Back to GetFilings.com

UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, D.C. 20549

FORM 10-K

[X] ANNUAL REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d)
OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

For the fiscal year ended December 31, 2004

OR

[  ] TRANSITION REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d)
OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

Indicate by check mark if disclosure of delinquent filers pursuant to Item 405 of Regulation S-K is not contained herein, and will not be contained, to the best of registrants' knowledge, in definitive proxy or information statements incorporated by reference in Part III of this Form 10-K or any amendment to this Form 10-K.  [  ]

Indicate by check mark whether FPL Group, Inc. is an accelerated filer (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934).         Yes   X         No     

Indicate by check mark whether Florida Power & Light Company is an accelerated filer (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934).          Yes           No  X 

Aggregate market value of the voting stock of FPL Group, Inc. held by non-affiliates as of June 30, 2004 (based on the closing market price on the Composite Tape on June 30, 2004) was $11,815,429,818 (determined by subtracting from the number of shares outstanding on that date the number of shares held by directors and officers of FPL Group, Inc.).

There was no voting stock of Florida Power & Light Company held by non-affiliates as of June 30, 2004.

The number of shares outstanding of FPL Group, Inc. common stock, as of the latest practicable date: Common Stock, $0.01 par value, outstanding at January 31, 2005: 186,322,751 shares.

As of January 31, 2005, there were issued and outstanding 1,000 shares of Florida Power & Light Company common stock, without par value, all of which were held, beneficially and of record, by FPL Group, Inc.

DOCUMENTS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE

Portions of FPL Group, Inc.'s Proxy Statement for the 2005 Annual Meeting of Shareholders are incorporated by reference in Part III hereof.

Florida Power & Light Company meets the conditions set forth under General Instruction (I)(1)(a) and (b) of Form 10-K and is therefore filing this form with reduced disclosure format.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

• FPL Group and FPL are subject to changes in laws or regulations, including the PURPA, and the Holding Company Act, changing governmental policies and regulatory actions, including those of the FERC, the FPSC and the utility commissions of other states in which FPL Group has operations, and the NRC, with respect to, among other things, allowed rates of return, industry and rate structure, operation of nuclear power facilities, operation and construction of plant facilities, operation and construction of transmission facilities, acquisition, disposal, depreciation and amortization of assets and facilities, recovery of fuel and purchased power costs, decommissioning costs, return on common equity and equity ratio limits, and present or prospective wholesale and retail competition (including but not limited to retail wheeling and transmission costs).  The FPSC has the authority to disallow recovery by FPL of costs that it considers excessive o r imprudently incurred.

• The regulatory process generally restricts FPL's ability to grow earnings and does not provide any assurance as to achievement of earnings levels.

• FPL Group and FPL are subject to extensive federal, state and local environmental statutes, rules and regulations relating to air quality, water quality, waste management, wildlife mortality, natural resources and health and safety that could, among other things, restrict or limit the output of certain facilities or the use of certain fuels required for the production of electricity and/or require additional pollution control equipment and otherwise increase costs.  There are significant capital, operating and other costs associated with compliance with these environmental statutes, rules and regulations, and those costs could be even more significant in the future.

• FPL Group and FPL operate in a changing market environment influenced by various legislative and regulatory initiatives regarding deregulation, regulation or restructuring of the energy industry, including deregulation of the production and sale of electricity.  FPL Group and its subsidiaries will need to adapt to these changes and may face increasing competitive pressure.

• FPL Group's and FPL's results of operations could be affected by FPL's ability to renegotiate franchise agreements with municipalities and counties in Florida.

• The operation of power generation facilities involves many risks, including start up risks, breakdown or failure of equipment, transmission lines or pipelines, use of new technology, the dependence on a specific fuel source or the impact of unusual or adverse weather conditions (including natural disasters such as hurricanes), as well as the risk of performance below expected or contracted levels of output or efficiency.  This could result in lost revenues and/or increased expenses.  Insurance, warranties or performance guarantees may not cover any or all of the lost revenues or increased expenses, including the cost of replacement power.  In addition to these risks, FPL Group's and FPL's nuclear units face certain risks that are unique to the nuclear industry including the ability to store and/or dispose of spent nuclear fuel, as well as additional regulatory actions up to and including shutdown of the units stemming from public safety concerns, whether at FPL Group's and FPL's plants, or at the plants of other nuclear operators.  Breakdown or failure of an FPL Energy operating facility may prevent the facility from performing under applicable power sales agreements which, in certain situations, could result in termination of the agreement or incurring a liability for liquidated damages.

• FPL Group's and FPL's ability to successfully and timely complete their power generation facilities currently under construction, those projects yet to begin construction or capital improvements to existing facilities is contingent upon many variables and subject to substantial risks.  Should any such efforts be unsuccessful, FPL Group and FPL could be subject to additional costs, termination payments under committed contracts, and/or the write-off of their investment in the project or improvement.

• FPL Group and FPL use derivative instruments, such as swaps, options, futures and forwards to manage their commodity and financial market risks, and to a lesser extent, engage in limited trading activities.  FPL Group could recognize financial losses as a result of volatility in the market values of these contracts, or if a counterparty fails to perform.  In the absence of actively quoted market prices and pricing information from external sources, the valuation of these derivative instruments involves management's judgment or use of estimates.  As a result, changes in the underlying assumptions or use of alternative valuation methods could affect the reported fair value of these contracts.  In addition, FPL's use of such instruments could be subject to prudency challenges and if found imprudent, cost recovery could be disallowed by the FPSC.

• There are other risks associated with FPL Group's non-rate regulated businesses, particularly FPL Energy.  In addition to risks discussed elsewhere, risk factors specifically affecting FPL Energy's success in competitive wholesale markets include the ability to efficiently develop and operate generating assets, the successful and timely completion of project restructuring activities, maintenance of the qualifying facility status of certain projects, the price and supply of fuel, transmission constraints, competition from new sources of generation, excess generation capacity and demand for power.  There can be significant volatility in market prices for fuel and electricity, and there are other financial, counterparty and market risks that are beyond the control of FPL Energy.  FPL Energy's inability or failure to effectively hedge its assets or positions against changes in commodity prices, interest rates, counterparty cred it risk or other risk measures could significantly impair FPL Group's future financial results.  In keeping with industry trends, a portion of FPL Energy's power generation facilities operate wholly or partially without long-term power purchase agreements.  As a result, power from these facilities is sold on the spot market or on a short-term contractual basis, which may affect the volatility of FPL Group's financial results.  In addition, FPL Energy's business depends upon transmission facilities owned and operated by others; if transmission is disrupted or capacity is inadequate or unavailable, FPL Energy's ability to sell and deliver its wholesale power may be limited.

