Gulf Power Rates Lowered; Potential Nuclear Issue Remains Unresolved

June 20, 2012

State regulators on Tuesday approved a plan by Gulf Power Company to take advantage of low fuel costs and trim customers’ monthly electric bills by an average of nearly $10 a month. But the PSC did not resolve a controversy about a potential Gulf Power nuclear power plant site in North Escambia.

With no discussion, the Florida Public Service Commission unanimously agreed to reduce the fuel costs that are passed along to the utility’s customers. Gulf Power and other utilities have enjoyed relatively low prices for natural gas, which fuels many power plants.

The change will be noticeable for customers of Pensacola-based utility as fuel costs make up a major portion of monthly bill. Residential customers who use 1,000 kilowatt hours of electricity will see their bills drop from $126.53 to $116.61.

“Our commission’s authority to adjust rates to reflect fuel cost savings protects customers, especially heading into the summer months when electricity use often increases to keep homes cool,” PSC Chairman Ronald Brisé said.

But regulators decided to delay a decision on a separate proposal from Gulf Power to allow it to collect money from customers related to the purchase of 2,700 acres for a potential nuclear power plant near McDavid. The PSC earlier this year rejected a Gulf Power proposal to build site costs into base electric rates, but Gulf Power is trying to convince regulators to reverse that decision.

Attorneys for consumers and business groups are fighting Gulf Power on the issue, with Joe McGlothlin, an attorney with the state Office of Public Counsel, telling the PSC on Tuesday that “you’ve heard it before”.

“An analysis of facts demonstrates Gulf Power doesn’t need the North Escambia site,” said McGlothlin, whose office represents consumers in utility issues.

But Gulf Power attorney Jeffrey Stone said the site is important to the utility because it could house a nuclear or other type of plant, is in the western part of Gulf’s service area and has good access to transportation.

“It’s the only property Gulf has that is suitable for all forms of future generation,” Stone said.

The proposal would have a small effect on customers’ bills — it would allow Gulf Power to collect slightly more than $2 million from customers in 2012, according to a company filing.

Commissioner Art Graham expressed concerns about not allowing Gulf Power to collect money for the site. Graham said it is difficult to try to find land for nuclear-power plants, particularly if they are near residential areas, and he doesn’t “want to see this opportunity go by the wayside.”

“Residential intrusion is something you want to avoid at all costs,” Graham said.

But Graham, McGlothlin and PSC staff also pointed to questions about another undeveloped site that Gulf Power has long owned in Caryville. Graham said he is concerned about adding the Escambia County site to the rate base in addition to the Caryville site.

The commission decided to put off a decision on the proposal until July 17 to allow more time to review some of the key issues.

The News Service of Florida contributed to this report.

Pictured: Some of the property purchased by Gulf Power Company near McDavid that could potentially be used for a nuclear power plant in the coming years.  NorthEscambia.com photos, click to enlarge.

Comments

12 Responses to “Gulf Power Rates Lowered; Potential Nuclear Issue Remains Unresolved”

  1. Bobby on June 23rd, 2012 6:45 am

    Let the CEO and Stock Holders pay for the property. And forget shoving this down the electric users throat!!!

  2. 429SCJ on June 22nd, 2012 8:04 pm

    I think we should hold out for cold fusion, or at least until after Im dead and my decendants have moved away to a safe distance.

  3. some on June 22nd, 2012 1:59 am

    If you are against nuclear power: why not come up with a better source of electric generation? Something that would be more feasible, and minus disasters, more environmentally friendly than nuclear power. Solar isn’t feasible, hydro-electric isn’t possible, and wind turbines would be a bust here. There goes your cleanest alternatives to nuclear. If you aren’t too savvy on keeping the north end environmentally clean, go with coal. I, for one, am completely against more coal plants as they are much more destructive to the environment, again minus disasters that allow the release of nuclear material, than a nuclear plant could ever be.

  4. David Huie Green on June 21st, 2012 5:41 pm

    REGARDING:
    “If GP does not want to rent them out, they should be required to maintain them or tear them down.”

    Why exactly? We aren’t talking houses or barns in the center of town. For the most part we are talking structures surrounded by woods and fields.

    Nonetheless, if you are a stockholder in The Southern Company, you might want to bring it up at the next shareholder’s meeting.

    David for reason

  5. jeeperman on June 21st, 2012 8:41 am

    How many of these GP owned properties contain buildings?
    Are they being rented out or left to decay?
    If GP does not want to rent them out, they should be required to maintain them or tear them down.

  6. No Excuses on June 20th, 2012 7:52 pm

    Nukes! We don’t live in an earthquake or tidal wave zone, and the Japan facilities did not have the safety features US plants require.

    Nukes!!

  7. Jane on June 20th, 2012 4:42 pm

    After the tusnami, Japan is investing in green energy…hydro-wind and solar energy. Maybe we should too! There is a good article on it on Yahoo news.

  8. Molested on June 20th, 2012 4:08 pm

    A nuke would be the best thing around for a long time to come.

    Go Nuke!

  9. 429SCJ on June 20th, 2012 10:31 am

    Nukes in say 50 years from now.

  10. Safebear on June 20th, 2012 10:10 am

    I agree, NUKES!

  11. David Huie Green on June 20th, 2012 8:31 am

    nukes

  12. Mnon on June 20th, 2012 7:02 am

    No nukes!