The nuclear crisis in Japan has spooked N.C. lawmakers from voting this year on a legislation that would make it easier for Duke Energy and Progress Energy to raise rates to pay for new nuclear reactors.
That means the earliest the N.C. General Assembly could vote on the legal change sought by electric utilities would be during next year's legislative session, said Duke Energy CEO Jim Rogers during a conference call with analysts this morning.
Mike Hager, vice chairman of the House Public Utilities Committee, said the nuclear proposal had enough support to pass until a tsunami disabled Japanese reactors in March.
Hager, a mechanical engineer who worked 16 years for Duke, said state officials should hold off on the nuclear proposal until the root causes of the Japanese crisis are analyzed.
He also said he has misgivings about advancing legislation that could add between $20 and $40 to a monthly household power bill at a time that many North Carolina counties are still racked by double-digit unemployment rates.
"It many not be a lot to me and you but it makes a world of difference for those folks," said Hager, a Republican who represents economically distressed Cleveland and Rutherford counties. "It was going to be a bill that we would have to explain -- why it was important for the energy future of North Carolina."
Duke and Progress have said they need to be able to pass on nuclear costs to customers without full rate hearings. They want a streamlined regulatory proceeding that examines nuclear expenses only, but doesn't require an audit of the full gamut of company operations.
Such streamlined cost recovery would take several weeks to process, as opposed to the several months that would be needed for full rate hearings. State lawmakers support the change, Rogers said, but they felt the timing was bad so soon after the March tsunami that disabled multiple reactors in Japan.
"The events in Japan have affected concerns of the appropriate timing of the legislation," Rogers told analysts.
Nuclear critics have said such a law would shift the risk of building nuclear plants from shareholders to customers, raising monthly bills years before the customers saw any benefit from the rate increases.
But the nuclear industry says the change would allow power companies to recover their financing costs early and make interest payments on an annual basis, shaving hundreds of millions of dollars from the total cost of a nuclear project and reducing the overall impact of the rate increases necessary to pay for new reactors.
Duke expects to receive a federal license for a pair of new reactors in South Carolina in 2013, giving state lawmakers sufficient time to take up the issue next year, he said. Each of those reactors is estimated to cost about $11 billion. The reason N.C. lawmakers would vote on legislation to pay for a nuclear plant in South Carolina is because that plant would generate elecricity for Duke's customers in both states.
In the wake of the Japanese crisis, one of the lingering question marks is how the tsunami will affect the total cost of a nuclear plant in the United States.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission has said it will review the Japanese incident in order to determine what safety upgrades might be needed at American nuclear facilities. Changes in federal safety rules would likely increase the cost of operating a nuclear plant.
One likely issue of concern is the amount of radioactive nuclear waste stored at spent fuel pools. As the superheated waste becomes concentrated, the likelihood of a fire and radioactive leak becomes greater in the event of an accident that causes a drop in water levels in the pools.
John Murawski has been a full-time newspaper reporter since 1991, with stints at Legal Times and The Chronicle of Philanthropy (both in Washington, DC), The Philadelphia Inquirer and The Palm Beach Post (in South Florida) before arriving at the N&O in December 2004. At the N&O he covers energy (nuclear, coal, renewable, efficiency), hydralic fracturing (or "fracking"), public utilities (both electric and natural gas) and health care. His beat includes Progress Energy, PSNC Energy, Piedmont Natural Gas, PowerSecure International, GlaxoSmithKline, Merck, Novo Nordisk, Pfizer, Biogen Idec and others. You can reach him at 919-829-8932 or
Comments
NRC Above the Law
Wed, 07/20/2011 - 11:24 — nonukesnowSay No to Nuclear Power -
The American Academy of Sciences 2008 “Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation” report claims that there is no safe level of radiation exposure.
The European Committee on Radiation Risk argues that existing risk models used by the NRC do not take internal exposure into account. These rates of internal exposure will mean a dramatic increase in cancer risk for Fukushima residents, with as many as 400,000 cases predicted by 2061.
A study commissioned by the German Federal Office for Radiation Protection titled “Epidemiological Study of Childhood Cancer in the Vicinity of Nuclear Power Plants” proves that young children develop cancer more frequently when they live near nuclear power plants.
The American Cancer society states “Ionizing radiation” is a proven human carcinogen (cancer causing agent). The evidence for this comes from many different sources, including studies of atomic bomb survivors in Japan, people exposed during the Chernobyl nuclear accident, people treated with high doses of radiation for cancer and other conditions, and people exposed to radiation at work, such as uranium miners and nuclear plant workers. “They go on to say, “people living near or downwind of nuclear facilities may also be exposed to radioactive byproducts. Levels of radiation are likely to be higher near these sites, but some radioactive particles enter the atmosphere and travel great distances, landing thousands of miles away from the facility.”
National Environmental Policy Act, which states; every proposal for a major Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment requires a detailed statement on, among other things, the environmental impact of the proposed action. The NRC has acted above its capacity by putting the public in harm’s way with no public hearing or updated environment assessment.
We also find the NRC to be in clear violation of theAdministrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. Chapters 5 through 8), they have issued permits without public hearing and without utilizing vital data regarding public safety available through scientific studies from world renowned scientist conducted in areas around the world effected by Chernobyl and other Nuclear Fallout areas. These reports provide a positive a link between increased cancer rates and proximately to low level nuclear releases and should be considered by the NRC in an effort to protect the public. There are hundreds of studies regarding the fallout of Chernobyl and the TRUE effects to the population, with over 1,000,000 additional cancer cases attributed to that disaster alone even by the most conservative studies.
The US requested an evacuation plan of 50 Miles to the Japanese Government, there is no such plan in place to protect the citizens of the United States.
The World Bank Projects the evacuation of the 19 Mile radius implemented by the Japanese Government and the subsequent cost of decontamination, medical cost and cost to relocate its citizens will cost $225 Billion dollars. The NRC has no such emergency fund set up and the current limit of liability paid by the US Government is only 500 Million, who will pay your mortgage in the event of a disaster, who will feed your family if the worst does happen, it will not be the NRC.
In addition, the NRC is issuing permits on nuclear plants for which the operating license expired after six years of issuance, they are doing this without public hearing or update environmental studies, which again violates the Federal Administrative Acts mentioned above as well as Section, 55.55 of the same act. The Violation of all of these acts is a direct violation on the civil rights of the Citizens of the United States of America and every state affected by these decisions.
More than fifty plants have failed to implement fire safety codes mandated by the NRC after the Browns Ferry Fire, including Browns Ferry. Even more have never been required to implement safety plans required by the 911 Commission.
We are the Cancer Capital of the World -
Nuclear power plants in NC
Tue, 05/03/2011 - 20:48 — wrivesDid I not read that the Shearon Harris plant has an excess amount of spent fuel stored there because Progress was shipping fuel rods from other locations to that plant? May have read that on the WARN web site. Anyway, in light of the new awarness, the operators of these plants should be required to remove spent fuel and place it in some kind of encased storage as soon as practicable after it is removed from the core. An accident that causes release of radioactive waste, as in Japan, would mean many people would lose their homes and all their possessions without any reasonable recourse.
Nuclear Legislation.
Tue, 05/03/2011 - 16:56 — henryeThere are other factors also. Most Members want to be sure of its safety. before commiting themselves..With the mistakes that showed up in the Japanese disaster still fresh in their minds.. Given the doubt that anything like this tragedy would ever happen..The fact is it did happen.. Personally I welcome nuclear power .. But would like a better way to get rid of the waste..