PSC says yes to charging in advance for nukes, staff says no to conservation

Our colleagues over at The Buzz are reporting that the Florida Public Service Commission rejected arguments from environmentalists and clean-energy advocates and voted 3-1 today to approve a request by Progress Energy, and Florida Power & Light to charge customers four new nuclear power plants that wouldn't generate any voltage until 2017.

The lone no vote came from Commissioner Nancy Argenziano, whom FPL on Thursday accused of being biased and unethical.

The decision allows Progress Energy to charge customers customers $213 million, or $5.86 a month per 1,000 kilowatt hour, to upgrate its Crystal River nuclear power plant and build two new nuclear units in Levy County.And FPL gets to raise $63 million and add 67 cents per 1,000 kilowatt hours to customer monthly bills to pay for the pre-construction costs of two nuclear units at its Turkey Point Plant in Miami-Dade County and to add two new units to its St. Lucie County plant

Meanwhile though, the PSC's staff has recommended against adopting strict energy conservation goals for the utilities. The reason, according to the Sun-Sentinel: they think that conserving too much energy would cost customers more.

Last year, at the behest of Gov. Charlie Crist, the Legislature passed a law requiring the commission to adopt efficiency goals that encourage lowering energy use.

However, as the paper notes, "Utilities often oppose lowering energy use because that means less in electricity sales and profit. FPL officials project a rate increase of about $4 billion over the next 10 years if they used aggressive goals recommended by environmentalists."

Environmental activists contend that if the PSC adopts tougher conservation goals, the Sun-Sentinel reports, "customers' bills would decrease over the long-term both because they'd use less electricity and it would eliminate the need for new FPL power plants, which customers pay for through rates."

--Craig Pittman

Showdown at the PSC over Progress Energy, FPL nuke plant charges

As our colleague Robert Trigaux notes in his Venture blog, Friday will bring what promises to be the final showdown at the state Public Service Commission over whether Progress Energy and Florida Power & Light can charge customers years in advance for building new nuclear plants.

Estimated cost for the two plants: $35 billion. The one Progress Energy hopes to build in Levy County accounts for half of that -- $17 billion.

Once viewed as a slam-dunk for the utilities, Trigaux points out, now the question of what the PSC will do is definitely up in the air.

"Critics say investors, not consumers, should bear more of the risk of nuclear power plants," he writes. "And economic circumstances have stalled some of the initial momentum for new nuclear power. Enough so to ask: will Progress Energy itself ultimately decide the nuke plants are no longer worth the growing controversy in the state?"

Further complicating the PSC's decision is Gov. Charlie Crist's selection of two new members in the wake of an ongoing scandal that has led to suggestions that it's time to change how the state regulates its utilities.

--Craig Pittman

Crack found in Crystal River nuke plant containment wall

Workers at Progress Energy's nuclear power plant in Crystal River found "a separation in the concrete...near the periphery of the containment," according to a report from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

The plant had already been shut down for nearly two weeks for refueling and a modification that requires cutting a large hole through the steel-reinforced building, according to the Orlando Sentinel.

"The NRC is sending additional inspectors to determine the extent, cause and safety risks of the void," the paper reported.

Progress Energy wants to build a second nuclear plant just north of the one in Crystal River, up in Levy County, but permitting issues with the NRC have forced it to delay construction.

--Craig Pittman

Seven myths about alternative energy (including nukes & biofuels)

Award-winning writer Michael Grunwald has penned a provocative list for the Financial Times called "Seven Myths about Alternative Energy." Among them:

"Nuclear Power Is the Cure for Our Addiction to Coal." Nope, says Grunwald, because of timing and cost. "The West needs major cuts in emissions within a decade, and the first new U.S. reactor is only scheduled for 2017 -- unless it gets delayed, like every U.S. reactor before it...The bigger problem is cost. Nuke plants are supposed to be expensive to build but cheap to operate. Unfortunately, they're turning out to be really, really expensive to build; their cost estimates have quadrupled in less than a decade."

"Renewable Fuels Are the Cure for Our Addiction to Oil." No they aren't, says Grunwald, because the push for more biofuels has led to greater deforestation of the planet and thus greater carbon problems. "In 2007, researchers finally began accounting for deforestation and other land-use changes created by biofuels. One study found that it would take more than 400 years of biodiesel use to 'pay back' the carbon emitted by directly clearing peat for palm oil."

--Craig Pittman

TVA drops plans for three reactors; is 'nuclear renaissance' fading?

Although Gov. Charlie Crist and the Cabinet just approved Florida's first new nuclear plant in 33 years, the news from the nuke industry is not all good. Last week the Tennessee Valley Authority dropped plans for a potential four-unit nuclear plant in northeast Alabama and will build just one new reactor, the Associated Press reports.