• FPL Group is likely to encounter significant competition for acquisition opportunities that may become available as a result of the consolidation of the power industry.  In addition, FPL Group may be unable to identify attractive acquisition opportunities at favorable prices and to successfully and timely complete and integrate them.

• FPL Group and FPL rely on access to capital markets as a significant source of liquidity for capital requirements not satisfied by operating cash flows.  The inability of FPL Group, FPL Group Capital and FPL to maintain their current credit ratings could affect their ability to raise capital on favorable terms, particularly during times of uncertainty in the capital markets, which, in turn, could impact FPL Group's and FPL's ability to grow their businesses and would likely increase interest costs.

• FPL Group's and FPL's results of operations are affected by changes in the weather.  Weather conditions directly influence the demand for electricity and natural gas and affect the price of energy commodities, and can affect the production of electricity at wind and hydro-powered facilities.  In addition, severe weather can be destructive, causing outages and/or property damage, which could require additional costs to be incurred.

• FPL Group and FPL are subject to costs and other effects of legal and administrative proceedings, settlements, investigations and claims, as well as the effect of new, or changes in, tax laws, rates or policies, rates of inflation, accounting standards, securities laws or corporate governance requirements.

• FPL Group and FPL are subject to direct and indirect effects of terrorist threats and activities.  Generation and transmission facilities, in general, have been identified as potential targets.  The effects of terrorist threats and activities include, among other things, terrorist actions or responses to such actions or threats, the inability to generate, purchase or transmit power, the risk of a significant slowdown in growth or a decline in the U.S. economy, delay in economic recovery in the United States, and the increased cost and adequacy of security and insurance.

• FPL Group's and FPL's ability to obtain insurance, and the cost of and coverage provided by such insurance, could be affected by national, state or local events as well as company-specific events.

• FPL Group and FPL are subject to employee workforce factors, including loss or retirement of key executives, availability of qualified personnel, collective bargaining agreements with union employees or work stoppage.

Item 1.  Business

FPL GROUP

FPL Group is a public utility holding company, as defined in the Holding Company Act, exempt from substantially all of the provisions of the Holding Company Act.  It was incorporated in 1984 under the laws of Florida.  FPL Group's principal subsidiary, FPL, is a rate-regulated utility engaged in the generation, transmission, distribution and sale of electric energy.  FPL Group Capital, a wholly-owned subsidiary of FPL Group, holds the capital stock and provides funding for FPL Group's operating subsidiaries other than FPL.  The business activities of these operating subsidiaries primarily consist of FPL Energy's wholesale generation business.  At December 31, 2004, FPL Group and its subsidiaries employed approximately 11,900 people.  For financial information regarding FPL Group's business segments, see Note 17.

Website Access to SEC Filings.  FPL Group and FPL make their annual report on Form 10-K, quarterly reports on Form 10-Q, current reports on Form 8-K, and any amendments to those reports, available free of charge on the internet website, www.fplgroup.com, as soon as reasonably practicable after they are electronically filed with or furnished to the SEC.

FPL OPERATIONS

General.  FPL was incorporated under the laws of Florida in 1925 and is a wholly-owned subsidiary of FPL Group.  FPL supplies electric service to a population of more than eight million throughout most of the east and lower west coasts of Florida.  During 2004, FPL served approximately 4.2 million customer accounts.  The percentage of FPL's operating revenues by customer class was as follows:

FPL currently holds 173 franchise agreements to provide electric service in various municipalities and counties in Florida with varying expiration dates through 2034.  Of the 173 franchise agreements one expires in August 2005, six expire in 2006 and 104 expire in 2007 through 2014.  Ongoing negotiations are taking place to renew franchises with upcoming expirations. FPL considers its franchises to be adequate for the conduct of its business.

Regulation.  FPL's retail operations provided approximately 99% of FPL's 2004 operating revenues.  Retail operations are regulated by the FPSC which has jurisdiction over retail rates, service territory, issuances of securities, planning, siting and construction of facilities and other matters.  FPL is also subject to regulation by the FERC in various respects, including the acquisition and disposition of facilities, interchange and transmission services and wholesale purchases and sales of electric energy.

FPL's nuclear power plants are subject to the jurisdiction of the NRC.  NRC regulations govern the granting of licenses for the construction, operation and retirement of nuclear power plants and subject these plants to continuing review and regulation.

Environmental.  Federal, state and local environmental laws and regulations cover air and water quality, land use, power plant and transmission line siting, EMF from power lines and substations, oil discharge from transformers, lead paint, asbestos, noise and aesthetics, solid waste, natural resources, wildlife mortality and other environmental matters. Compliance with these laws and regulations increases the cost of electric service by requiring, among other things, changes in the design and operation of existing facilities and changes or delays in the location, design, construction and operation of new facilities.  During 2004, FPL spent approximately $61 million on capital additions to comply with environmental laws and regulations.  FPL's capital expenditures to comply with environmental laws and regulations are estimated to be $198 million for 2005 through 2007, including approximately $69 million in 2 005, and are included in estimated capital expenditures set forth in Capital Expenditures below.  Environmental regulations are subject to change.  The following is a discussion of emerging federal initiatives and rules that could potentially affect FPL.  FPL would generally seek recovery under its environmental clause for compliance costs associated with any new environmental laws and regulations.

Climate Change - In 2002, President Bush announced new climate change initiatives for the United States, among which is a voluntary commitment to reduce the greenhouse gas intensity in the United States by 18% by 2012.  The Bush Administration is currently seeking commitments from various industrial sectors and individual companies to reach this goal.  FPL Group has responded to the administration's request by becoming a charter signatory to the Administration's Climate Leaders Program.  As a participant in this voluntary program, FPL Group has inventoried its greenhouse gas emission rates and has committed to a 2008 reduction target of 18% below a 2001 baseline emission rate measured in pounds per megawatt-hour.  FPL Group believes that the planned operation of its generating portfolio, along with its current efficiency initiatives, greenhouse gas management efforts and increased use of renewable energy, will allow it to achieve this target.

Clean Air Act Interstate Air Quality Rule - In 2004, the EPA proposed the Interstate Air Quality Rule, which is designed to bring into compliance the majority of areas in the United States that are not currently expected to meet new air quality standards for fine particulates (PM 2.5) and ozone.  The proposed rule requires sulfur dioxide (SO₂) and nitrogen oxide (NOx) emissions reductions from electric generating units in 28 states where their emissions are transported to downwind states resulting in an adverse impact to air quality.  The proposed rule requires reductions in SO₂ and NOx by 2010 and by 2015, respectively, eventually reaching a nationwide reduction of 65% below a 2002 baseline emission rate for each.  In the proposed rule, Florida and Georgia were determined to be contributo rs of PM 2.5 to downwind states through modeling.  However, FPL believes that the emissions from its Florida generating facilities are not affecting the non-attainment status of downwind areas.  While the final requirements are uncertain, it is possible that FPL generating facilities in Florida and Georgia may be required to add additional SO₂ and NOx controls or purchase emission allowances to meet the compliance requirements of the final rule.

