AEHI is not who you think they are; project designed for sale

Dear editor:

It's too bad that the State of Idaho doesn't have an energy siting committee like a lot of other states.

Their duty would be to separate the wheat from the chaff and present to the public and local officials the true facts of any energy project proposed in the state.

The purpose of this letter is to present my concerns on the proposed nuclear plant in Elmore County.

While I don't hold myself out as an expert in the nuclear power business, I have had some experience in contract negotiations and purchasing power from nuclear facilities. I was the CEO/General Manager of two electric power cooperatives, one in Washington and the other in Oregon, for more than 30 years. With that introduction, let me add my take on the project proposed by AEHI.

First, I would like to declare myself as not opposed to nuclear power; I do believe that it will be in our mix of energy down the road. However, there are some problems that need to be solved, not least of which is the storage of spent fuel. Storing spent fuel on site as it is now around the country at each nuclear facility is not a viable option. We are just pushing serious problems into the future.

I am not sure that everyone understands that the proposed plant is a merchant plant. All the present nuclear plants in the US, to my knowledge, are either built and owned by an electric utility or by a consortium of utilities, and the produced energy is used in their base loads.

A merchant plant will sell power to any utility on long-term contracts usually before the plant is even built; that sale price cannot be known at this time. I know it has been touted that power from this plant will be available to Idaho utilities. I don't believe so. Most, if not all, energy facilities are built for existing load or have contracts, before construction, to deliver at a set price. There are 23 electric utilities in Idaho (private, municipal, cooperatives); I have not heard of one of these utilities committing to purchase any power from the proposed AEHI plant, or providing any vocal support for that plant.

In my estimation, none of this power will be used in Idaho; we will be allowing plants to be built in Idaho to supply energy for the expanding Southwest.

I have heard a lot of hype about the number of jobs that will be available. I think AEHI is a bit disingenuous in their public announcements.

According to their filings with the SEC (Securities & Exchange Commission), AEHI does not intend to build any nuclear plant. Their whole objective in Elmore County is to secure the permits from the county, possibly do some site work, and then try to sell the site to others.

They admit in their SEC filings that they don't have the finances to build a completed nuclear plant and further that their intention is to see some unnamed investor to complete the project. So, how can they promise Elmore County citizens anything? Once they sell the property and permits, we are no longer dealing with AEHI -- not even the type of reactor they are touting in their presentation to the county. It will be up to the new owner(s) of the permits to decide what kind of reactor will be built, pending the approval of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC).

Another thing that bothers me is the cost of power from this plant that has been thrown around. It is true that the operating costs of a nuclear plant can be relatively low compared to a coal plant, but I think it is wrong to quote only the production costs.

In my estimation, based on what other nuclear facilities are costing to build in today's world, I believe the total costs of any proposed plant built today or in the near future will be somewhere in the $15 billion to $20 billion range. That cost must be amortized, so the true costs of power from a plant built today would be 3 to 4 times what Idaho Power is presently paying for wholesale power.

But again, AEHI cannot predict these costs accurately since their object is to secure the site and sell it to a prospective buyer to build the final plant.

One more thing that bothers me is the jobs that are promised if AEHI is successful in this rezoning application.

As I see it, there could be some local jobs doing the site preparation, but when it comes to actual construction of a nuclear facility, this is done by highly trained and skilled professional people. In my experience, most if not all workers also require a security clearance in addition to their expertise.

Another factor that I believe needs to be discussed is the water issue. This isn't something that affects not only local water users, but all users in the Snake River plain. I don't understand why there has not been more outcry from upstream users. If AEHI is successful in acquiring enough water rights to operate a nuclear plant, that water must be available 24/7, 365 days a year. You don't stop the water usage in a nuclear plant on short notice. If we should experience some bad water years, I only wonder who the state will favor.

One last issue that concerns me is that some people seem to think that this is an Elmore County issue alone; I don't believe that.

Any downwinders or people downstream from the proposed site for which AEHI has submitted their application should have a voice. This should not be left to Elmore County to decide what is best for the rest of the state.

I sympathize with our local county officials; a project as proposed by AEHI should be reviewed by a panel of unbiased energy experts to put all the facts on the table so informed officials can make a good, informed decision. I think AEHI should be required to fund such a study. For what they are expecting to reap from their venture, I don't think $250-$500K is too much to ask.

If anything I have stated in this letter is contested or deemed false by AEHI, I would be willing to debate the issues with them in open forum.

Edwin R. Schiender