This a very well done piece by the Times Union on an issue that will potentially have a huge impact on Jacksonville. I recently attended a luncheon hosted by JEA with leaders in the environmental, energy, and public policy worlds and JEA is taking this very seriously.
As the legislation is written, the best case scenario from JEA's end is probably getting to use the coal plant until the debt is retired. Worst case is immediate compliance. As the article alludes to, there is going to be a huge lobbying battle with both the state and feds.
http://members.jacksonville.com/news/metro/2014-10-11/story/did-jea-make-1-billion-mistake-answers-are-complicated-bet-starting-look
Washington has been beating this war drum since the Clinton administration, anyone with 3 brain cells knew this was coming eventually. Except apparently JEA, which canceled its plans for a nuclear plant and spent a billion dollars on an obsolete coal facility instead. Brilliant planning, obviously.
Kind of interesting on how JEA and FPL went in completely different paths in the 1990s. Seems we took the short sighted approach that worked for a decade, while FPL invested in a long term sustainable strategy.
This honestly was probably the reporting I have ever witnessed from the Times Union. Job well done!
That said, it seems the Northside generating plant is only responsible for 28% of JEA's current debt, and of that roughly $320 million is owed by FPL for the St. Johns River Plant, thus reducing JEA's coal debt to 22% of the current $5.2 billion debt load.
JEA's current natural gas facilities cost in total $615 million, and only makes up 12% of the debt load. JEA's former CEO already conceded that JEA could generate the majority (let's assume 51%) of its energy from the existing Natural Gas facilities. That means at worst, JEA would have to borrow another $615 million, maybe less to just add onto the current facilities to meet 100% Nat Gas. Most likely, you could cut that number in half to meet the 30% reduction in CO2. I guess I just don't see where we are doomed.
The coal plant has served us well and can still continue to serve JEA well into its half-life. It seems JEA's problems have a lot more to do with water/sewer systems and infrastructure than it has to do with actual power generation. It is also my understanding that energy efficiency projects are also beginning to take a toll on JEA's revenues.
So..unless tens of thousands of people decide to buy Teslas in the near future, it looks like JEA is going to have some financial issues to deal with. For the report, it doesn't look like JEA has an EPA problem as much as it has a long-standing debt problem.
Nobody said anything about doomed. The issue is bad management wasting public money.
Demand for electricity and water has declined steadily over the past six years in JEA's service area. Water demand is off by 40%. Energy saving appliances, lights and low water use toilets and shower heads are having an impact. JEA's high charge for a separate irrigation meter has made many homeowners and businesses put in wells for irrigation. And to their credit, JEA's overhaul of the water system has cut wasteful leakage.
JEA's old forecasts were based on steadily increasing usage of power and based on that foolish assumption they have taken on too much debt and are caught in a corner.
QuoteKind of interesting on how JEA and FPL went in completely different paths in the 1990s. Seems we took the short sighted approach that worked for a decade, while FPL invested in a long term sustainable strategy.
Apples and Oranges. JEA has one quarter the number of customers FPL has, and FPL has more resources available to invest or divest in. Not a fair comparison.
Most utilities are getting away from Nuclear after what happened in Japan, there is a real push for more coal burning plants in Germany and South America. So all the coal we ban in the US just gets exported elsewhere to be consumed in the earth's atmosphere in some other place in the world. All we are doing with the EPA is kicking the can down the road.
Quote from: mtraininjax on October 16, 2014, 12:13:52 AM
QuoteKind of interesting on how JEA and FPL went in completely different paths in the 1990s. Seems we took the short sighted approach that worked for a decade, while FPL invested in a long term sustainable strategy.
Most utilities are getting away from Nuclear after what happened in Japan, there is a real push for more coal burning plants in Germany and South America. So all the coal we ban in the US just gets exported elsewhere to be consumed in the earth's atmosphere in some other place in the world. All we are doing with the EPA is kicking the can down the road.
Actually, the aim in Germany is to get away from coal as well and use natural gas and renewables. Coal is still running at the moment for capacity / backup reasons and because coal is cheap but those that do use pretty good filter technologies.
The problem in Germany is that using wind and photovoltaics (as they work at the moment) is not sustainable in order to provide an industrial society with reliable and plannable electricity.
The susidies for renewables have created an over capacity (when the wind blows or on sunny days) and increased electricity costs for everyone rather drastically (a "renewables" fee is added to every kwh to pay for the subsidies - the overall cost in 2013 for that was approx 25 Billion USD).
The next issue is that good spots to e.g. generate electicity by using wind turbines are not where the demand is, so the grid would need to be extended but nimbyism blocks that - power lines are evil.
I admit that this is not an easy process but the way it has been done in Germany is imho not really a good way.
In some senses it is creating rather perverse situations where using palm oil in power generation plants is subsidized since it is considered "climate friendly" but in order to establish palm tree plantations they cut down large tracts of rain forest, so not really good for the environment.