Clean Water Act Section 316(b) - In 2004, the EPA issued a rule under Section 316(b) of the Clean Water Act to address intake structures at existing power plants with once-through cooling water systems.  The rule requires FPL to demonstrate that it has met or will meet new impingement mortality (the loss of organisms against screens and other exclusion devices) and/or entrainment (the loss of organisms by passing them through the cooling system) reductions by complying with one of five alternatives, including the authorized use of technology, operational measures or restoration measures, and may involve the performance of biological studies.  The new rules will impact eight of FPL's generating facilities (Cape Canaveral, Cutler, Fort Myers, Lauderdale, Port Everglades, Sanford, Riviera and St. Lucie).  FPL will be conducting the nec essary studies/analyses over the next several years and implementing solutions based upon regulatory approvals.  The cost of these solutions, as well as any ongoing biological monitoring that may be required, has not yet been determined.

Retail Ratemaking.  The underlying concept of utility ratemaking is to set rates at a level that allows the utility the opportunity to collect from customers total revenues (revenue requirements) equal to its cost of providing service, including a reasonable rate of return on invested capital.  To accomplish this, the FPSC uses various ratemaking mechanisms.

Competition.  FPL currently faces competition from other suppliers of electrical energy to wholesale customers and from alternative energy sources and self-generation for other customer groups, primarily industrial customers.  In 2004, operating revenues from wholesale and industrial customers combined represented approximately 4% of FPL's total operating revenues.  Various states, other than Florida, have enacted legislation or have state commissions that have issued orders designed to allow retail customers to choose their electricity supplier.  This regulatory restructuring is expected to result in a shift from cost-based rates to market-based rates for energy production and other services provided to retail customers.  Although the legislation and initiatives vary substantially, common areas of focus include when market-based pricing will be available for wholesale and retail custome rs, what existing prudently incurred costs in excess of the market-based price will be recoverable and whether generating assets should be separated from transmission, distribution and other assets.  It is generally believed that transmission and distribution activities would remain regulated.  Within the last few years, these state restructuring efforts have diminished, and several states have delayed the implementation or reversed previously approved restructuring legislation and rules.  Management believes it is unlikely there will be any state actions to restructure the electric industry in Florida in the near future.

System Capability and Load.  FPL is currently constructing approximately 1,900 mw of natural gas combined-cycle generation at its Martin and Manatee sites with a planned in-service date of June 2005.  See Competition regarding recent approvals for an additional 1,150 mw of generating capacity with a planned in-service date of mid-2007.

Capital Expenditures.  Capital expenditures at FPL consist of the cost for construction or acquisition of additional facilities and equipment to meet customer demand, as well as capital improvements to and maintenance of existing facilities.  FPL's capital expenditures totaled $1.4 billion in 2004 (including AFUDC of approximately $48 million), $1.4 billion in 2003 (including AFUDC of approximately $18 million) and $1.3 billion in 2002.  Capital expenditures for 2005 through 2009 are estimated to be as follows:

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 16 - Commitments.

Nuclear Operations.  FPL owns and operates four nuclear units, two at Turkey Point and two at St. Lucie.  Turkey Point Units Nos. 3 and 4 received operating license extensions in 2002, which give FPL the option to operate these units until 2032 and 2033, respectively.  The NRC extended the operating licenses for St. Lucie Units Nos. 1 and 2 during 2003, which give FPL the option to operate these units until 2036 and 2043, respectively.  The original license expiration dates for Turkey Point Units Nos. 3 and 4 and St. Lucie Units Nos. 1 and 2 are 2012, 2013, 2016 and 2023, respectively.  FPL has not yet decided to operate past the original license expiration dates, although FPL is continuing to take actions to ensure the long-term viability of the units in order to preserve this option.  The decision will be made for Turkey Point Units Nos. 3 and 4 by 2007 and for St. Lucie Unit s Nos. 1 and 2 by 2011.  Any adjustment to depreciation and decommissioning rates would require FPSC approval.  The nuclear units are periodically removed from service to accommodate normal refueling and maintenance outages, repairs and certain other modifications.  Scheduled nuclear refueling outages typically require the unit to be removed from service for approximately 30 days.  Scheduled nuclear refueling outages by unit are as follows:

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 Plants, Dismantlement of Plants and Other Accrued Asset Removal Costs.

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 and April 2004, 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 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.  During a January 2005 St. Lucie Unit No. 2 scheduled refueling outage, the volumetric inspections of the reactor vessel head revealed three CRDM nozzles with small cracks.  The cracks were less than 25% through the thickness of the CRDM nozzle.  No leakage was observed and the cracks were repaired during the outage.  In January 2005, FPL received permission from the NRC to plug up to 30% of St. Lucie Unit No. 2's steam generator tubes.  To date, 18.9% of these tubes have been plugged.  It is possible that during St. Lucie No. 2's next scheduled refueling outage in the spring of 2006 the 30% tube plugging limit could be exceeded.  Management is currently evaluating various options, including sleeving degraded tubes, to stay within the tube plugging limit.  FPL has requested NRC approval to sleeve degraded tubes as an alternative to plugging.  Management intends to replace the reactor vessel head and steam generators at St. Lucie Unit No. 2 during its fall 2007 scheduled refueling outage.  During the fall of 2004, FPL replaced the reactor vessel head at Turkey Point Unit No. 3 during its scheduled refueling outage.  FPL anticipates replacing the reactor vessel heads at Turkey Point Unit No. 4 and St. Lucie Unit No. 1 during their next scheduled refueling outage.  Reactor vessel head replacements for these two 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 steam 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 of Turkey Point Unit No. 4 were performed in 2003 during its scheduled refueling outage and no evidence of leakage from these penetrations was noted.  During 2004, the NRC approved an official request by FPL to perform volumetric rather than visual inspections of Turkey Point Unit Nos. 3 and 4's bottom mounted instrumentation penetrations.  During Turkey Point Unit No. 3's most recent refueling outage in the fall of 2004, a volumetric inspection was performed and no evidence of leakage from these penetrations was noted.  Turkey Point Unit No. 4 will perform volumetric inspections of the bottom mounted instrumentation penetrations at its next scheduled refueling outage in the spring of 2005.  St. Lucie Units No. 1 and 2 do not have bottom mounted instrumentation penetrations.

