Nuclear opponents attacking from many angles
Lawsuit may halt reactor construction
By Walter C. Jones | Morris News Service | Story updated at 8:50 pm on 9/5/2009
ATLANTA - The question of a controversial law's constitutionality could halt the construction of two nuclear reactors that the Georgia Power Co. hopes to build.
A group opposed to reactors on environmental grounds is using a constitutional challenge to the financing mechanism granted to Georgia Power during the last legislative session as a way to prevent what it considers to be an ecological mistake. Senate Bill 31 violates the state and federal constitution on several points, lawyers for the Southern Alliance for Clean Energy argue in a lawsuit against the plants.
The alliance, which is based in Tennessee but ha s members and offices in Georgia, often has spoken out against nuclear power and in favor of solar- and wind-generated electricity. Sara Barczak, of the group's Savannah office, relied on environmental arguments in December when she testified against the construction proposal at a state Public Service Commission hearing.
"Downstream communities should be concerned about project water consumption at the proposed Vogtle site because consumptive water loss, especially during low river flows, can pose significant negative impacts to water quality and aquatic resources," Barczak said.
She also raised concerns about the environmental impact of dredging the nearby Savannah River to allow reactor components to be shipped by barge, as they were when the first two reactors were built.
The alliance didn't succeed in convincing the PSC, so now it's taken a different tack.
The 16-page lawsuit the alliance filed argues that when the Georgia General Assembly granted Georgia Power permission to charge electric customers for construction costs before the nuclear plants start producing electricity, that the law amounted to a sort of tax that gives the utility something for nothing.
"The adoption of the nuclear tariff by the Georgia General Assembly creates an unconstitutional gratuity in favor of Georgia Power and its stockholders, for, among other reasons, paying such stockholders of Georgia Power a return on equity in excess of $1 billion before Units 3 and 4 at Plant Vogtle are=2 0even put into service, i.e., for services which have not been rendered," the lawsuit states.
Although the Southern Alliance for Clean Energy is suing the state and not the utility, Georgia Power filed a brief in Fulton County Superior Court asking to have the case dismissed.
"We still feel like SB 31 was good for the people of Georgia, and we think it is a win-win," said utility company spokeswoman Carol Boatright.
SB 31 was controversial when it was debated in the legislature. Consumer groups like Georgia Watch and the AARP joined environmentalists in opposing it. Georgia Power and its allies carried the day by arguing that it needed more electric generating capacity and that nuclear is the best way to provide it. And they said consumers would benefit from paying in advance rather than having interest charges mount.
Georgia Power also emphasized that having a guaranteed funding stream during construction was necessary to attract investors who would lend the money for the billion-dollar project. That funding guarantee was vital, and many other utilities across the country without a similar guarantees haven't been as aggressive about new reactors, according to William Tucker, author of the book "Terrestrial Energy: How Nuclear Power Will Lead the Green Revolution and End America's Energy Odyssey."
Winning a judgment against SB 31 could halt the nuclear project with more finality than many environmental considerations might, supporters of the suit say. F or example, a victory for environmentalists on dredging would merely force the utility to go to added expense to ship by rail or truck, they say.
One thing electric utilities and environmentalists agree on is they don't want to see the history of nuclear power plants repeated. Neither side wants the long, expensive battles that cost taxpayers and utility customers and still wound up in the operation of 104 reactors across the country. Both would prefer a quick resolution of this lawsuit, even if they disagree on who should prevail.
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has replaced the two-step licensing process used in the 1960s and '70s that granted one license for construction and then a second one for operating. At the time, there were many fights at each stage, with some second-stage skirmishes duplicating issues that had been debated at the first stage. Plus, resolving concerns after the plants were built and awaiting an operating license proved to be costly and time consuming.
Now the NRC will issue one "combined" construction and operating license in an attempt to contain the fights to one stage.
Tom Kauffman, spokesman for the Nuclear Energy Institute in Washington, said opposition to nuclear generating plants won't disappear.
"We expect that there will be contentions as new plants enter the application process," Kauffman said. "That's as it should be, to allow concerns to be aired."
Thanks to the S outhern Alliance for Clean Energy for challenging Georgia's CWIP law. Here in South Carolina, Friends of the Earth is challenging before the SC Supreme Court our CWIP law (Baseload Review Act) and the SC PC decision allowing the SCE&G nuclear project to go forward. No hearing date has been set but last week was the deadline for our filing
NUCLEAR BATTLE
An environmental group that opposes building two nuclear reactors has filed suit challenging the constitutionality of a law that allows the Georgia Power Co. to charge customers for construction costs before the reactors begin generating electricity. The Southern Alliance for Clean Energy cites six reasons to overturn Senate Bill 31:
? It bypasses the state Public Service Commission, which under the state constitution oversees electric utilities in Georgia.
? It takes money away from Georgia Power customers and gives them no immediate benefit, an alleged violation of the U.S. Constitution's right to due process.
? It discriminates because large commercial and industrial customers of Georgia Power are exempt from the early payments.
? It provides an illegal gratuity to Georgia Power because customers pay while getting no electricity in return.
? It levies a government-ordered fee, which is tantamount to a tax, and only governments can benefit from a tax.
? It benefits a monopoly, illegal20under the state Constitution, because the fees strengthen Georgia Power financially.
