrates adequate expertise and experience in building and/or operating generation capacity of the type proposed, the investor-owned electric utility would seek to negotiate a power purchase agreement with the selected bidder and request that the FPSC authorize the construction of the bidder's generation capacity under the terms of the power purchase agreement.  In 2003, FPL issued an RFP for additional power resources of approximately 1,100 mw beginning in June 2007.  In January 2004, after evaluating alternative proposals, FPL concluded that its plan to build a new natural gas-fired plant at it s Turkey Point site was the best and most cost-effective option to provide the 1,100 mw.  In March 2004, FPL plans to file a petition for approval of this alternative with the FPSC.  A decision is expected by mid-2004.  This alternative will also be subject to approval by a Siting Board (comprised of the governor and cabinet) under the Florida Electrical Power Plant Siting Act.

In July 2002, the FERC issued a notice of proposed rulemaking to reform public utilities' transmission tariffs and implement a standardized design for electric markets in the United States.  The proposed rule would, among other things, require FERC regulated entities, including FPL, that own, control or operate transmission facilities to hire an independent transmission provider, which can be an RTO such as GridFlorida for the operation of those facilities.  The proposed rule also will require the independent transmission provider to administer various spot markets for the sale of electricity and ancillary services and to manage congestion on the transmission system using financial congestion rights.  Legislators and regulators from the southeast and western states have expressed strong reservations about the FERC's proposal.  In April 2003, the FERC issued a White Paper responding to comments on its proposed rule.  The White Paper indicates that the FERC int ends to be more flexible on how and when the final rule will be implemented, defer to regional state committees to address significant RTO/ISO features, require regulated utilities to join RTOs or ISOs and require RTOs to implement spot markets.  While a moratorium on further action by the FERC was included in the proposed Energy Policy Act, the status of that legislation is uncertain.  FPL is evaluating the proposed FERC rule and is currently unable to determine its effects, if any, on FPL's operations.

In the event the basis of regulation for some or all of FPL's business changes from cost-based regulation, existing regulatory assets and liabilities would be written off unless regulators specify an alternative means of recovery or refund.  Further, other aspects of the business, such as generation assets and long-term power purchase commitments, would need to be reviewed to assess their recoverability in a changed regulatory environment.  See Note 1 - Regulation.

As of December 31, 2003, FPL's resources for serving load consisted of 22,197 mw, of which 19,056 mw are from FPL-owned facilities (see Item 2. Properties - Generating Facilities) and 3,141 mw are obtained through purchased power contracts.  See Note 17 - Contracts.  FPL's projected reserve margin for the summer of 2004 is 20%.  This reserve margin will be achieved through the combination of output from FPL's generating units, purchased power contracts and the capability to reduce peak demand through the implementation of load management, which was estimated to be 1,533 mw at December 31, 2003.  Customer usage and operating revenues are typically higher during the summer months largely due to the prevalent use of air conditioning in FPL's service territory.  FPL set an all-time record summer energy peak on July 9, 2003, of 19,668 mw.  Occasionally, unusually cold temperatures during the winter months result in significant increases in electricity us age for short periods of time.  The highest energy peak FPL has served to date was a winter peak of 20,190 mw, which occurred on January 24, 2003.  FPL had adequate resources available at the time of these peaks to meet customer demand.

These estimates are subject to continuing review and adjustment and actual capital expenditures may vary from this estimate. See Management's Discussion - Liquidity and Capital Resources and Note 17 - Commitments.

The NRC's regulations require FPL to submit a plan for decontamination and decommissioning five years prior to the projected end of plant operation.  FPL's current plans, under the existing operating licenses, provide for prompt dismantlement of Turkey Point Units Nos. 3 and 4 with decommissioning activities commencing in 2012 and 2013, respectively.  Current plans provide for St. Lucie Unit No. 1 to be mothballed beginning in 2016 with decommissioning activities to be integrated with the prompt dismantlement of St. Lucie Unit No. 2 beginning in 2023.  See estimated decommissioning cost data in Note 1 - Decommissioning of Nuclear Plant.

