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 …

Why America Needs the MOX Facility

If Isaiah had been a nuclear engineer, he’d have loved this project. And the Trump Administration should too, despite the proposal to eliminate it in the FY 2018 budget.

The project is a massive factory near Aiken, S.C., that will take plutonium from the government’s arsenal and turn it into fuel for civilian power reactors. The plutonium, made by the United States during the Cold War in a competition with the Soviet Union, is now surplus, and the United States and the Russian Federation jointly agreed to reduce their stocks, to reduce the chance of its use in weapons. Over two thousand construction workers, technicians and engineers are at work to enable the transformation.

Carrying Isaiah’s “swords into plowshares” vision into the nuclear field did not originate with plutonium. In 1993, the United States and Russia began a 20-year program to take weapons-grade uranium out of the Russian inventory, dilute it to levels appropriate for civilian power plants, and then use it to produce…

Nuclear Is a Long-Term Investment for Ohio that Will Pay Big

With 50 different state legislative calendars, more than half of them adjourn by June, and those still in session throughout the year usually take a recess in the summer. So springtime is prime time for state legislative activity. In the next few weeks, legislatures are hosting hearings and calling for votes on bills that have been battered back and forth in the capital halls.

On Tuesday, The Ohio Public Utilities Committee hosted its third round of hearings on the Zero Emissions Nuclear Resources Program, House Bill 178, and NEI’s Maria Korsnick testified before a jam-packed room of legislators.


Washingtonians parachuting into state debates can be a tricky platform, but in this case, Maria’s remarks provided national perspective that put the Ohio conundrum into context. At the heart of this debate is the impact nuclear plants have on local jobs and the local economy, and that nuclear assets should be viewed as “long-term investments” for the state. Of course, clean air and electrons …