Print this story | E-mail story | This story has 30 comments Add your own | iPod friendly
Entergy may up rates to pay for plant
Published Friday, February 29, 2008
natchez — Nuclear power plants are expensive to build. Entergy would like to build one at Grand Gulf. The New Orleans-based electric company would like to raise utility rates in Mississippi in order to finance the construction of the plant.
That’s the guts of Senate Bill 2793, which was passed by the Mississippi Senate last week. The bill is now being debated in the House and if approved, would give Entergy the authority to go before the Mississippi Public Service Commission and request the rate hike. Currently, state law does not allow any utility company to increase rates in order to finance a facility that does not exist.
Entergy spokesman Stephen Caruthers said the rate hike would benefit its customers and would avoid a larger rate hike down the road.
“In theory, if we collect monies now, they can be used to pay expenses as they come in instead of us having to finance an entire lump sum later,” he said. “It would allow us to avoid some interest by paying as we go. If this had been done in the 80s with the first Grand Gulf plant, it would have saved Entergy and its customers $1 billion.”
Sen. Bob Dearing, D-Natchez, said that when the nuclear facility is built, rates should come back down. Dearing, who voted for the bill, said there was no formula built into the bill to estimate just how much rates would be reduced.
Dearing said there was also nothing included in the bill that would refund customers the amount of the rate hike if Entergy abandoned construction of the site before completion.
“There’s no allowance in there for any sort of refund,” he said. “This bill is just an authorization to go before the Public Service Commission. If the House approves it, the rate hike would still have to be approved by the PSC.”
Caruthers said he was confident that Entergy wouldn’t abandon construction of the site once its under way.
“I don’t see that situation happening,” he said. “A company wouldn’t make that sort of investment and then walk away. Construction of nuclear facilities are very expensive.”
Caruthers said construction of the plant is still years down the road, but getting approval for the rate hike now would put Mississippi in a prime position to get the plant built here. The proposed plant would provide electricity to Mississippi, Arkansas and parts of Louisiana, including New Orleans.
“Construction isn’t starting tomorrow or next year,” he said. “But if the legislation passes, it will help put us higher up on the list of a plant being built.”
Caruthers would not estimate how much the rate hike would be or when the rate hike would go into effect. Some consumer advocacy groups are worried that approval of the pay-as-you-go financing would essentially give Entergy a blank check. Caruthers was adamant that this is not the case.
“The bill is not a blank check to raise rates,” he said. “The hike would still have to be approved by the PSC. It will be audited and looked at very hard by them.”
Caruthers said Entergy isn’t overly confident that the bill will be passed in the House, which means the PSC would not get the opportunity to approve or deny the rate hike.
“Entergy is stepping out and saying that there’s a need for more energy production,” Caruthers said. “Approval of this bill would put Mississippi out front as a leader in the nation on this. It would make us a frontrunner for the plant.”
Entergy reported earnings of $193.9 million for fourth quarter 2007. The company reported $74.4 million more during the same quarter in 2006.
Comments
Posted by gemccull (Gary McCullars) on February 29, 2008 at 5:21 a.m. (Suggest removal)
If I am going to contribute to the construction cost of this new facility, then I should have some ownership.
I should receive a dividend or interest on my investment.
Entergy should not build the facility unless it is a viable investment. Besides, Entergy can sell to any one on the power grid.
Posted by shedevil (anonymous) on February 29, 2008 at 5:47 a.m. (Suggest removal)
hmmmm....todays paper has 3 increases in it today....one energy and two tax hikes.that shoud have people hurrying to relocate in natchez
Posted by Teach4Peace (anonymous) on February 29, 2008 at 6:37 a.m. (Suggest removal)
gemccull, that's where I was going. Since it looks like rate payers will have no other choice but be forced to pay this increase, we should have some type of investment into Entergy. But you know, it won't work that way, since we have a Public Service Commissioner who obvioulsy thinks everyone is like him, have excess funds to throw at a utility! Also, as far as I am concerned, Entergy has always been a very discourteous utility. Call them up, ask a simple question, you will almost hate yourself for making the call. ZERO customer support, but you have no choice in who provides your energy in Mississippi.
