Business

PSC, Progress Energy Hammer Out Rate Agreement

By: Jim Saunders News Service of Florida | Posted: February 23, 2012 3:55 AM
In what one member described as an "unprecedented" settlement, the state Public Service Commission approved a plan Wednesday that will resolve big-money questions about Progress Energy Florida's base electric rates and two controversial nuclear projects.

Progress customers will see their monthly electric bills go up in 2013, though they also will receive $288 million in refunds related to a repair project at a Crystal River nuclear plant.

The agreement also will lock in the amount customers will pay over five years for a proposed nuclear plant in Levy County. Supporters of the deal say those costs could have gone up far more if the settlement had not been reached.

"This may not be the best deal for all, but each party gets a little something,'' Commissioner Eduardo Balbis said before the PSC voted unanimously to approve the agreement.

Progress and representatives of consumers, business groups and federal agencies announced the settlement last month after lengthy negotiations. The announcement came as the St. Petersburg-based utility and the other groups prepared for a year of major -- and controversial -- regulatory issues.

Bottom line: Residential customers who use 1,000 kilowatt hours of electricity a month would see their bills go from the current $123.19 to an estimated $128.12 next year, according to information presented by the PSC staff. The utility industry uses 1,000 kilowatt hours as a common measurement, though many residential customers use more electricity than that each month and business customers are billed differently.

Progress planned early this year to file a proposed increase in base electric rates, which cover many of the day-to-day expenses of running the utility. Such base-rate cases take months, require expert testimony and often delve into issues ranging from company profits to staffing levels.

The settlement will allow Progress to raise base electric rates by $150 million but will short-circuit the need for a rate case.

More controversial, however, is part of the settlement that will allow Progress to collect $350 million from customers over a five-year period for a plan to build two nuclear reactors in Levy County. That would translate into $3.45 a month for residential customers who use 1,000 kilowatt hours a month.

A 2006 state law allows Progress to pass along nuclear-related costs to customers, though the Levy County reactors will not start operating for at least another decade, if ever. During a hearing Monday, the Southern Alliance for Clean Energy criticized the continuing nuclear costs, questioning whether the project will end up being built.

Progress, however, had been expected to propose passing along a larger tab to customers for the Levy project during the next few years. The settlement likely will delay construction of the multibillion-dollar reactors, though Balbis said he was concerned delays could hurt the viability of the project.

The other highest-profile issue in the settlement stems from a repair project at a Crystal River nuclear plant that critics accuse Progress of bungling. The issue involves a chain of events that started in 2009 when the plant was damaged during the replacement of a steam generator.

Last year, more damage was found as the plant was being prepared to operate again. That has led to questions about how -- or if -- the plant should be repaired and how the project will be financed.

The settlement, in part, calls for Progress to refund $288 million in "replacement power costs,'' which relate to Progress's need to buy or generate electricity elsewhere to make up for lost production at the idled plant.

But the utility also will get benefits from the Crystal River portion of the settlement. As an example, if Progress starts repairs by Dec. 31, attorneys for consumers and business groups could not challenge the decision to repair the plant and the construction method.

Suzanne Grant, a Progress spokeswoman, said the agreement will lead to the utility collaborating with the state Office of Public Counsel, which represents consumers, as decisions are made about the Crystal River project.

Supporters say a major advantage of the settlement is that it will provide "certainty" for the utility and customers in dealing with what otherwise could be tumultuous issues.

"I think the stipulation gets us to a point where there is predictability for our constituents,'' PSC Chairman Ronald Brise said.


Comments (3)

ivan chubb
6:05AM JUN 25TH 2012
blood sucking florida no progress-why don't the taxpayers jst give them what they want for not doing anything but being greedy.
ivan chubb
4:05AM MAY 14TH 2012
I can't believe that Progress (no progress) Energy is still stealing from it's customers.Number three was a joke when I worked there.The whole Progess is a bad dream for the customers.They short cut all repairs and then want more money to fix the mistakes. All execs get bonuses and cash funds most of the time.The gov and state reps need to step in and fix this mess created by Progress (no progress)
ivan chubb
3:39AM MAR 13TH 2012
You had better realize that Progress Energy is about as honest as a Faro Dealer. They have bilked the public for years and they expect that public not to wise up. I guess that PSC has not wised very much.I worked for them and I can say that if you tried to work hard you were always laid off.They are good at placing 10 men on a 2 man job and if any of the 10 works, don't take long breaks, well they don't work there long.What a scum bag company that rips off all of the public with the need for projects that are not ever going to be completed.They are tring to sell the Broklyn Bridge to us all. Or the great lake in the Mojove Dessert.

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.