Press Mention Palm Beach Post October 3, 2012
SACE Referenced
Letter: FPL returns customers' investment in nuclear power
In this mention
This is a letter to the editor from Michael Sole, vice president of government relations for Florida Power and Light Co., rebutting a prior commentary by SACE's Stephen Smith that opposed FPL's nuclear plant investments. Sole defends FPL's nuclear upgrade program, arguing it saves customers money and reduces emissions, and characterizes Smith's arguments as a 'campaign of misinformation.' An editor's note mentions that the Florida Supreme Court was hearing arguments that day in SACE's challenge of the nuclear cost recovery fee.
Original clipping
PDF didn't open? Open it in a new tab →
Full transcript
Posted: 3:00 a.m. Thursday, Oct. 4, 2012
Letter: FPL returns customers' investment in nuclear power
By Post readers
Stephen Smith and the Southern Alliance for Clean Energy must really believe the adage that if you repeat something enough, people will believe that it is true.
In Monday's commentary opposing investment in Florida's nuclear plants ("FPL should pay for proposed nuke plants"), Mr. Smith continues his organization's campaign of misinformation concerning Florida Power and Light Co.'s effort to improve fuel diversity and keep our customers' bills the lowest of any utility in the state. Mr. Smith fails to acknowledge that FPL's investments in nuclear plants are delivering benefits to our customers, and will continue to do so for decades.
Just this year, we completed upgrades to two of our four nuclear units while the other two units are on track to be completed by early next year. These investments alone will: produce the same amount of energy as a medium-sized new nuclear power plant without having to build one; save customers $3.8 billion in oil and natural gas costs; and reduce greenhouse gas emissions by an estimated 32 million tons, the equivalent of removing about 5 million cars from the road annually.
For the upgrades as well as our proposed new units, to approve our expenditures on a "pay-as-you-go basis" the Florida Public Service Commission must agree, every year, that they continue to be a sound investment for customers. During the licensing phase, customers pay only for licensing activities. During construction, customers only pay for financing charges, not the construction itself. Only after the plant is in operation would customers pay for charges incurred during construction.
Moreover, each year FPL must prove to the commission that the costs incurred for these projects are prudent and that the projects will continue to benefit customers. Clearly, this is not the "blank check" Mr. Smith would like you to believe it is.
While Mr. Smith has draped his arguments in the cloak of "consumer protection," he and his group oppose all nuclear power. An interesting position to take for an organization who claims to be for "clean energy."
FPL isn't just talking about protecting consumers from higher energy costs; we have taken action, and continue to do so. FPL has the lowest electric bills in Florida, and our investment in nuclear power is one of the key reasons we do.
MICHAEL SOLE
Juno Beach
Editor's note: Michael Sole is vice president of government relations for Florida Power and Light Co.
Today, the Florida Supreme Court hears arguments in the Southern Alliance for Clean Energy's challenge of the nuclear cost recovery fee.