Posted by Spanky (anonymous) on February 29, 2008 at 6:57 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I am for the rate hike. One way or another you are going to pay for the plant now or later. Now would be less expensive. As for as investment you are invested as long as you buy electricity. Natural gas prices have increased and will continue to increase and coal is getting pressure from the "Green" folks. Until something else is invented what are your choices?
Posted by gemccull (Gary McCullars) on February 29, 2008 at 7:20 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I do not like the idea of prepayment!
We will never know that the funds were used for the construction of the new facility.
Posted by justthefactsman (anonymous) on February 29, 2008 at 7:20 a.m. (Suggest removal)
MO Money, Mo MOney,, the only thing I feel like hiking right now is my leg!!!! Who else is tired of hearing about taxing this and hiking that rate and gas going up 20 cents in one day. Can anyone else, other than me remember when life was about love, and not so much about money!! I wish my employer would hike my pay scale up a few more dollars so the COMMON folk could keep up with all these HIKES, AND TAXES and GAS increases!! UGGGHHHH
Posted by mike8427 (anonymous) on February 29, 2008 at 7:32 a.m. (Suggest removal)
gemcull - prepayment is the only logical way to do it. Do you think we should do like the fed govt and spend money we dont have, or should we save money to spend in the future? "Prepayment" is saving money for a future expense.
On another tax note, I heard in the news there is a new energy bill coming thru the house, that proposes eliminating tax breaks for oil companies. Why on earth do oil companies get tax breaks? However Pres Bush says he is going to veto it, can't have his buddies getting taxed like the rest of us!
Posted by gemccull (Gary McCullars) on February 29, 2008 at 7:53 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Entergy is not a government entity, it is a corporate monopoly. Corporations borrow money, sell stock, sell bonds, etc to build new facilities.
Energy should be making the investment decision based on a best practices business plan.
Again, I do not like the idea of prepay.
Posted by redusmfan (anonymous) on February 29, 2008 at 8:02 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I hate the idea of prepaying for anothe rnuclear facility. It just brings up reminders of another taxe and spend type scenario. It is not a tax, but they want to get your money ahead of time, sounds like insurance money. Oh well, we are going into our pockets deeper again.
Posted by Classylady (anonymous) on February 29, 2008 at 8:22 a.m. (Suggest removal)
The two links below from the Clarion Ledger contain comments on the Bill from our Public Service Commissioners across the State and from our own, Lynn Posey
http://www.clarionledger.com/apps/pbcs.d...
http://www.clarionledger.com/apps/pbcs.d...
Posted by Hardcorps (anonymous) on February 29, 2008 at 8:49 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Bob D. why should we pay as we go? Do like the monkey in the white house has done and spend us into the 22nd century. That way WE don't have to pay for it at all. That's the repubs plan for the last 7 years.
Sarcastically Hardcorps shakes his head, walks outside to a tree, and doesn't know whether to hug it or pee on it.
Posted by grrbrts (anonymous) on February 29, 2008 at 9:05 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Just out of curiosity, I wonder how much money the company has not collected from consumers?
Posted by lambchop (anonymous) on February 29, 2008 at 9:26 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Why do I feel that I am being over taxed. Here is another democrat voting our monies away. I will probably be dead and living with the MASTER before any of this comes about, if it comes about. Pay as you go and not collect before it is even on the drawing board for construction. We don't even know for sure it will ever get built. At least put in an addendum that we get refunded! (or our estates do)
Posted by tchamp (anonymous) on February 29, 2008 at 9:50 a.m. (Suggest removal)
what the hell!!! the paper is full of tax increases, quick everyone put it down before it ruins the weekend
Posted by roberth33 (anonymous) on February 29, 2008 at 10:40 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Louisiana has a rebate program for one year that will give you 1/2 the cost of a solar system back up to $12,500. Plus the feds will give you back $2000.
You can sell the electricity back to the power co. if you produce more than you use.
Posted by Bobaloo (anonymous) on February 29, 2008 at 10:50 a.m. (Suggest removal)
STOP RAISING COSTS! Pass some tax incentives/credits for renewable energy like Louisiana did.
SOLAR POWER TO THE PEOPLE!!!
Posted by Bobaloo (anonymous) on February 29, 2008 at 10:54 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Net metering too. Pass that, not the hat.
