Nuclear Plants Bill Questioned
March 3, 2009
Tulsa World
Legislation that could lead to nuclear power plants in the state
is likely to reach Gov. Brad Henry this spring.But, unlike Oklahoma's aborted entry into the field three decades
ago, nobody now seems particularly interested in building a plant in
Oklahoma, and the most vocal opposition is not about environmental
concerns but about who would pay for a plant if one is built.
As the key House legislation is now written, utilities could
recover all costs from planning to completion -- an estimated $8
billion per reactor-- from ratepayers. The bill also includes provisions for an
unspecified amount of tax credits.
The bill's author, Rep. Scott Martin, R-Norman, acknowledged that
language has raised some eyebrows and said he is trying to work on
something agreeable to both skeptics and utilities.
"Any utility that would even consider a plant would have to put
out a lot of money," Martin said late last week. "It's not out of the
ordinary to have cost recovery for utilities."
House Democratic Leader Danny Morgan agrees but thinks the current
bill may go too far.
"What I am concerned about is that a utility could go through the
preliminaries -- and I've heard it can cost as much as $50 million
just for the environmental assessment and if they decide not to build,
the cost is all borne by the ratepayers.
"The Corporation Commission already has a provision to recover
costs," Morgan said. "Why do we need a special exception for nuclear?"
Nuclear proponents say the extraordinary planning and construction
costs justify such allowances. It is those costs, though, that make it
unlikely a nuclear plant will be built in Oklahoma any time soon.
"You're not going to be able to sell any of the electricity on the
open market," said Shane Woolbright, executive director of Municipal
Electric Systems of Oklahoma and an authority on electricity markets.
At current gas prices, Woolbright said, natural gas generation
would cost about half as much as nuclear.
And that is if cost estimates for building nuclear plants are
anywhere close to accurate.
"We haven't built a nuclear plant in so long, we don't know what
the cost would be," Woolbright said. He pointed out that Public Service Company of Oklahoma abandoned construction of its Black Fox plant near Inola in 1982 primarily
because of the cost.
Robert "Bud" Scott, a lobbyist whose clients include the Sierra
Club, said one of the biggest environmental concerns would be the
amount of water -- more than 1 million gallons per minute -- that a modern nuclear
plant requires.
Scott speculated the most likely spot for a nuclear plant in
Oklahoma would be near Lake Texhoma, both for access to water and to
the Dallas-Fort Worth metroplex market.
Martin said he knows of no one interested in building a nuclear
plant in Oklahoma and says his original interest in the matter was
sparked by last year's sharp rise in energy prices -- something that
is no longer much of an issue.
But, Martin said, he thinks the state should be prepared if and
when the opportunity presents itself.
"There has been a lot of discussion of wind and solar power in
Oklahoma," he said.
"The problem with those is that they don't produce enough load for
big users. I thought nuclear could be a viable alternative."
A key element of Martin's legislation is that it gives the
Corporation Commission sole authority in all nuclear power issues.
"It would be the point agency for the state," Martin said.
Randy Krehbiel 581-8365
Tulsa World
Legislation that could lead to nuclear power plants in the state
is likely to reach Gov. Brad Henry this spring.But, unlike Oklahoma's aborted entry into the field three decades
ago, nobody now seems particularly interested in building a plant in
Oklahoma, and the most vocal opposition is not about environmental
concerns but about who would pay for a plant if one is built.
As the key House legislation is now written, utilities could
recover all costs from planning to completion -- an estimated $8
billion per reactor-- from ratepayers. The bill also includes provisions for an
unspecified amount of tax credits.
The bill's author, Rep. Scott Martin, R-Norman, acknowledged that
language has raised some eyebrows and said he is trying to work on
something agreeable to both skeptics and utilities.
"Any utility that would even consider a plant would have to put
out a lot of money," Martin said late last week. "It's not out of the
ordinary to have cost recovery for utilities."
House Democratic Leader Danny Morgan agrees but thinks the current
bill may go too far.
"What I am concerned about is that a utility could go through the
preliminaries -- and I've heard it can cost as much as $50 million
just for the environmental assessment and if they decide not to build,
the cost is all borne by the ratepayers.
"The Corporation Commission already has a provision to recover
costs," Morgan said. "Why do we need a special exception for nuclear?"
Nuclear proponents say the extraordinary planning and construction
costs justify such allowances. It is those costs, though, that make it
unlikely a nuclear plant will be built in Oklahoma any time soon.
"You're not going to be able to sell any of the electricity on the
open market," said Shane Woolbright, executive director of Municipal
Electric Systems of Oklahoma and an authority on electricity markets.
At current gas prices, Woolbright said, natural gas generation
would cost about half as much as nuclear.
And that is if cost estimates for building nuclear plants are
anywhere close to accurate.
"We haven't built a nuclear plant in so long, we don't know what
the cost would be," Woolbright said. He pointed out that Public Service Company of Oklahoma abandoned construction of its Black Fox plant near Inola in 1982 primarily
because of the cost.
Robert "Bud" Scott, a lobbyist whose clients include the Sierra
Club, said one of the biggest environmental concerns would be the
amount of water -- more than 1 million gallons per minute -- that a modern nuclear
plant requires.
Scott speculated the most likely spot for a nuclear plant in
Oklahoma would be near Lake Texhoma, both for access to water and to
the Dallas-Fort Worth metroplex market.
Martin said he knows of no one interested in building a nuclear
plant in Oklahoma and says his original interest in the matter was
sparked by last year's sharp rise in energy prices -- something that
is no longer much of an issue.
But, Martin said, he thinks the state should be prepared if and
when the opportunity presents itself.
"There has been a lot of discussion of wind and solar power in
Oklahoma," he said.
"The problem with those is that they don't produce enough load for
big users. I thought nuclear could be a viable alternative."
A key element of Martin's legislation is that it gives the
Corporation Commission sole authority in all nuclear power issues.
"It would be the point agency for the state," Martin said.
Randy Krehbiel 581-8365