During 2003, nuclear utilities, other than FPL, identified that pressurizer heater sleeves made with a particular material (alloy 600) were experiencing penetration cracks and leaks as a result of primary water stress corrosion cracking.  As a result, in May 2004, the NRC issued a bulletin requesting utilities to identify and inspect all alloy 600 and weld materials in all pressurizer locations and connected steam space piping.  FPL has filed a response to the bulletin.  In the spring of 2004, prior to the issue of the NRC bulletin, St. Lucie Unit No. 1 performed visual inspections within the scope of the bulletin and no leaks were identified.  St. Lucie Unit No. 2 performed similar inspections at its January 2005 scheduled refueling outage and no leaks were identified.  Due to the amount of time and cost associated with correcting potential leaks, FPL has decided to replace St. Lucie Unit No. 1's pressurizer during its schedu led refueling and reactor vessel head replacement outage in the fall of 2005.  The estimated cost for the pressurizer is included in estimated capital expenditures above.  See Note 16 - Commitments.  FPL has decided to repair St. Lucie Unit No. 2's pressurizer heater sleeve penetrations during its scheduled refueling and steam generator and reactor vessel head replacement outage in the fall of 2007.  The estimated cost of this repair is approximately $12 million, which will be charged to O&M expense.  All pressurizer penetrations and welds at Turkey Point Units Nos. 3 and 4 utilize a different material.

Fuel.  FPL's generating plants use a variety of fuels.  See Item 2 - Generating Facilities and Note 16 - Contracts. The diverse fuel options, along with purchased power, enable FPL to shift between sources of generation to achieve an economical fuel mix.  In order to further diversify the company's sources of natural gas and increase supply reliability on behalf of its customers, FPL issued an RFP during 2004 for long-term supplies of regasified liquified natural gas (LNG).  The RFP seeks deliveries of LNG beginning as early as 2007.  FPL's decision on the RFP is expected by mid-2005.

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 Martin and Manatee units currently under construction.  The four existing FGT contracts expire in 2015, 2021 and 2022, while the Gulfstream contract expires in 2028.  Each of the contracts expiring in 2015 may 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.  FPL's remaining fuel requirements for these units 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.  In 2003, FPL Group and FPL began consolidating the lessor entity in accordance with FIN 46, "Consolidation of Variable Interest Entities."  See Note 9 - 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 2004, FPL has paid approximately $520 million in such fees to the DOE's nuclear waste fund.  The DOE did not meet its statutory obligat ion for disposal of spent 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 additional spent fuel on site for St. Lucie Unit No. 1 in 2008, St. Lucie Unit No. 2 in 2007, Turkey Point Unit No. 3 in 2010 and Turkey Point Unit No. 4 in 2012.  These projections are based on addition al space provided by new cask pit area storage racks installed at the Turkey Point Units Nos. 3 and 4 and St. Lucie Unit No. 1 spent fuel pools in 2004.  Once the St. Lucie Unit No. 2 cask pit rack is installed, that unit will extend its capability to store spent fuel through 2010.  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 dry cask storage facilities at St. Lucie Units Nos. 1 and 2 and Turkey Point Units Nos. 3 and 4, which would extend their capability to store spent fuel indefinitely.  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 utilities 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 February 2005, the ASLB recommended to the NRC to grant PFS's operating license.  The State of Utah has appealed certain decisions of the ASLB and opposes the license application.

In 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 in 2002.  The State of Nevada has initiated legal actions to attempt to block the project.  In 2004, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled on a series of challenges to the statutes and regulations established to govern a nuclear waste depository at the Yucca Mountain site.  The court denied all the challenges except for one, regarding an EPA rule governing the time period the public would be protected from h ypothetical radiation leaks at the Yucca Mountain repository.  The court's decision will likely result in revisions to the EPA's and NRC's licensing rules for Yucca Mountain and could further delay the licensing process for Yucca Mountain beyond the currently projected commencement date of 2010 proposed by the DOE.

Energy Marketing and Trading.  EMT, a division of FPL, buys and sells wholesale energy commodities, such as natural gas, oil and electric power.  EMT procures natural gas and oil for FPL's use in power generation and sells excess gas, oil and electric power.  EMT also uses derivative instruments, such as swaps, options, futures and forwards to manage the commodity price risk inherent in fuel and electricity sales and purchases.  Substantially all of the results of EMT's activities are passed through to customers in the fuel or capacity clauses.  See Retail Ratemaking, Management's Discussion - Energy Marketing and Trading and Market Risk Sensitivity and Note 3.

Electric and Magnetic Fields.  Over the past 20 years, there has been public, scientific, and regulatory attention given to the question of whether EMF causes or contributes to adverse health effects.  These fields exist whenever there is a flow of electricity, including in power lines, appliances and building wiring.  Some epidemiological studies (which typically examine the incidence of disease in population groups) have reported a statistical association between EMF and some types of cancer, including childhood and adult leukemia.  Other studies have not reported any such relationship.  Neither these epidemiological studies nor the more controlled laboratory studies of EMF have produced conclusive evidence that EMF causes or contributes to any adverse health effects.

In 1999, the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, at the culmination of a five-year federally supported research effort, pronounced that the scientific support for an EMF-cancer link is marginal and concluded that the probability that EMF exposure is truly a health hazard is small but cannot be completely discounted.

In 2001, the IARC conducted an evaluation of power frequency EMF and cancer; it classified power frequency magnetic fields as "possibly carcinogenic" based on an association with childhood leukemia reported in some epidemiology studies.  The IARC did not conclude that power frequency EMF cause or contribute to the development of childhood leukemia or any other cancer.  In 2002, the California Department of Health Services (CDHS) submitted its EMF Risk Evaluation report to the California Public Utility Commission.  The report concluded in part that "To one degree or another, all three of the CDHS scientists are inclined to believe that EMF can cause some degree of increased risk of childhood leukemia, adult brain cancer, Lou Gehrig's Disease, and miscarriage."

In 2002, the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences said in a booklet it published on EMF: "For most health outcomes, there is no evidence that EMF exposures have adverse effects.  There is some evidence from epidemiology studies that exposure to power-frequency EMF is associated with an increased risk for childhood leukemia.  This association is difficult to interpret in the absence of reproducible laboratory evidence or a scientific explanation that links magnetic fields with childhood leukemia."

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 right of way corridors 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.

Employees.  FPL had approximately 10,000 employees at December 31, 2004.  Approximately 33% of the employees are represented by the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW) under a collective bargaining agreement with FPL which has been extended until October 31, 2005.  Meanwhile, FPL and the IBEW are discussing a proposal for a successor agreement.