Posted by beammeupscotty (anonymous) on February 29, 2008 at 10:59 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Is Entergy a non-profit organization? I am not sure we need another power plant besides when I complain about a fuel adjustment when the plant is nuclear they tell me I don't get my power from there. So they want to raise our rates to pay for a plant that doesn't exist so they can sell the power to someone else. Can someone explain that one to me?
Posted by Spanky (anonymous) on February 29, 2008 at 11:10 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Entergy is not a non-profit organization. Entergy produces approximately 20% of their power from Nuclear. According to all stats that I have read in the past Nuclear is the cheapest way to produce electricity when competing against Natural gas and Coal. If I understand the fuel adjustment it is based on the type of fuel being used. If the nuclear power plant is down for maintenance or other reasons then you should see the adjustment go up if what I said above is accurate. In Mississippi the Public Service Commission controls the rate you pay not the Utility.
Posted by Bobaloo (anonymous) on February 29, 2008 at 11:12 a.m. (Suggest removal)
We don't need more nuclear (or nucular if you Bushspeak) power. WE and the EARTH need clean, zero carbon, energy. What's gonna happen when Congress passes Carbon Tax? It's gonna get passed on to the consumer.
In Louisiana, where the head of the public service commission thinks that Global Warming is media hype, they OK'd Entergy to convert a natural gas fired plant that only ran for peak needs to a full time petroleum coke plant that would put tons of carbon and other noxious gases into the air. They too, want the consumer to pay in advance for the plant for energy that might be cheaper decades from now, while the environment & the consumer is raped.
check this link out: http://www.all4energy.org/index.html
Posted by gemccull (Gary McCullars) on February 29, 2008 at 11:53 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Please look at: http://www.entergy.com/investor_relation... and tell me it is a Not-Profit organization.
Posted by Spanky (anonymous) on February 29, 2008 at 11:57 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Who said it was a Not-Profit Organization?
Posted by gemccull (Gary McCullars) on February 29, 2008 at 12:22 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Okay, my misread.
Posted by Peace007 (anonymous) on February 29, 2008 at 12:34 p.m. (Suggest removal)
you can blame Republican President Ronald Reagon!
Posted by Bobaloo (anonymous) on February 29, 2008 at 12:39 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Ronnie Raygunz....
Posted by rushinghjr (anonymous) on February 29, 2008 at 3:43 p.m. (Suggest removal)
YOU COULD BE WORST AND BE A democRAT!
Posted by freedom42 (anonymous) on February 29, 2008 at 5:44 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I wouldn't mind paying a little more for my energy use, but darn if I want to be taxed more and pay for a hospital I don't even use!
Posted by sayitloud (anonymous) on February 29, 2008 at 6:05 p.m. (Suggest removal)
GOOD GRIEF!!!! Why is it the only solution to anything is to raise our taxes?
Posted by Bobaloo (anonymous) on February 29, 2008 at 6:17 p.m. (Suggest removal)
You can use regular 110v appliances with energy generated by PV (photovoltaic) panels. It is best to use the highest Energy Star rating you can. DC refrigeration is the most energy efficient but the units are limited in versatilty and very expensive. They do last a long time and pull very little DC power.
Photons from the sun are converted to electrons which yield DC electricity. An inverter changes the DC power to AC power for home use. To be off the grid you need a lot of panels, batteries and a very energy efficient home and lifestyle.
Net metering is done with what is referred to as "grid tie" which is where you are still tied to the utility grid. The PV electricity you make is coupled with your grid tie (utility co) power and will reduce the amount that you pull from the grid and spin your meter backwards when you are generating more than you are using. This is where the savings are as it will reduce the amount the meterreader says you use.
Posted by rushinghjr (anonymous) on February 29, 2008 at 6:26 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Entergy is a private business! The company can do as they please if the Public Service Commission approves the new and revised charges after evidence is presented and if needed as decided by the PSC board members. It is also a good stock to buy also! But what gets me is these self-serving politicians that constantly ask for tax increases when they need to live within their own budgets! You see what the Board of Aldermen just did! All of them voted for the added tax and if the so-called Mayor could have voted for it, he would have also. And then West wants the TAX to be spent fairly and across all areas if the tourism picture, he's got his Nerve!
Post a comment (Terms of Use Policy)
(Requires free registration.)