Relative to some of its utility industry brethren, Progress Energy Carolinas has a reputation as a good corporate citizen. So it came as a shock to many residents of its Western North Carolina service area when, in December 2006, PE and the Buncombe County Board of Commissioners made a surprise announcement. A deal had been struck to build a new ultra-low sulfur oil-fired peaking power plant in Woodfin, a small town north of Asheville. The stories below are the continuation of an account of what happened next and the ongoing maneuverings over how to meet the electrical needs of an area beset by rampant high-end real estate development.

Talking Turkey at the Birthday Party, June 13, 2008
Measurable Progress, May 9, 2008
Gearing Up for Action (at some point), April 11, 2008
Previous installments, 1/07-3/08

Talking Turkey at the Birthday Party

Progress Energy’s Community Energy Advisory Council (CEAC) has been in existence for a year. But the council had little time for self-congratulation at its June 13th anniversary meeting. The discussions that displaced organic carrot cake and ice cream were a mark of how far the CEAC process has come and how far it has yet to travel if the community model the council represents is to realize its potential.

Power lines
Power stations get more press, but power lines are equally critical to keeping society’s lights on. Water and natural gas reach consumers through tree-like distribution systems. The Asheville Water Department pumps water into the big end of the pipe; we, at our various little ends, remove it by opening our taps. The power grid is different. It’s more like a network of highways and roads. Electricity can theoretically be added to the system at many more points. And if one transmission line is blocked, the electrical “traffic” instantaneously seeks alternate routes. The grid is also two-way—along different wires—flowing in a closed loop or circuit. That’s why there are at least two prongs in an electric plug and two wires serving an electric fixture. One is incoming, the other outgoing. In simplified schematic terms, the electrical transmission system isn’t a tree; it’s a circle.

Sam Waters, director of system planning for Progress Carolinas, took the first half of the meeting to present an upcoming transmission issue facing the WNC territory. In part, he said, it’s a result of the massive Northeastern blackout of August 14, 2003.  (technical discussion link). Waters described that blackout as a typical “cascading event.” On a hot August afternoon, a power plant in Ohio went off-line at a time of high demand. Electricity from elsewhere streamed in along alternative routes, heating high voltage lines and causing them to sag more than usual. Some drooped into trees FirstEnergy Corp. hadn’t gotten around to trimming. The trees shorted out one line after another, overloading additional lines. The industrial equivalent of circuit breakers tripped, removing more lines from service and eventually more than 100 power plants as well. At the end of the day, a tree-trimming failure had cascaded into a blackout affecting fifty million residents of the US and Canada. 

Federal regulators, having decided the free market had failed to adequately self-regulate, responded with a raft of new rules—including more aggressive tree-trimming requirements. Waters said the new rules, along with changing mix of electricity suppliers and increasing demand, have driven Progress to rethink the adequacy of the high voltage (115 kilovolt) line from Asheville to Enka.

Beginning in 2010, when the company imports peak power to WNC, a problem along the Asheville-Enka line could initiate a cascading event by shunting large amounts of electricity to a parallel line, potentially overloading it. A first step toward correcting the vulnerability, Waters said, is to increase voltage on the Asheville-Enka line to 230 KV and bring the voltage down with additional transformers at Enka. The preliminary estimated price tag is $6 million.

Robin Cape said, “I’m frustrated that [with this change] we’re locking in old-style central generation and not distributed generation.” Margo Flood and Vernon Daugherty pressed the point, Daugherty asking, “Does this build-out consider upcoming distributed resources?”

Waters replied that it didn’t. In his mind, the issues are different. Distributed or decentralized generation could strengthen or weaken the grid depending on where it occurs along the transmission lines and how much control Progress dispatchers have over when the power comes online. “We have preferences,” Waters said. A wind farm tied in at a line already used to near capacity could threaten an overload. The same windmills connected at a line with plenty of excess capacity could strengthen the grid. Waters added that beefing up the Asheville-Enka line isn’t the only available option. But he thought it was best in this instance.

The Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act
The day’s other major topic was Progress Energy’s role in shaping climate change policy. The Lieberman-Warner bill, defeated in the Senate on June 6th, would have imposed national CO2 emission targets and a carbon cap and trade system. The latter included a program of annual auctions for carbon allowances. Auction proceeds would have been redistributed to rate payers, industry, research, and environmental remediation. Utility companies—and environmental groups—were divided in their support for Lieberman-Warner. Duke and Progress, both heavily dependent on coal-fired plants, came out against.

