HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Topics » Environment & Energy » Environment & Energy (Group) » Joe Romm: Why James Hanse... » Reply #25

Response to NNadir (Reply #24)

Tue Jan 12, 2016, 02:13 AM

25. Riiiight.... " Regulators question CO2 plan for $19.3 billion Virginia nuclear reactor"

SCC Asks Tough Questions about Nukes, CO2 Emissions
Posted on December 30, 2015 by James A. Bacon

Given the legal and regulatory uncertainties associated with Clean Power Plan, which requires Virginia to reduce CO2 emissions 30% by 2030, Dominion Virginia Power’s 15-year strategic plan filed in July 2015 is reasonable and in the public interest, the State Corporation Commission (SCC) ruled in a final ruling released today. However, the SCC also detailed substantial additional analysis it would like to see in the Integrated Resources Plan (IRP) Dominion files next year.

The electric company had filed four broad options for responding to the mandates of the Clean Power Plan, including one that relied heavily upon nuclear power. The power company did not recommend one option over the others in July because it did not know precisely how the Clean Power Plan would impact Virginia. While the Environmental Protection Agency has finalized Virginia’s CO2 emission targets since then, the state still has yet to choose between two possible approaches, whether to focus on the absolute volume of CO2 emissions or CO2 emissions on a kilowatt-hour basis. That decision could have significant impact on how power companies respond to the mandates.

Consumer and environmentalist groups had urged the SCC to reject the IRP on the grounds that the projected $19.3 billion cost for a third nuclear unit at the North Anna power station was excessive under any scenario. A project of that magnitude, the SCC noted, would roughly double the size of Virginia’s electric rate base.

While the SCC saw no need to amend the 2015 IRP, it noted pointedly that it views the IRP only as a planning document, “not as a document that will determine future Commission decisions on future resources or the recovery of specific expenditures.”

The commission instructed Dominion to take a very different approach to its 2016 IRP...
http://www.baconsrebellion.com/2015/12/scc-asks-tough-questions-about-nukes-co2-emissions.html

Reply to this post

Back to OP Alert abuse Link to post in-thread

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 53 replies Author Time Post
kristopher Jan 2016 OP
Gregorian Jan 2016 #1
kristopher Jan 2016 #5
bloom Jan 2016 #2
GliderGuider Jan 2016 #3
kristopher Jan 2016 #4
hunter Jan 2016 #6
kristopher Jan 2016 #7
hunter Jan 2016 #22
kristopher Jan 2016 #23
hunter Jan 2016 #26
kristopher Jan 2016 #27
hunter Jan 2016 #28
kristopher Jan 2016 #33
hunter Jan 2016 #34
kristopher Jan 2016 #35
hunter Jan 2016 #36
kristopher Jan 2016 #39
hunter Jan 2016 #40
kristopher Jan 2016 #42
Nihil Jan 2016 #46
OKIsItJustMe Jan 2016 #8
kristopher Jan 2016 #9
OKIsItJustMe Jan 2016 #10
kristopher Jan 2016 #11
OKIsItJustMe Jan 2016 #12
kristopher Jan 2016 #13
OKIsItJustMe Jan 2016 #14
kristopher Jan 2016 #15
OKIsItJustMe Jan 2016 #16
kristopher Jan 2016 #17
OKIsItJustMe Jan 2016 #18
kristopher Jan 2016 #19
OKIsItJustMe Jan 2016 #20
kristopher Jan 2016 #21
LouisvilleDem Jan 2016 #52
NNadir Jan 2016 #24
LineLineReply Riiiight.... " Regulators question CO2 plan for $19.3 billion Virginia nuclear reactor"
kristopher Jan 2016 #25
hunter Jan 2016 #29
cprise Jan 2016 #31
LineLineLineLineReply ?
hunter Jan 2016 #32
cprise Jan 2016 #30
kristopher Jan 2016 #37
progressoid Jan 2016 #47
kristopher Jan 2016 #48
progressoid Jan 2016 #49
kristopher Jan 2016 #50
kristopher Jan 2016 #51
Nihil Jan 2016 #53
hunter Jan 2016 #38
kristopher Jan 2016 #41
hunter Jan 2016 #43
kristopher Jan 2016 #44
hunter Jan 2016 #45
Please login to view edit histories.