Costly fallout from San Onofre’s decommission

Costly fallout from San Onofre’s decommission

San Onofre electricity station, wikimedia

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission held a public meeting Thursday in Carlsbad, during which members discussed the process by which the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station will be decommissioned and, importantly, who will ultimately foot the projected $4 billion bill.

This past June, Southern California Edison unexpectedly announced it would permanently shutter the nuclear plant, which generated 2200 megawatts when fully operational, roughly 20 percent of the utility’s overall electricity production.

Edison took San Onofre offline in January 2012 because of problems with steam generators installed by Mitsubishi Heavy Industries. After trying and failing for 17 months to get regulatory approval to restart its two reactors, Edison thought it best just to abandon the plant.

NRC spokesman Victor Dricks told KGTV in San Diego that Edison has three options for mothballing San Onofre. “They can probably disassemble most of the equipment on site,” he said. “They can let time go by 10, 20, 30 years, up to 60 years. Or they can choose a third option, which is called entombment, where they basically could build a giant sarcophagus around the plant.”

Whatever option Edison chooses, the decommissioning process will be long and expensive. And while Edison, which owns 78 percent of San Onofre, will bear some of the expense itself, the utility also expects its ratepayers to shoulder some of the cost.

Costs

Indeed, in full-page newspaper advertisements published last month in the Orange County Register and the Los Angeles Times, Edison stated that it is “vigorously pursuing recoveries” from both Mitsubishi Heavy Industries and the utility’s insurers, “there may be costs that are not recovered” and those “could be significant.”

In that event, which appears highly likely, Edison believes that its ratepayers (as well as ratepayers for Sempra Energy, which owns roughly 20 percent of San Onofre, and the city of Riverside, which owns roughly 2 percent) should share the financial burden.

“Unlike other businesses that invest, produce and sell their products for whatever price the market will bear,” stated Edison’s newspaper advertisements, “our prices are set by our regulator, the Public Utilities Commission.”

Those prices — or rates — “allow us to recover our operating costs,” the utility explained, “without any mark-up or profit.” It also allows Edison “to recover at cost our investment in system assets, over time.”

As such, Edison has asked the PUC to raise its electricity rates $2.4 billion over seven years to partially recover the costs of San Onofre’s decommission. Meanwhile, Sempra Energy, parent of San Diego Gas & Electric, has separately sought approval of an $808 million rate increase to recover its costs.

It remains to be seen if the PUC approves the higher electricity rates sought by Edison and Sempra to defray the cost of the nuclear plant’s permanent shutdown. While the utilities may not get all they are asking for — more than $3 billion between them – they very well may get some, if not much, of it.

5 comments

Write a comment
  1. Ted Steele, CEO
    Ted Steele, CEO 28 September, 2013, 09:34

    I wish nuke power was safe and cost effective.

    Reply this comment
  2. eck
    eck 29 September, 2013, 21:50

    Ted…. Ever heard of a nuclear power plant disaster in France? No. They generate the majority of their electricity from nuclear. Duh!

    Reply this comment
  3. Hondo
    Hondo 30 September, 2013, 08:20

    It is. The new nuke plants are much safer. Far less radiation. No chance of meltdowns and the spent fuel can’t be made into fision (or the multistage fusion bombs)bombs.
    Hondo……..

    Reply this comment
  4. The Ted Steele Conceptual Abstraction Unit
    The Ted Steele Conceptual Abstraction Unit 30 September, 2013, 16:01

    2 things–

    Honda– I agree with you.

    Eck– Are you kidding? There have been so many leaks and chronic atmo discharges in France I have lost count— yikes– get busy on the Google ™ little buddy!

    Reply this comment
  5. Garith Krause
    Garith Krause 20 October, 2013, 20:04

    Every Monthly Utility bill in the State of California includes a line item for the decomissioning of Nuclear Power Plants. This is a fund that has been building for years. How much of this money will be available for the take down of San Onofre. Rate Payers, stockholders, negligent parties are all going to have to share the bill. But there should be some funds in the decomissing fund.

    Reply this comment

Write a Comment

Leave a Reply



Related Articles

Water bond drowns in Legislature

A $10.5 billion water bond apparently drowned in the California Senate this past week for the third time since 2010, even

Dems, GOP fight drought battle on national stage

After declaring a drought emergency last week, in his Wednesday State of the State address Gov. Jerry Brown pledged to

Entrepreneurs fret over CA business climate

Although California’s economy is finally picking up after seven years of recessionary blues, many small business owners continue to feel