Robert Sipes, Progress Carolinas western regional vice president, launched the discussion by saying he’d emailed CEAC members as soon as he became aware that Progress had a position on Lieberman-Warner. By doing so, he hoped to avoid a repeat of CEAC’s surprise at the company’s intervention with the 2007 federal energy bill [see “The Other Face of Progress”]. Sipes also arranged for corporate environmental specialist, Mike Kennedy, to appear and explain Progress’s opposition in person. 

Kennedy began by recognizing the reality of global warming and human activity as a major cause of it. Progress, he said, sees a need for major reductions in CO2 emissions. In principle, it supports a carbon cap and trade program with shrinking carbon allocations over time.

According to Kennedy, the company’s objection to Lieberman-Warner arose from two considerations. First, it believes the bill’s near-term CO2 targets and timetables were overly optimistic. CO2 emissions were to be reduced to 1990 levels by 2020. Kennedy cited an Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) study suggesting that emerging technology and plant construction timetables make 2030 a more realistic year for emission reductions to 1990 levels. (Note: The EPRI study envisions an energy future dominated by new nuclear power and coal—clean, of course.) Kennedy said Progress didn’t have a problem with the more remote Lieberman-Warner targets, or even an 80% reduction of CO2 below 1990 levels by 2050.

Not surprisingly, the bill’s carbon cap and trade provisions were the other stumbling block for Progress. The company prefers a free distribution of emission allowances, following the model of the 1990 Clean Air Act amendments. Those permits capped and reduced smog-causing gases over time by virtue of dwindling permit allowances. Companies emitting less than allowable maximums may sell their unneeded permit tonnage to companies exceeding permitted targets.

Lieberman-Warner also allowed for an aftermarket in carbon allowances but would have phased-in an auction process for obtaining permits in the first place. System-wide, Progress emits about 60 million tons of carbon per year from its power plants in Florida and the Carolinas. Kennedy noted that the annual cost of purchasing carbon allowances would be burdensome for ratepayers even at a bargain basement price of $10/ton.

Dave Hollister fussed, “Whenever things like this come up, the cost card comes out like a club over the heads of the masses.” Richard Fireman, a retired physician, said cheap energy should no longer be a national goal. He compared the energy crisis to a patient who comes to the doctor complaining of chest pain. “The doctor isn’t going to prescribe a [high sugar] diet even if it’s the cheapest. The patient needs to cut his [sugar] intake.” Paul Szurek replied that, at the end of the day, there are political realities and that cost would always be one of them.

Other council members sought to broaden the scope of the discussion. Michael Shore asked Kennedy whether Progress would proactively come forward with alternative proposals or continue to sit back and oppose bills on the legislative table. Kennedy replied that Progress would be happier with a 2025 or 2030 date for carbon reductions to 1990 levels.

Cape said, “I’d love it if Progress took leadership on costs.” She thought the company could do much to explain to customers that climate inaction also carries a price tag, referring to extreme weather, health, and other issues.

Sandy Pfeiffer, president of Warren Wilson College, recalled last year’s agreement between his school and the City of Asheville to collaborate on climate change practices and initiatives. He hoped Progress would get on board with what he said is already being referred to as “The Asheville Model.” He believed such a commitment could spearhead a broad new collaborative model for energy leadership and climate change solutions in the United States. Margo Flood (also of Warren Wilson) seconded Pfeiffer’s notion, as did Shore. He asked Progress take public stands on what it supports in terms of targets and how it proposes to achieve them.

What wasn’t discussed
In May, CEAC planned to focus the June meeting on devising a plan for community education and engagement with energy issues. That conversation becomes ever more pressing. Progress recently announced its intention to raise electric rates for residential customers by an average of 16.2% on December 1. If approved by the Utilities Commission, most of the rate increase would go toward offsetting increased fuel costs. The remainder would pay for the company’s energy efficiency and demand-side management proposals as well as renewable energy expenses.

Thank you, Margie
Robert Sipes regretfully announced that health issues have forced Margie Meares to resign her council seat. Margie figured prominently in CEAC’s first year and in these reports. She will be greatly missed. More power to you, Margie.

