Group items matching

in title, tags, annotations or url

Environmental groups are asking the federal courts to block to plans to build two nuclear reactors at an east Georgia power plant. The Southern Alliance for Clean Energy said Thursday it is asking a federal judge to review an early-site permit granted by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to allow some construction at Georgia Power Co.'s Plant Vogtle facility. The groups hinge a part of the appeal on contentious legislation that passed this year allowing the utility to charge ratepayers ahead of time for the costs of building the two new reactors. The east Georgia project is scheduled to be completed in 2017. It could be the first new nuclear project to break ground in the country in three decades. Georgia Power is a subsidiary of Southern Co.

Environmental groups are asking the federal courts to block to plans to build two nuclear reactors at an east Georgia power plant. The Southern Alliance for Clean Energy said Thursday it is asking a federal judge to review an early-site permit granted by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to allow some construction at Georgia Power Co.'s Plant Vogtle facility. The groups hinge a part of the appeal on contentious legislation that passed this year allowing the utility to charge ratepayers ahead of time for the costs of building the two new reactors. The east Georgia project is scheduled to be completed in 2017. It could be the first new nuclear project to break ground in the country in three decades. Georgia Power is a subsidiary of Southern Co.

Last week's revelation that the proposed STP nuclear expansion may cost $4 billion (31 percent) more than expected, is a blessing and an opportunity for San Antonio. Courageous leadership is now needed, especially in light of the apparent attempt by CPS Energy management to hide this information before a council vote. If this news had not been discovered, ratepayers would have been saddled with $400 million more for nuclear paperwork, setting a path for billions more in uncontrolled spending. Warning about CPS debt, bond-rater Moody's dropped CPS' outlook from "stable" to "negative," and noted council must be readily willing to raise electric rates. How high will rates go? The cost overruns imply nuclear costs of 13-15 cents/kWh - much higher than projected. What to do now? A completely fresh start is needed.

Last week's revelation that the proposed STP nuclear expansion may cost $4 billion (31 percent) more than expected, is a blessing and an opportunity for San Antonio. Courageous leadership is now needed, especially in light of the apparent attempt by CPS Energy management to hide this information before a council vote. If this news had not been discovered, ratepayers would have been saddled with $400 million more for nuclear paperwork, setting a path for billions more in uncontrolled spending. Warning about CPS debt, bond-rater Moody's dropped CPS' outlook from "stable" to "negative," and noted council must be readily willing to raise electric rates. How high will rates go? The cost overruns imply nuclear costs of 13-15 cents/kWh - much higher than projected. What to do now? A completely fresh start is needed.

A common perception of nuclear power is that it's an affordable, carbon-free energy source that could meet a lot of America's demand for electricity, if only those darn environmentalists would get out of the way. Unfortunately for nuclear power advocates and Maryland ratepayers, this statement crumbles upon contact with reality. The average cost of electricity for all of Maryland's sectors is 13.45 cents per kilowatt-hour. There's a growing possibility some of us will have the pleasure of paying double that thanks to the pending merger between Constellation Energy and French electric giant EDF Energy, which is supposed to pave the way for construction of a new nuclear power plant at Calvert Cliffs. Doubling rates is fairly easy to predict with a trip down memory lane.

A common perception of nuclear power is that it's an affordable, carbon-free energy source that could meet a lot of America's demand for electricity, if only those darn environmentalists would get out of the way. Unfortunately for nuclear power advocates and Maryland ratepayers, this statement crumbles upon contact with reality. The average cost of electricity for all of Maryland's sectors is 13.45 cents per kilowatt-hour. There's a growing possibility some of us will have the pleasure of paying double that thanks to the pending merger between Constellation Energy and French electric giant EDF Energy, which is supposed to pave the way for construction of a new nuclear power plant at Calvert Cliffs. Doubling rates is fairly easy to predict with a trip down memory lane.

It's come to this: The simple truth withheld from the community by CPS Energy was revealed last week by NRG Energy executives to a Houston gathering of financial analysts: San Antonio can't afford the high price of expanding the South Texas Project nuclear facility. Not that we need another example, but once again Wall Street enjoys the advantage over Main Street. Ratepayers don't have a need to know, but let's not deny institutional investors a little inside information. The project will cost billions more than CPS estimated, even after interim General Manager Steve Bartley went to Japan to seek concessions. Utility executives want until January to bring a new number to Mayor Julián Castro and the City Council. Why wait? What CPS once promised was a good deal for the city is now, clearly, a bad deal. It's a bad deal made worse by utility executives who deliberately withheld critical financial data, thus misleading elected city leaders, the Express-News and the public. Even as we were told the project would cost CPS and NRG a total of $13 billion, utility executives knew Toshiba Inc. was estimating $4 billion more.

