Skip to main content

Duke Energy COL for Levy County Nuclear Plant Still Alive Outside Cost Recovery

We've been watching the wires pretty closely every since we caught wind of a potential announcement by Duke Energy about the proposed nuclear project in Levy County, Florida. So far, several outlets have incorrectly reported that the project has been permanently shelved.

It's too bad those reporters didn't bother reading the fine print of the Duke Energy press release concerning a wide-ranging settlement with the Florida Public Service Commission (PSC) that went out about an hour ago (Bold emphasis mine):
In 2008, Duke Energy Florida announced plans to construct two 1,100-megawatt nuclear units in Levy County, Fla.

Duke Energy’s EPC agreement was based on the ability to obtain the Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s (NRC) combined construction and operating license (COL) by Jan. 1, 2014. As a result of delays by the NRC in issuing COLs for new nuclear plants, as well as increased uncertainty in cost recovery caused by recent legislative changes in Florida, Duke Energy will be terminating the EPC agreement for the proposed Levy nuclear project.

Although the proposed Levy nuclear project is no longer an option for meeting energy needs within the originally scheduled timeframe, Duke Energy Florida continues to regard the Levy site as a viable option for future nuclear generation and understands the importance of fuel diversity in creating a sustainable energy future. Because of this, the company will continue to pursue the COL outside of the nuclear cost recovery clause.

“We continue to believe that a balanced energy portfolio, including renewable energy, energy efficiency, and state-of-the-art cleaner power plants are critical to securing Florida’s energy future, and nuclear energy should remain an option to meet Florida’s future energy needs,” Glenn said.
So, what we're looking at is a delay, not a cancellation, and regulatory preparation for a potential new plant will continue. Here's hoping that detail gets back into the coverage this evening.

Comments

Brian Paddock said…
The plan to keep the COL application going is obviously a ploy to convince the PUC to let Duke keep the $1.5 Billon it has extracted from customers by pretending it will hold the money until the economics on nuclear power change -- which won't happen as efficiency and renewables get cheaper, better, and begin to fill the available space.
SteveK9 said…
Everything is 'obvious' to a conspiracy theorist.
Anonymous said…
Maybe, but this is not good news. The anti-nuke kooks will have a field day with any kind of cancellation news. And, no, "efficiency" and "renewables" won't cut it. They can't carry the load, never have, never will. Unreliables will be less attractive than nuclear. The only thing that will happen if Levy goes belly up will be burning more natural gas in FL, which means more GHG, more acidification of the oceans, more crap.
Anonymous said…
Statements concerning which generation sources are needed to meet demand have become less compelling lately as demand has essentially stagnated or decreased in many parts of the country due to the poor economic conditions. Simply doing nothing is now a viable alternative until the economy ever starts growing again.

When I used to work at TVA our peak summer demand was 32,000MW, however now it is only 29,000MW due to so many industrial customers shutting down and other factors like energy efficiency. This fact is the direct cause of Wwatts Bar being delayed so signifigantly and Bellefonte being indeffinitely deffered. I would imagine stagnant power demand more than anything else is what is killing the "nuclear renaissance". The record low interest rates these days as a result of Quantetative Easing actually makes the financial aspects of a large capital project like nuclear much more appealing. Also, the poor job market favors large capital projects since companies have a much stronger bargaining position with the local unions when it comes to wages these days and construction worker wages are the majority of the cost of a new nuclear plant.
Anonymous said…
The key statement is "outside of cost recovery."

Do you really think that Duke shareholders are going to press forward with COL if they have to shoulder the expenses and can't charge ratepayers for the work?

I know you are suppose to support the industry but to claim that Duke is going to move forward outside of cost recovery undermines NEI's credibility.

Popular posts from this blog

How Nanomaterials Can Make Nuclear Reactors Safer and More Efficient

The following is a guest post from Matt Wald, senior communications advisor at NEI. Follow Matt on Twitter at @MattLWald.

From the batteries in our cell phones to the clothes on our backs, "nanomaterials" that are designed molecule by molecule are working their way into our economy and our lives. Now there’s some promising work on new materials for nuclear reactors.

Reactors are a tough environment. The sub atomic particles that sustain the chain reaction, neutrons, are great for splitting additional uranium atoms, but not all of them hit a uranium atom; some of them end up in various metal components of the reactor. The metal is usually a crystalline structure, meaning it is as orderly as a ladder or a sheet of graph paper, but the neutrons rearrange the atoms, leaving some infinitesimal voids in the structure and some areas of extra density. The components literally grow, getting longer and thicker. The phenomenon is well understood and designers compensate for it with a …

Missing the Point about Pennsylvania’s Nuclear Plants

A group that includes oil and gas companies in Pennsylvania released a study on Monday that argues that twenty years ago, planners underestimated the value of nuclear plants in the electricity market. According to the group, that means the state should now let the plants close.

Huh?

The question confronting the state now isn’t what the companies that owned the reactors at the time of de-regulation got or didn’t get. It’s not a question of whether they were profitable in the '80s, '90s and '00s. It’s about now. Business works by looking at the present and making projections about the future.

Is losing the nuclear plants what’s best for the state going forward?

Pennsylvania needs clean air. It needs jobs. And it needs protection against over-reliance on a single fuel source.


What the reactors need is recognition of all the value they provide. The electricity market is depressed, and if electricity is treated as a simple commodity, with no regard for its benefit to clean air o…

Why Nuclear Plant Closures Are a Crisis for Small Town USA

Nuclear plants occupy an unusual spot in the towns where they operate: integral but so much in the background that they may seem almost invisible. But when they close, it can be like the earth shifting underfoot.

Lohud.com, the Gannett newspaper that covers the Lower Hudson Valley in New York, took a look around at the experience of towns where reactors have closed, because the Indian Point reactors in Buchanan are scheduled to be shut down under an agreement with Gov. Mario Cuomo.


From sea to shining sea, it was dismal. It wasn’t just the plant employees who were hurt. The losses of hundreds of jobs, tens of millions of dollars in payrolls and millions in property taxes depressed whole towns and surrounding areas. For example:

Vernon, Vermont, home to Vermont Yankee for more than 40 years, had to cut its municipal budget in half. The town closed its police department and let the county take over; the youth sports teams lost their volunteer coaches, and Vernon Elementary School lost th…