Jackson Free Press

Consumer's rights advocates and environmentalists alike are furious about a Senate bill that would pave the way for the state Public Service Commission to let utility companies charge customers for construction of a new nuclear facility at Grand Gulf, in Port Gibson. Current law only allows utility companies to raise rates after the facility is online and producing electricity.

Environmentalists howled in 2006 when Entergy announced it had secured a site permit from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to build a second plant, complaining that the growing reactor made a prime target for terrorists looking to rupture the facility and irradiate the lower half of the state.

Environmentalists also complain that Entergy still has not found a disposal place for the current plant, which adds to the growing pile of spent uranium every year. Spent uranium stays deadly for longer than the lifespan of whole civilizations, yet Entergy must keep more than 2 million pounds of the stuff onsite in Port Gibson, and has no conceivable plan for future disposal.

"This bill is a rotten piece of legislation that never should have made it past the Senate," said Sierra Club Regional Representative Louie Miller. "This thing passed with (Lieutenant Governor) Phil Bryant's blessing, and I don't know why a self-avowed fiscal conservative would give Entergy a blank check for the ratepayers to finance like this."

Bryant's office did not return calls.

The legislation amounts to a Construction Work in Progress bill, designed to finance costly projects like nuclear reactors, which don't come cheap. The Port Gibson plant incited a rate increase of 61 percent when it came online in 1985, and future reactors could increase energy bills by 130 percent over 1984 rates. Nothing stops Entergy from selling the vast majority of that power to out-of-state consumers, even if Mississippi ratepayers are footing the bill.

Entergy did not return calls to the Jackson Free Press but company officials told The Clarion-Ledger that they hope to see a 1 percent rate increase in 2009 if the legislation survives the session. The rate increase involves pre-construction, with more rate increases possible after the reactor comes online.

The new reactor is estimated to cost $5 billion, though cost estimates for new reactors have a habit of ballooning. Duke Power's famous attempt at new reactor construction in North Carolina in the 1980s escalated to $4 billion, well over the original $1 billion cost projection. Duke Power and Progress Energy eventually canceled the construction of nine reactors after spending $1.5 billion, and had to swallow the costs. Sen. David Baria, D-Bay Saint Louis, said the Senate bill, in its current form, frees Entergy stockholders from having to completely swallow the costs as Duke Power did. It also does not require Entergy to reimburse ratepayers for their extra costs if the plant, for whatever reason, doesn't materialize.

"How will the ratepayers get their money back if the plant doesn't get completed?" Baria demanded of the Senate Thursday, after Bryant brought the bill back up for consideration.

Baria opposed the bill in its final form and attempted to insert an amendment that would allow ratepayers to recoup their money if the reactor tanked, but the Senate voted the amendment down.

Sen. John Horhn, D-Jackson, referred to the Grand Gulf Nuclear Plant in Port Gibson as a "financial disaster" and told his colleagues that the bill could prompt a similar problem with the second plant.

Senate Public Utilities Committee Chairman Nolan Mettetal, R-Sardis, argued that the bill would prevent rate increases like the 1985 utility hike. "…f we'd had this legislation (in 1984), we wouldn't have had to have that rate increase, (we got with Grand Gulf)," Mettetal said.

The bill could prove a similar windfall for Mississippi Power, which has plans to build an almost $2 billion coal plant in Kemper County—also courtesy of the ratepayers if SB 2793 survives the House.

Miller said he's not surprised Mettetal and a majority of the Senate backed the bill.

"Entergy and Mississippi Power have almost 20 lobbyists all swarming around the capitol pushing their agenda. As for the rest of us, all we got is me," Miller said.

The bill now heads to the House, where its legislative counterpart, HB 1274, awaits consideration. House Public Utilities Committee Chairman Tyrone Ellis, D-Starkville, will decide if the rate increase bill will hit consumers. Ellis said last week that he was not convinced of the feasibility of the bill, though Miller warns that lobbyists will likely be swarming him until the deadline date.

Previous Comments

ID

98999

Comment

All in All, and excellently negative piece. Is this supposed to be opinion or journalism?

