|
|
Phone: Fax:
|
NC Needs Clean, Economical Energy – Not a Consumer & Public Health
Rip-off
Energy bill has fatal flaws: Fix it or nix it
Despite the efforts of many
dedicated people to address concerns with Senate
The electric utilities have
laden this bill with multiple examples of gross over-reaching which, if
approved, would threaten the economic well-being of customers and the
Assertions by members of the
Senate that broad support exists within the environmental and public interest
community are flat wrong; there is far more opposition than support for S 3 as
written.
NC WARN calls on all parties
to join us in insisting that the NC House must conduct a thorough review of
this bill in order to correct the following serious problems. This is especially important for two reasons: 1) the Senate allowed only cursory input
dominated by a limited number of special interests, and 2) because we have many
reports that legislators correctly feel the bill is extraordinarily
complex.
If these problems cannot be
corrected in the House, this bill should not be passed.
1) Hog waste loophole: A major reversal in
2) Risk transfer, promotion of big power plants: The bill
transfers the financial risk for new multi-billion dollar nuclear and
coal-fired plants back onto the ratepayers.
Duke Energy and Progress Energy could bill customers in advance for
costs – plus profit – of new plants, even if they’re never completed. Construction Work in Progress (CWIP) was
banned in the 1980s when those utilities cancelled nine reactors underway,
wasting over $1 billion of public money.
With no cap on annual expenditures, S 3 would encourage the “cost-plus” mindset
that led to massive cost overruns of the 1980s that caused 60
3) Nuclear development costs: The
bill allows a blanket repayment of the development costs for nuclear plants
prior to any review of whether they meet the current “public convenience and
necessity” standard. Ratepayers
should not bear the financial risk even before such review.
4) Unprecedented and exorbitant cost recovery for
efficiency: While the public interest community has long
offered to fairly incentivize the
utilities for energy
efficiency and renewables, the bill appears to codify grossly excessive
returns. These returns include not only
the actual costs of programs and lost revenue, but recovery from ratepayers of
up to 90% of the cost of power plants the utilities avoid building. Ratepayers should not pay for plants that
are not built.
5) Promotion of Duke, Progress efficiency plans: In addition
to the cost recovery mechanisms noted above, the bill would entrench utilities’
control over efficiency and clean-energy programs rather than having an
independent third party administrator that would act in the public
interest. Utility-run programs would be
largely pre-approved by the legislature without detailed debate, and would cost
ratepayers 3-4 times more than necessary for energy efficiency. Low income customers would be left behind,
left with high power bills, and left vulnerable to extreme heat and cold. Issues affecting the lives of our most
vulnerable residents should be thoroughly negotiated by all interested parties
at the Utilities Commission, not locked in place by the legislature.
6) Clean energy and efficiency could be eliminated
later: Conversely, the rulemaking section gives too much
discretion to the Commission and would allow it to “modify or delay” clean
energy provisions “if the Commission determines that it is in the public
interest to do so.” Because the baseload
provisions motivate the utilities to overbuild expensive power plants, they
could then argue that capacity is being met, and that efficiency programs and
renewable capacity aren’t needed. Senate
7) Poultry waste incineration: The bill’s 150
MW set-aside would virtually ensure that this untested technology would gain a
foothold in the state without careful scrutiny.
Valid concerns have been aired that such incineration could release
emissions of greenhouse gases and other pollutants that are even higher than
emissions from coal-fired plants. Overall,
the amount of energy generated by the bill’s animal waste provisions far
exceeds the amount that would be produced by truly clean technologies.
For NC WARN:
Margie Ellison
John Runkle