Georgia Power nuclear plan called "lousy"

Published 02.18.09
Christina Wedge
WHITE ELEPHANTS: Senate Bill 31 would provide a safety net for Georgia Power.

In 1974, Georgia Power broke ground on nuclear reactors at Plant Vogtle near Augusta, embarking on a nuclear odyssey that would nearly bankrupt the company.

Almost 15 years later – and after several delays and environmental hurdles – the project's construction costs ballooned from $680 million to a staggering $8.4 billion. And it wasn't until then that Georgia Power could begin to recoup the cost from rate payers.

Now, as the state's largest utility moves forward on two new reactors at Plant Vogtle – estimated at $6.4 billion and the first in nearly 30 years – the company wants to cover its assets and it's enlisted the assistance of a phalanx of lobbyists and a controversial legislative plan of attack.

Introduced by state Sen. Don Balfour, R-Snellville, Senate Bill 31 would allow Georgia Power to begin charging customers – you and me – in advance for the two new proposed nuclear reactors at Plant Vogtle. The bill passed the state Senate last week and now moves to the House.

What the bill proposes is a huge diversion from the typical process. In past decades, Georgia Power sought state approval before building a plant, built it on its own dime, and then recouped the cost by raising customers' rates.

According to Georgia Power, residential energy bills would rise $1.30 per month beginning in 2011. The following year, the average customer would see bills increase by $2.60 a month. By 2017, the average customer would pay an additional $9 a month – nearly $108 a year.

The bill has consumer advocates, Democrats, and even some Republicans crying foul. Georgia Power, a private company that operates as a regulated monopoly in the state, is asking customers, not shareholders, to shoulder the risk of what's basically a business investment that has the potential to once again balloon in cost.

Balfour, who says the concept was presented to him last fall by utility executives, claims it would save rate payers $300 million in the long run by allowing Georgia Power to avoid interest payments – and would prevent a "rate shock" to customers when the reactors start producing energy.

"I think it's a win-win-win," Balfour says. "I think it's great for Georgia. I don't see any losers in it."

But consumer advocates and some Democrats call the bill misleading, unfair and the wrong solution at the wrong time.

Consummate consumer advocate guru Clark Howard blasted the bill, saying the utility was "trying to pick your and my pocket." Libertarian blogger Jason Pye branded Balfour's legislation as "Georgia Power's poison bill."

"It's a bad big-government bill that's forcing consumers to prioritize Georgia Power's debt and financial obligations over our own," says Beth Malone, a spokeswoman for consumer advocacy group Georgia Watch.

Another part of the bill that might piss off consumers: Big business is exempt from the rate hike – a group that, unlike you, me and small-business owners, enjoys the service of lobbyists. After language was written into the bill that exempted big business from the rate hike, the group's lobbyists have been noticeably absent from the debate.

But perhaps the most serious problem with the bill is that the Georgia Public Service Commission – a body better prepared to handle such issues – is already considering the exact same proposal.

The commission, the state agency that decides how much you pay to heat your home or turn on your lights, is staffed by a team of experts in energy issues and financing. Those experts have raised questions over whether future consumers of Plant Vogtle's newly generated energy would be spared the expense incurred by current rate payers.

Or, as Sen. David Adelman, D-Decatur, warned his colleagues: "It is a bad idea to inject yourself into this system, substitute your judgment for that of five statewide elected officials, force them to engage in piecemeal ratemaking, and to do so without the background, without the special knowledge, and without hearing any debate."

The Public Service Commission is supposed to rule on the issue in 30 days.

"It doesn't really belong in the General Assembly," says Malone.

Balfour's response to that argument speaks to the power-grabbing move of his legislation: The commission, he says, was created by the General Assembly, and lawmakers have the authority to issue it directives.

But eleventh-hour changes to the bill allow the commission to retain a measure of control, Balfour points out. "The PSC still decides what rate of return Georgia Power gets," he says. "The PSC still decides whether they build this plant. And they can disallow any expense they think is not prudent."

Critics hope Balfour's bill will face additional scrutiny in the House. As CL went to press, two House committees were scheduled to discuss the legislation on Wednesday and Friday.

If passed, the bill would need Gov. Sonny Perdue's signature. Last week, the governor released an update about the state's energy plan that emphasizes the expansion of Plant Vogtle. Add to the equation that Perdue's chief of staff is a former Georgia Power executive, and you can rest assured that the governor is keeping tabs on the bill's progress.

Additional reporting by Scott Henry.

COMMENTS

RE: Georgia Power nuclear plan called "lousy"

Posted by Anthony Wilkins on 02.26.09 @ 09:50 AM

There are just to many unkowns about subsequent rate increases due to unanticipated construction costs, with the customer being left holding the bag. Why not let the Southern Co. stockholders do that "bag holding?"
Also, if the legislature usurps the PSC on this issue, why have a PSC? What kind of a precedent does this set for other agencies and issues? Can or should the Georgia legislature have that kind of power?

I say no & recommend a NO vote on SB 31.

RE: Georgia Power nuclear plan called "lousy"

Posted by dckyler on 02.24.09 @ 06:46 PM

Debate over Senate Bill 31, which would subsidize Georgia Power’s multi-billion dollar expansion of Plant Vogtle with a customer rate hike paid years in advance, has missed an important reason for opposing it.

By approving SB31, Georgia legislators would be locking in Georgia energy customers to an unwise decision that cannot be justified in light of proven alternatives that are cleaner, cheaper, and more readily implemented.

Contrary to much misinformation spread during this debate, in a free market nuclear power could not survive. Enormous public subsidies shore up the nuclear industry and always have. Without the federal government assuming liability risks and the lion’s share of costs for research, processing, storing, and transporting radioactive materials, there would be no nuclear industry.

At the same time, publicity about Georgia’s significant offshore wind potential has been curiously subdued. A 2007 Georgia Tech study found that there is 10,000 megawatts of continuous offshore wind power available for conversion to electricity using existing technology.

That’s the equivalent of 10 large power plants worth of electricity from clean and free fuel. And that power could be put online in a fraction of the time it would take to build the nukes at Vogtle.

Offshore wind is used throughout northern Europe, where it now provides some 20% of power needs. And at least three states on the eastern seaboard are actively developing offshore wind programs.

If SB31 is passed, the energy market in Georgia will be unwisely forced into supporting nuclear power, delaying the far more prudent use of wind power here for decades. During that time, other states will gain a competitive edge by capturing renewable energy, which will attract business and jobs that turn away from states with high-priced nuclear power.

SB31 underwrites a foolish commitment to obsolete technology that simply cannot compete in a free market when wind and other renewable sources are readily available. Georgia Power will be the only beneficiary at the expense of Georgia consumers.

David Kyler, Executive Director
Center for a Sustainable Coast
Saint Simons Island, Georgia
www.sustainablecoast.org

YOUR COMMENT

TOOLS

Save this story Email this story to a friend Print this story
SHARE: