Nuclear Power Boosted:

Plan to Usher in More Nuclear Power in Florida Has Been Put on the Fast Track in a Sweeping Energy Bill Moving Through the Legislature

Power companies could hit customers with higher bills to underwrite the cost of building nuclear power plants even before the facilities are built, under a major energy bill on track for approval in the Legislature in the next few days.

The bill, expected to be debated in the House and Senate on Monday, signals a major shift in energy policy in the state, which has always required power companies to pay for their power plants before they charge consumers higher rates to pay for them.

Under the plan, consumers of Progress Energy in west-central Florida would face higher rates as early as 2010 to start paying for new power plants, even though the plants wouldn't generate any power until 2015. Florida Power & Light is considering building a new nuclear power plant, but does not plan to start the lengthy process until 2009.

The bill, part of a sweeping overhaul of state energy policy, also loosens the regulatory hurdles for FPL and other power companies to build the six coal-fired power plants they have proposed, gives tax breaks to consumers who buy energy-efficient appliances and provides tax credits to sugar companies that produce ethanol.

The legislation is being pushed by Gov. Jeb Bush, who believes the state must reduce its dependence on natural gas and oil in everything from motor fuel to electricity generation and start encouraging alternate energy sources.

Nuclear power is tops on the list of alternatives, utility companies say, because technological advancements have made it safer and cheaper to use nuclear fission to generate electricity. But nuclear plants are expensive to build -- as much as $4 billion each -- and power companies say they need to change the regulatory rules to make it cost effective to build them. If companies charge customers higher rates up front, "you have a moderate spike in rates when the power plant goes on line, but it won't be as high as it could be if you haven't paid ahead of time, " said Rep. Frank Attkisson, a Kissimmee Republican who sponsored the measure to give nuclear plants special treatment.

The measure also changes the nuclear power plant siting rules by discontinuing bid requirements that demand companies build the least expensive plants.

And the bill makes it harder for local governments to stop nuclear power plants by rezoning property the utilities want to use. It also strengthens the ability of the governor and Cabinet to overrule local zoning decisions.

Helping to usher in more nuclear power is a trade-off some environmentalists, consumer advocates and business groups have welcomed on one condition: that the state establish a high-profile energy commission to get serious about changing policies that contribute to global warming and discourage alternative energy.

The Senate version puts energy policy under such a commission, controlled by the Legislature, while the House bill retains the status quo, putting energy policy under the governor's Department of Environmental Protection.

Bush announced this week he doesn't like the Senate's high-profile commission, because it would allow energy policy to be established outside of the governor's office.

"Not going to happen. If it's in the bill, it will kill the bill," Bush said, prompting the Senate to delay a vote until Monday to give its leaders time to try to overcome the governor's objections.

Senate President Tom Lee said he is determined to give energy policy a higher profile in Florida -- including a focus on less dependence on fossil fuels, a survey of greenhouse emissions and greater atten tion to alternative energy.

Conservationists say legislators have it backwards. "If rate payers spend $4.5 billion to do a 1,000 megawatt nuclear power plant, there are infinitely more effective ways to spend that money on clean energy alternatives that don't increase greenhouse gases," said Susan Glickman, Florida representative for the National Resources Defense Council.

Glickman said that while 28 states have a climate plan, and nine states have fossil-fuel reduction goals and targets, "Florida doesn't have anything like that."

-----

Copyright (c) 2006, The Miami Herald

Distributed by Knight Ridder/Tribune Business News.