In 2003, the NRC issued an order, subsequent to a previously issued NRC bulletin, requiring all pressurized water reactor licensees, including FPL, to perform visual and volumetric inspections of reactor vessel heads at each unit's scheduled refueling outage to identify if degradation such as cracking or corrosion has occurred.  During the scheduled refueling outages for St. Lucie Unit No. 1 in October 2002, Turkey Point Unit No. 3 in March 2003 and Turkey Point Unit No. 4 in October 2003, FPL performed visual and volumetric inspections and found no degradation associated with the reactor vessel heads.  In late April and early May 2003, while volumetric inspections of the reactor vessel head at St. Lucie Unit No. 2 were being performed during a scheduled refueling outage, two control rod drive mechanism (CRDM) nozzles were found with one small crack in each.  Both cracks were less than 50% through the thickness of the CRDM nozzle.  No leakage was observed and both cracks were repaired during the outage.  Also during the St. Lucie Unit No. 2 scheduled refueling outage, the steam generators were inspected and more tubes had to be plugged than anticipated.  The inspection results were evaluated and revised tube plugging projections developed.  Management intends to replace the steam generators at St. Lucie Unit No. 2 in 2007 and will delay the reactor vessel head replacement for St. Lucie Unit No. 2 until 2007 to coincide with the steam generator replacement.  FPL anticipates replacing the reactor vessel heads at Turkey Point Units Nos. 3 and 4 during their next scheduled refueling outage and at St. Lucie Unit No. 1 during a scheduled refueling outage in the fall of 2005.  Reactor vessel head replacements for these three units are expected to add approximately 35 days to the number of days a unit is removed from service during a typical scheduled refueling outage.  The cost for the reactor vessel heads and stea m generators is included in FPL's estimated capital expenditures above.

In 2003, the NRC issued a bulletin recommending that utilities with bottom mounted instrumentation penetrations perform visual inspections.  Visual inspections of the bottom mounted instrumentation penetrations were performed in 2003 during Turkey Point Unit No. 4's scheduled refueling outage, and no evidence of leakage from these penetrations was noted.  A visual inspection of Turkey Point Unit No. 3's bottom mounted instrumentation penetrations will be performed at its next scheduled refueling outage in the fall of 2004.  St. Lucie Units Nos. 1 and 2 do not have bottom mounted instrumentation penetrations.

FPL has four firm transportation contracts in place with FGT and one firm transportation contract with Gulfstream that together will satisfy substantially all of the anticipated needs for natural gas transportation at its existing units and the units currently under construction.  The four existing FGT contracts expire in 2015, 2021 and 2022, while the Gulfstream contract expires in 2028.  Two of the contracts expiring in 2015 may each be extended by FPL until 2030.  To the extent desirable, FPL can also purchase interruptible gas transportation service from FGT and Gulfstream based on pipeline availability.  FPL has several short- and medium-term natural gas supply contracts to provide a portion of FPL's anticipated needs for natural gas.  The remainder of FPL's gas requirements are purchased under other contracts and in the spot market.

FPL has, through its joint ownership interest in St. Johns River Power Park (SJRPP) Units Nos. 1 and 2, long-term coal supply and transportation contracts for a portion of the fuel needs for those units.  All of the transportation requirements and a portion of the fuel supply needs for Scherer Unit No. 4 are covered by a series of annual and long-term contracts.  The remaining fuel requirements will be obtained in the spot market.  FPL's oil requirements are obtained under short-term contracts and in the spot market.

