Nevadans will have to pay more for saving the planet

NV Energy managed to convince Nevada lawmakers to toss them in the briar patch. Now power customers will be paying the tab.

According to news reports, the Public Utility Commission may allow the company to recoup up to $60 million a year over the next three years for the cost of shutting down perfectly good, acceptably clean coal-fired power plants.

Then the power company will have to build new power plants to replace the coal-fired capacity. Guess who will pay for those.

To cut its risks and cover its assets the NV Energy submitted Senate Bill 123 to the Legislature. The bill saddles ratepayers with every dime of the cost to mothball the coal plants — including any undepreciated balance, decommissioning and remediation, contract termination costs, even the value of any unused coal left lying around.

Dan Jacobsen of the attorney general’s Bureau of Consumer Protection, which represents ratepayer interests at the Public Utilities Commission, said at the time, “In addition to replacing about 1,000 megawatts of coal capacity, the bill also would be replacing a very large amount of power purchase agreements right now that ratepayers don’t have to provide a return on.”

NV Energy’s profits come from a rate of return on equity, which is currently about 10 percent, but the more equity in power plants and power lines the greater the return.

Jacobsen also said SB123 could deter the PUC’s ability to control costs. One part dictates the “Commission shall approve” costs, and another says emissions reduction “shall be deemed to be a prudent investment. The electric utility may recover all just and reasonable costs …”

Time to pay the tab.

And you can thank Harry Reid.

 

About these ads

7 comments on “Nevadans will have to pay more for saving the planet

  1. The Scarlet Pimpernel says:

    This sounds like they’re copying the “deregulation” pioneered by Montana Power, later repeated by California. So how’d that work out for citizens??

    Montana Power’s so-called deregulation scheme was so egregious that it made 60 Minutes. The whole thing was a golden parachute for the retiring owners. Stockholders got screwed out of their life’s savings. Formerly-cheap electricity meant that a lot of homes in this northern state had electric heat. After ‘deregulation’ foreign investors owned the means of production, and prices went up to the point that those homes could no longer afford to use that heat. Right now it costs my neighbor here in MT $400/month to heat three rooms during the winter. Before deregulation, that might have cost $40. Other homes sat empty until the owners could afford to refit them with natural gas or wood-fired heat.

    California copied MT Power and then some. At the time I lived in SoCal, and tho I cut my usage by 30%, my bill suddenly was TEN TIMES what it had been before ‘deregulation’.

    How was any of this a benefit to the consumer, as it had been touted to be? More choices? Not hardly… same old choice of one, at a much higher price. THAT was the result of “deregulation”.

    Deregulation has gained a bad reputation (and rightly so) thanks to MT and CA. So let’s not call it that; let’s call it getting rid of dirty coal (no matter how clean it may actually be). But the first step in “deregulation” is always to divest or shut down the means of production, to eliminate the public utility’s natural monopoly. This means your power generation is now owned by outside interests, or perhaps your power is entirely imported from other states.

    Either way, you lose. Mark my words.

  2. Winston Smith says:

    Thank you, algore, for helping to make it more expensive to heat in the winter and cool in the summer. Your fascist/globalist bankster friends especially thank you.

  3. Rincon says:

    I got to poking around the Internet about this and found something very surprising – so surprising that I doubt myself.
    Apparently, 1 gram of uranium yields the energy of 3 tons of coal http://nuclearinfo.net/Nuclearpower/TheScienceOfNuclearPower (first paragraph).
    3 tons is 6000 lbs X 454 grams per lb. = 2,724,000 grams of coal to equal the power generated by 1 gram of uranium.
    Another article says that there is 1-4 ppm of uranium in coal. http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/1997/fs163-97/FS-163-97.html (second paragraph). Let’s call it an average of 2.724 ppm (not quite kosher, but bear with me), so the three tons of coal has the same uranium content as the 1 gram uranium energy equivalent.
    Actually, low uranium is more common than high uranium coal, so there’s less from coal per KWH, but not that much. Given the amount of coal vs nuclear power in this country, it seems that we’ve already released more uranium from coal than what is contained in all of our nuclear power plant waste. Could this be true or am I missing something? If it’s true, then We’ve solved the nuclear waste disposal problem! Just grind it up and scatter it all over the place. Dilution is the solution to pollution.

    Now, someone please tell me where I’m going wrong.

  4. Athos says:

    It won’t be me telling you you’re wrong, Rin. Movies like “the China Syndrome”, back in ’75 put the kibashe on nuclear plants.

    Now, the regulations are so onerous that I doubt we could build one for under $10 billion.

    And the hypocrit that is known as algore, should have a special place in Hades, just for his own self!

  5. I used the same phrase — the solution to pollution is dilution — in asking that question of a nuke scientist years ago, Rincon, and he said: “No.” That would raise the background radiation far too high.

  6. […] Makes Us Sick” Reid managed to twist enough arms in the 2013 Legislature to garner passage of Senate Bill 123, which mandates closing the plant — with ratepayers picking up every last dime of expense rather […]

  7. […] in the nation, Reid managed to twist enough arms in the 2013 Legislature to garner passage of Senate Bill 123, which mandates closing the plant — with ratepayers picking up every last dime of expense rather […]

Leave a Reply

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