It's come to this: The simple truth withheld from the community by CPS Energy was revealed last week by NRG Energy executives to a Houston gathering of financial analysts: San Antonio can't afford the high price of expanding the South Texas Project nuclear facility. Not that we need another example, but once again Wall Street enjoys the advantage over Main Street. Ratepayers don't have a need to know, but let's not deny institutional investors a little inside information. The project will cost billions more than CPS estimated, even after interim General Manager Steve Bartley went to Japan to seek concessions. Utility executives want until January to bring a new number to Mayor Julián Castro and the City Council. Why wait? What CPS once promised was a good deal for the city is now, clearly, a bad deal. It's a bad deal made worse by utility executives who deliberately withheld critical financial data, thus misleading elected city leaders, the Express-News and the public. Even as we were told the project would cost CPS and NRG a total of $13 billion, utility executives knew Toshiba Inc. was estimating $4 billion more.

Ten percent of 20 is two. Five percent is one. To make the deal go down at the Public Service Board level 1 percent of the 20 percent uprated Vermont Yankee power (in 2006 it went from a 540 Megawatt ((Mw)) to a 650 Mw. reactor) was sold to a small utility up north in Vermont at below-market rates. As a result of the uprate decision at the PSB, Entergy must pay taxes to Vermont on all power from the uprate sold out of state. Translated, this means that Entergy must pay taxes on 19 of the uprated 20 percent of the power sold. This is money to the state coffers. The PSB makes decisions based primarily on economics. The PSB will decide to continue Yankee past 2012. The PSB will play their quasijudicial role as arbiter and Entergy will sweeten the deal for the supposed ratepayer advocate Department of Public Service (read: governor's right-and team) in a Memorandum of Understanding just before the PSB decision.

While Georgia Power and other utilities eagerly advocate a "nuclear renaissance," their enthusiasm for building new plants doesn't extend to sharing the considerable financial risks involved. Nor have private investors flocked to put money in new nuclear plants. To the contrary, Georgia Power's proposal to build two reactors at its existing Vogtle plant on the Savannah River near Augusta calls for company ratepayers -- you and me and anybody else who pays an electric bill to Georgia Power -- to bear almost all the considerable risk while making sure its stockholders and private investors bear almost no risk at all.

Sen. Scott McCoy says his nuclear-power bill makes sense, making sure that ratepayers don't wind up paying for a reactor boondoggle and that residents don't get stuck with storing containers of nuclear waste. But Aaron Tilton, promoter of the state's first nuclear power plant, called the measure "a backhanded slap" at nuclear power and "a grandstanding bill" that will be dead on arrival in the upcoming 2009 Legislature. "The bill is basically going to go nowhere," said Tilton, a Republican who lost his own House seat last year, in part, over his involvement with the power plant, a 1,500-megawatt nuclear station.

If Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant is closed down in 2012, the economic impact on Vermont will be immense, wrote a consultant hired to conduct one of many reviews for the state to inform the Public Service Board and the state Legislature in their decisions on whether the plant should continue operation to 2032. Jacob Thomas, a project manager for GDS Associates, Inc., analyzed government revenues and burdens, impacts through economic activity of the plant and potential ratepayer benefits through revenue-sharing and discounted price alternatives.

Concerns have been raised about zircon sand to be stored at Thevenard once Iluka's zircon mine starts production in 2010. The topic was raised at a recent meeting of the Thevenard Ratepayers and Residents Group, with particular concern being the radiation emitted from the sand monazite, which contains the radioactive element thorium. But Iluka says monazite is only a small part of the sands they will be mining and the radiation from the zircon sands they will be mining is barely higher than in the normal environment. Sue Haseldine, who lives on a farm near Ceduna but has relatives in Thevenard, said she had not been involved in the consultation process yet but said she had questions about mining, transportation and storage.

As the Maryland Public Service Commission began public hearings this week on a potential new nuclear reactor, the debate about nuclear energy's cost and effectiveness continues. The Maryland Public Interest Research Group released a report recently saying a new reactor at the Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant would lead to higher electric costs for Maryland ratepayers. The new plant's cost continues to escalate, and the project would likely receive substantial federal subsidies, the Baltimore organization says.

