By Mary Ellen Klas, Herald/Times Tallahassee Bureau
The Florida House on Tuesday rejected attempts to repeal a controversial state law that allows utility companies to charge customers for nuclear power plant development in advance of construction.
Read more here: http://www.miamiherald.com/2013/04/30/v-print/3373725/florida-house-rejects-attempts.html#storylink=cpy#storylink=cpy
Indian River Guardian 
We now have confirmation that the Florida legislature has been brought and paid for by special interest groups.
Not a single application has been submitted to the Federal government for the construction of a new nuclear power plant since the Three Mile Island accident in March 1979. Since that time we have witnessed the Fushima nuclear power plant accident in March 2011. Just today the media has reported on the release of radioactivity leaks in the plant. There is also the not small problem of rats throughout the plant.
Additionally, the Federal government has yet to share with the public the impact of global warming and the consequences for the lack of a safe storage facility to contain nuclear waste. These issues have to be resolved prior to any consideration to even apply for an application of a new nuclear reactor.
As someone who spent two decades with the U. S. Nuclear Reguatory Commission, it is my belief that the chances are slim and none that the U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission will issue an operating permit for any nuclear power plant in the USA in the foreseeable future.
All of the factors identified above, should have made if clear to the Florida legislature that there is no need for the nuclear fee being a part of any energy consumer’s bills in the USA. The failure to authorize the elimination of the nuclear fee by the Florida legislature is nothing more than an assault on the taxpayers’ wallets. Progress Energy user are entitled to get back the $1 billion that now exists in the Florida government’s cofffers.
FP&L should be required to reimburse consumers for fees collected without justification. Further FP&L should not be allowed to continue to make this unique law a financial burden for its current and future client base.