Group items tagged

AmerenUE's plan to build a second nuclear power plant in Callaway County may be in jeopardy. But if so, it won't have been CWIP that killed it. CWIP, of course, stands for construction work in progress. It refers to a state law that prohibits utilities from passing along costs of building new power plants until they start generating electricity. AmerenUE spent much of the last year, including the first four months of the Missouri Legislature's session, arguing that building a second nuclear plant in Callaway County - estimated to cost $9 billion - would be too expensive without up-front financing from ratepayers.

Judging from its recent actions, the nuclear industry has given up on the pretense that the technology is cost competitive with presently or soon-to-be available alternatives, whether or not climate change legislation is enacted. Recognizing that capital markets will not support the construction of new reactors, nuclear industry lobbyists at the federal and state legislatures have launched a full court press to get loans from taxpayers (in the form of federal loan guarantees) and ratepayers (through construction work in progress, or CWIP) to fund these projects. The same factors that have led Wall Street to refuse to finance reactors and to lower the ratings of utilities that are trying to build them are the very reasons that taxpayers and ratepayers should not be forced to foot the bill for new nuclear reactors. Loan guarantees and CWIP force taxpayers and ratepayers to bear the marketplace, execution, policy, technology and financial risks that capital markets will not.

Judging from its recent actions, the nuclear industry has given up on the pretense that the technology is cost competitive with presently or soon-to-be available alternatives, whether or not climate change legislation is enacted. Recognizing that capital markets will not support the construction of new reactors, nuclear industry lobbyists at the federal and state legislatures have launched a full court press to get loans from taxpayers (in the form of federal loan guarantees) and ratepayers (through construction work in progress, or CWIP) to fund these projects. The same factors that have led Wall Street to refuse to finance reactors and to lower the ratings of utilities that are trying to build them are the very reasons that taxpayers and ratepayers should not be forced to foot the bill for new nuclear reactors. Loan guarantees and CWIP force taxpayers and ratepayers to bear the marketplace, execution, policy, technology and financial risks that capital markets will not.

More Lobbying Expected in 2010 in Even Tougher Environment After Yucca Mountain and Soaring Cost Estimates; Outside of Bans, Industry Falters on CWIP in Missouri and Key Fights in Other States. WASHINGTON, Aug. 27 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ --The so-called "nuclear renaissance" is finding few friends among state lawmakers in the United States. The nuclear power industry has been shut out across the board in 2009 in its efforts in all six states -- ranging across the nation from Kentucky to Minnesota to Hawaii -- where it sought to overturn what are either explicit or effectively bans on construction of new reactors, according to the nonprofit Nuclear Information and Resource Service (NIRS). Efforts to overturn bans also have failed to advance in Illinois and West Virginia and Wisconsin. Beyond failing to reverse a single state-level ban on new reactors, the industry also suffered a wide range of major defeats, including an effort to repeal a ban on "Construction Work in Progress" (CWIP) payments that would have been imposed on Missouri ratepayers to finance a new nuclear power plant, which was then promptly mothballed. Industry efforts to get nuclear declared "renewable" by the states of Indiana and Arizona also failed to achieve results. Also going nowhere is a California bill to lift the state's pioneering law banning new reactors until a high-level waste dump is in place. That follows a 2008 California statewide referendum drive with the same focus that failed for lack of sufficient signatures to get it on the ballot.

If you follow the Missouri legislature this year, you're going to hear a lot about Senate Bill 228 . The bill, introduced today by Lowry City Republican Delbert Scott, addresses CWIP - Construction Work in Progress - the law that prevents utilities from charging customers for power not yet being generated. AmerenUE, the utility serving much of eastern Missouri, says the rule must be rolled back for it to build Callaway 2, a new nuclear reactor in Central Missouri.

It's been a month since AmerenUE declared that it was suspending plans to build a second nuclear plant in Missouri after efforts to repeal the state's ban on construction work in progress (CWIP) failed. Backers of the legislation said Missourians missed a golden opportunity to secure its low-carbon future, and wean the state off its coal addiction (one that could be significantly more expensive if Congress follows through on climate change legislation). AmerenUE had decided whether to go through with plans to build another nuclear plant. In case it did, the plant design it chose was Areva NP's Evolutinary Power Reactor, EPR for short. (Areva was an owner of UniStar Nuclear, which had contracted with AmerenUE to help prepare the construction and operating license that was submitted to federal regulators last summer.)

The current debate over a possible second nuclear power plant for Missouri involves issues ranging from safety to energy conservation to environmental quality. But for many consumers, the most pressing question will be the bottom line on their monthly electric bill. Whether that number rises -- how much and how soon -- could depend on what lawmakers in Jefferson City decide to do about AmerenUE's drive for the authority to charge electric customers for costs associated with the plant even before it begins producing power.

