Latest Headlines
- Girl, 12, Killed In Multi-Vehicle Crash On Quintette Road In Pace
- Century Hires City Treasurer From Michigan As Their New Town Clerk
- Century, UWF, Brownsville Cut From Early Voting Sites For Congressional Special Primary
- Eglin Air Force Base Said To Be Source Of Boom, SpaceX Splashes Down
- Dogs Rescued From Fire That Damaged Cottage Hill Home
- Jim Allen Elementary Names Students Of The Month
- Century Picking Up A Little Extra Money By Mowing Library Lawn, Installing Christmas Lights
- Tate Lady Aggies Down Northview (With Photo Gallery)
- Funerals Services Announced For Hattie Marie McGary, Owner Of Cantonment Cafe
- Tate Aggies Win Two Over The Atmore Blue Devils
PSC Staff: Don’t Let Gulf Power Raise Rates For North Escambia Nuclear Plant
February 22, 2012
The Florida Public Service Commission staff has recommended slashing a requested Gulf Power base rate increase and is against letting Gulf Power raise rates for a potential nuclear power plant in North Escambia.
The staff would not allow Gulf Power to pass along costs related to a potential North Escambia nuclear-power plant site. The recommendation says Gulf Power has not taken an initial step — known as getting a determination of need — for such a project.
So far, Gulf Power has spent $13 million buying 2,700 acres near McDavid for what the company says might be a nuclear plant.
The final decision will come next week, but PSC staff is recommended that Gulf Power be allowed a base rate increase of $62.3 million.
The utility, which has 431,000 customers in the Panhandle, requested a $93.5 million hike last year, but attorneys for consumers and business groups argue the company should only receive a $17.2 million increase, according to a 250-page PSC staff recommendation filed last week.
Commissioners are scheduled to vote on the rate increase Monday, and staff recommendations typically play a key role in PSC deliberations. The staff, in part, would reduce the potential investor returns that Gulf has included in its proposal. The staff recommended a 10.25 percent return on equity —a closely watched measure of profitability — while Gulf requested an 11.7 percent return.
Pictured top: One of many house that now sit abandoned near McDavid where Gulf Power has purchased thousands of acres for a possible nuclear power plant. On of many Gulf Power “Posted” signs that line the roads in the area of the potential plant. NorthEscambia.com photos, click to enlarge.
The News Service of Florida contributed to this report.
Comments
15 Responses to “PSC Staff: Don’t Let Gulf Power Raise Rates For North Escambia Nuclear Plant”
I live in Cantonment and would love to have a nuclear power plant close by. I worked at one for 26 years and there were absolutely no problems. Picture your children or grandchildren running or someone they now running our top notch nuclear submarine program, and you have that and better in management and staff running a nuclear power plant. Do you ever go to Pensacola or Pace? Look at the chemical damage done to those environments before cleanup began. You won’t find that at a nuclear power plant – too highly regulated. For gosh sakes, you could rent your homes to the workers while building the plant and live in the Bahamas or anywhere you want for the price your rental would be. There is plenty of agricultural petisides going into the environment and we look the other way. Please don’t hate one me for this but why not overcome your fears and go visit a nuclear power plant – they welcome giving a tour.
Why should we have to pay a higher rate increase???? Has anyone ever really taken a real close look at their bill??? As a residential customer, everyone pays 10.00 per month! Why can they not take this money for their proposed project??? Anyone else ever think along these lines???
REGARDING:
“Of course a Chernobyl could happen here”
Maybe I’m being too narrow in my thinking when I say a Chernobyl CAN‘T happen here.
When I think of Chernobyl, I think of what actually happened and that can not happen with proposed nuclear reactors. That’s not the same as saying nuclear problems can’t happen. Anything involving humans — especially us males who hate to read the instructions — has some risk.
I remember when Three Mile Island happened. There was a partial melt-down with no public health problem, no radiation release. That was because of the melt-down — not despite it.
A melt-down is a final guard against uncontrolled fission reaction. The surrounding materials are designed to melt and dampen the reaction. Fukushima’s problems were caused by loss of coolant, then coolant introduced but not enough and the boiled off water or simply heated water escaping, carrying some radioactive material with it. Workers not trained for the unexpected.
Future designs are set up to provide coolant even if all mechanical systems fail. (That doesn’t mean somebody can’t manage to mess up the safety features.)
But as to the strict thought of Chernobyl-type problems: they can’t happen. Not won’t happen — can’t happen.
Chernobyl did not suffer a melt down. The uranium wasn’t surrounded by material which would melt and kill the reaction. It was surrounded by graphite which will burn but not melt. And it DID burn. The problem was caused by an uncontrolled graphite fire whose smoke contained radioactive material spreading it far and wide.
