By Mike Fitts
mfitts@scbiznews.com
Published Dec. 2, 2008

SCE&G is defending the economic model for its proposal to build two nuclear reactors near Jenkinsville during this week’s state Public Service Commission debate over the plan.

On Monday, S.C. Electric & Gas CEO Kevin Marsh took the stand to make the company’s case that it needs two new reactors at the V.C. Summer nuclear plant — and that a gradual rate increase totaling 37% should be approved to pay for them. The utility is partnering with Santee Cooper on the $8.9 billion project.

The utility believes the new reactors are the best way to provide the reliable power it needs to handle future growth.

Critics at the hearings, including members of several environmental groups, said that the utility should instead join the move toward wind or solar power and that the utility could substantially cut its future need by fully embracing energy efficiency.

Bob Guild, attorney for the Friends of the Earth, said Marsh has backed away from the proposals of the governor’s climate task force, of which Marsh was a member. That panel’s report embraced energy reduction through efficiency and alternatives, which Guild said would render a new plant unnecessary.

Marsh said the utility must be ready to meet the need it sees ahead and can’t assume that legal or economic changes will make the plant unnecessary. Cathy Love, vice president for communications and planning, said Monday that the current recession does not change the utility’s view of a possible shortfall in about 2016 without the new reactors. “You build generation for the long term, not the short term,” Love said.

The utility maintains that wind or solar, although useful parts of the nation’s energy future, cannot do the heavy lifting that SCE&G will need in its system to provide 24/7 power.

Guild made the case that SCE&G, a relatively small utility on the national scale, is not fiscally well-positioned to take such a leading position in the move toward more nuclear power, especially given the tough conditions of the economy and credit markets.

The utility says that it can get the capital it needs and that having Santee Cooper as a partner adds to the stable financial future of the project.

Monday’s hearing began with a period of public comment, despite objection from SCE&G legal counsel Chad Burgess that remarks from the general public should not be entered into the record of the proceedings. Several speakers bristled at what they saw as an attempt to block their voices from being heard on the reactor proposal.

Gerald Rudolph of Columbia said SCE&G is seeking to invest heavily in nuclear at a time when the world is turning toward cleaner, renewable systems and consumption reduction. He said he feared the utility was set to “build an albatross” and make ratepayers share the burden.

Hearings will continue all week, with a second public comment period from 4:30 to 6:30 p.m. Wednesday. The PSC is expected to decide the issue by spring. The project still also needs the approval of the federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

The utility’s plan calls for the first reactor to begin service in 2016.