The nation's largest public utility, which two years ago had positioned itself as the leader in what was being called a "nuclear renaissance,"
has now scaled back its nuke plans because it was "faced with falling electric sales and rising costs from cleaning up a massive coal ash spill in Tennessee," the AP says.

This isn't the first utility to drop nuke plans, as utilities face increasing problems at finding credit to pay for building the expensive reactors. Nor is it the first time that the bright promise of a nuclear future has faded because of financing problems.

The TVA currently operates six reactors, but the AP notes: "The TVA had plans in the 1960s and 1970s for as many as 17 reactors, but scrapped most of them because of cost and lack of power demand."

Craig Pittman, Times Staff Writer

*

Crist, Cabinet okay new nuke plant in Levy County

Gov. Charlie Crist and the Cabinet voted today to approve Progress Energy's plan to build a new nuclear plant in Levy County, the first to be built in Florida since 1976.

Crist lauded the nuclear plant as a source of nonpolluting power generation and praised the “diversification of energy” the plant will produce. Attorney General Bill McCollum noted the "passion" of the plant's opponents who are concerned about the plant's impact on wetlands and other environmental issues. But McCollum said the plant will help supply needed power in coming years.

“We are leaving a legacy of waste," complained one opponent, state Rep. Michelle Rehwinkle-Vasilinda. "It is not truly clean. There is waste, and it has to be permanently disposed. We have not figured out how to do that, and I am concerned.”

So far the source of the greatest controversy over the plant has not been the environmental impact but its economics, thanks to a state law that allows the utility to charge its customers in advance to build the $17  billion plant. Meanwhile, Progress Energy has been forced to delay the start of construction by federal permitting issues, and it faces a legal challenge to its permit as well.

Shannon Colavecchio and Craig Pittman, Times Staff Writers

*

U.S. subsidizes renewable energy for $36B -- but spurns nuke project

The U.S. Department of Energy is making available $36 billion in loan guarantees for renewable energy projects and for modernizing the electricity grid, the Associated Press reports.

"The government-supported loans are expected to help companies involved in solar, wind, biofuels and other renewable energy projects get private financing," says AP. "It also aims to spur investments in power grid improvements."

"These investments will be used to create jobs, spur the development of innovative clean energy technologies and help ensure a smart, strong and secure grid that will deliver renewable power more effectively and reliably," Energy Secretary Steven Chu said in a statement.

But the DOE hasn't been so giving when it comes to a $3.5-billion nuclear-enrichment plant in Ohio, notes the Washington Post.

"The Energy Department said that the proposed plant, which would use a series of giant centrifuges to enrich uranium for nuclear power plants, was not ready for commercial production and therefore ineligible for the loan guarantees," the Post reported.

So the owner, Maryland-based USEC, plans to suspend the project. Company CEO John K. Welch said he was "shocked" by the Energy Department decision, especially since President Obama had endorsed the project while campaigning in Ohio last year.

"It is unclear how DOE expects to find innovative technologies that assume zero risk," Welch said.

--Craig Pittman

Republicans draft alternative energy bill favoring nuclear and increased oil and gas drilling

House Republicans are drafting their own energy legislation which is in sharp contrast to the Democrat's bill (Waxman-Markey) which is already being discussed in committee.
The Republican alternative relies on nuclear power, setting a goal of building 100 reactors over the next 20 years. Though it does include renewables like wind, solar and biomass, it would also provide incentives for increased oil and gas production, including oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska.
Unlike the Democrats proposal, it does not include a cap and trade mechanism to reduce emissions of heat-trapping gases.

- David Adams, Times staff writer

The cost of new nuclear

Nuclear power is considered by some energy experts to be the most effective answer to global warming due to the lack of C02 emissions.
The only problem is the cost of building them, as well as the unresolved issue of what to do with radioactive waste. Technology has improved, and there is broad consensus that the new plants are safer and have reduced waste due to advanced reprocessing.
But a new plant being built in Finland shows how big the problems are (see this New York Times article). The price for this plant went up to $4 billion and still isn't ready after four years construction. The article says a new plant would cost as much as $8 billion.
(see our previous stories on the cost of nuclear projects in Florida here, and here).

- David Adams, Times staff writer

Nuke plant to wipe out 700+ acres of wetlands, do little to replace them

Progress Energy's new $17 billion nuclear plant in rural Levy County will do more than just add advance charges to its customers' utility bills.

The utility's plans also calls for wiping out about 765 acres of wetlands on the site.

Yet Progress Energy plans to do little to replace their beneficial effect on the underground aquifer — even as the new power plant slurps up more than 1 million gallons of water a day from that source. At its peak, the plant could use more than 5 million gallons a day.

A report from a consultant hired by the company explains that "few, if any specific hydrologic enhancement projects have been identified that would measurably change … the water environment."

The full story is in today's St. Petersburg Times.

--Craig Pittman