DEP Presentation to the EUT March 3rd 2015

Comment

Comment by Dan McKay on March 6, 2015 at 3:03pm

If and when one of these wind-plants LLC succumbs to  decommissioning , is the parent company responsible for cost overruns occurred during dismantling ?  Does the DEP require a line item in decommissioning for legal services ? Once decommissioned, who is responsible for upkeep of erosion control devices and if such devices exist at an elevation above the property of another landowner and said device fails and substantial amounts of eroding soil deposits upon the lower elevation owner, who is responsible,  assuming the wind-plant owner is no longer leasing the upper property ?  Many of these types of questions were asked of DEP personnel years ago, but answers were never forthcoming. 

Comment by Eric A. Tuttle on March 6, 2015 at 2:46pm

Having attended the BEP hearings last year and listening to the DEFUNDING scenario on both Wind and Mining, this was put into place to help protect the rate-payers (though they will pay anyway) but it remains an illusion as each time an additional expense comes up, they go to the PUC for another rate increase that usually becomes permanent, long after the expense of decommissioning has passed. Also, even though a set amount has been set aside for this purpose, I am not hearing additional funding be added for adjustments to inflation or other hazards that may be recognized in the future hat may warrant additional clean-up or reclamation. This sounds like when the money runs out, tuff luck taxpayer, funding. 

Comment by Eric A. Tuttle on March 6, 2015 at 2:39pm

Thanks for the link Dan, I have archived it at https://drive.google.com/folderview?id=0B0qFMC8OT2eXT3kyWFVuckpHX1E... with the rest of my materials. 

Comment by Dan McKay on March 6, 2015 at 11:44am

The question came up about the wind plant decommissioning costs and who should fund it. A lawmaker contended that because the ratepayer pays/paid decommissioning costs on Maine Yankee, it was a double standard being applied to wind plants by making them fund their own decommissioning.

What he doesn't realize is the electric restructuring act of 2000 changed everything on the generation side.

An explanation by the Public Advocate, July 1999 :

 

"Is it true that my rates will include the cost of shutting down Maine Yankee? Part of it, yes. Why is this so: isn't Maine Yankee now closed? "

"It is considered a stranded cost (see box on Stranded Costs) Construction of Maine Yankee was originally approved when the PUC determined that it was a prudent investment for the utilities to make. As a result, the costs of the plant have been passed through to ratepayers. Some of these costs are still in rates. The utilities began collecting for the costs of Maine Yankee's shutdown, or decommissioning, many years ago and have set aside these funds in a separate account. Because the utilities now expect decommissioning to cost much more than originally estimated they have sought more money from ratepayers. An agreement between the utilities and the Public Advocate, under which the utilities will recover only a portion of what they sought to recover, was recently approved in Washington. The amount to be included in rates as a result of this agreement is close to what it would have been if the original estimates had been accurate and if the plant had continued to provide service until the end of its license (2008). In other words, the amount to be included in rates as a stranded cost is considered prudent and in line with the original expectation of customers."

Comment by Dan McKay on March 6, 2015 at 10:09am

  This is a link to BEP report to EUT committee about public concerns.

http://www.maine.gov/dep/bep/legislative-reports/2014%20BEP%20Legis...

Comment by Dan McKay on March 6, 2015 at 10:02am

Thanks, Eric.