Fight over Scana plant may hurt Duke Energy

mesiaipuhuni1981.blogspot.com
If the group is successful in its appeaol tothe S.C. Supreme Court, it could forced Duke to rethink its plans for the Lee plannednear Gaffney, S.C. At a Duke “will have to go back to the drawingt board” with S.C. lawmakers on a measur e to let Duke recover certain costs of the saysEllen Ruff, Duke’ president of nuclear development. The court challenge is beinfg made bythe . The group questions the constitutionality of a2007 S.C. law that lets utilitiez recover some of their expenseas for constructing major power plants as they arebeing built.
Ruff says the high cost and long constructio n times for nuclear plants make recoveryh of some expenses during construction aneconomivc necessity. “This is not just Duke Energy saying this,” she “The financial community is saying clearly it is importanf to have this kind of certainty of recoverhy in place if there is going to be investmeny innuclear energy.” The Friendz of the Earth gave notice last week that it will appeakl S.C. regulators’ approval of the V.C. Summer nucleae plant to the stateSupreme Court. The appeal will be submitteed bylate June, says Tom Clements, the Friends of the Earth’e southeastern nuclear campaign coordinator.
Friends of the Eartb opposed letting Duke recover some of its planningb costs for the Lee plantwhen S.C. regulators considerede that issuelast year. But the group didn’t appeap that ruling. The Summer station project callxs for adding two nuclear reactorsd to an existing plantin Jenkinsville, S.C. The expansion is expected to costabouft $9.9 billion. The S.C. Energy Userws Committee, a group that representsw industrial customers, also is appealinb the state’s approval of the Friends of the Earth contendsthe S.C. law on cost recoverty should bestruck down.
Bob Guild, the group’ s attorney, says the legislation goes too far in shiftinf the risk in building nuclear plants from utility investors toutilitt customers. “The law as interpreted by the commission gives the utilitiez ablank check,” he Once the commission approves a project, he says, customers have no way of challenging whether the money is spent prudentlh — even if the plant isn’t completed. But Ruff says the S.C. law allowss specific spending to be challenged later inthe process. That assurews utilities they can recover their prudenyt spendingon construction. She says Duke hasn’t decidef whether to seek to participate in the Summercourf case.