Exelon’s effort to extend Ginna takes new turn

Exelon's Ginna reactor, on Lake Ontario. Photo from IAEA.

Exelon’s Ginna reactor, on Lake Ontario. Photo from IAEA. Are my eyes deceiving me or is the containment building housed in a Potemkin structure?

Exelon has successfully convinced the New York Public Service Commission to take its side on the fate of the Ginna reactor–so far. The PSC ordered Rochester Gas & Electric, which had been buying power from the reactor, to engage in a new round of negotiations to continue purchasing its electricity–at least for the next four years or so.

A 10-year power purchase agreement between RG&E and Exelon expired this past summer, and Exelon has warned it may shut down Ginna if it can’t get another guaranteed purchase agreement. The PSC is concerned that a shutdown could lead to reliability problems in the region. The problem is that Exelon (in this case its subsidiary Constellation Energy) says it lost $100 million in the last three years of the old contract. That means any new agreement inevitably would lead to large rate increases for RG&E customers.

As explained in the Poughkeepsie Journal, under New York law, “If a power plant is losing money and planning to shut down, it files a notice with the Public Service Commission alerting the board of its intention. From there, it’s determined whether taking the plant off the grid will result in blackouts or service issues for customers in a particular region.”

But Exelon stopped short of actually declaring its “intention” to close Ginna, and certainly did not mention a date at which it would close the reactor if it doesn’t reach a new agreement.

Now, the Journal has revealed that in August New York City filed strong comments against Exelon’s approach:

New York City strongly opposed the state board’s eventual move. In its August filing, the city warned that allowing Ginna’s request could give power plants the upper hand over Consolidated Edison, the major electric utility downstate, and eventually lead to costlier bills. The city questioned why electric utilities haven’t done more to prepare for the closure of the aging plants — specifically citing Cayuga and Dunkirk — and took issue with Ginna failing to cite a specific closure date if an agreement isn’t approved.

“In New York City, it is possible that the loss of any baseload generating facility could cause a reliability problem,” the city’s filing said. “Thus, any New York City generator could hold (Con Ed), the commission, and New York City ratepayers hostage to threats of retirement without publicly stating any intention to retire and without the commission knowing whether the threat is real.”

The Cayuga and Dunkirk plants mentioned were cited as precedent by Exelon and the PSC. Both were fossil fuel plants threatened with closure and kept open by similar power purchase arrangements.

But as NIRS’ Executive Director Tim Judson points out, those were much smaller deals. The Dunkirk agreement amounts to about an 80 cent/month rate increase over ten years. The Cayuga agreement is bigger: it’s a $53/year increase, but only for about two and a half years. To cover Ginna’s stated losses would take a lot more–Judson calculates it would come out to about $216/year per customer for four years–or about four times higher than Cayuga over a longer period.

And that means the battle isn’t over, and Exelon hasn’t won. New York City’s opposition is based on its concern that a mere threat to shut down Indian Point would itself be enough to cause monstrous rate increases for downstate customers (of course, the PSC should be encouraging shutdowns of aging reactors like Ginna and Indian Point….). The PSC has rejected NYC’s position so far, but it hasn’t fully endorsed Exelon’s yet either.

According to the Journal, “The commission still will have to approve any agreement reached. RG&E also is soliciting proposals to potentially replace the 580 megawatts the plant can produce, which could give the PSC other options to consider before making a determination.”

New York City isn’t likely to back off its opposition; neither are the dozen or so clean energy and consumer groups that are opposing the PSC’s position.

So the battle lines are set. RGE and Exelon have until January 15 to reach an agreement (although the deadline could be extended). At this point, it’s difficult to see how an agreement could be reached that would both cover Exelon’s losses and keep rate increases to a level that wouldn’t provoke howls of outrage across the region.

Michael Mariotte

November 24, 2014

Permalink: https://safeenergy.org/2014/11/24/exelons-effort/

Your contributions make publication of GreenWorld possible. If you value GreenWorld, please make a tax-deductible donation here and ensure our continued publication. We gratefully appreciate every donation of any size.

Comments are welcome on all GreenWorld posts! Say your piece above. Start a discussion. Don’t be shy; this blog is for you.

If you’d like to receive GreenWorld via e-mail, send your name and e-mail address to nirsnet@nirs.org and we’ll send you an invitation. Note that the invitation will come from a GreenWorld@wordpress.com address and not a nirs.org address, so watch for it.

If you like GreenWorld, you can help us reach more people. Just use the icons below to “like” our posts and to share them on the various social networking sites you use. And if you don’t like GreenWorld, please let us know that too. Send an e-mail with your comments/complaints/compliments to nirsnet@nirs.org. Thank you!

GreenWorld is crossposted on tumblr at https://www.tumblr.com/blog/nirsnet

Advertisements

6 thoughts on “Exelon’s effort to extend Ginna takes new turn

    1. Michael Mariotte Post author

      “The rest of the world understands the value of nuclear power?” Hmmm, perhaps we agree. The rest of the world includes anti-nuclear states like Germany, Austria, Portugal, Ireland, Denmark and many more….The trend globally is the same as it is in the U.S.–against nuclear power. Only a few nations, with strong centralized governments (in many cases totalitarian) which can provide massive subsidies for nuclear power–like China, India and Russia–are actively building new reactors. As we have pointed out many times, and people can find more information on NIRS website in the “nuclear power and climate” and “nuclear-free, carbon-free” sections, nuclear power is counterproductive at effectively addressing climate change for numerous reasons, perhaps the most important of which is that as “baseload” power–a concept that was important for the 20th century but is quickly growing obsolete in the 21st century–it prevents widespread installation of distributed renewables. The current all-out efforts led by nuclear and coal-based utilities to fight against renewable energy demonstrates that the nuclear industry knows this even if the understanding of it among the general public is not yet large. People care foremost that the lights turn on when they flick the switch, not as much as about more technical issues like baseload vs distributed generation. The good news is that distributed generation is just as reliable–in fact probably more reliable–than the antiquated baseload concept.

      Reply

We welcome your comments here!

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s