Print

Email story

Comment

Email editor

There's more to the energy bill than the flip of a switch

By HOWARD TROXLER
Published May 2, 2006

Did you know that a bill about to pass the Florida Legislature makes it easier to approve new nuclear power plants in this state, makes it harder to oppose them, and allows utilities to start billing customers for them in advance?

I confess that I was slow to get it. I just knew there was a big "energy bill" in Tallahassee that is supposed to address the future electric needs of Florida, and that it had some stuff in there about power plants.

But what stuff it is! Whether you firmly believe we need more nuclear energy or you still worry about Three Mile Island and The China Syndrome , this is one of the most far-reaching actions the 2006 Legislature will take.

The bills in question are Senate Bill 888, which passed the Senate Monday on a 39-0 vote, and House Bill 1473, which is awaiting a vote in that chamber. Their language is largely identical; one of them will be the final version passed.

Here are the high points:

--Approving a plant at the state level would be fast. The state Public Service Commission would be the "sole forum." The PSC would hold a hearing within 90 days of a company's application and decide within 135 days after that.

--Approving a plant would be easy. The tests include whether a nuclear plant provided needed generating capacity, reduced Florida's reliance on oil and gas, and reduced air emission costs. What nuclear plant would fail to meet those tests?

--Nuclear plants would be exempt from the state's requirement that electric companies prove they have considered less expensive alternatives.

--Appeals would be harder. PSC approval would create the legal presumption the plant was needed. Opponents would have only five days to appeal. The Florida Supreme Court would have to hear the appeal on a fast-track basis.

--Customers could be billed from the beginning for the costs of site approval, licensing, design and construction. Such costs, the bill says, could not be challenged unless the PSC ruled they were "imprudent." Rates would increase again, of course, once a plant went online.

--If an electric company retired an old plant because it had built a new one, it could still bill its customers for the book value of the retired plant over the following five years. (As written, the law does not even require the company to show this was a smart decision.)

--At any time, an electric company could elect to abandon a proposed nuclear plant or halt its construction - and still recover all its expenses from customers. All the risk is shifted from investors to ratepayers. Again, there is no requirement in the bill that the company prove its decision was wise.

* * *

I am by no means an antinuclear hard-liner, and have wondered over the past few years whether the U.S. needed to reconsider nuclear power (carefully) as global warming and fossil fuel shortages loomed larger.

At the same time, the U.S. has not done enough to explore wind, solar, biofuels and other advances of technology. This is not idealistic stuff from the 1970s; we have more options.

But such debate is short-circuited by this bill, which more or less declares Florida to be a nuclear-friendly state. It could not be more pro-utility if electric industry lobbyists had written it, which, come to think of it, they almost certainly did.

If this were 20-something years ago at the height of the no-nukes frenzy, this would be front-page news across Florida, and thousands of people would be marching in the streets. As it is, it is just one more issue amid the hurly-burly of the legislative session.

Time is short; it seems unlikely the bill will be derailed. If you are of a mind one way or the other you can call or e-mail your state House member in these last few days of the session - the numbers are in the government pages of your phone book, or on the House's Web site, www.myfloridahouse.com there's no hyphen in that address. Otherwise the last stop will be the desk of the governor of Florida, Jeb Bush, who will decide whether to approve it or veto it.

[Last modified May 2, 2006, 01:57:13]