FPL ENERGY OPERATIONS

General.  FPL Energy, a wholly-owned subsidiary of FPL Group Capital, was formed in 1998 to aggregate FPL Group's existing wholesale generation business.  It is a limited liability company organized under the laws of Delaware.  FPL Energy currently owns, develops, constructs, manages and operates domestic electric-generating facilities in wholesale energy markets.  FPL Energy manages or participates in the management of approximately 83% of its projects, which represent approximately 96% of the net generating capacity in which FPL Energy has an ownership interest.  At December 31, 2004, FPL Energy had net generating capability totaling 11,520 mw, all of which consisted of ownership interests in operating independent power projects (see Item 2 - Generating Facilities).  Generation capacity spans various regions thereby reducing seasonal volatility on a portfolio basis.  ; At December 31, 2004, the percentage of capacity by NERC region or power pool was:

FPL Energy expects its future portfolio capacity growth to come primarily from wind development due to the extension of the production tax credit program through 2005 for new wind facilities, as well as from asset acquisitions.  FPL Energy plans to add a total of 250 mw to 750 mw of wind generation by the end of 2005, including approximately 220 mw which are currently under construction and are expected to be in service by mid-2005.

FPL Energy's capital expenditures and investments totaled approximately $0.4 billion, $1.6 billion and $2.1 billion in 2004, 2003 and 2002, respectively.  Capital expenditures for 2005 through 2009 are estimated to be as follows:

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 restructuring of its business.  See Management's Discussion - Results of Operations - FPL Energy and Note 6 - FPL Energy.

Energy Marketing and Trading.  PMI, a subsidiary of FPL Energy, buys and sells wholesale energy commodities, such as natural gas, oil and electric power.  PMI procures natural gas and oil for FPL Energy's use in power generation and sells any excess gas.  PMI also sells the output from FPL Energy's plants which has not been sold under long-term contracts and purchases replacement power.  PMI uses derivative instruments, such as swaps, options, futures and forwards to manage the risk associated with fluctuating commodity prices and to optimize the value of FPL Energy's power generation assets.  To a lesser extent, PMI engages in limited energy trading activities to take advantage of expected future favorable price movements.  In 2003, FPL Energy began providing full service requirements services to distribution utilities in certain markets.  These services include load - -following services, which require the supplier of energy to vary the quantity delivered based on the load demand needs of the customer, as well as various ancillary services.  The results of PMI's activities are recognized in FPL Energy's operating results.  See Management's Discussion - Energy Marketing and Trading and Market Risk Sensitivity, Note 1 - Energy Trading and Note 3.

Employees.  FPL Energy had approximately 1,750 employees at December 31, 2004.  The IBEW and the Utility Workers Union of America (UWUA) represented approximately 5% and 11%, respectively, of FPL Energy's employees.  The collective bargaining agreement between an FPL Energy subsidiary and the IBEW expires in February 2008 and the collective bargaining agreement between an FPL Energy subsidiary and the UWUA expires in September 2008.

Regulation.  At December 31, 2004, approximately 6% of FPL Energy's net generating capacity has qualifying facility status under PURPA.  FPL Energy's qualifying facilities generate electricity from wind, solar, fossil fuels, biomass or waste-product combustion.  Qualifying facility status exempts the projects from, among other things, the application of the Holding Company Act, many provisions of the Federal Power Act, and state laws and regulations relating to rates and financial or organizational regulation of electric utilities.  FPL Energy also has ownership interests in operating independent power projects that have received exempt wholesale generator status as defined under the Holding Company Act, which represent approximately 94% of FPL Energy's net generating capacity.  Exempt wholesale generators own or operate a facility exclusively to sell electricity to wholesale customers.& nbsp; They are barred from selling electricity directly to retail customers.  FPL Energy's exempt wholesale generators produce electricity from wind, hydropower, fossil fuels and nuclear facilities.  While projects with qualifying facility and exempt wholesale generator status are exempt from various restrictions, each project must still comply with other federal, state and local laws, including those regarding siting, construction, operation, licensing, pollution abatement and other environmental laws.

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 operations resulting from the implementation of standard market design.

Environmental.  FPL Energy is subject to the same environmental laws and regulations and is affected by many of the same emerging issues included in the discussion of FPL's business (see FPL Operations - Environmental for details relating to FPL Group which include FPL Energy issues).  While the final requirements for MACT standards for nickel emissions are uncertain, it is possible that the final Clean Air Act Mercury/Nickel Rule may require an oil-fired FPL Energy unit in Maine to add pollution control equipment or may dictate changes in operational parameters.  In addition, pursuant to a rule under Section 316(b) of the Clean Water Act, two FPL Energy plants (Seabrook and an oil-fired plant in Maine) will be required to demonstrate that they currently meet, or will meet, the prescribed performance standards for the reduction of impingement and/or entrainment at their cooling water intakes through technol ogy, operational measures or restoration measures.  FPL Energy will be conducting the necessary studies/analyses over the next several years and implementing solutions based upon regulatory approvals.  The cost of these solutions, as well as any ongoing biological monitoring that may be required, has not yet been determined.

Competition.  Competitive wholesale markets in the United States continue to evolve and vary by geographic region.  Revenues from electricity sales in these markets will vary based on the prices obtainable for energy, capacity and other ancillary services.  Some of the factors affecting success in these markets include the ability to operate generating assets efficiently and reliably, the price and supply of fuel, transmission constraints, wind and hydro resources (weather conditions), competition from new sources of generation, effective risk management, demand growth and exposure to legal and regulatory changes.

Expanded competition in a frequently changing regulatory environment presents both opportunities and risks for FPL Energy. Opportunities exist for the selective acquisition of generation assets divested under deregulation plans or available from other competitors and for the construction and operation of efficient plants that can sell power in competitive markets.  However, the current oversupply of generation in certain regions results in significant pressure on natural gas-fired plant margins.  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, 2004, FPL Energy had 78% of its on-peak capacity under contract for 2005.  Over the last several years, contracting for the sale of electricity output was more difficult as a result of overcapacity in certain regio ns and diminished market liquidity due to fewer creditworthy counterparties.  However, the major markets in which FPL Energy operates have shown modest signs of improvement during 2004.  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.

Portfolio by Category.  FPL Energy's assets can be categorized into the following three groups:  wind assets, contracted assets and merchant assets.

As of December 31, 2004, FPL Energy's capacity under contract for 2005 was as follows:

Wind Assets - At December 31, 2004, FPL Energy had ownership interests in wind plants with a combined capacity of approximately 2,758 mw (net ownership).  All of these wind assets have contracts with utilities and power marketers predominantly under fixed-price agreements with expiration dates ranging from 2011 to 2028.  FPL Energy operates all but nine of these wind facilities.  Approximately 89% 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.  FPL Energy's wind facilities are located in fifteen states, thereby reducing weather-related performance risk on a portfolio basis.

