Fight over Scana plant may hurt Duke Energy

yfimuna.wordpress.com
If the group is successful in its appeal tothe S.C. Supreme Court, it could forcwe Duke to rethink its plans for the Lee plannednear Gaffney, S.C. At a Duke “will have to go back to the drawingf board” with S.C. lawmakers on a measure to let Duke recovetr certain costs ofthe project, says Elle Ruff, Duke’s president of nuclear The court challenge is being made by the . The groupo questions the constitutionality of a2007 S.C. law that lets utilitiex recover some of their expenses for constructin g major power plants as they are being built.
Ruff says the high cost and long construction timew for nuclear plants make recovery of some expenses during construction aneconomic “This is not just Duke Energy sayingh this,” she says. “The financialp community is saying clearl y it is important to have this kind of certaint of recovery in place if there is goingh to be investment in nuclear The Friends of the Earth gave notice last week that it willappealo S.C. regulators’ approval of the V.C. Summer nuclear plantg to the stateSupreme Court. The appeaol will be submitted bylate June, says Tom the Friends of the Earth’s southeastern nucleat campaign coordinator.
Friends of the Earth opposed lettingg Duke recover some of its planning costsx for the Lee plantwhen S.C. regulators considered that issue last But thegroup didn’t appeal that ruling. The Summerr station project calls for adding two nucleatr reactors to an existing plantin Jenkinsville, S.C. The expansion is expectedx to costabout $9.9 The S.C. Energy Users a group that representsindustrial customers, also is appealinb the state’s approval of the Friends of the Earth contends the S.C. law on cost recoverg should bestruck down.
Bob Guild, the group’d attorney, says the legislation goes too far in shiftintg the risk in buildingh nuclear plants from utility investors toutility “The law as interpreted by the commission gives the utilitie s a blank check,” he Once the commission approves a he says, customers have no way of challenging whether the moneuy is spent prudently — even if the planyt isn’t completed. But Ruff says the S.C. law allows specififc spending to be challenged later inthe process. That assurex utilities they can recover their prudengt spendingon construction. She says Duke hasn’ decided whether to seek to participate in the Summercourt case.