FPL leases nuclear fuel for all four of its nuclear units.  See Note 1 - Nuclear Fuel.  On July 1, 2003, FPL Group and FPL began consolidating the lessor entity in accordance with FIN 46, "Consolidation of Variable Interest Entities."  See Note 10 - FPL.  The contracts for the supply, conversion, enrichment and fabrication of FPL's nuclear fuel have expiration dates ranging from 2006 through 2013.  Currently, FPL is storing spent fuel on site pending its removal by the DOE.  Under the Nuclear Waste Policy Act, the DOE was required to construct permanent disposal facilities and take title to and provide transportation and disposal for spent nuclear fuel by January 31, 1998 for a specified fee based on current generation from nuclear power plants.  Through December 2003, FPL has paid approximately $496 million in such fees to the DOE's nuclear waste fund.  The DOE did not meet its statutory obligation for disposal of spen t nuclear fuel under the Nuclear Waste Policy Act.  In 1997, a court ruled, in response to petitions filed by utilities, state governments and utility commissions, that the DOE could not assert a claim that its delay was unavoidable in any defense against lawsuits by utilities seeking money damages arising out of the DOE's failure to perform its obligations.  In 1998, FPL filed a lawsuit against the DOE seeking damages caused by the DOE's failure to dispose of spent nuclear fuel from FPL's nuclear power plants.  The matter is pending.  In the interim, FPL is investigating other alternatives to provide adequate storage capacity for all of its spent nuclear fuel.  Based on current projections, FPL will lose its ability to store spent fuel on site for St. Lucie Unit No. 1 in 2005, St. Lucie Unit No. 2 in 2007, Turkey Point Unit No. 3 in 2007 and Turkey Point Unit No. 4 in 2009.  In addition, degradation in a material used in the spent fuel pools at St. Lucie Unit No. 1 and Turkey Point Units Nos. 3 and 4 could result in implementation of alternative spent fuel storage options sooner than projected.  FPL is pursuing various approaches to further expand spent fuel storage at the sites, including increasing rack space in its existing spent fuel pools and/or developing the capacity to store spent fuel in dry storage containers.  FPL has submitted license amendment requests to the NRC for approval of additional storage racks.  Approval of these requests is expected by May 2004.  Once installed, these racks will extend the storage capacity such that the ability to store spent fuel will not be lost until 2008 at St. Lucie Unit No. 1, 2010 at St. Lucie Unit No. 2, 2010 at Turkey Point Unit No. 3 and 2012 at Turkey Point Unit No. 4.  If approved, the dry storage containers could be located at FPL's nuclear plant sites and/or at a facility operated by PFS in Utah.  PFS is a consortium of eight utiliti es seeking to license, construct and operate an independent spent fuel storage facility.  FPL joined the consortium in May 2000.  PFS has filed a license application with the NRC and hearings on the application have been completed.  In March 2003, PFS requested that the NRC review the ASLB's decision that requires PFS to address the consequences of a hypothetical military aircraft accident into its proposed facility before such facility is licensed.  PFS has also initiated further proceedings before the ASLB to address the consequences of such an accident.  Licensing on other environmental issues litigated during the hearings remain pending before the ASLB.  In addition, the State of Utah has appealed certain decisions of the ASLB.

In April 2002, the governor of Nevada submitted a Notice of Disapproval to Congress regarding President Bush's recommendation to develop Yucca Mountain as a nuclear waste depository.  The Yucca Mountain site is the DOE's recommended location to store and dispose of spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste.  During May and July 2002, Congress overrode the Notice of Disapproval through a majority vote of both houses.  The President signed the joint resolution of Congress into law on July 23, 2002.  The State of Nevada has initiated legal actions to attempt to block the project.

In 2002, the California Department of Health Services submitted its EMF Risk Evaluation report to the California Public Utility Commission.  The report concludes in part that "EMFs can cause some degree of increased risk of childhood leukemia, adult brain cancer, Lou Gehrig's Disease and miscarriage."  The report also finds that the risk, while potentially low across the entire population, nonetheless may be sufficient to warrant regulatory attention.

