the film forum library tutorial contact

Energy NW to Study Plant 1 Revival by Chris Mulick, Herald staff writer Tri-City Herald, March 22, 2001

Energy Northwest has decided to study the feasibility of finishing Plant No. 1 at Hanford.

That after U.S. Reps. Doc Hastings and George Nethercutt sent a joint letter to chief executive officer Vic Parrish this week urging the public utility consortium to do so.

Plant No. 1, which was two-thirds complete when construction was halted in 1982, would produce 1,250 megawatts, enough energy to serve 1.2 million homes.

But even in an energy crisis, it's a controversial and expensive proposition. Hastings and Nethercutt, both Washington Republicans, want to find out how expensive.

"Let's get a study and get something conclusive," Hastings said Wednesday in a phone interview from Washington, D.C.

Energy Northwest's executive board, which toured the facility Wednesday, also gave preliminary approval to its 2001-02 budget that includes using money left in the Plant No. 1 construction account to pay for the study. The Bonneville Power Administration is expected to approve that budget next month.

But Parrish said he hopes to have the study conducted within 100 days. The executive board is expected to discuss how the study is to be done at its meeting today in Richland, though it may take several weeks to reach a resolution.

Energy Northwest spokesman Don McManman said the consortium wants to pursue the study as a matter of "examining all options" for building sorely needed power plants in the region.

The plant was one of five projects the former Washington Public Power Supply System began building in the 1970s. Only the Columbia Generating Station at Hanford ever was finished. Of the four never completed, two of which are at the Satsop site west of Olympia, Plant No. 1 was the furthest along.

Hastings said it would be irresponsible not to study the feasibility of finishing it, despite the possibility its power would cost more than other alternatives.

"The cost of generating (at Plant No. 1) is a whole lot less than the spot market is," Hastings said.

Parrish earlier this year estimated the cost somewhere between $3 billion to $4 billion, a jarring order of magnitude.

By comparison, a gas-fired power plant Energy Northwest has plans to operate with Duke Energy North America at Satsop will produce half as much energy, but at a cost of about $250 million.

"This picture doesn't compute," said Sara Patton, executive director of the Northwest Energy Coalition, an environmental advocacy group. "Why would we do this?"

It's also believed it would take too long to finish construction on Plant No. 1 to attract customers willing to commit to buying its power before work begins.

"There are a lot of questions regarding the completion of Plant No. 1 that make it seem a bit of a long shot," said Bonneville spokesman Ed Mosey, who noted there's enough gas-fired projects in the works to provide the resources the Northwest needs. "Even under an optimistic scenario, getting it online within three or four years would be moving. When you start to reach out that far, there's a high risk you won't need it."

McManman said the consortium is not advocating the project be finished, just studied.

"Energy Northwest has always thought it's important to examine every possible source," he said.

Patton said the money would be better spent furthering the development of fuel cell technology or investing in conservation.

"I'd rather spend the money studying things that are more realistic," she said.

Dave Danner, who advises Gov. Gary Locke on energy issues, said everything he's seen suggests finishing the project would not be cost-effective. Even so, he doesn't object to the study, so long as it's credible.

"If the study is objective and provides us with some good information, I'd like to see it," Danner said. "If it's going to be boosterism, it's probably going to be less valuable."

Parrish said maintaining the credibility of the study will be a top priority, realizing the difficult political climate for the nuclear industry.

Power plants fired by natural gas are the most popular form of generators among builders these days. They're relatively cheap to build and cleaner than they used to be.

But the cost of their power largely is driven by fluctuating gas prices, making their costs more volatile. Gas-fired plants also won't last as long as nuclear projects do. Energy Northwest believes Plant No. 1 could be licensed to run for 60 years.

Nuclear projects also don't produce the environmentally threatening air emissions gas plants do.

But massive construction costs and indecision about what to do with radioactive spent nuclear fuel continue to hold the industry back. Energy Northwest managers were convinced even as little as 15 months ago that finishing the project wouldn't be worth considering.

It took mathematically astonishing increases on wholesale power markets to change that. Costs that seemed ridiculously high for some generators before suddenly don't look so bad.

"I thought it would be prudent for us to look at everything," Hastings said. "Nuclear ought to be part of that mix."