AARP defends opposition to nuclear power development plan

AARP is firing back in a war of words over legislation it says would stick Iowans with the cost of developing future nuclear power generation even if the plants are never built.

At a Statehouse press conference Monday, AARP said it doesn't oppose the development of new power generation, including MidAmerican Energy's proposed nuclear plant, but objects to a pair of bills that would change the rules at the expense of Iowans, including its 370,000 50-and-older Iowa members.

AARP has been warning of “unnecessary and unknown” rate hikes that could hit ratepayers if Senate File 390 or House File 561 is passed into law.

The bills would help address hurdles MidAmerican might encounter in exploring the development of a 540-megawatt nuclear-powered facility costing $1 billion to $2 billion employing new technology that consists of a cluster of small modular reactors rather than the more typical large-scale nuclear power plants.

Rather than rely on shareholders and investors to finance a new power plant, Bruce Koeppel AARP state director, said the proposed legislation “shifts the billion-dollar plus costs to ratepayers for a possible nuclear plant, years before the plant is built, or the plant design has even been approved.”

Koeppel said he was responding to questions lawmakers raised about an AARP advertising campaign urging people to tell legislators to “protect Iowans from unfair utility rater hikes.”

Senate Commerce Committee Chairwoman Swati Dandekar, D-Marion, called the ads “deliberately misleading.” in an op-ed piece that appeared in some Iowa newspapers “misleading.”

“This state legislation is needed to continue consideration of nuclear power as a viable option for the state's future energy mix,” Dandekar said.

She rejected AARP's argument that the legislation will increase utility costs.

“Not true. Nothing in this legislation increases electric rates or authorizes the construction of a nuclear facility,” she said. “The legislation also does not alter the traditional role and responsibility of the Iowa Utilities Board or Consumer Advocate in deciding such matters.”

Koeppel disputed that. AARP opposes the legislation because of “the lack of consumer protection – no comparison of alternatives, no cap on how much rates can increase no cost protection from cost overruns and no protection if the proposed plant is cancelled.”

Those factors, “coupled with the unknowns about when, where and how much it will cost to build the new plant, demonstrates the need for Iowa lawmakers to study how to best increase the state's electric power generation,” he said.

Dandekar insisted the proposed legislation includes a number of consumer protection measures, such as annual reporting and stringent accountability.

“The Iowa Utilities Board and the Office of Consumer Advocate always will keep Iowa's interests and economy at the forefront,” she said. “Iowa needs to keep nuclear power in the mix in order to keep control of our electricity prices and continue to advance our economy.”

Without taking a side, Gov. Terry Branstad said Monday that it's the Iowa Utilities Board's responsibility to answer many of those questions. When he appointed former Republican Rep. Libby Jacobs to chair the board it was with the understanding the board “would have the staff and wherewithal to protect the interests of the ratepayers and the state of Iowa.”

At the same time, Branstad said, the state has to plan ahead to meet future energy needs.

“As we work to revitalize our economy, to bring jobs here, we want to make sure we have affordable and economical power available for our citizens and we want to do it in a way that environmentally safe as well,” he said.