Florida has had EMF regulations in place for many years, and FPL believes it is in compliance with the FDEP regulations regarding EMF levels within and at the edge of the rights of way for transmission lines.  Future changes in the FDEP regulations could require additional capital expenditures by FPL for such things as increasing the width of right of way or relocating or reconfiguring transmission facilities.  It is not presently known whether any such expenditures will be required.  Currently, there are no such changes proposed to the FDEP regulations.

FPL Energy's capital expenditures and investments totaled approximately $1.6 billion, $2.1 billion and $2.0 billion in 2003, 2002 and 2001, respectively.  Capital expenditures for 2004 through 2008 are estimated to be as follows:

FPL Energy is currently constructing a gas-fired power plant with a total capacity of approximately 744 mw.  The plant is expected to be in operation in the second half of 2004.  During 2002, FPL Energy was engaged in the development of various other natural gas projects.  As a result of depressed economic conditions coupled with an oversupply of energy generating facilities in certain markets, projected profit margins for these projects declined and were not sufficient to cover the cost of capital.  Therefore, FPL Energy made a strategic decision during 2002 to substantially exit the fossil-fueled greenfield merchant power plant development business for the foreseeable future.  As a result, development costs associated with these abandoned projects were written off to expense.  Furthermore, FPL Energy realigned its organizational structure during 2002 to lower general and administrative expenses and took other actions associated with the restructur ing. See Management's Discussion - Results of Operations - FPL Energy and Note 6 - FPL Energy.  FPL Energy expects its future portfolio capacity growth to come from a mix of asset acquisitions and wind development, assuming pending legislation reestablishing the production tax credits for new wind facilities is enacted, either of which would increase estimated capital expenditures.

FPL Energy continues to evaluate the FERC's proposed rule on standard market design in areas where it is not already in effect. See FPL Operations - Competition. California is scheduled to implement standard market design in the first quarter of 2007. ERCOT is considering adopting standard market design, or portions thereof, with potential implementation as soon as 2006. In both markets, the final market design is not fully known at this time and FPL Energy is currently unable to determine the effects, if any, on its operation resulting from the implementation of standard market design.

Expanded competition in a relaxed regulatory environment presents both opportunities and risks for FPL Energy. Opportunities exist for the selective acquisition of generation assets divested under deregulation plans and for the construction and operation of efficient plants that can sell power in competitive markets.  Wholesale energy markets have experienced lower demand and lower wholesale electricity prices as a result of weather and economic conditions and the oversupply of generation in certain regions.  FPL Energy seeks to reduce its market risk by having a diversified portfolio, by fuel type and location, as well as by contracting for the sale of a significant amount of the electricity output of its plants.  As of December 31, 2003, FPL Energy had 74% of its on-peak capacity under contract for 2004.  Over the last several years, contracting for the sale of electricity output has become more difficult, as a result of overcapacity in certain regions and dimin ished market liquidity due to fewer creditworthy counterparties.  Given current market conditions, when FPL Energy's existing power sales agreements expire, more of the energy produced may be sold through shorter-term contracts and into competitive wholesale markets.

As of December 31, 2003, FPL Energy's capacity under contract for 2004 was as follows:

Wind Assets

During 2003, FPL Energy added 14 wind projects to its portfolio, totaling approximately 975 mw.  Project additions also included the construction of 811 mw of new capacity and the acquisition of 164 mw of operating plants.

At December 31, 2003, FPL Energy had ownership interests in 42 operating wind plants, with a combined capacity of approximately 2,719 mw (net ownership).  FPL Energy operates all but ten of these wind facilities.  Approximately 88% of FPL Energy's net ownership in wind facilities has received exempt wholesale generator status as defined under the Holding Company Act.  The remaining facilities have qualifying facility status under PURPA.  These facilities are located in fifteen states, thereby reducing weather-related performance risk on a portfolio basis.  In 2004, essentially all wind energy has been contracted with utilities and power marketers under fixed-price agreements with expiration dates ranging from 2011 to 2028.