Nuclear Operations.  In 2002, an FPL Energy subsidiary purchased an 88.23% undivided interest in Seabrook, located in New Hampshire.  FPL Energy's net ownership interest in Seabrook's capacity consists of 1,024 mw of nuclear generation.  FPL Energy is responsible for all plant operations.  The current operating license for Seabrook expires in 2026. FPL Energy intends to seek approval from the NRC to extend the unit's license to recapture the period of non-operation from 1986 to 1990, in addition to a 20-year license extension.  If granted, these approvals would extend the term of the NRC operating license for Seabrook to 2050.  Preparations are in progress for a power uprate at Seabrook that is expected to increase FPL Energy's proportionate share of plant capability by approximately 84 mw, the estimated future costs of which are included in FPL Energy's estimated capital expen ditures above.  This uprate, which has been approved by the New England ISO, will be implemented in two phases, pending approval by the NRC.  The first phase of the uprate is expected to add approximately 71 mw and is expected to be performed during the next scheduled refueling outage in the spring of 2005.  The second phase of the uprate is expected to add an additional 13 mw during the following scheduled refueling outage in the fall of 2006.  At the time of the Seabrook acquisition, FPL Energy assumed responsibility for the ultimate decommissioning of the plant, the cost of which will be shared on a pro-rata basis by the joint owners.  See estimated decommissioning cost data in Note 1 - Decommissioning of Nuclear Plants, Dismantlement of Plants and Other Accrued Asset Removal Costs - FPL Energy.

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 at certain scheduled refueling outages to identify if degradation such as cracking or corrosion has occurred.  Seabrook will be required to perform 100% visual and volumetric inspections during the fall 2006 refueling outage, and subsequently, visual inspections every third refueling outage and volumetric inspections every fourth refueling 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.

OTHER FPL GROUP OPERATIONS

FPL FiberNet.  FPL FiberNet was formed in 2000 to enhance the value of FPL Group's fiber-optic network assets that were originally built to support FPL operations.  Accordingly, in 2000, FPL's existing fiber-optic lines were transferred to FPL FiberNet.  FPL FiberNet is a limited liability company organized under the laws of Delaware.  FPL FiberNet leases wholesale fiber-optic network capacity and dark fiber to FPL and other customers, primarily telephone, internet and other telecommunications companies.  Dark fiber in the Florida metro market is also sold to third parties.  FPL FiberNet's primary business focus is the Florida metro market.  Metro networks cover Miami, Ft. Lauderdale, West Palm Beach, Tampa, St. Petersburg, Orlando and Jacksonville.  FPL FiberNet also has a long-haul network within Florida that leases bandwidth at wholesale rates.   ;At December 31, 2004, FPL FiberNet's network consisted of approximately 2,500 route miles, which interconnected major cities throughout Florida.  During 2003, FPL FiberNet added the latest generation of Ethernet services which provides customers the option to upgrade their existing telecommunications network.  Due to the changing telecommunications market, FPL FiberNet previously completed valuation studies to assess the recoverability of its assets and as a result, in 2002, wrote off some of these assets to expense.  This write off represented an impairment charge related to property, plant and equipment, the fair value of which was determined based on a discounted cash flow analysis.  Additionally, FPL FiberNet decided not to pursue the planned build-out of metro fiber rings in certain cities, and restructuring charges were recognized in 2002 related to the write-off of development costs and inventory.  See Management's Discussion - Results of Operati ons - Corporate and Other and Note 6 - 2002 - Corporate and Other.

Transmission and Distribution.  During 2004, FPL purchased transmission substation assets located in Seabrook, New Hampshire at their net book value of approximately $21 million from a subsidiary of FPL Energy.  The substation assets were transferred in order to qualify for cost recovery opportunities in New England that are limited to transmission providers.  At December 31, 2004, FPL owned and operated the following electric transmission and distribution lines:

In addition, at December 31, 2004, FPL owned and operated 537 substations, one of which is jointly owned.  See Note 8.

Character of Ownership.  Substantially all of FPL's properties are subject to the lien of FPL's mortgage, which secures most debt securities issued by FPL.  The majority of FPL Group's principal properties are held by FPL in fee and are free from other encumbrances, subject to minor exceptions, none of which is of such a nature as to substantially impair the usefulness to FPL of such properties.  Some of FPL's electric lines are located on land not owned in fee but are covered by necessary consents of governmental authorities or rights obtained from owners of private property.  A number of FPL Energy's generating facilities are encumbered by liens against their assets securing various financings.  See Generating Facilities and Note 1 - Electric Plant, Depreciation and Amortization.

Item 3.  Legal Proceedings

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 com pliance with the aforementioned Clean Air Act provisions.  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.  The EPA further revised its civil penalty rule in February 2004, such that the maximum penalty is $32,500 per day for each violation after March 15, 2004.  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 cas es 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 ruled 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 Sep tember 2003, the Eleventh Circuit denied the EPA's motion for rehearing.  In May 2004, the U.S. Supreme Court denied the EPA's petition for review of the Eleventh Circuit order.  The EPA has not yet moved to reopen the Georgia Power Company case.

In November 2001, J. W. and Ernestine M. Thomas, Chester and Marie Jenkins (since substituted for by Hazel and Lamar Jenkins), and Ray Norman and Jack Teague, as Co-Personal Representatives on behalf of the Estate of Robert L. Johns, served FPL Group, FPL, FPL FiberNet, FPL Group Capital and FPL Investments, Inc. (FPL Investments) as defendants in a civil action filed in the Circuit Court for Suwanee County, Florida.  This action is purportedly on behalf of all property owners in Florida (excluding railroad and public rights of way) whose property is encumbered by easements in favor of FPL, and on whose property defendants have installed or intend to install fiber-optic cable which defendants currently lease, license or convey or intend to lease, license or convey for non-electric transmission or distribution purposes.  The lawsuit alleges that FPL's easements do not permit the installation and use of fiber-optic cable for general communication purposes.&n bsp; The plaintiffs have asserted claims for unlawful detainer, unjust enrichment and constructive trust and seek injunctive relief and compensatory damages.  In May 2002, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, adding allegations regarding the installation of wireless communications equipment on some easements, and adding a claim for declaratory relief.  Defendants filed an answer and affirmative defenses to the amended complaint in August 2002.  Motions for summary judgment by FPL Group, FPL Group Capital and FPL Investments have been granted, and they have been dismissed from this lawsuit.  In February 2004, the plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to file their third amended complaint adding four more plaintiffs and seeking leave to add a claim for punitive damages.  The court has not set a time for a hearing on this motion or on whether this case will proceed as a class action.

In August 2001, FMPA filed with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia (DC Circuit) a petition for review asking the DC Circuit to reverse and remand orders of the FERC denying FMPA's request for credits for transmission facilities owned by FMPA members.  The transmission credits sought by FMPA would offset the transmission charges that FPL bills FMPA for network transmission service to FMPA's member cities.  FMPA member cities have been taking network transmission service under FPL's open access transmission tariff since 1996.  In the orders appealed by FMPA, FERC ruled that FMPA would be entitled to credits for any FMPA facilities that were "integrated" with the FPL transmission system. Based on the evidence submitted, FERC concluded that none of the FMPA facilities met the integration test and, therefore, FMPA was not entitled to credits against FPL's charges for transmission service.  In January 2003, the DC Circuit upheld FERC's order denying FMPA credits for its facilities; in March 2003, the DC Circuit denied FMPA's rehearing request of the DC Circuit's decision; and in October 2003, the U.S. Supreme Court denied FMPA's petition for review of the DC Circuit's decision.