Author

Ironghost

Date

2008-02-28T09:11:10-06:00

ID

99000

Comment

All journalism has a point of view, especially the journalism that pretends not to. The best journalism has a clear point of view based on solid facts and research, regardless of who that p!sses off politically. The worst is divided down the so-called middle in a faux-objective fashion, pretending two sides as "equal" even when they are not. We would not lower ourselves to doing that kind of corporate journalism and still expect to have readers. Now, if you are aware of some important facts we left out, please add them. However, if you're just grumpy because the facts make Energy and Phil Bryant et al look bad, get a room.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2008-02-28T09:15:22-06:00

ID

99001

Comment

The best journalism, as I recall from my classes, is one where you cannot infer the writer's opinion. If Adam is actually pro-nuclear, I'll be shocked I admit. :) What I'm grumpy about is the quick anti-nuclear viewpoint you get here, rather than focusing on the Corporate Welfare aspect of it. I'm against Corporate Welfare, and I wouldn't be happy about building GG Two just so they can service out-of-state customers and not Mississippians. Any rate increase we have to bear should result in more for us, not them. If they want power, built it over there. If they have to build it here, make the actual end customer pay for it; not us here in Mississippi.

Author

Ironghost

Date

2008-02-28T09:20:53-06:00

ID

99002

Comment

Thanks Adam for this piece. MS needs more people sitting at the door; listening, questioning and delivering to the general public information that might protect citizens: Not just special interest groups and self-serving entities. I wish more scrutiny had been placed on gaming in this state. All of the promises of what was to come, i.e., great schools, teacher pay raises, improved roads and the list goes on: It hasn't happened. I wish that more scrutiny had been placed on the NISSAN plant: That sweetheart deal that cost the state a fortune and any appreciable amount of revenue will not be seen for another 20 years. Thanks Adam for your no-nonsense approach to journalism. It doesn't seen personal to me: It sounds factual. I had 2 relatives who worked for Grand Gulf. They both have some strang lung disease called cilicosis(sp). They are ill, unable to work and unable to get money from law suits filed years ago. Many of the companies that were contracted with Grand Gulf filed bankruptcy.

Author

justjess

Date

2008-02-28T10:17:06-06:00

ID

99003

Comment

The best journalism, as I recall from my classes, is one where you cannot infer the writer's opinion. We've had this conversation many times here, Iron. I don't know about your classes, but that's irrelevant to me. The best journalism is in-depth and, if there is a clear conclusion to be drawn from the facts (sometimes there is; sometimes there isn't), it should be apparent to the reader. That's not the same as opinion-writing. I know. I teach both. And have had a class or two myself. ;-) The truth is that the corporate welfare angle and the questionable-nuclear angle are in this story. You are bringing your own biases to the table, which readers and writers always do, which means that you don't like the anti-nuclear one, but you like the other one, because that fits your personal philosophy. That's fine, but you should be honest with yourself about it rather than blaming the messenger, especially when the messenger (JFP or our writers) does not pretend to be some cypher that can't draw an intelligent inclusion, even after doing a lot of homework. That's cheap to do, and not very thoughtful. Why not choose to agree or disagree and discuss, rather than waste time blaming the reporter for including an angle you don't approve of? Even your post shows that you like it that the anti-corporate welfare angle is there. You don't have to look anywhere past yourself for immediate bias. And that's fine. Just realize it.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2008-02-28T10:19:32-06:00

ID

99004

Comment

Just saw justjess' post, which brings up a very good point. Most so-called objective journalism—which unfortunately is taught too often in so-called journalism schools—seeks out two special interests and has them yell each other an equal number of times. As a result, if usually doesn't even approach the "truth." It does serve the special interests, though, especially the one more in the wrong and doing the most spinning. It gives them a free pass to do so under the guise of "objectivity." Gross.

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2008-02-28T10:25:08-06:00

ID

99005

Comment

Guess who is writing press releases for Entergy now?

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2008-03-02T18:15:34-06:00

ID

99006

Comment

And David Hampton tells us that nuclear energy isn't an environmental issue in Mississippi. (It seems he figured that out after the edit-boyz met with Entergy Friday.) Be sure to read the comments below his post. Some of them are much smarter than his post. See the part about Europe moving away from nuclear energy (oops: there goes that argument; easy come, easy go.)

Author

DonnaLadd

Date

2008-03-02T18:19:33-06:00

ID

99007

Comment

The problem is any simplistic reference to what is going on in 'Europe' with nuclear power... It's a huge ongoing battles with different countries battling it out and much of the public outraged about it ... It's anything but settled and should not be used as a model one way or the other for what companies like Entergy are trying to do here... Here's a list of some countries and where they stand... Looks pretty accurate, far as I can tell: http://newsfromchernobyl.blogspot.com/2008/01/look-at-nuclear-power-across-europe.html Regardless of the nuclear energy debate, it's sobering that Salter would so heartily support the bill as Bryant wants it though...

Author

gipper

Date

2008-03-03T11:44:56-06:00