[NukeNet] FPSC Dockets #080009 Nuclear Cost Recovery and #080281 Solar Cost Recovery

[Rhonda Roff]

Re: http://www.psc.state.fl.us/dockets/cms/docketdetails.aspx?docket=080281
 and
http://www.psc.state.fl.us/dockets/cms/docketdetails.aspx?docket=080009

Please consider the discrepancy highlighted by Ms. Stapleton in her article
below, not only for cost recovery on solar projects, but also
when performing the True Up on nuclear costs under the docket #080009. It
would appear that, for the greater good of the people of Florida, that a
portion of the ratepayer funds earmarked for new nuclear could go to new
residential solar installations.

The regulated utilities are required to demonstrate that they have
implemented as much conservation and efficiency as possible to avoid having
to build new power plants; moreover, the Governor's Action Team on Energy
and Climate is evaluating climate change mitigation measures according to
the best greenhouse gas emissions reductions for the money. Clearly, if
life-cycle (overall) costs were considered, solar would present a strong
economic advantage.

Ms. Stapleton makes a good argument for Distributed Solar v. Centralized
generation. Solar energy is already distributed by its very nature, so why
fund making it in one place and incurring the transmission line losses and
expense of distributing it? Similarly, why force ratepayers to fund the most
expensive plants proposed to date, nuclear, when such a tremendous demand
reduction would be capable through distributed solar generation?

I hope this will be discussed during tomorrow's undocketed RPS technical
meeting as well.

Rebates for us - not
them<http://www.palmbeachpost.com/blogs/content/shared-blogs/palmbeach/green/entries/2008/07/23/rebates_for_us_not_them_1.html>

By Christine Stapleton<http://www.palmbeachpost.com/blogs/content/shared-blogs/palmbeach/green/entries/2008/07/23/rebates_for_us_not_them_1.html#postcomment>|
Wednesday, July 23, 2008, 12:53 PM
http://www.palmbeachpost.com/blogs/content/shared-blogs/palmbeach/green/entries/2008/07/23/rebates_for_us_not_them_1.html

Yesterday we looked at the tax credits and
rebates<http://www.palmbeachpost.com/blogs/content/shared-blogs/palmbeach/green/index.html>for
making energy efficient improvement to your home and the fact that DEP
has already blown through the rebate money available this year.

In fact, the Florida solar rebate
program<http://www.dep.state.fl.us/energy/energyact/solar.htm>has been
so successful that this year's rebate budget was used to pay
applicants on a waiting list from last year. Don't blame the DEP - it just
handles the applications and pays the rebates. Blame Florida lawmakers and
Governor Crist.

In June the Governor signed legislation that provides "full cost
recovery…for all prudent costs incurred by a provider for renewable energy
projects that are zero greenhouse gas emitting…" In May, in anticipation of
the bill's passage, Florida Power & Light
petitioned<http://www.psc.state.fl.us/dockets/cms/docketFilings2.aspx?docket=080281>Florida's
Public Service Commission for "cost recovery" of three solar
plants it wants to build in Martin and DeSoto counties and Cape Canaveral.

The estimated cost: $688 million. Did I mention that Florida lawmakers
allocated only $5 million in rebates or "cost recovery" for Florida
homeowners wanting to go green?

FPL is not the only utility seeking "cost recovery" for going green. Tampa
Electric, Gulf Power and Progress Energy have also asked for "cost
recovery." However, the rebates they want are chump change compared to FPL's
$688 million.

Basically, the new "cost recovery" program means WE pay for utlities to
build green power plants, which they will use to sell us energy. Huh? Isn't
that like me paying Nike to build a plant to make running shoes so I can buy
expensive running shoes from Nike?

So, here is my solution. Utilities should only be given rebates for a
portion of the cost of building green energy plants. How about 50 percent.
Maybe even 75% - even though you should have been building green plants
YEARS ago. That would leave millions and millions of dollars for rebates for
you and me to install solar on our homes!

Why is it as important for the little folks to get rebates as the big
utilities? Because it's a heckuva lot cheaper, easier and faster for
homeowners to install solar than it is for FPL to build three solar plants.
Think about it. How many Florida homes could go off grid if we spent that
$688 million on rebates for homeowners to install their own solar?

Let's do the math. When fully operational, FPL says these plants will
produce enough electricity to power more than 15,000 homes. Say it costs
$35,000 to outfit your home with solar (that is a high estimate but work
with me here.) That $688 million would pay for 19,657 homes to go solar!
Wow. Those 19,657 would NEVER receive an electric bill again!

You think I'm nuts? Well, it worked in Germany. The country boasts half the
solar installations on the planet because the government has allocated
hundreds of millions of dollars for HOMEOWNERS to install solar on their
homes.

Maybe we should take the advice of Albert Einstein: "You cannot solve a
problem with the same thinking that caused the problem."

Thank you,
Rhonda Roff
Clewiston, Florida
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mail.energyjustice.net/pipermail/nukenet_energyjustice.net/attachments/20080724/60aea9b2/attachment.html