Demandbase Connect

September 1, 2009

SWEPCO’s Construction Conundrum

RSS
Pages: 12


Reaction to Appellate Court’s Decision

On June 29, SWEPCO filed an appeal with the Arkansas Supreme Court, saying that the Court of Appeals had "erroneously reversed the APSC based on an incorrect construction of the Act" and that "the ruling abandons 150 years of final-order precedent." For the near term, SWEPCO is continuing construction of the $1.6 billion plant.

Paul Chodak, SWEPCO president and COO, said, "By law, the CECPN issued by the APSC remains in effect during the appeal process. The APSC approval was overturned because the court objected to the approval procedure and not because the judges objected to the Turk plant. We believe the plant holds the best future for long-term reliability and affordable power for our customers."

"Approximately $713 million has already been spent on plant construction, and a total of $1.3 billion has been committed. It would cost even more to stop construction and then restart it," Chodak said.

In July, Scott McCloud, SWEPCO corporate communications representative, told POWER that SWEPCO and the APSC intend to file their briefs with the Arkansas Supreme Court by September 11. The Supreme Court took a recess from mid-July through Labor Day. McCloud expects the Supreme Court to announce its decision related to granting SWEPCO’s request for review some time in September.


Looking Ahead

If the Arkansas Supreme Court upholds the appellate court’s decision, the ruling will promote strong uncertainty about the reliability of the permitting system because SWEPCO will be obligated to restart the permitting process with the APSC. The case also could have long-term policy implications for utilities that build power plants and generate electricity in Arkansas.

Reacting to the appellate court’s decision, APSC Chairman Paul Suskie said the APSC panel had used the same procedures for considering power plants in separate proceedings since 1973.

"As it stands now, the Court of Appeals decision will impact the siting of all future generating plants subject to the commission, whether these plants generate electricity from nuclear, natural gas, coal, wind, solar, hydro, biomass, geothermal or other renewable power sources," Suskie said.

The U.S. electric generation industry needs sensible and predictable permitting procedures for utilities that balance energy needs with protecting our natural resources. At this point in time, coal-fired power plants that use the most advanced available control technology to reduce harmful air emissions and damage to the environment are a necessary part of meeting this country’s growing energy needs.

--Angela Neville, JD, is POWER's senior editor

Pages: 12


 

Related Stories








Subscribe to POWERnews

First Name Address Email Last Name City Company
Title
State      Zip Code




© 2012 Tradefair Group, an Access Intelligence LLC company.