By Regan McCarthy
http://stream.publicbroadcasting.net/production/mp3/wfsu/local-wfsu-995857.mp3
Tallahassee, FL – Under Florida's current law, power companies can collect money to pay for a nuclear power plant, simply because they have the "intent" to build a plant. But Regan McCarthy reports when rate payers are funding infrastructure that might not be completed in their life time, some lawmakers say that's unfair.
Representative Michelle Rehwinkel Vasilinda, a Democrat from Tallahassee, is putting forward legislation that would repeal the state's nuclear cost recovery statue. Nuclear cost recovery is a law on the state's books now that let's power companies that intend to build a nuclear power plant raise their rates to cover the cost of the plant before it's built. But Rehwinkel Vasilinda says some consumers are paying for a plant they'll likely never benefit from.
"It allows the investor owned utilities companies to collect upfront for the building, sighting, anything to do with creating nuclear power plants. They get to do that whether or not they build any nuclear power plants."
Right now, Progress Energy Florida is collecting money for a plant that that won't be finished for years to come--and that some have speculated will never be completed--and Rehwinkel Vasilinda says she just thinks that's unfair. She's joined in her position by Senator Mike Fasano, a Republican from New Port Richey, who has raised similar concerns about rate increases being used to pay nuclear infrastructure.
Under current law, nuclear cost recovery is allowed. The Public Service Commission the state's utilities regulator only has to determine whether the company has the intent to build a plant and Rehwinkel Vasilinda says that can get tricky. J.R. Kelly is a public advocate charged with representing the interest of the people in these cases. He says Progress Energy Florida has sought nuclear cost recovery money several times for the plant it wants to build in Levy County. And he says this year his office contested their request.
"Based upon progresses actions these past couple of years it appears they have backed off of a deep commitment to build the new Levy nuclear units and so therefore we felt that they have not demonstrated the requisite intent to really build these units."
Kelly says rate payers have already paid hundreds of millions of dollars for the project. Rehwinkel Vasilinda is filing bill that would repeal the nuclear cost recovery law. But without it, progress spokesman Tim Leljedal says the company wouldn't be able to move forward with the project. Leljedal says despite the fact that construction hasn't been started, the money the company has collected so far has been spent on the plant.
"We're in the licensing phase right now, so we're working to obtain the combined operating license, which is required to construct a new nuclear plant, we've done things like acquiring the land on which the plant would be built, doing some engineering work.
So, here's the deal the existing law provides no refund mechanism. Progress Energy says it won't move ahead on its proposed nuclear plan if it can't recover the cost in advance. So, if Rehwinkel Vasilinda's bill is passed does it mean consumers will lose the money they've already paid? Rehwinkel Vasilinda says "no."
"We can make sure in another bill very easily that people get a rebate back, or I think it should go into conservation."
Rehwinkel Vasilinda says she'd like to see the state redirect it's money to conservation or renewable energy projects like wind farms or solar farms.
Meanwhile, Progress is also asking tax payers to pay for replacement fuel the company has had to buy while its Crystal River nuclear plant has been down and in need of repair. The Public service commission has given its okay for that so far, but that isn't nuclear cost recovery money and could be refunded if the commission finds later that progress hasn't acted appropriately in the plant's upkeep.