—Michael Hopping
copyright © 2008 all rights reserved
Back to Top

Measurable Progress

Progress Energy’s first round of energy conservation and efficiency proposals have moved a step closer to implementation, company officials said at the May 9th meeting of the Community Energy Advisory Council (CEAC). The council got a peek at the status of company responses to its February recommendations, and Progress Energy Carolinas general counsel, Len Anthony, was on hand to explain how the company wants to be paid for energy efficiency programs it sponsors.

Moving the process
In January, Progress announced that it would make $25,000 available to local nonprofits for projects related to the efficient use of electricity. Winners for 2008 were revealed this month. Funded or partially funded projects include solar hot water and other alternative generation systems, compact fluorescent lighting installations, and training for high school students to perform energy efficiency retrofits. Three of the six recipient organizations are closely associated with CEAC members: A-B Tech (Vernon Daugherty), Asheville Housing Authority (Isaac Coleman), and Clean Air Community Trust (Margie Meares). The other successful applicants are The Nature Center, Mountain Housing Opportunities, and Haywood Community College.

Chris Edge, demand side manager for Progress Carolinas, announced that the company submitted its EnergyWise residential load control program to the NC Utilities Commission. Homeowners would be offered $25 yearly in return for allowing Progress to remotely control air conditioning and electric space and hot water heater units during peak demand spikes. A second filing would launch Phase I of the energy saving smart grid proposal. A third submission institutes a set of building-related energy audit/efficiency programs. The Residential Home Advantage Program offers $400 per living unit to developers or contractors of new residential space who build to EnergyStar or higher standards. For commercial, industrial, and governmental customers, Progress would pre-qualify private contractors to assist with energy audits and upgrades.

Progress responds to CEAC recommendations
Company managers presented an overview of responses to February’s list of CEAC recommendations. Twenty-two responses/plans/policies were unveiled. Three, under the heading of Conservation & Efficiency, [see sidebar following report] are addressed by the Utilities Commission filings and community grants. Edge said the other project in this category, encouraging industry to make productive use of wasted heat, will also go before the commission this year. Major components of these initiatives have been in the works for many months, but Robert Sipes, western regional Progress VP, credited CEAC with encouraging a harder look at demand side management and solar hot water.

The single item listed under System Planning & Generation has little new about it. Progress files an annual Integrated Resource Plan with the Utilities Commission in September. This year, Progress manager Sam Waters said he’ll approach the task a bit differently. Rather than presenting commissioners with a single “least cost” analysis of how the company will produce electricity, he will lay out multiple scenarios, taking into account different cost estimates associated with potential regulations on CO2, mercury emissions, and other variables.

Initial or general thoughts regarding 17 other responses were presented as well, though detail on critical success factors, metrics, deliverable actions, and timelines was sparse. Progress is complying with Senate Bill 3 renewable energy requirements. Some electric rate issues are covered in Utility Commission filings.  The company is pursuing efficiency and conservation public relations opportunities. CEAC’s Community Education and Engagement subcommittee asked to address the latter during the June 13th CEAC meeting. The council agreed.

Council members praised the responses. Edge’s Conservation & Efficiency programs have the potential to significantly impact electricity consumption, and community education and buy-in will be essential for success. Apart from these concrete initiatives, however, the word of the day seemed to be “exploring.” It remains to be seen how much exploration will translate to action and how much is a variation on the classic Meatloaf dodge in “Paradise by the Dashboard Light,” Let me sleep on it.

Getting Paid
Energy conservation and efficiency come with a price tag that, one way or another, must be borne by energy users and/or taxpayers. Questions of how costs are divvied up and how much profit utilities should derive from sponsoring efficiency initiatives are the subject of debate across the country.

It flies in the face of all that’s capitalistically holy for a private company to encourage customers to consume less of its product. Decoupling profits from sales volume is one partial answer. As discussed in last month’s report, despite notable success in California, decoupling scenarios can draw opposition from consumer groups and utility companies. Duke Energy favors decoupling. Progress opposed it in a recent letter to the NC Utilities Commission.

Independent of decoupling, six states, not including North Carolina, have opted to avoid some conflicts of interest by creating public benefits boards to oversee efficiency programs. In these states, utility company involvement may be reduced to collecting money from ratepayers on behalf of the board. Progress attorney Len Anthony said, prior to the passage of Senate Bill 3, Progress had been interested in the possibility of a North Carolina public benefits board.

