nuclear-news

FPL’s proposal faced a series of attacks from attorneys for consumers and business and environmental groups. In part, they questioned whether FPL will ever build two new nuclear reactors and whether the company increased costs by trying to do an upgrade project quickly.

Also, two of those attorneys told the Florida Public Service Commission that FPL used out-of-date information during a similar 2009 hearing about the upgrade project. Joe McGlothlin, an attorney for the Office of Public Counsel, accused the company of “willful withholding” of information that would have shown higher project costs….

The arguments came on the first of several days of hearings about more than $335 million in nuclear-project costs that FPL and Progress Energy Florida hope to collect from customers next year. The Progress case is expected to start next week, with the company seeking $141 million. All but about $5.6 million of that amount would go toward a plan to add two new reactors in Levy County.

Hoping to encourage more nuclear energy, Florida lawmakers in 2006 allowed utilities to incrementally collect costs from customers rather than waiting until after projects are finished. That has led to the possibility, however, that customers could spend hundreds of millions of dollars on initial costs for nuclear plants that never get built…..

James Whitlock, an attorney for the Southern Alliance for Clean Energy, said utility customers should not have to pay initial costs for the proposed Turkey Point reactors. He said FPL would use the money to try to get a license for the project but that new nuclear plants are not currently feasible.

“If the plant’s never built and never comes online, there won’t be any benefit (to customers),” Whitlock said….http://flaglerlive.com/26580/fpl-nukes-psc

“I think it’s the paying in advance that I resent without something concrete in the making,” said Emily Doucette, a retiree in Pompano Beach…..

Critics plan to raise several key issues:

Cost-overruns. FPL should not have abandoned getting bids “with price-assured contracts” and other traditional construction practices meant to control costs for construction work related to the proposed expansions of four existing reactors, according to the Office of Public Counsel, the state’s advocate for utility customers. FPL implemented this “fast-tracked” approach to meet it goals for completion but the consumer advocate’s office argues that the move is leading to “rapidly increasing estimates of the cost to complete the…the projects” and they may end up costing more than FPL’s alternative plan, not to do them.

Uncertainty. Both FPL and Progress Energy Florida are allegedly violating a rule that requires utilities that want to charge customers for nuclear planning costs to have a clear intent to build them, according to the Southern Alliance for Clean Energy. Last year, both utilities announced “delaying major capital expenditures” to build new reactors last year – and instead, said they would focus on the getting the required licenses – because of the uncertainty involved, SACE wrote to the PSC.

The Florida Industrial Power Users Group, a group that represents consumers that are businesses, said utilities should prove the projects are the most reasonable and cost-effective way to serve customers…..http://weblogs.sun-sentinel.com/business/realestate/housekeys/blog/2011/08/fpl_to_ask_customers_to_pay_19.html