FMPA also has requested that FERC decide the same crediting issue in a separate FERC proceeding.  That proceeding dates back to a filing by FPL in 1993 of a comprehensive restructuring of its then-existing tariff structure.  All issues in that case were settled in September 2000 except for three issues reserved by FMPA: (i) the crediting issue, (ii) treatment of behind-the-meter generation and load ratio pricing for network integration transmission service, and (iii) exclusions from FPL's transmission rates of the costs of FPL's facilities that failed to meet the same integration test that was applied to FMPA's facilities with respect to the crediting issue.  In December 2003, FERC issued an order addressing the three reserved issues.  With respect to the crediting issue, FERC stated that it had previously determined that FMPA was not entitled to credits for its facilities in the related proceeding discussed above and saw no persuasive reason to revisit that determination in this proceeding.  Regarding the issue of behind-the-meter generation, FERC stated that it had addressed the issue of load ratio pricing for network integration transmission service and the related issue of behind-the-meter generation in Order Nos. 888 and 888-A, and saw no persuasive reason to revisit that determination in this proceeding.  With respect to the third issue, FERC directed FPL to make a compliance filing of a proposed rate schedule that does not include those facilities of FPL that fail to meet the same integration test applied to the FMPA facilities.

In January 2004, FMPA requested a "conditional rehearing on the Commission's failure to order rate credits solely in the event that Commission does not adequately reduce FPL's rate base to achieve comparability," and challenging FERC's determination not to revisit the issue of behind-the-meter generation and load ratio pricing for network integration transmission service.  In March 2004, FERC issued an order denying FMPA's rehearing request.  In April 2004, FMPA petitioned the DC Circuit for review of FERC's December 2003 order and March 2004 order.  FMPA filed its initial brief in that proceeding on October 1, 2004.  FMPA's arguments are limited to the issue of behind-the-meter generation and load ratio pricing for network integration transmission service in instances when, according to FMPA, FPL cannot provide transmission service because of "physical transmission limitations."  FERC's r eply brief was filed on December 1, 2004.  FPL has been granted party status as an intervenor, and its brief was filed on December 16, 2004.  FMPA's reply brief to the FERC was filed on January 13, 2005.  Oral argument is scheduled for March 22, 2005.  FPL estimates its exposure for refunds to FMPA on this issue to be approximately $2 million at December 31, 2004.

In May 2004, FPL made a compliance filing of a proposed rate schedule that does not include those facilities of FPL that fail to meet the same integration test that was applied to the FMPA facilities.  Pursuant to this filing, 1.63% of FPL's transmission facilities do not satisfy the integration standard and FPL's current network transmission rate would be reduced by $0.02 per kilowatt (kw) per month, resulting in a refund obligation to FMPA of approximately $1 million at December 31, 2004.  In June 2004, FMPA filed a protest to FPL's compliance filing, which protest would exclude approximately 30% of FPL's transmission facilities and reduce FPL's current network transmission rate by approximately $0.41 per kw per month, potentially resulting in a refund obligation to FMPA of approximately $26 million at December 31, 2004.  Any reduction in FPL's network service rate would also apply effective January 1, 2004 to Seminole Electric Cooperative Inc. (Seminole), FPL's other network customer.  The refund obligation to Seminole at December 31, 2004 would be approximately $0.2 million under FPL's filing and approximately $4 million based on FMPA's position.  On January 25, 2005, FERC issued an order on FPL's compliance filing.  In the order FERC accepted FPL's standards for analyzing the transmission system and agreed that FPL's "Georgia Ties" and "Turkey Point Lines" are part of FPL's integrated grid.  FERC required FPL to make an additional compliance filing removing the cost of all radial transmission lines from transmission rates, rather than only radial lines that serve one customer, analyzing the FPL transmission system to remove the cost of any transmission facilities that provide only "unneeded redundancy," and calculating rate adjustments using 1993 data rather than 1998 data.  FPL's further compliance filing is due on April 25, 2005.

In 1995 and 1996, FPL Group, through an indirect subsidiary, purchased from Adelphia 1,091,524 shares of Adelphia common stock and 20,000 shares of Adelphia preferred stock (convertible into 2,358,490 shares of Adelphia common stock) for an aggregate price of approximately $35,900,000.  On January 29, 1999, Adelphia repurchased all of these shares for $149,213,130 in cash.  On June 24, 2004, Adelphia, Adelphia Cablevision, L.L.C. and the Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors of Adelphia filed a complaint against FPL Group and its indirect subsidiary in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court, Southern District of New York.  The complaint alleges that the repurchase of these shares by Adelphia was a fraudulent transfer, in that at the time of the transaction Adelphia (i) was insolvent or was rendered insolvent, (ii) did not receive reasonably equivalent value in exchange for the cash it paid, and (iii) was engaged or about to engage in a business or transac tion for which any property remaining with Adelphia had unreasonably small capital.  The complaint seeks the recovery for the benefit of Adelphia's bankruptcy estate of the cash paid for the repurchased shares, plus interest.  FPL Group believes that the complaint is invalid because, among other reasons, Adelphia will be unable to demonstrate that (i) Adelphia's repurchase of shares from FPL Group, which repurchase was at the market value for those shares, was not for reasonably equivalent value, (ii) Adelphia was insolvent at the time of the repurchase, or (iii) the repurchase left Adelphia with unreasonably small capital.

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.  After initially denying FPL's motion to dismiss, th e court granted it with respect to plaintiffs' count for strict liability.  The court has also granted FPL's motion for a ruling that the only duty owed by FPL to the plaintiffs is established exclusively by federal regulations and not general negligence standards.  The plaintiffs subsequently filed an amended complaint on the same factual grounds, including a count against FPL for strict liability, which appears identical in all material elements to the strict liability claim in plaintiffs' initial complaint, and counts against FPL for alleged negligence based on duties allegedly established by federal and state laws and regulations.  FPL again moved to dismiss the strict liability claim and moved to dismiss all negligence claims that are not based on the duty that the court has recognized governs this action.  The court granted FPL's motion.  FPL has answered the one count in the amended complaint that is based on that duty, denying any liability. &nbs p;Plaintiffs also moved to vacate or modify the court's order establishing the duty owed.  The court denied plaintiffs' motion.  Discovery is proceeding.