Source: Southern Alliance for Clean Energy
Originally published in the Athens Banner-Herald on Sunday, September 06, 2009
http://www.onlineathens.com/stories/090609/new_490132901.shtml
By Walter C. Jones | Morris News Service | Story updated at 8:50 pm on 9/5/2009
ATLANTA - The question of a controversial law's constitutionality could halt the construction of two nuclear reactors that the Georgia Power Co. hopes to build.
A group opposed to reactors on environmental grounds is using a constitutional challenge to the financing mechanism granted to Georgia Power during the last legislative session as a way to prevent what it considers to be an ecological mistake. Senate Bill 31 violates the state and federal constitution on several points, lawyers for the Southern Alliance for Clean Energy argue in a lawsuit against the plants.
The alliance, which is based in Tennessee but ha s members and offices in Georgia, often has spoken out against nuclear power and in favor of solar- and wind-generated electricity. Sara Barczak, of the group's Savannah office, relied on environmental arguments in December when she testified against the construction proposal at a state Public Service Commission hearing.
"Downstream communities should be concerned about project water consumption at the proposed Vogtle site because consumptive water loss, especially during low river flows, can pose significant negative impacts to water quality and aquatic resources," Barczak said.
She also raised concerns about the environmental impact of dredging the nearby Savannah River to allow reactor components to be shipped by barge, as they were when the first two reactors were built.
The alliance didn't succeed in convincing the PSC, so now it's taken a different tack.
The 16-page lawsuit the alliance filed argues that when the Georgia General Assembly granted Georgia Power permission to charge electric customers for construction costs before the nuclear plants start producing electricity, that the law amounted to a sort of tax that gives the utility something for nothing.
"The adoption of the nuclear tariff by the Georgia General Assembly creates an unconstitutional gratuity in favor of Georgia Power and its stockholders, for, among other reasons, paying such stockholders of Georgia Power a return on equity in excess of $1 billion before Units 3 and 4 at Plant Vogtle are=2 0even put into service, i.e., for services which have not been rendered," the lawsuit states.
Although the Southern Alliance for Clean Energy is suing the state and not the utility, Georgia Power filed a brief in Fulton County Superior Court asking to have the case dismissed.
"We still feel like SB 31 was good for the people of Georgia, and we think it is a win-win," said utility company spokeswoman Carol Boatright.
SB 31 was controversial when it was debated in the legislature. Consumer groups like Georgia Watch and the AARP joined environmentalists in opposing it. Georgia Power and its allies carried the day by arguing that it needed more electric generating capacity and that nuclear is the best way to provide it. And they said consumers would benefit from paying in advance rather than having interest charges mount.
Georgia Power also emphasized that having a guaranteed funding stream during construction was necessary to attract investors who would lend the money for the billion-dollar project. That funding guarantee was vital, and many other utilities across the country without a similar guarantees haven't been as aggressive about new reactors, according to William Tucker, author of the book "Terrestrial Energy: How Nuclear Power Will Lead the Green Revolution and End America's Energy Odyssey."
Winning a judgment against SB 31 could halt the nuclear project with more finality than many environmental considerations might, supporters of the suit say. F or example, a victory for environmentalists on dredging would merely force the utility to go to added expense to ship by rail or truck, they say.
One thing electric utilities and environmentalists agree on is they don't want to see the history of nuclear power plants repeated. Neither side wants the long, expensive battles that cost taxpayers and utility customers and still wound up in the operation of 104 reactors across the country. Both would prefer a quick resolution of this lawsuit, even if they disagree on who should prevail.
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has replaced the two-step licensing process used in the 1960s and '70s that granted one license for construction and then a second one for operating. At the time, there were many fights at each stage, with some second-stage skirmishes duplicating issues that had been debated at the first stage. Plus, resolving concerns after the plants were built and awaiting an operating license proved to be costly and time consuming.
Now the NRC will issue one "combined" construction and operating license in an attempt to contain the fights to one stage.
Tom Kauffman, spokesman for the Nuclear Energy Institute in Washington, said opposition to nuclear generating plants won't disappear.
"We expect that there will be contentions as new plants enter the application process," Kauffman said. "That's as it should be, to allow concerns to be aired."
Thanks to the S outhern Alliance for Clean Energy for challenging Georgia's CWIP law. Here in South Carolina, Friends of the Earth is challenging before the SC Supreme Court our CWIP law (Baseload Review Act) and the SC PC decision allowing the SCE&G nuclear project to go forward. No hearing date has been set but last week was the deadline for our filing
NUCLEAR BATTLE
An environmental group that opposes building two nuclear reactors has filed suit challenging the constitutionality of a law that allows the Georgia Power Co. to charge customers for construction costs before the reactors begin generating electricity. The Southern Alliance for Clean Energy cites six reasons to overturn Senate Bill 31:
? It bypasses the state Public Service Commission, which under the state constitution oversees electric utilities in Georgia.
? It takes money away from Georgia Power customers and gives them no immediate benefit, an alleged violation of the U.S. Constitution's right to due process.
? It discriminates because large commercial and industrial customers of Georgia Power are exempt from the early payments.
? It provides an illegal gratuity to Georgia Power because customers pay while getting no electricity in return.
? It levies a government-ordered fee, which is tantamount to a tax, and only governments can benefit from a tax.
? It benefits a monopoly, illegal20under the state Constitution, because the fees strengthen Georgia Power financially.
Source: Southern Alliance for Clean Energy
Originally published in the Athens Banner-Herald on Sunday, September 06, 2009
http://www.onlineathens.com/stories/090609/new_490132901.shtml