Can’t tell you the number of years off hand, but I believe it is greater than 20. These are long term assets, and the costs are generally recovered over a very long time horizon.

As for looking at the books for only the legally allowed costs, that is the responsibility of the Public Service Commission. I know that they have to approve costs that they deem proper. I have no idea which, if any, of these records are open for public inspection.

But if you read above, the $1.5 Billion has done exactly what you said. It wasn’t cut, it was just removed from capitalized interest expense on the balance sheet (that would then be amortized over that long period) to a direct expense on the income statement, with rate payers making up for the expense on the revenue side.

Accounting gimmick does not equal “cost savings”.

Not sure I’m following this good thread very well. My biggest question would be defining the ‘life’ of the plant.

5 years? 10 years? 20 years? Forever?

Then, I think Ic has it right on what costs can be transferred to consumers before the plant goes online, if it ever does.

Can I look at the books to make sure only the legally allowed costs are on my bill? Hmmmmmm, NO.

Can I be sure that the $1.5 billion cost savings (?) isn’t being moved to another expense to be passed along NOW instead of later?

Just say Enron … the best power company in the world … until … it got busted.

You folks who believe this tripe must be connected to Ga Power and Southern Company. Company Shills.

I am waiting for the Fat Lady, as well.

We’re paying for “financing costs” in advance, not the “hard” construction costs. Included in the financing costs is not just the interest on construction, but a provision to allow “return on investment” as part of financing costs. ROI is known in layman’s terms as “profit”, and we, the little guys, will be responsibile for paying Georgia Power’s profit, in advance, on this plant.

GA Power is entitled to charge rate payers for the hard costs over the life of the plant. Should the plant never come on line, they will still be entitled to do so under state law.

One thing during our orginal coverage that I did not understand at the time but will correct now. SB 31 did not put the ratepayers at additional risk. If the plant never comes on line, but was approved by the PSC, the GA Power still has the right to recoup costs under the same law.

This would be the same if they approved a new coal plant, but because of a new Cap/Trade law (or judges ruling) the plant was not allowed to operate, then the rate payers would still pay for the plant.

The problem with SB 31 is simple, and still remains:

1) GA Power is able to take profit, in advance, from rate payers, who have a higher cost of funds than GA Power.

2) Only small customers are paying for this. Large commercial customers were exempt from the rate hike.

I’m for nuclear, and hope we build not just these but even more plants. I’m not for small businesses and retail customers subsidizing large users and, more importantly, giving GA Power $1 Billion of advanced, unearned profit.

“ATLANTA — The official price tag for Georgia Power’s share of two new reactors at Plant Vogtle is now $1.5 billion lower than when the company originally requested permission to build them, according to testimony Tuesday before the Georgia Public Service Commission. ”

Key Words: lower than when originally requested.

There is no real “cost savings”. They shifted the costs from Georgia Power to small rate payers via the largest lobbying effort since the Yazoo Land Scandal.

And let’s not forget, almost a Billion of those “costs” are advanced profits off the plant that GA Power shareholders will be allowed to receive off the backs of its small rate payers who unfortuntately, only have Reps and Senators to represent their interestes, and not over 70 lobbyists.

Nothing new to see here. Move along.

The ultimate astroturfing.