Non-Wind Assets Under Long-Term Contract

At December 31, 2003, FPL Energy had 1,255 mw of non-wind assets under long-term contract.  Essentially all of these non-wind assets were under long-term power sales contracts with utilities, with contract expiration dates ranging from 2008 to 2021 and have firm fuel and transportation agreements with expiration dates ranging from 2011 to 2017.  Approximately 1,096 mw of this capacity is gas-fired generation.  The remaining 159 mw uses a variety of fuels and technologies such as waste-to-energy, solar, coal and petroleum coke.  Of these facilities 32% have qualifying facility status under PURPA and 68% have received exempt wholesale generator status under the Holding Company Act.

Merchant Assets

Merchant assets are plants that have not sold the majority of their output under long-term contracts.  The output from these merchant plants is sold through a combination of short- to medium-term contracts and sales in wholesale markets.  Beginning in 2003, FPL Energy began providing load-following services to distribution utilities in NEPOOL.  Load-following services require the supplier of energy to vary the quantity delivered based on the load demand needs of the customer.  The vast majority of the merchant assets have firm gas supply agreements or a combination of firm gas supply and transportation agreements to cover on-peak gas requirements.  PMI uses derivative instruments (primarily swaps, options, futures and forwards) to lock in pricing and manage the commodity price risk inherent in power sales and fuel purchases.

At December 31, 2003, FPL Energy's portfolio of merchant assets includes 7,067 mw of owned nuclear, natural gas, oil and hydro generation of which 2,973 mw is located in ERCOT, 2,590 mw in NEPOOL, 839 mw in SERC, 507 mw in WECC and 158 mw in other regions.  The merchant assets include 1,653 mw of peak generating facilities.  In addition, there are approximately 744 mw of gas-fired generation under construction in PJM that are expected to be in operation in the second half of 2004.

In 2003, the NRC issued an order, subsequent to a previously issued NRC bulletin, requiring all pressurized water reactor licensees, including Seabrook, to perform visual and volumetric inspections of reactor vessel heads to identify if degradation such as cracking or corrosion has occurred.  Seabrook will be required to perform 100% visual and volumetric inspections in 2006, and subsequently, visual inspections every third outage and volumetric inspections every fourth outage.  In 2003, the NRC issued a bulletin recommending that utilities with bottom mounted instrumentation penetrations perform visual inspections.  In October 2003, visual inspections of the bottom mounted instrumentation penetrations were performed during Seabrook's scheduled refueling outage, and no evidence of leakage from these penetrations was noted. The next refueling outage is scheduled to be performed in April 2005.

Seabrook has several contracts for the supply, conversion, enrichment and fabrication of nuclear fuel with expiration dates ranging from 2004 to 2014.  See Note 17 - Contracts.  Currently, Seabrook is storing spent fuel on site pending its removal by the DOE.  Under the Nuclear Waste Policy Act, the DOE was required to construct permanent disposal facilities and take title to and provide transportation and disposal for spent nuclear fuel by January 31, 1998 for a specified fee based on current generation from nuclear power plants.  From the time of the acquisition of Seabrook through December 2003, FPL Energy has paid approximately $8 million in such fees to the DOE's nuclear waste fund.  For details on the current status of permanent fuel storage with the DOE see FPL Operations - Fuel.  Based on current projections, FPL Energy will lose its ability to store spent fuel at Seabrook as early as 2009.  FPL Energy is investigating other a lternatives to expand its spent nuclear fuel storage capacity at Seabrook.

FPL Group's Corporate and Other segment represents other business activities, primarily FPL FiberNet, that are not separately reportable.  See Note 18.

At December 31, 2003, FPL Group's investment in FPL FiberNet totaled approximately $240 million.  FPL FiberNet invested approximately $10 million during 2003 and plans to invest a total of $50 million over the next five years to sustain its fiber-optic network and meet customers specific requirements.

FPL Group and its subsidiaries maintain properties which are adequate for their operations.  At December 31, 2003, the electric generating, transmission, distribution and general facilities of FPL represented approximately 44%, 12%, 36% and 8%, respectively, of FPL's gross investment in electric utility plant in service.

