Apr 24 - The News & Observer

As the fight over nuclear energy shifts from safety to cost, timing the public release of the multibillion-dollar expense takes on an increasingly strategic value to both sides.

The estimated cost of new nuclear power plants has tripled in the past few years, with projections now hitting $6 billion to $9 billion per reactor. Cost estimates are expected to continue escalating. Soaring costs make the prospect of new nuclear power even harder to sell to a public that will ultimately pay for new plants through rate increases.

Nuclear critics are homing in on the staggering costs to lobby their case. It helps the opponents to have a dollar figure to object to, but electric utilities are reluctant to cooperate.

Nuclear opponents are trying to force Duke Energy of Charlotte to disclose the projected cost of a proposed nuclear plant in Cherokee County, S.C., that would serve the Carolinas. The groups have asked officials in both states to require that Duke disclose the estimate. South Carolina regulators are expected to rule on the request today. North Carolina regulators could decide as early as Tuesday.

"If you want the ratepayers to pay for something, are you going to tell them it's none of their business?" said C. Dukes Scott, South Carolina's consumer advocate, who represents the public in utility rate cases.

Scott agrees with anti-nuclear groups that the cost estimate should be made public.

Duke will have to reveal the project cost when it seeks a permit in South Carolina, but such a disclosure may be a year away. Nuclear opponents say the public shouldn't have to wait that long for vital information about such an important decision.

The cost estimates are available to state regulators, public officials and lawyers, as long as they sign confidentiality agreements.

Duke is still negotiating with vendors and contractors, contending that its cost estimates are proprietary and sensitive.

North Carolina's consumer advocate, Public Staff, agrees with Duke that the cost estimate qualifies as a trade secret under North Carolina law.

Releasing the company's preliminary cost projections could undermine Duke's negotiating leverage and ultimately hurt customers, it says.

"Our whole effort here is trying to get the best cost for our customers," Duke spokeswoman Paige Sheehan said. "The people who have intervened in this case are doing anything and everything they can to harm this project."

Nuclear opponents want the utilities to develop alternative energy and efficiency programs and rely on the construction of a power plant as a last resort. The state's utilities maintain that new power plants are needed to meet this region's growing demand for energy.

Nuclear critics insist that a ballooning price hurts the case for new nuclear plants and that cost revisions over time undermine a utility's credibility.

"The thing is just replete with uncertainty and risk on every front," said Jim Warren, director of N.C. Waste Awareness and Reduction Network, a Durham organization that opposes nuclear plants. "There's a lot of denial. They'd like to think they've got this thing nailed down."

Progress Energy won't reveal cost estimates for nuclear reactors proposed for its Shearon Harris nuclear plant in Wake County, where the Raleigh utility operates one reactor.

The company was required by Florida law to disclose the cost of proposed reactors in that state, revealing that each reactor would cost about $7 billion.

But Progress Energy warned that the estimate is preliminary and likely to increase. Residential utility bills in Florida could increase by as much as $25 a month to pay for the plant.

Duke is being challenged to disclose nuclear costs under new laws in North Carolina and South Carolina that allow utilities to start paying debt on power plants before the plants are built -- even if the projects are abandoned.

Duke isn't applying to raise customer rates now, but the company is asking regulators in both states for the green light to spend about $230 million in development costs as the company keeps its nuclear option open. Those costs include preparing an application for a federal nuclear license, federal regulatory fees, site evaluation, land and rights of way purchases, demolition and site preparation, and detailed engineering.

The nuclear reactors that Progress is planning in Florida -- the Westinghouse AP 1000 model -- are the same technology that Progress has proposed for the Shearon Harris site and Duke has proposed for Cherokee County, southwest of Charlotte.

Duke's 1.8 million customers in North Carolina would use most of the electricity generated by the proposed plant and would pay for about 70 percent of the cost of the project.

In February, Duke Energy CEO Jim Rogers told South Carolina regulators that the Cherokee County plant would cost $6 billion to $8 billion, but the company now says that estimate is dated and inaccurate.

Scott, the South Carolina consumer advocate, said that he supports Duke's nuclear plans but that he wants the company to keep the public in the know.

"If the cost wasn't confidential in February," Scott said, "how is it confidential in April?"

-----

To see more of The News & Observer, or to subscribe to the newspaper, go to http://www.newsobserver.com.

Copyright (c) 2008, The News & Observer, Raleigh, N.C.

Distributed by McClatchy-Tribune Information Services.