""Loan Guarantee Fever" in Congress Finds No Counterpart in Across-the-Board Cold Shoulder From State Solons; From Kentucky to Arizona, Industry Lobbyists Fail to Overturn Bans, Pass Costs on to Consumers or Get Nuclear Classified as "Renewable Energy" WASHINGTON, May 13 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- It was front-page news across America this February when the Vermont Senate voted to shut down the troubled Vermont Yankee reactor in 2012. But what most Americans don't know is that the nuclear industry also lost all of its seven other major state legislative pushes this year ? going 0-8 and putting yet another nail in the coffin of the myth of the "nuclear renaissance" in the United States, according to an analysis by the Nuclear Information and Resource Service (NIRS). Even as some in Congress would lavish tens of billions of dollars ? and even unlimited ? loan guarantees on the embattled nuclear power industry, state lawmakers in Arizona, Illinois, Iowa, Kentucky, Minnesota, Vermont and West Virginia and Wisconsin said a firm "no" this year to more nuclear power. The legislative issues ranged from attempts by nuclear industry lobbyists to overturn bans on new reactors to "construction work in progress" (CWIP) assessments to pay for new reactors to reclassifying nuclear power as a "renewable resource." How bad is the nuclear power industry doing in state legislatures? In 2009, the industry went 0-5 with reactor moratorium overturn efforts in Hawaii, Illinois, Kentucky, Minnesota, and West Virginia. Even after stepping up its on-the-ground efforts in 2010 with paid lobbyists and extensive public relations efforts in states like Wisconsin, the industry again came up with nothing."

Tampa Bay legislators plan on taking a whack at a two-year-old law that allows Progress Energy to charge customers for its $17-billion nuclear project years before it starts producing electricity. The law paved the way for the average Progress Energy bill to rise by about $13 a month, contributing to the 25 percent increase customers will see starting in January. Customers just can't afford it, said state Sen. Mike Fasano, who voted for the law in 2006. Fasano now says his vote was a "mistake." He did not realize just how high bills would go, he said.

t it's Monday, it must be the Public Service Commission. Georgia Power's two-front campaign for a new nuclear reactor fee will skip back across the street this week, after a so-far successful two weeks at the state Legislature. The utility will defend its proposed charge - an early collection of reactor construction financing costs - at a final round of state PSC hearings beginning Monday. The scheduled three-day hearing will unfold even as state lawmakers barrel ahead with their own version of the nuclear fee.

Public Service Commission says move would cost consumers more, senator says they will save A hike in Georgia Power bills could make its way through the Legislature this session. Sen. Don Balfour (R-Snellville) said Thursday that he expects to introduce a bill Friday that would let Georgia Power charge customers early for the interest costs of building two nuclear reactors near Augusta. The company, which is building the reactors with the state's other power companies, expects to begin in 2011. It won't finish the $14 billion project until 2017. Georgia Power's share of the cost is about $6.4 billion.

Jay Bookman's Jan. 4 column reported that recovery of financing costs during construction for two new nuclear units at Plant Vogtle would shift risks to customers ("Nuke revival puts all risks on customers, @issue, Jan. 4). To the contrary, the proposal provides significant benefits to customers. The claim that consumers lose by paying for the nuclear units early is based on incorrect assumptions by intervenors at the Public Safety Commission, leading to wrong calculations. Contrary to the assertion that recovery of financing costs during construction lowers risks to investors, it actually helps maintain quality credit ratings, thereby lowering interest payments to investors and keeping costs lower for customers.

The Florida Public Service Commission on Wednesday granted Progress Energy an increase in its average monthly rates to cover its increasing fuel expenses and make environmental improvements to its existing power plants. The request, which raises the average power customer's bill $15.87 a month, follows an earlier PSC meeting this fall when the five-member panel approved another Progress Energy hike of $11.42 to begin paying the cost of building its proposed Levy County nuclear power plant.

Georgia lawmakers weigh similar bill this week As Georgia lawmakers push forward with a nuclear financing bill this week, their counterparts in Florida are scrambling to undo a similar measure approved three years ago. In the past two weeks, Florida Republicans, including the state Senate president pro tem, drafted two bills aimed at a 2006 law requiring power customers to pay early for new nuclear reactors. The bills are a reaction to public outrage, after those nuclear fees had an unexpectedly expensive and politically disastrous debut this winter. One power company's customers saw already spiking bills go up an extra 11 percent due to the nuclear fee.

The House easily passed a bill Thursday allowing Georgia Power Co. to charge customer early for additional nuclear reactors, sending the controversial measure on to Gov. Sonny Perdue for a signature. Senate Bill 31 jumped ahead of the state budget and a line of 585 pending House bills to get the top spot on the House's agenda, despite fierce attacks from groups ranging from AARP to conservative bloggers. House members weren't allowed to offer amendments. Opponents credited SB 31's favored status to Georgia Power's clout and to backers' race to outrun a growing list of questions about the bill.

Two months after it roared through the state Legislature, a bill requiring Georgia Power customers to pay early for new nuclear reactors is still awaiting Gov. Sonny Perdue's signature. The governor's office has indicated that he intends to sign it. Recent headlines: * New Georgia medical school faces hurdle * Sugar factory says whistleblower faked explosion warning * 'Zero' chance of a comeback for Cathy Cox * Metro and state news Meanwhile, though, the bill has become the target of a lawsuit by the Fulton County Taxpayers' Foundation, the same group that sued over the Beltline.

AmerenUE's electric rates could rise by 23 percent over eight years if it's allowed to pass through financing costs of a second nuclear plant during construction, according to a Public Service Commission staff assessment of the utility's internal data. That is more than twice the amount projected by AmerenUE on Feb. 25, according to a letter sent to PSC Chairman Robert M. Clayton III on Wednesday. Which estimate is more accurate depends on underlying assumptions that no one can accurately predict, and illustrates the number-bending that has accompanied the debate over the proposed nuclear plant.

"Hopes for a nuclear revival, fanned by fears of global warming and a changing political climate in Washington, are running into new obstacles over a key element -- money. A new approach for easing the cost of new multibillion-dollar reactors, which can take years to complete, has provoked a backlash from big-business customers unwilling to go along. "