Tales of two Texas cities  

There are stark differences in their approach to new nuclear power plants

There are stark difference in the dialog in two key Texas cities over the role of nuclear energy in the future of electricity supply.  In San Antonio the city council is poised to approve more than $2 billion in new spending over the next decade to support construction of Units 3 & 4 of the South Texas Project (STP).  In Austin, anti-nuclear activists who fought the industry in the 70s are now part of the political establishment and successfully spiked new investments in the plant.  So what accounts for differences?

The first place to look is at the price of electricity.  According to the San Antonio News, nuclear energy costs ratepayers $0.08/KwHr.  Fossil sources cost from $0.105/KwHr for natural gas to $0.125 for coal.  Solar power in the sun drenched region costs a whooping $0.21/Kwhr or nearly three times the cost of nuclear energy.  Rate payers and elected officials in San Antonio get it when the issue is the price of electricity.  Austin may not.

Austin’s utility manger leads the anti-nuclear charge

Despite these obvious numbers, the leader of the anti-nuclear movement in Austin is none other than Roger Duncan, Manager of Austin Energy, the municipal utility which supplies the city with electricity.  Duncan was one of the anti-nuclear activists who led the charge against the South Texas Project as a recent college graduate in the early 1970s.

A key paradox is that given its opposition to new investment, Austin gets 28% of its electricity from STP.  Two years ago NRG, the utility developing STP, offered Austin a deal – for $1 billion the city could double the amount of electricity it gets from the nuclear plant.  The city hired engineering consulting firm Worley Parson which issued a report that brought bad news.  It said cost overruns could obligate the city for double the price hurling the city into significant debt. 

NRG disputed these numbers, but the city’s utility director was persuasive in convincing the city council to reject the investment offer from NRG.  Austin may still eventually buy electricity on a wholesale basis from the expanded plant, but not as an investor.

Critics of the Austin City Council’s decision to turn down NRG on its offer say "green" ideology, and not the price of electricity. was the basis for the negative vote.  However, David Butts, who was one of the leaders of the anti-nuclear efforts three decades ago, and is now a political consultant, told the Austin American Statesmen on Aug 16 he doesn’t see much change between the past and the current era.  He has one caveat and that is “nuclear energy could resonate in the city’s future as a short term alternative to the greenhouse gas trap we’re in.”

“No” for nuclear drives “yes” for carbon emissions

Butts may be one of the few people who realizes that a “no vote” on nuclear is a de facto choice for coal or natural gas, and the carbon emissions that come with them. It hasn’t stopped anti-nuclear groups in Texas from filing contentions against NRG's application to NRC over its license. Three anti-nuclear groups, including one from Austin, filed a total of 28 contentions.  The decision followed two days of oral presentations last June in Bay City, TX, by the environmental groups before an NRC panel.

The three-judge panel accepted one claim, rejected 18, and has yet to rule on the rest.  The panel agreed to hold a hearing on a single contention.  The issue on which the groups will get a public hearing, yet to be scheduled, is the the adequacy of NRG’s planning for response to a radiological leak or accident at one reactor and how it might affect the others. 

Karen Hadden, of SEED in Austin, told the San Antonio Express on Aug 29 her group sees acceptance of even one contention as a victory.   However, Jim Nesrsta, VP for construction at NRG, says he doesn’t see the contention as a problem.  He says it is just additional information the utility has to present to the board. Also, he pointed out that 19 other contentions were thrown out by the panel.

Comanche Peak gets two contentions

Anti-nuclear groups were also busy elsewhere in the state.  They filed 19 contentions against Luminant’s proposed expansion of the Comanche Peak site with two massive Mitsubishi 1,700 MW APWR reactors.  A three judge panel from the NRC only accepted two of them, and one is the same as the contention pending at NRG over how the utility will mitigate a severe radiological accident and prevent a problem at one reactor from affecting others.

Who will prevail?

Richard Rivard, editor of the San Antonio Express, wrote a column on Aug 23 in which he said it is doubtful the anti-nuclear groups in Texas will prevail against either of the new plants. 

“In a city (San Antonio) that relies on STP for 25% of its electricity, groups that outright oppose nuclear energy don’t stand much chance.”

Rivard also thinks that concerns about increases in utility bills based on the projected $10-13 billion in costs to build the two GE-Hitachi 1,350 ABWR reactors will be buffered if CPS, the San Antonio utility, will promote energy conservation.  He writes that people will make changes in energy usage if they see they have a choice and it can save them money.

One other distinction between the two cities is significant.  CPS in San Antonio is talking about taking a 40% stake in STP’s expansion. It will sell 20%, or half, of that electricity to other utilities to subsidize the rates it charges to its customers.  Ironically, one of the potential customers is Austin, TX, which will now pay more as a customer than it would as an investor.

# # #

Comments