We DON’T use graphite moderated reactors. We wouldn’t use the Fukushima design, even though it took an earthquake and a tsunami together with non training to cause it to fail.
David for safety
LZHome, please, enlighten us on how nuclear power is such a bad thing? Especially when compared to the current coal chewing Crist plant that we are using?
And no long term jobs? So once the plant is built it will just spring to life and run itself? Are you aware of how many people it takes to run a nuclear facility?
And 429SCJ, I wasn’t implying that you were.. no worries mate.
I have never posted on this site before but, I felt I must voice concerns about this proposed nuclear plant.
There are great concerns about electromagnetic pluses being used to take out power grids and electronic backup systems by foreign governments or expected sun flares which would cripple our country. Anything that has a computer chip, which is most everything these days, would be damaged when this occurs leaving no cooling system for this nuclear power plant resulting in a melt down like Fukushima. Which is much worse than Chernobyl’s meltdown. There should be great concern by all citizens living within a hundred mile radious of the proposed plant area. If we lose power now we are only inconvenienced but, if it is nuclear it becomes life threatening without the ability to cool it. It would contaminate all areas making it uninhabitable.
Also, there are several plants today that are old and leaking badly around the country without the ability to close them per community request because they are considered private business eventhough they propose a danger to the community! The community should not allow this plant to be built.
I read an article and listened to an interview by retired officials about a nuclear submarine and cruise ship becoming dead in the Pacific waters off of California after an electromagnatic device was used. If you don’t think it is possible for this to happen look it up!
The concepts of nuclear fission, ionizing radiation and redundant automated safety systems, are within my comprehension. I should not say I am scared of nukes, but I am mindful of their locations. Reactors may be finite dimensional linear systems, but chaos always creeps in.
Its all smoke and mirrors. The PSC will give the southern co. and gulf power the increase. The PSC has been bought and paid for. Be prepared to pay more and more. And by the way, the fuel adjustment that was just approved will be added back on real soon. lol
There will NO long-term jobs only the construction effort. Escambia is already the top county in the state for industry polution and another power plant is the last thing we need; especially nuclear power.
This article is warped as written.
What the PSC is saying that a rate increase at this time for a power plant project should not be granted.
Only because GP has not “taken the initial step”, which is only a matter of a few months.
State law says that GP can in deed increase rates to cover a future project.
The same state law says nothing about what happens to those funds collected in advance if the project gets shelved or cancelled after a few years.
To JR:
Of course a Chernobyl could happen here; that is like saying nothing bad will happen to “my” family. Why on earth would we believe that the government officials would stop this and really help us, the citizens? Government (in general) is cutting way back on employees, expecting existing employees to do the work of two or more people. Look at the overload Social Workers have, or Public Defenders, all types of Inspectors or any other government employee.
If Gulf Power has enough money to lobby the appropriate people they will get what they want. At that point we are just sitting ducks and can only pray that a disaster never happens. We all want “alternative” power sources but I personally don’t want a nuclear power plant in my back yard. For heavens sake we live in florida, why isn’t solar an option?
I agree with Jane – we should not foot the bill for something that isn’t even in plan yet.
429scj – Chernobyl happened in what, ‘86? it was caused by human error during an experiment. Nuclear tech has come a long way since then and I’m willing to bet the farm that protocols would be in place to prevent the unintended distaster that happened.
I’m not negating your experience by any means… things like that serve as a reminder that accidents can and do happen, but I don’t think fear should cause reservations about something that could bring jobs to the area and cheaper cleaner power for our kids. (Face it, Gulf power WILL find a way to mitigate the costs. Most likely by nickle and diming us here and there)
Chernobyl was a stunning disaster, as the russians had disabled many safety systems so they could conduct experiments that were way out of bound for the safe operation of the plant. The US would never come close to allowing a Chernobyl from happening. US operates very conservatively. Folks are scared of things they do not understand or trust.
Let’s hope the PSC takes the advice of its own staff personnel.
I remember being assigned to Wiesbaden, when Chernobyl occured. My neighbor, who had what we referred to as one of those Ft McNair jobs, would go to far off places, his job was to drive a car, equipped with a sniffer pump in the trunk, which collected air samples to be tested for nuclear particles (nuke materiel). Day after day we watched the disaster unfold, watching the wind, My neighbor said if you see my family leaving for stateside, you will want to send yours as well. I knew my neighbor would have the inside track on the danger. I never want to go through that again. I have reservations about this proposed reactor, it scares me.
Whether or not they build a Nuclear power plant, the people here won’t see any benefits for quite some time. I see no reason that Gulf Power should ask us to pay for something they haven’t even gotten plans drawn or permits for! You don’t ask a bank to finance a house with no plans!