Tag Archives: Nuclear

Bulgaria cancelled a new nuke

If Bulgaria can do it, Georgia can do it: end a new nuke boondoggle. Bulgaria started opposition when building the plant seemed irreversible, yet they reversed it. We can, too. And we can get on with solar and wind.

Rayna St. wrote for Global Voices 31 March 2012, Bulgaria: Construction of the Nuclear Power Plant “Belene” Cancelled,

On March 28, Bulgaria officially announced the cancellation of its newest nuclear power plant (NPP) “Belene” construction. The Parliament has stopped this controversial project after years of discussion and more than half a billion euros invested in the construction of the first reactor.

Nuclear opponents in Bulgaria undid a done deal, starting with this:

Continue reading →

Missouri has defeated CWIP: so can Georgia

A veteran of the original No Nukes movement calls Plant Vogtle and CWIP like he sees it.

Harvey Wasserman wrote Friday for EcoWatch, Nuclear Power’s Green Mountain Grassroots Demise,

The accelerating revolution in renewables has allowed solar, wind and other green sources to outstrip atomic reactors in cost, time to build, ecological impact and safety. As billions pour into Solartopian sources, private investment in atomic energy has all but disappeared—except where there are massive taxpayer subsidies.

Even that’s not enough. In 2011, President Obama handed $8.33 billion in federal loan guarantees to the builders of two reactors at Georgia’s Vogtle. But Peach State ratepayers are already being soaked for billions more in pre-payments, and the cost of the project is soaring. A parallel financial disaster looms at the Robinson site in neighboring South Carolina. Though the industry assumes these four reactors will eventually be finished, economic realities may say otherwise.

Cost estimates for new nukes have been soaring even before construction begins. Even with federal money, the builders still demand that state ratepayers foot the bill as the process proceeds, meaning consumers are on the hook for multiple billions even if the reactors never open. Pitched battles over this Construction Work in Progress scam have already been won by consumers in Missouri and are being fought in Iowa and elsewhere. As the years of building drag on, costs will escalate while renewables continue to become cheaper. Sooner or later, construction is likely to stop, as it did at numerous projects in the 1970s and 1980s which were never finished.

We can end CWIP in Georgia. It will benefit Georgia Power and the EMCs as well as all the rest of us when we stop wasting tax and customer dollars on boondoggles like Plant Vogtle or biomass or private prisons and get on with clean, profitable, job-creating renewable energy in Georgia: wind off the coast and sun inland.

-jsq

Separate CWIP payments to Georgia Power —WACE call for action

We don’t have to wait for the Georgia legislature to ban Construction Work in Progress (CWIP) for Georgia Power’s new nukes at Plant Vogtle. WACE has put out a clever call for action about CWIP, Go Solar, Not Nuclear!

Here’s an excerpt:

  • Use two checks each time you pay your bill. One check covers the amount you are forced to pay for “Nuclear Construction Cost Recovery” (write “for solar construction” in the memo line). The other check covers the remaining amount of your actual electricity costs.
  • Include a note in the letter with your checks voicing your opposition to nuclear power and ask Georgia Power to invest your funds in solar energy instead. This note could read:
    • I oppose nuclear power because of its dangers to our health and our environment. (See the nuclear accidents at Fukushima, Chernobyl, and Three Mile Island)
    • I oppose the construction surcharge for nuclear power plants because they are too expensive and waste billions of our tax dollars. (Plant Vogtle was originally estimated to cost $660 million. Eventually, only 2 of its proposed 4 reactors were built, costing more than $8 billion, and resulting in huge rate hikes for Georgia residents.)
    • I ask that GA Power invest my money and any collected surcharges in solar instead.
The PDF of the call includes these addresses:
Tim Echols, Chairman
Georgia Public Service Commission
244 Washington Street SW
Atlanta, GA 30334
1-800-282-5813 		W. Paul Bowers, CEO
Georgia Power Company
241 Ralph McGill Boulevard NE
Atlanta, GA 30308
1-888-660-5890
And don’t forget Georgia Power’s parent company The Southern Company’s CEO, Thomas Fanning, said a year ago he’s “bullish” on solar. Let’s see some solar action from The Southern Company and Georgia Power!

Here are some more contacts.

You don’t even have to be a Georgia Power customer to write to these people. Most of them are elected or appointed officials who are supposed to represent you, the taxpayers.

-jsq

Why CWIP is a bad idea

Iowa is rejecting CWIP, and Georgia can, too. Here’s why.

Herman K. Trabish wrote for Green Tech Media 22 February 2012, The Nuclear Industry’s Answer to Its Marketplace Woes: Construction Work in Progress (CWIP) financing shifts the risks of nuclear energy to utility ratepayers,

A sign of the nuclear industry’s difficult situation in the aftermath of Fukushima is a proposal before the Iowa legislature
“Construction Work in Progress was intended to circumvent the core consumer protection of the regulatory decision-making process,”
that would allow utility MidAmerican Energy Holdings, a subsidiary of Warren Buffett’s Berkshire Hathaway, to build a new nuclear facility in the state using Construction Work in Progress (CWIP) financing (also called advanced cost recovery).