In November 1999, the Attorney General of the United States, on behalf of the EPA, brought an action in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia against Georgia Power Company and other subsidiaries of The Southern Company for certain alleged violations of the Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) provisions and the New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) of the Clean Air Act. In May 2001, the EPA amended its complaint. The amended complaint alleges, among other things, that Georgia Power Company constructed and is continuing to operate Scherer Unit No. 4, in which FPL owns a 76% interest, without obtaining a PSD permit, without complying with NSPS requirements, and without applying best available control technology for nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxides and particulate matter as required by the Clean Air Act.  It also alleges that unspecified major modifications have been made at Scherer Unit No. 4 that require its compliance with the aforementioned Clean Air Act provision s. The EPA seeks injunctive relief requiring the installation of best available control technology and civil penalties of up to $25,000 per day for each violation from an unspecified date after June 1, 1975 through January 30, 1997 and $27,500 per day for each violation thereafter.  Under a proposed EPA rule, the maximum penalty would increase to $32,500 per day for each violation after publication of the final rule.  Georgia Power Company has answered the amended complaint, asserting that it has complied with all requirements of the Clean Air Act, denying the plaintiff's allegations of liability, denying that the plaintiff is entitled to any of the relief that it seeks and raising various other defenses.  In June 2001, the federal district court stayed discovery and administratively closed the case pending resolution of the EPA's motion for consolidation of discovery in several Clean Air Act cases that was filed with a Multi-District Litigation (MDL) panel.  In August 2001, the MDL panel denied the motion for consolidation.  In September 2001, the EPA moved that the federal district court reopen this case for purposes of discovery.  Georgia Power Company opposed that motion asking that the case remain closed until the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals rules on the Tennessee Valley Authority's (TVA) appeal of an EPA administrative compliance order relating to legal issues that are also central to this case.  In August 2002, the federal district court denied without prejudice the EPA's motion to reopen.  In June 2003, the Eleventh Circuit issued its order dismissing the TVA's appeal because it found the provision of the Clean Air Act allowing the EPA to issue binding administrative compliance orders was unconstitutional, and hence found that the TVA order was a non-final order that courts of appeal do not have jurisdiction to review.  In September 2003, the Eleventh Circuit denied the EPA's motion for rehearing, and the EPA is now evaluating whether to seek review of the Eleventh Circuit decision by the U.S. Supreme Court.  The EPA has not yet moved to reopen the Georgia Power Company case.

In February 2003, Scott and Rebecca Finestone brought an action on behalf of themselves and their son Zachary Finestone in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida alleging that their son has developed cancer (neuroblastoma) as a result of the release and/or dissipation into the air, water, soil and underground areas of radioactive and non-radioactive hazardous materials, including strontium 90, and the release of other toxic materials from FPL's St. Lucie nuclear power plant.  The complaint includes counts against FPL for strict liability for allegedly engaging in an ultra-hazardous activity and for alleged negligence in operating the plant in a manner that allowed emissions of the foregoing materials and failing to limit its release of nuclear fission products as prescribed by federal and state laws and regulations.  The plaintiffs seek damages in excess of $1 million.  FPL moved to dismiss the complaint.  In September 2003, the court entered an order denying FPL's motion to dismiss. Following FPL's motion for reconsideration in the Blake and Lowe lawsuit, discussed below, the court entered a similar order vacating its order denying the motion to dismiss the count for strict liability, and upon reconsideration granted FPL's motion to dismiss the count for strict liability.

In May 2003, Tish Blake and John Lowe, as personal representatives of the Estate of Ashton Lowe, on behalf of the estate and themselves, as surviving parents, brought an action in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida alleging that their son developed cancer (medulo-blastoma) as a result of the release and/or dissipation into the air, water, soil and underground areas of radioactive and non-radioactive hazardous materials, including strontium 90, and the release of other toxic materials from FPL's St. Lucie nuclear power plant.  The allegations, counts and damages demanded in the complaint are virtually identical to those contained in the Finestone lawsuit described above.  FPL moved to dismiss the complaint.  In September 2003, the court entered an order denying FPL's motion to dismiss.  FPL moved for reconsideration of the court's order as to the count for strict liability.  The court then entered an order vacating the order denying t he motion to dismiss as to the count for strict liability, and upon reconsideration granted FPL's motion to dismiss the count for strict liability.

