FPL Chief Defends Nuclear Cost Law

By: Jim Saunders News Service of Florida | Posted: February 1, 2013 3:55 AM
FPL Power Plant

FPL West County Energy Center Site | Credit: FPL

The president of Florida Power & Light made clear Thursday that his company will fight legislative attempts to repeal a controversial law that has allowed utilities to collect hundreds of millions of dollars from customers for nuclear-power projects.

Eric Silagy said in an interview that the 2006 law has allowed FPL to upgrade already-existing nuclear plants in Miami-Dade and St. Lucie counties, along with taking steps toward possibly building two new reactors. He said the upgrades, for example, already are saving millions of dollars a month that otherwise would need to go toward buying fuel for generating electricity at other power plants.

Silagy said he thinks the law "should be celebrated, not repealed, because it's worked."

Two outspoken critics of the law, Reps. Michelle Rehwinkel Vasilinda, D-Tallahassee, and Mike Fasano, R-New Port Richey, have filed a bill to try to repeal it during the legislative session that starts in March. Such attempts have failed in the past, but The Miami Herald reported Wednesday that House Speaker Will Weatherford, R-Wesley Chapel, indicated he is open to possible revisions.

FPL and Progress Energy Florida have used the law in recent years to get approval from the state Public Service Commission to pass along nuclear-project costs to customers. While the amounts vary each year, FPL is expected to collect about $151 million this year from customers, while Progress will collect about $143 million.

Ordinarily, utility project costs are built into customer bills after the projects are completed. But the 2006 law, which was aimed at encouraging more nuclear power, allows the utilities to recoup costs as the projects go along.

The controversy primarily centers on money that the utilities are collecting for proposed nuclear plants that would not start generating electricity for another decade, if ever. The Florida Supreme Court heard arguments last year in a constitutional challenge to the law. That challenge, filed by the Southern Alliance for Clean Energy, remains pending.

Most of the money collected this year by FPL will go for the upgrades at the already-existing plants, with the final part of the upgrades expected to be finished this spring. FPL also is spending money to seek license approval from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission for the possible new nuclear reactors at the Turkey Point complex in Miami-Dade County.

Silagy said the law only gives permission to utilities to recover expenses for the projects and that regulators must determine that those expenses are "prudent." He also said the law reduces the amount of financing costs that otherwise would be passed on later to customers.

"It saves our customers tremendous amounts of money, because it is pay-go,'' he said.

Silagy, who was attending an Enterprise Florida meeting in Tallahassee, said utilities need to make long-term decisions, such as investing in nuclear power, to meet future demands. He also said it is important not to have a "knee-jerk reaction" to the nuclear-cost recovery law.

"We're doing what we said we were going to do," he said.

Opponents such as Rehwinkel Vasilinda and Fasano, however, have focused on the costs being passed along to consumers. After the Public Service Commission approved the amounts for this year, Rehwinkel Vasilinda issued a statement describing the law and its handling by regulators as an "epic failure."

Tags: News, Politics

Comments (3)

4:41AM SEP 4TH 2014
Hello. And Bye.
Shelly Henehan
3:45PM FEB 1ST 2013
It appears that the Nuclear power executives want to reap the profits without absorbing any of the risks. This could not happen in any business without legislative help. These are the same people who cry about restrictive regulations when it suits them. This is not free enterprise.
11:29AM FEB 1ST 2013
What the article doesn't really bring out is that existing legislation allows planning and regulatory costs to be paid for by their "existing" customers for facilities they may never receive power from, and those costs are not really restricted . . . they are what they are, and the PSC has shown little inclination to rein in FPL . . . while FPL experiences little risk . . . there may be a legitimate line to have here somewhere on who pays for what, but the current deal is way too much in favor of FPL . . .

Leave a Comment on This Story

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
To prevent automated spam submissions leave this field empty.