“Investment in nuclear power is the antithesis of the kind of investments you would want to make under the current uncertain conditions,” explained nuclear industry authority Mark Cooper, a senior fellow for economic analysis at Vermont Law School’s Institute for Energy and the Environment. “They cannot raise the capital to build these plants in normal markets under the normal regulatory structures.”

CWIP would allow the utility to raise the money necessary to build a nuclear power plant by billing ratepayers in advance of and during construction.

“Construction Work in Progress was intended to circumvent the core consumer protection of the regulatory decision-making process,” Cooper explained. “It exposes ratepayers to all the risk.” The nuclear industry’s answer to its post-Fukushima challenges, he said, “is to simply rip out the heart of consumer protection and turn the logic of capital markets on their head.”

And the Iowa Utilities Board staff agreed with Cooper and recommended against CWIP.
His message to policymakers is simple, Cooper said. “This is an investment you would not make with your own money. Therefore, you should not make it with the ratepayers’ money.”
Meanwhile, in Georgia: Continue reading →

How to ban CWIP in Georgia

A one-paragraph law can do it; that’s all it took in New Hampshire to ban Construction Work in Progress (CWIP) after Three Mile Island. OK, plus a state Supreme Court ruling, but that would be easier in Georgia since the New Hampshire Supreme Court already set a precedent of upholding the NH law. After Fukushima, Georgia could ban CWIP and end the new Plant Vogtle construction. The we could get on with building solar.

Here’s the text of the NH law, taken from the NH Supreme Court ruling:

“378:30-a Public Utility Rate Base; Exclusions. Public utility rates or charges shall not in any manner be based on the cost of construction work in progress. At no time shall any rates or charges be based upon any costs associated with construction work if said construction work is not completed. All costs of construction work in progress, including, but not limited to, any costs associated with constructing, owning, maintaining or financing construction work in progress, shall not be included in a utility’s rate base nor be allowed as an expense for rate making purposes until, and not before, said construction project is actually providing service to consumers.”
Simple enough. The Georgia legislature could do it. Knowing the NH CWIP ban caused PSNH to go bankrupt on costs for the Seabrook nuclear plant, Georgia Power might back off on Plant Vogtle rather than have such a law passed.

-jsq

What we can learn from no nukes and solartopia of 30 years ago

Why were only 12% of the projected 1000 nuclear plants built in the U.S. by the year 2000? Because of the no nukes movement started in Seabrook, New Hampshire in 1977. And because New Hampshire banned CWIP. Here in Georgia in 2012 we can cut to the chase and do what they did that worked.

Harvey Wasserman wrote for The Free Press 13 May 2007, How creative mass non-violence beat a nuke and launched the global green power movement,

Thirty years ago this month, in the small seacoast town of Seabrook, New Hampshire, a force of mass non-violent green advocacy collided with the nuke establishment.

A definitive victory over corporate power was won. And the global grassroots “No Nukes” movement emerged as one of the most important and effective in human history.

It still writes the bottom line on atomic energy and global warming. All today’s green energy battles can be dated to May, 13, 1977, when 550 Clamshell Alliance protestors walked victoriously free after thirteen days of media-saturated imprisonment. Not a single US reactor ordered since that day has been completed.

How effective?
Richard Nixon had pledged to build 1000 nukes in the US by the year 2000. But the industry peaked at less than 120. Today, just over a hundred operate. No US reactor ordered since 1974 has been completed. The Seabrook demonstrations—which extended to civil disobedience actions on Wall Street—were key to keeping nearly 880 US reactors unbuilt.
The only new nukes ordered since then are the ones Georgia Power wants to build at Plant Vogtle on the Savannah River, for which Georgia Power customers are already getting billed Construction Work in Progress (CWIP).

Thirty years later, some things haven’t changed: Continue reading →

How and why did New Hampshire ban CWIP?

After years of protests and the Three Mile Island nuclear accident in Pennsylvania, the New Hampshire legislature passed a law that denied the Public Service Company of New Hampshire (PSNH) Construction Work in Progress (CWIP) charges before the Seabrook nuclear plant provided electricity to its customers. One of two planned Seabrook reactors did finally go into service in 1990, more than a decade late and far over budget. Meanwhile, the New Hampshire Supreme Court ruled the anti-CWIP law was constitutional, and PSNH went bankrupt in 1988:
the first investor-owned utility since the Great Depression to declare bankruptcy.
Seabrook was the last nuclear reactor built in the United States. Until now. In Georgia. Which has CWIP. Maybe we should change that.