Entergy, Mississippi’s largest utility provider, is asking federal officials to allow it to build a new nuclear power plant, and ratepayers could be asked to help pay for it. Six weeks into his job as Entergy’s new president and chief executive officer, Haley Fisackerly says with rising energy prices â€" especially the high cost of natural gas â€" Entergy is proposing the construction of the first nuclear power plant in the Louisiana-Mississippi region in more than 30 years.

Call it the French nuclear connection. Electricity ratepayers' dollars in Western North Carolina as well as federal tax money are increasingly going to a company owned largely by the French government: the nuclear power conglomerate AREVA. Advertisement The company holds U.S. Department of Energy contracts for nuclear-related projects at major facilities such as Hanford, Wash., and Yucca Mountain, Nev., and others, including in Erwin, Tenn., and Aiken, S.C.

Georgia Power and its utility partners Municipal Electric Authority of Georgia, Oglethorpe Power and Dalton Utilities are headed toward a nuclear relapse, betting billions of ratepayer and taxpayer dollars on nuclear power when the dollar is down, when filling up the gas tank is painful, when droughts have become the norm, and when the threat of climate change cannot be ignored.

SCE&G ratepayers' bills would rise 37 percent by 2019 if the state approves the Columbia utility's plan to start paying costs upfront for two large nuclear reactors it would build 25 miles northwest of Columbia.

Duke Energy customers in South Carolina could be on the hook for up to $64.4 million in development costs for two nuclear reactors the Charlotte utility is considering building in Cherokee County. The S.C. Public Service Commission voted unanimously Thursday to allow Duke Energy to spend up to $230 million from 2005 through 2009 studying, designing and preparing the site for the project. The utility would still have to show actual expenses were prudent in order for the PSC to allow the utility to pass along the costs to ratepayers.

TOPEKA | Legislation allowing utilities to recover the cost of planning for a nuclear generating facility from ratepayers has been sent to Gov. Kathleen Sebelius. The House approved it 101-22 and the Senate endorsed it a few minutes later 29-3. Supporters say the bill is needed if utilities are going to seriously consider nuclear power. Opponents said it will mean higher bills for utility customers.

The legislation would allow full recovery of costs. Legislation that could lead to nuclear power plants in the state is likely to reach Gov. Brad Henry this spring. But, unlike Oklahoma's aborted entry into the field three decades ago, nobody now seems particularly interested in building a plant in Oklahoma, and the most vocal opposition is not about environmental concerns but about who would pay for a plant if one is built. As the key House legislation is now written, utilities could recover all costs from planning to completion - an estimated $8 billion per reactor - from ratepayers. The bill also includes provisions for an unspecified amount of tax credits.

'It's premature to saddle ratepayers with potential construction costs' before project has permits and utility has decided to build, Missouri governor says. Gov. Jay Nixon said Friday he opposes legislation that would pave the way for AmerenUE to build a second nuclear plant in Callaway County. The St. Louis-based utility, which sells electricity to 1.2 million customers in Missouri, should focus on getting the necessary federal permits before seeking authority to charge consumers for construction costs while the plant is being built, Nixon said.

Magic is captivating. Illusionists will use misdirection and smoke and mirrors to influence their audience. A good illusion requires that the audience "suspend their disbelief" due to the authority and confidence in which the illusion is presented, leading them to accept its premise. Advertisement Vermonters have been witnessing their own magic show on the energy stage in Vermont, with the Legislature and ratepayers as its audience. Throughout the past year, Gov. Douglas, utilities, Entergy and corporate special interest groups have presented a steady supply of smoke and mirrors to create an illusion -- the illusion that Vermont Yankee is cheap, clean, green and reliable, and still critical to Vermont's energy portfolio for the next two decades. Cue the smoke: Vermont utilities continually publicize their efforts to increase renewable energy and conservation as part of their future energy plans. Yet, their plans show a small increased investment in renewable energy over a 25-year time span and continued reliance on Vermont Yankee during this same 25-year period.

State regulators and consumer groups grilled Florida Power & Light officials in the past two weeks about the utility's profits, costs it shares with its unregulated affiliates, executive bonuses and corporate jets, among other issues that could affect FPL ratepayers over the next few years. And it's not over. The Florida Public Service Commission extended hearings on FPL's proposed $1.3 billion annual base rate increase, with meeetings scheduled for Saturday and Sept. 16. The commission plans to vote Oct. 28 and Nov. 13. If the rate increase is approved, monthly electric bills could rise by as much as $12.40 per month for a typical household served by FPL. But FPL officials project that a decrease in fuel costs will reduce the typical bill by $7 next year even if the base rate increase is approved.