For now, Progress and Duke are independently moving forward with proposals to make conservation and efficiency programs profitable. Duke’s Save-A-Watt plan has been submitted in several states, including North Carolina, but approved in none. It considers efficiency as a “fifth fuel” after coal, nuclear power, gas and renewables. In essence, Save-A-Watt proposes that Duke be paid 90% of the avoided costs of building new power plants. Customers keep only 10% of the savings realized by their energy conservation efforts. An Indiana regulatory analyst crunched the numbers and determined that Duke could reap a 39% rate of return under the program. Link Other Save-A-Watt critics say the plan encourages Duke to engage in only the least expensive efficiency programs, may provide an inadequate incentive to customers, and is unlikely to reduce electricity use enough to avoid new power plants..

Progress proposed a different payment mechanism in its recent Utility Commission filings, a formula based on kilowatt hours saved rather than avoided power generation.

• Reimburse all costs related to sponsored efficiency programs,
• Plus net lost revenue due to the programs. (Effective programs cause a net decrease in company earnings from electricity sales. Progress wants to be repaid that amount.)
• Plus a 50-50 split with ratepayers on savings from decreased use of electricity deemed by certain tests to be due to its efficiency programs.

As Progress sees it, the first two terms make efficiency programs financially neutral for the company but provide no positive incentive. Therefore the third factor. “If I would have made an extra $10 million without the program,” Anthony said, “give me $5 million of it.”

The first two factors should prove more effective than Save-A-Watt in curbing the desire to build new baseload power plants, according to informed sources outside the company. But they are withholding judgment on the incentive element of the formula. One said, “Lower incentives, in the range of 10-20%, have been implemented elsewhere. But whether it’s reasonable depends on how they’re calculating net lost revenue.”

Meanwhile, recall that Senate Bill 3 mandated the Utilities Commission to study possible revisions to electric rate structures. The report is due in September. This month, the commission posed additional questions to the utility companies including one on appropriate performance incentives for utility initiated efficiency programs. I asked James McLawhorn of the Utilities Commission Public Staff if commission decisions on efficiency proposals might be delayed pending the rate study and subsequent actions. He said no; it may be that various payment formulas are in use at the same time.

Just one more question
Progress recently released a report to shareholders on global climate change. In it, the company seeks federal action adhering to a series of principles. One “Allows a climate change program to operate efficiently by precluding overlapping state and federal requirements.”

However, CEAC minutes from last December’s meeting contain the following passage: “Sipes and [Progress Energy Carolinas CEO, Lloyd Yates] invited dialog on recent press coverage of Progress Energy’s opposition to energy tax credits and renewables in the US Senate Energy Bill. Yates explained that Progress is against a one size fits all standard, because it would drive up costs, and buying energy credits from other states would transfer wealth from North Carolina. The state regulators also opposed the legislation.”

A cynic might interpret this pair of statements as requesting a muzzle on state regulators so that Progress can more efficiently oppose meaningful federal requirements on “one size fits all” grounds. I raised the issue with Progress spokeswoman Martha Thompson. The company’s unedited reply closes this report:

“It’s important to realize that a national renewable portfolio standard (RPS) is different than a national climate change policy and has very different objectives. An RPS is designed to increase renewable energy resources “on the ground” whereas a policy to address global climate change is focused on reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.

“One might pursue an RPS for a variety of reasons, including energy security, smog issues or economic development. Reducing GHG emissions is a typical side effect of an RPS, but that is not always the case and is not necessarily the main purpose.  Thus, an RPS can be one tool to reduce local GHG emissions, but is not a global climate change policy. 

“A global climate change policy is focused on reducing GHG emissions on a large scale.  Because global climate change is such a broad issue, it requires a broad solution.  Our report states that Progress Energy supports a market-based national policy framework that supports the development and deployment of the breakthrough technologies needed to reduce GHG emissions substantially.  We outline in the report our nine principles for an effective federal climate change policy that we would support. Among them is the requirement that a national policy would preclude overlapping state climate change policies.  This is to prevent a confusing, contradictory and potentially ineffective patchwork of policies and to protect regional customers from paying for local policies that do not ultimately affect global GHG levels.   Our company’s support for a federal climate change policy does not preclude support for state renewable portfolio standards, because they are different than climate change policies. 

“We believe that requirements on renewable resources are best set at a state level to take into account the unique resources of each region.  Progress Energy worked closely with elected officials in North Carolina to pass an aggressive REPS last year in Senate Bill 3.  North Carolina's REPS is the first of its kind in the Southeast.