Here’s an excerpt from a corporate history of Public Service Company of New Hampshire (PSNH):

By January 1972 PSNH had decided not only to build a nuclear plant at Seabrook but also to have it consist of two 1,150-megawatt units, to be completed in 1979. PSNH was to own 50 percent of the $1.3 billion project and share the remaining investment with other New England utilities. In January 1974 the New Hampshire Site Evaluation Committee, the Public Utilities Commission (PUC) and other regulatory bodies had issued the basic permits, but interveners in the case succeeded in having the New Hampshire Supreme Court overturn these permits. After repeated appeals and rehearings PSNH received its construction permit in July 1976—and experienced its first protest at the planned site.

There followed a decade of other protests at the site, inside regulatory chambers, and in New Hampshire and Washington courtrooms. The 1979 accident at the Three Mile Island nuclear-power plant in Pennsylvania—to name but one event that triggered concern

Continue reading →

Can Georgia ban Construction Work in Progress (CWIP)?

Georgia Power charges its customers Construction Work in Progress (CWIP) for the nuclear plants it is constructing at Plant Vogtle on the Savannah River. This while claiming a solar energy commodity market would raise rates for its customers. If nuclear is so great, why does it need to be pre-funded by customers? Can Georgia ban CWIP? Other states have.

This interesting survey by Wisconsin, courtesy of National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners (NARUC), says Illinois, Montana, New Hampshire, Ohio, and Oregon ban CWIP (except in certain cases for some of those states) and North Carolina and Washington in practice do not use it.

Appended below is the first question from the survey and the answers. The entire survey is on the LAKE website.

Here’s who in the Georgia state government you can contact about CWIP.

-jsq

CURRENT RETURN ON CWIP
VERSUS AFUDC [Allowance for Funds Used During Construction]
REGULATORY SURVEY RESULTS
March 2006

The Wisconsin Commission is relooking at its current practice for allowing a current return on construction work in progress (CWIP). We would appreciate it if you or someone else from your agency could respond to the following questions.
Continue reading →

Vermont Comprehensive Energy Plan

Georgia can do this if it wants to, Final Comprehensive Energy Plan 2011
The Comprehensive Energy Plan (CEP) addresses Vermont’s energy future for electricity, thermal energy, transportation, and land use. This document represents the efforts of numerous state agencies and departments, and input from stakeholders and citizens who shared their insights and knowledge on energy issues over the past ten months. The plan can be downloaded from this website or may be viewed at the Department of Public Service, 112 State Street, Montpelier during regular business hours.
More about those public comments:
The release of the Final CEP 2011 includes the CEP Public Involvement Report II (above). This document summarizes the written comments received during the second public comment period, between the release of the CEP Public Review Draft (CEP) on September 13, 2011 and the close of the public comment period on November 4, 2011. Over 1,380 written comments were received via email, the Comprehensive Energy Plan website, and hard copy between July 15 and November 4. Approximately 350 stakeholder groups, including municipal, business, and non-profit entities, submitted comments. Over 830 form-letter comments were signed and submitted by members of at least three different organizations. Over 200 comments were submitted by individual members of the general public.
Real input from the entire state. Imagine that!

Vermont’s population is about 622,000, or the size of a single Congressional district, so maybe it’s easier for them than for Georgia. On the other hand, maybe a regional south Georgia energy policy, or even a county policy, would be possible.

-jsq

After Fukushima: Fewer nukes most places; More in Georgia

Most countries are not building more nuclear power plants, and some are shutting down some of the ones they have, because Fukushima has confirmed what Chernoby and Three Mile Island already told us: maybe the physics is sound, but the business model leads to unsafe plants. But in the U.S. and Georgia, it’s full speed ahead for new nukes, regardless of the risks of radiation leaks or cost overruns.

Christopher Joyce wrote for NPR today, After Fukushima: A Changing Climate For Nuclear

“We don’t see Fukushima as having a significant impact on the U.S. industry,” says Scott Peterson, vice president of the industry’s Nuclear Energy Institute. “The Nuclear Regulatory Commission was renewing 10 licenses for U.S. plants, extending them 20 years in operation. We were continuing to move forward in examining new reactor designs.”
Nevermind that those extensions mostly go well beyond the design lifespans of the plants extended.
Marc Chupka, who advises electric utilities as an economist with the Brattle Group in Washington, wonders who’s going to pay for them.

“Right now, just the plain economics of nuclear power are underwater,” he says. He notes that over the past decade, construction costs have skyrocketed and natural gas got more plentiful and cheaper.

“Things change significantly over relatively short periods of time,” Chupka says, noting that it takes about a dozen years to plan and build a new nuclear plant. “That makes it an incredibly challenging environment to plan for the long term. And that adds to the risk and it makes investors understandably skittish.”

So we could do what Germany is doing:
Germany says the same: The government will throw its weight and wealth into solar and wind energy to replace nuclear power.
Or we could listen to the same old excuse: Continue reading →