In June 2003, Monty and Kathryn Wooldridge brought an action on behalf of themselves and their son, Kevin Allen Wooldridge, in the Circuit Court of the 9^th Judicial Circuit in and for Orange County, Florida, against Aventis Pasteur and a number of other named and unnamed drug manufacturing and distribution companies, the American Dental Association, the Florida Dental Association, FPL and the OUC, alleging that their son has suffered toxic neurological effects from mercury poisoning.  The allegations, counts and damages demanded in the complaint are virtually identical to those contained in the Bradstreet lawsuits described above.  FPL has moved to dismiss the complaint.

In August 2003, Pedro C. and Emilia Roig brought an action on behalf of themselves and their son, Pedro Anthony Roig, in the Circuit Court of the 11^th Judicial Circuit in and for Miami-Dade County, Florida (the state court), which was removed in October 2003 to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, against Aventis Pasteur and a number of other named and unnamed drug manufacturing and distribution companies and FPL, alleging that their son has suffered toxic neurological effects from mercury poisoning.  The allegations, counts and damages demanded in the complaint with respect to FPL are virtually identical to those contained in the Bradstreet and Wooldridge lawsuits described above.  The plaintiffs have moved to remand the action back to the state court.  The motion has been briefed by both parties and is pending in the U.S. District Court, which has stayed all discovery in the action.  FPL will be moving to dismiss the case once the remand motion is decided.

In January 2004, the Center For Biological Diversity, Inc. (Center) filed a lawsuit against FPL Group, FPL Energy and its subsidiaries ESI Bay Area GP, Inc., Green Ridge Power LLC and Altamont Power, LLC, as well as other defendants, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.  The complaint alleges violations of certain sections of the California Business and Professions Code, unjust enrichment and certain violations of the Lanham Act.  The complaint alleges that numerous birds have died as the result of collisions with wind turbines owned and operated by subsidiaries of FPL Energy in the Altamont area.  The complaint requests injunctive relief, restitution, penalties, forfeiture of the wind turbines, disgorgement of profits and attorneys' fees.  As of February 26, 2004, none of the FPL Group-related entities named in the lawsuit have been served with this complaint.

On February 13, 2004, Albert Litter Studios, Inc. instituted an action against FPL in the Circuit Court of the 11^th Judicial Circuit in and for Miami-Dade County, Florida, seeking damages on behalf of itself, and purportedly on behalf of all other similarly situated commercial entities in Florida.  The plaintiff asserts that FPL's intentional use of allegedly defective thermal demand meters has resulted in overcharging it and certain other commercial customers millions of dollars and constitutes an unfair and/or deceptive practice in violation of the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, breach of an implied contract, and in breach of a duty of good faith and fair dealing.  The complaint seeks damages in excess of $15,000, representing the amount of the alleged overcharges, interest, and such other relief as the court may order.  FPL had determined in 2002 that, based on sample testing of the approximately 3,900 1V thermal demand meters in service, the dem and component of its 1V meter population was exceeding allowable tolerance levels established by FPSC rules.  In 2002, FPL proposed to replace and test all of the 1V meters in service and to issue refunds, as appropriate, within certain parameters.  FPL was given administrative approval from the FPSC staff to proceed with the replacement of the 1V meters.  By early 2003, all 1V meters had been replaced.  Testing of all 1V meters disclosed that approximately 15% of the 3,900 meters were outside of allowed tolerances, with 10% under-registering and 5% over-registering electricity usage.  In November 2003, the FPSC, as proposed agency action, approved a method for testing the meters and calculating refunds. On December 10, 2003, Southeastern Utility Services, Inc., on behalf of several commercial customers, filed a protest to the proposed agency action and requested a hearing.  Southeastern Utility Services, Inc. alleges that, among other things, the p roposed method for computing the amount of the refund is flawed.  Discovery is proceeding and no hearing date has been set.

