https://www.eenews.net/articles/duke-is-again-considering-levy-county-site-for-new-nuclear-plant/
Duke is again considering Levy County site for new nuclear plant
The proposal could revive a major fight from over a decade ago, where a plan to build a different type of nuclear plant met resistance from environmentalists and consumer advocates.
Duke Energy is considering putting a nuclear power plant in Levy County, Florida.Mike Stewart/AP
ENERGYWIRE | TALLAHASSEE, Florida — Duke Energy Florida is again considering putting a nuclear power plant on 5,000 acres it owns in Levy County, regulatory documents reviewed by POLITICO reveal, as state and federal officials encourage the expansion of nuclear energy.
Duke Energy has not publicized its plans. But documents filed with state regulators in April by the utility say that it is considering building a "next generation" nuclear plant at the site between 2038 and 2048. The proposal could revive a major fight from over a decade ago, where a plan to build a different type of nuclear plant met resistance from environmentalists and consumer advocates.
The utility's pending decision was buried in testimony filed as part of a three-year, $818-million rate hike request filed with the Public Service Commission. The request includes a proposal to charge consumers a collective $94 million to hold the Levy County land for a future power plant.
Benjamin M.H. Borsch, the utility's managing director of integrated resource planning and analytics, said the company is considering placing a small modular nuclear reactor on the site. "The site remains especially valuable given its access to water, transportation, and transmission," Borsch said in written testimony.
Duke Energy in 2013 said it had eliminated the site from consideration for a different proposed nuclear project. Four years later, the utility signed a legal agreement canceling the project and absorbing $150 million in site costs.
Some project opponents said Wednesday they were surprised by the prospect of the new nuclear plant.
"I know it's a long way off," former Republican state Sen. Mike Fasano, now the Pasco County tax collector, told POLITICO. "My question would be, how much is it going to cost and who is going to pay for it?"
Duke spokesperson Audrey Stasko said via email the plant that was proposed prior to 2013 had been canceled, but nuclear energy remains an option "as utilities across the nation move toward a carbon free future." She did not respond Wednesday to questions about the cost and whether a federal license obtained in 2016 could still be used at the plant site.
Public Counsel Walt Trierweiler also declined to comment on the Levy County site, after contesting the utility's $94 million request to hold onto the site. His office announced Monday that it had reached a tentative agreement with Duke Energy to settle the overall rate request dispute.
President Joe Biden on Tuesday signed federal legislation intended to streamline the permitting process to encourage new nuclear plants, which his administration says can help battle climate change. And agency staff told the state Public Service Commission on Tuesday they have begun working on recommendations to encourage the development of advanced nuclear technology as required by state legislation, H.B. 1645 (24R), which Gov. Ron DeSantis signed May 15.
Duke Energy Florida and its predecessor, Progress Energy, collected more than $1 billion from customers for the two 1,100-megawatt nuclear units that had been planned at the Levy County site.
Duke announced in 2013 that it was abandoning the project because of delays in issuing the federal license and uncertainties about the future cost of the project.
Although the plant was never built, the utility said in 2013 it continued to regard the Levy site as a "viable option" for a nuclear plant. The utility continued pursuing the federal nuclear plant license.
In 2017, Duke Energy struck the deal with the Office of Public Counsel in which the utility agreed to write off the $150 million in site costs. The utility also was required to remove by 2019 the plant site from the base rates it charges customers.
As for the proposed Levy County nuclear plant, "this is putting the nails in the coffin and nailing it shut," then-Public Counsel J.R. Kelly said in 2016.
But that settlement also specifically allowed Duke to request customer charges for the plant site in the future.
Duke had not sought those charges in recent years. Borsch said in his April testimony that transmission line improvements scheduled between 2025 and 2030 would improve access to the plant site.
Helmuth W. Schultz III a regulatory consultant hired by Trierweiler to testify in the rate case, said the PSC should refuse to allow the company to collect from customers the $94 million to hold the site.
"There is no evidence that it is probable that the land will be used for a regulated project in the foreseeable near future," Schultz said in written testimony.
Borsch responded in testimony filed last week that the site's designation under federal legislation for additional clean energy credits makes it worth hundreds of millions of dollars more to customers.
Susan Glickman, a veteran environmental lobbyist, said Wednesday the possible new Duke project confirmed her concerns about the state legislation that seeks to encourage new nuclear plants, which she said are costly and take too much time to build.
"We don't want some new technology that has not been fully developed delaying the clean energy solutions that are readily available at low cost," she said. Glickman is vice president of policy and partnerships at the left-leaning CLEO Institute.
State Rep. Bobby Payne, a Republican from Palatka and who sponsored the recent legislation that DeSantis signed in May, told legislators in January that millions of dollars spent by the federal government on clean energy had led to only slight increases in its overall use.
"The NIMBY mentality has kept us from developing nuclear power in this area and all throughout the country," Payne told the state House Energy, Communications and Cybersecurity Subcommittee.
No comments:
Post a Comment