“I hope this helps clear up the confusion between the comments made at the December CEAC meeting and our company’s position on global climate change policy.”

Sidebar

Progress Energy Recommendations and Responses to CEAC
Conservation & Efficiency

• Energy audits
• Waste heat utilization & combined heat and power
• Phase out electricity for hot water and home heating
• Increase demand side management programs and education on peak demand

Renewables & Alternative Energy

• Selling renewable energy
• Renewable energy rebates—schools
• Renewable energy rebates—residential
• Renewable energy rebates—commercial/industrial
• Solar electric on Progress Energy’s WNC headquarters
• Pilot utility scale wind and solar

System Planning & Generation

• Reliability and cost

Regulatory & Governmental

• Energy-efficient building codes
• Rate structure
• Corporate commitment to a clean energy economy
• Rate structure to promote clean energy over fossil-fired plants

Overarching

• Local partnerships for education advocacy
• Increase education of public about peak demand usage
• Embrace sustainable economics and decision making
• Carbon neutrality
• Energy hierarchy
• Openness and transparency
• Annual climate champion awards

—Michael Hopping
copyright © 2008 all rights reserved
Back to Top

Gearing Up for Action (at some point)

Progress Energy’s regional VP Robert Sipes described the April 11th meeting of the Community Energy Advisory Council (CEAC) as, “the point I’ve been waiting for, for a year.” By this he meant the council is transitioning from talk to action.

As promised, company officials got together late last month to operationalize a list of 23 projects related to, but not necessarily the result of, February CEAC recommendations. Progress manager, Chris Edge, presented one of them, titled Energy Audits, to the council. In overview, the company will encourage consumer energy audits and promote efficiency upgrades in residential, commercial, and industrial sectors.

Council members were eager to support the proposal by launching a coordinated public awareness and education campaign. Robin Cape, citing positive public response to Asheville’s recent request for water conservation, said people are ready to act on energy issues if they know what to do. She’s prepared to take proposals to city council as soon as they become available. Rick Lutovsky committed the Asheville Chamber of Commerce to the effort. After an inconclusive discussion of when and how such a multi-pronged blitz should be launched, a subcommittee was appointed.

Time constraints prevented presentation of the other 22 action plans. They will be discussed at an extended public session on May 9th.

Electric rates
One or more of the yet to be discussed projects may tie in with CEAC’s recommendation for restructured electric rates in North Carolina. Rates and rate structures can incentivize both consumers and utilities to pursue conservation and efficiency. Last month, the NC Utility Commission called for comments on this issue. Several environmental groups filed “interventions” in response. Proposals included tiered rates (charging higher prices for electricity use exceeding set limits), charging more for electricity used during peak hours, and “decoupling” utility profit incentives from sales volume.

Sipes reported that Progress is sending the commission a letter as well. The company favors “rate designs that involve pricing that varies throughout the year, season, and day . . . to provide price signals sufficient to encourage customer load response.” In English, this means using rates as both carrot and stick to shape consumer behavior. Progress also favors financial carrots for utilities to engage in energy efficiency programs. Not surprisingly, the company didn’t propose any negative incentives for itself.

The letter opposes decoupling sales from profits. It claims, accurately, that some consumer groups oppose decoupling and opines that decoupling is an idea still too untested for adoption in North Carolina. It suggests that the Enron-era bankruptcy of Pacific Gas & Electric may have been due in part to decoupling programs in California that went into effect after the oil shocks of 1973.

There may be some truth in Progress’s contention, but PG&E is still around and appears to be a proponent of decoupling. A 2006 PG&E workshop presentation is titled, “Decoupling in California: More Than Two Decades of Broad Support and Success.” The California Energy Commission credits decoupling with half of California’s success in curtailing per capita electricity use. That success has been dramatic. In 2001 the average Californian used about 7,000 kilowatt hours of electricity per year compared to a national average of 12,000 kWh. The American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy (ACEEE) also favors the decoupling programs springing up around the country.

However, a 2006 report to ACEEE from a “consumer advocate’s perspective” suggested that decoupling may be less effective in the long run than regulatory reductions of utility profit margins for energy generation and higher margins for effective efficiency and conservation programs.