In the event that FPL Group and FPL do not prevail in these lawsuits, there may be a material adverse effect on their financial statements.  However, FPL Group and FPL believe that they have meritorious defenses to the pending litigation discussed above and are vigorously defending the lawsuits.  Management does not anticipate that the liabilities, if any, arising from the proceedings would have a material adverse effect on the financial statements.

FPL Group's above-referenced statement of position reported that during the course of the special committee's investigation of the allegations in the lawsuits a separate question arose concerning the interpretation of the provisions of FPL Group's LTIP pursuant to which the payments to eight current and former senior officers were calculated.  A change from the original interpretation could result in a repayment to FPL Group of up to approximately $9 million.  FPL Group and the eight senior officers have entered into a binding arbitration agreement in order to resolve the issue.

In May 2003, the plaintiff's attorneys in the Klein lawsuit sent a new letter to FPL Group's board of directors (the May 2003 Letter) demanding, among other things, that the board take action (i) to recover from the persons who approved such payments and/or otherwise breached their fiduciary duties, all of the above-described $92 million of LTIP payments made to officers and employees of FPL Group, allegedly on the grounds that the payments constituted a breach of fiduciary duty, bad faith, corporate waste and other unspecified wrongs, (ii) to investigate whether the proposed merger with Entergy was a plan by FPL Group's officers and directors to enrich themselves at the expense of the company, (iii) to seek the return of certain LTIP awards made in replacement of accelerated LTIP awards, (iv) to take immediate actions to secure the return of up to approximately $9 million in LTIP payments which is subject to an interpretation question under the LTIP, (v) to investigate and seek the return of stock options a nd restricted stock paid to Mr. Broadhead in January 2002 in connection with a consulting agreement and his retirement from FPL Group in December 2001, and (vi) to investigate whether punitive damages may be sought.  In July 2003, FPL Group's board of directors appointed a special committee, composed of James L. Camaren and Michael H. Thaman, to investigate the matters raised in the May 2003 Letter and to make a determination as to how FPL Group should respond to the matters raised therein.  In August 2003, the plaintiff's attorney in the Klein lawsuit sent a letter to FPL Group's board of directors purporting to "withdraw" the May 2003 Letter.

In addition to those legal proceedings discussed herein, FPL Group and its subsidiaries, including FPL, are involved in a number of other legal proceedings and claims in the ordinary course of their businesses.  In addition, generating plants in which FPL Group or FPL have an ownership interest are involved in legal proceedings and claims, the liabilities from which, if any, would be shared by FPL Group or FPL.  While management is unable to predict with certainty the outcome of these other legal proceedings and claims, it is not expected that their ultimate resolution, individually or collectively, will have a material adverse effect on the financial statements.

None

The amount and timing of dividends payable on FPL Group's common stock are within the sole discretion of FPL Group's board of directors.  The board of directors reviews the dividend rate at least annually (in February) to determine its appropriateness in light of FPL Group's financial position and results of operations, legislative and regulatory developments affecting the electric utility industry in general and FPL in particular, competitive conditions and any other factors the board deems relevant.  The ability of FPL Group to pay dividends on its common stock is dependent upon dividends paid to it by its subsidiaries, primarily FPL.  In February 2004, FPL Group announced that it would increase its quarterly dividend on its common stock from $0.60 to $0.62 per share.  There are no restrictions in effect that currently limit FPL's ability to pay dividends to FPL Group. See Management's Discussion - Liquidity and Cap ital Resources for a description of the dividend restrictions and Note 13 - Common Stock Dividend Restrictions regarding dividends paid by FPL to FPL Group.