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.  As in the Finestone case, the court has granted FPL's motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' count for strict liability.  Similarly, the court has also granted FPL's motion for a ruling that the only duty owed by FPL to the plaintiffs is established exclusive ly by federal regulations and not general negligence standards.  The plaintiffs subsequently filed an amended complaint on the same factual grounds, including a count against FPL for strict liability, which appears identical in all material elements to the strict liability claim in plaintiffs' initial complaint, and counts against FPL for alleged negligence based on duties allegedly established by federal and state laws and regulations.  FPL again moved to dismiss the strict liability claim and moved to dismiss all negligence claims that are not based on the duty that the court has recognized governs this action.  The court granted FPL's motion.  FPL has answered the one count in the amended complaint that is based on that duty, denying any liability.  Plaintiffs also moved to vacate or modify the court's order establishing the duty owed.  The court denied plaintiffs' motion.  Discovery is proceeding.

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 Orlando Utilities Commission (OUC), alleging that their son has suffered toxic neurological effects from mercury poisoning.  The sources of mercury exposure are alleged to be vaccines containing a preservative called thimerosal that were allegedly manufactured and distributed by the drug companies, mercury amalgam dental fillings, and emissions from FPL and OUC power plants in Florida, including Brevard County.  The complaint includes counts against all defendants for civil battery and against FPL for alleged negligence in operating the plants such that the son was exposed to mercury and other heavy metals emissions.  The damages demanded from FPL are for injuries and losses allegedly suffered by the son as a result of his exposure to the plants' mercury emissions and the parents' alleged pain and suffering, medical expenses, loss of wages, and loss of their son's services and companionship.  No amount of damages is specified.  The court has granted the drug manufacturing and distribution companies' and the dental associations' motions to dismiss the complaint against them.  The plaintiffs are appealing those orders.  FPL's motion to dismiss is pending.

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 Wooldridge lawsuit described above.  The U.S. District Court remanded the action back to the state court.  All parties anticipate that the drug manufacturing and distribution companies will move to dismiss the action.  Plaintiffs and FPL have agreed that FPL will not respond to the complaint until the state court rules on those motions.

In December 2003, Edward and Janis Shiflett brought an action on behalf of themselves and their son, Phillip Benjamin Shiflett, in the Circuit Court of the 18^th Judicial Circuit in and for Brevard County, Florida (the state court), which was removed in January 2004 to the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, against Aventis Pasteur and a number of other named and unnamed drug manufacturing and distribution companies, 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 with respect to FPL are virtually identical to those contained in the Wooldridge and Roig lawsuits.  FPL's motion to dismiss the complaint was denied.  The U.S. District Court subsequently remanded the action back to the state court.  All parties anticipate that the drug manufacturing and distribution companies will move to dismi ss the action.  Plaintiffs and FPL have agreed that FPL will not respond to the complaint until the state court rules on those motions.

In February 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 breach of an implied contract, breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing, negligence, fraudulent inducement, and negligent misrepresentation.  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 moved to dismiss the case on the grounds that the FPSC has exclusive jurisdiction over this type of complaint.  The court denied the motion on July 13, 2004.  FPL appealed the ruling to Florida's Third District Court of Appeals (Third DCA).  FPL's motion to stay the proceedings pending resolution of the appeal was denied by the trial court.  FPL filed a separate motion to stay pending appeal with the Third DCA, and the court granted that motion on November 10, 2004.  Oral argument on the appeal of the jurisdictional question was heard on December 14, 2004.  The parties are currently awaiting a decision on the appeal of the jurisdictional question; the Third DCA's stay of the trial court proceedings remains in effect pending that decision.

FPL determined in 2002 that, based on sample testing of the approximately 3,900 1V thermal demand meters in service, the demand 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 proposed method for computing the amount of the refund is flawed.  A final hearing before the FPSC occurred on November 4, 2004.  Final briefs were filed by the parties on December 16, 2004.  At its February 1, 2005 agenda meeting, the FPSC concluded that no refunds were due relative to the 11 meters in question for any period in excess of 12 months.  Southeastern Utility Services, Inc. had argued for multi-year refunds.  Based on the FPSC's decision, FPL expects that aggregate refunds to these complainants will not exceed $50,000.  The parties expect a final FPSC order by March 2005.

On October 6, 2004, TXU Portfolio Management Company (TXU) served FPL Energy Pecos Wind I, LP, FPL Energy Pecos Wind I GP, LLC, FPL Energy Pecos Wind II, LP, FPL Energy Pecos Wind II GP, LLC and Indian Mesa Wind Farm, LP (FPL Energy Affiliates) as defendants in a civil action filed in the District Court in Dallas County, Texas.  The petition alleges that the named FPL Energy Affiliates had a contractual obligation to produce and sell to TXU a minimum quantity of energy each year and that the FPL Energy Affiliates failed to meet this obligation.  The plaintiff has asserted claims for breach of contract and declaratory judgment and seeks damages of $20,826,100.  The FPL Energy Affiliates filed their answer and counterclaim in November of 2004, denying the allegations.  The counterclaim asserts claims for conversion, breach of fiduciary duty, breach of contract and fraud and seeks termination of the contract and damages.  The cas e is in discovery and has been set for a non-jury trial in August of 2005.

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.

In June 2004, a subsidiary of FPL Energy, FPLE Rhode Island State Energy, L.P. (RISEP), received a Notice of Violation (NOV) from the Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management (RIDEM).  The NOV alleged that the RISEP facility exceeded certain permit limitations relating to the reuse water received from the City of Cranston during certain days from November 2002 until May 2003 and that RIDEM was not notified of such exceedances in a timely manner.  The total proposed penalty for these combined allegations was $383,700.  In April 2003, the facility self-disclosed the permit exceedances at issue and since that date has undertaken significant changes to its management, water treatment system, and the wastewater treatment system for the City of Cranston, which has been providing poor quality reuse water.  In addition, there were several meetings with RIDEM regarding the status of remedial measures and the facility maintained regula r contact regarding plant operational status.  On December 28, 2004, RISEP agreed to pay a penalty of $95,000 to RIDEM to settle the NOV.

Item 4.  Submission of Matters to a Vote of Security Holders

None

Item 5.  Market for the Registrants' Common Equity, Related Stockholder Matters and Issuer Purchases of Equity Securities

Common Stock Data.  All of FPL's common stock is owned by FPL Group.  FPL Group's common stock is traded on the New York Stock Exchange.  The high and low sales prices for the common stock of FPL Group as reported in the consolidated transaction reporting system of the New York Stock Exchange for each quarter during the past two years are as follows:

Approximate Number of Stockholders.  As of the close of business on January 31, 2005, there were 32,981 holders of record of FPL Group's common stock.

Dividends.  Quarterly dividends have been paid on common stock of FPL Group during the past two years in the following amounts per share: