Skip to main content

View Diary: Current Business Wisdom: No Nukes (57 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  according to the construction cost (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    in exhibit 2 of the application they spent $21 M in 2007 which I assume is the cost of developing the application. Siting/Permitting/Licensing costs are generally rolled up into "construction costs". Just because the rate increase wasn't approved until recently has no probative value as to what it covers.

    Causation was, is, and ever shall be a slippery bitch, so we're best sticking with noting the facts

    by jam on Tue Apr 03, 2012 at 04:57:06 AM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  Well, ideally (0+ / 0-)

      as the utility, you'd like everything included in recoverable costs. Nevertheless, at the time they spent the millions of dollars, they had no guarantee that CWIP would be approved, so it was certainly a financial risk (although a small one compared to building an entire plant) and they spent their own money on this risk.

      Utilities are not charities. They don't take on any financial risk unless they hope ultimately to get their money back.

      Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former.
      -- Albert Einstein

      by bryfry on Tue Apr 03, 2012 at 05:21:01 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site