Smart grid
A Progress plan to implement a “smart grid” predated the February recommendations but easily ties in with them. Phase I, scheduled for full implementation by 2012, permits better monitoring and control of grid voltages, simplifying the addition of third party generators, such as homeowners with solar power to sell. In addition, Progress VP Lee Mazzocchi told CEAC that the new technology will allow Progress to “shave demand peaks.”

Because the electric grid doesn’t contain giant batteries or other energy storage devices, power companies have to constantly match the amount of electricity generated with the amount used by customers. But it’s not a precise science. Grid voltage constantly fluctuates due to minor generation/consumption mismatches. We only think the socket in the wall supplies a steady 110 volts. In reality, regulators allow utilities to deliver electricity anywhere in a range between 114-126 volts.

The smart grid enables tighter control of voltage fluctuations. During hours of peak demand, Mazzocchi expects to be able to downregulate voltage to the vicinity of the legal minimum, shaving about 2% off peak usage. In WNC, 2% amounts to about 20 MW. That’s a lot of juice. Consumers, Mazzocchi said, won’t notice any difference in the function of appliances, lights, or electronic equipment.

Load control
CEAC recommendations weren't the source of a company load control proposal either. Almost since the council's inception, Progress officials have been talking about convincing customers to allow company managers to remotely regulate air conditioners and space and water heaters during demand spikes. Company estimates of potential power savings are on the order of 30 MW. Last month, the utilities commission finally announced its new rules for energy efficiency projects. Progress intends to submit the load control proposal soon, Edge said. After which there will be another set of built-in bureaucratic delays. The project, initially envisioned for a spring rollout, seems likely to be delayed at least until fall.

Contracts
Sam Waters, director of system planning for Progress, announced that the company has signed a second power purchase contract with Southern Company. The contract will enable Progress to buy an additional 100 MW of peak power, temporarily eliminating the looming peak power shortfall that provoked the Woodfin showdown last year. Waters said the Southern contracts, together totaling 250 MW, will extend through at least 2010, possibly longer.

Hybrid vehicles
Progress is adding hybrid vehicles to its corporate fleet, according to company spokeswoman Martha Thompson. Six hybrid Ford Escapes are on the road and another five are on the way. Progress will also buy one plug-in hybrid. More significantly, especially for company linemen, Progress is investing in hybrid bucket trucks. These replace the idling diesel engine at worksites with battery power, saving fuel and workers’ lungs.

New Nukes
Sipes revealed that Progress sent a letter to Westinghouse reserving slots in the Westinghouse nuclear plant construction lineup for two new reactors at the Shearon Harris plant outside Raleigh. Despite recent strongly pro-nuclear statements by Progress CEO Bill Johnson, Sipes says a final decision on construction isn’t expected until next year.

What does it all mean?
CEAC is restless and champing at the bit to take the sorts of action Sipes says he’s been looking forward to. And then some. But the primary take home from the April meeting may be that peak power contracts with Southern have relieved some of the acute pressure on Progress for definitive solutions. One year after the defeat of the Woodfin plant, and due in part to regulatory factors beyond company control, we have yet to see much actual progress toward implementing effective conservation and efficiency measures in WNC.

The proposed smart grid and load control initiatives could reduce local peak demand by 50 MW or 20% of the load the Woodfin plant was supposed to supply. That’s great but nowhere near good enough, even without factoring population growth into the equation. It remains to be seen whether and to what degree the utilities commission will weigh in with revised electric rates and profit rules for utilities.

Progress is clearly investing in efficiency and conservation, and those initiatives have a friend in Robert Sipes. But outside the CEAC meeting room, Progress is also pursuing a course that looks a lot like utility business as usual. It favors nuclear power for baseload electricity and in 2007 helped defeat federal requirements for renewable power generation. Last year Progress also worked to water down NC Senate Bill 3 requirements for renewables while backing the resurrection of Construction Work In Progress (CWIP) financing for new plants. CWIP allows utilities to shift the financial risk for nuclear and other large construction projects to ratepayers, whether or not the plants ever generate a watt.

It will be instructive to learn the number and quality of action projects actually based on council recommendations. Next month, those cards will allegedly be on the table. Then, at some point, Progress will turn CEAC loose to help with implementation. But, good as the conservation and efficiency proposals may be, there seems little reason so far to hope that they will derail company proposals for additional fossil fuel and nuclear power plants.

—Michael Hopping
Copyright © 2008 all rights reserved
Back to Top