Konish: What is GRU’s 2032 Power Plan (IRP) for electrical generation?

Letter to the editor

Before being ousted by a self-promoting Ed Bielarski, former GRU General Manager Tony Cunningham had appropriately prioritized the Integrated Resource Plan (IRP) for future GRU electric generation.

It is noteworthy that on September 11, 2014, before Bielarski was hired the first time, GRU rolled out its 2020 Power “Plan.” As the crushing Biomass Power Purchase Agreement (PPA) payments of $72+ million annually kicked in, GRU formally disclosed:

1. “GRU is currently long in base load generation BEYOND the planning horizon” (Bielarski calls this “chunky”)
2. GRU is experiencing “increasing intermittent distributed generation (from local customer solar inputs)”
3. “Existing (transmission line) ties will not reliably support serving GRU’s load by imported power”
4. “Solar generation in GRU’s service territory will continue to increase (disastrous solar feed-in tariff for twenty (20) yrs and net metering”

Nothing has changed to date, twelve (12) years later. The “paper life” of the GRU biomass plant will expire BEFORE associated debt is retired. GRU has no discernable plan backed by expert testimony and analysis whatsoever. Bielarski threw away the planning process while slashing the GRU system–wide capital budget on day one of his ascension to the position of GRU CEO/GM.

Bielarski’s retirement or termination when the GRU financial house of cards collapses is all that is assured. 

On October 8, 2025, Bielarski ranted about this matter as follows:

Bielarski: “We have over 600 MW of summer capacity, we typically peak out at 425 MW.”

Facts: 

1. “Peak out” occurs after sunset when solar inputs go to zero.

2. GRU has massive uneconomic “base load” “beyond the planning horizon” and inadequate peaking capacity (exacerbated by heavily subsidized solar inputs).

Bielarski: “GRU Electric generating units are nearing the end of their paper retirement dates.”

Facts: 

DH1, 76 MW, 2027

DH2, 232 MW, 2032

CT1, 17.5 MW, 2026

CT2, 17.5 MW, 2026

CT1 and CT2 are peaking units, DH2 is a base load unit.

Bielarski: “We had a $26.6 million rebuild of (Kelly).”

Facts: As Bielarski will next get to, prices for everything have skyrocketed.

Bielarski: “We looked at DH2 paper retirement, extending it to 2036.”

Facts: 

1. Nothing has been “extended” for DH2. Bielarski is merely “looking at it”.
2. Bielarski has arbitrarily extended the useful life of DH2 without independent expert cost or risk analysis.

Bielarski: “We’re doing and looking at that.”

Fact: “Looking at” and “doing that” are two very different matters.

Bielarski: “We had a power purchase agreement (PPA)… that helped us get over the hump when we recently had problems with Kelly.”

Facts: 

1. The “problems” with a “rebuilt” Kelly involved CO levels in downtown Gainesville six times the legal limit.
2. No (zero) firm availability on our transmission line can prevent wholesale purchases pursuant to a PPA.

Bielarski: “Solutions that were not in the [previous, now abandoned Cunningham] IRP is the extension of the paper life of DH1, from 2027 to 2032”.

Facts: 

1. Nothing has been “extended” for DH1 as with DH2. There has been a lengthy voluntary shutdown of DH1, to explore this option, but no cost or risk analysis has been put forth.
2. Bielarski has again, as for DH2 (and CT1 & CT2) arbitrarily extended the useful life without independent expert cost or risk analysis.

Bielarski: “…This is a lot of work to throw onto energy supply.”

Facts:

1. GRU staff are charged with keeping Bielarski’s aging arsenal of uneconomic plants operational in the face of a) unavailability of spare parts; b) unavailability of outside contractors; c) inability to sell excess base load wholesale because GRU plants are uneconomic.
2. GRU has put a lot of work into the previous IRP process that Bielarski discarded on day 1 of hiring himself as GRU GM.

Bielarski: “It is a new build versus a life extension and the new gas (electrical generating) plant pricing has really skyrocketed”

Facts:

1. Industry leaders are well aware that GRU ratepayers are marooned on Bielarski’s “energy island” and will not be doing us any favors – as with the transmission lines.
2. The unstated price of “paper life” “extensions” for four (4) GRU plants has likewise skyrocketed.
3. No mention is made of Demand Side Management.
4. No mention of asking the State of Florida to bring in the new transmission line lifeline we need in order to put Bielarski’s arsenal to rest.

Bielarski: “… paper life extension doesn’t give you a new plant… 30 or 40 years .. but it moves the decision making process out five (5) years”.

Facts: 

1. We have been moving the “decision making process” out since 2014.
2. Without any cost or risk analysis, or anything for these major capital improvements in the budget, Bielarski claims GRU will extend the useful life of DH1, DH2, CT1, CT2, for five (5) years each. This represents 343 MW out of 666.32 MW or 51.3% of total GRU electric generating capacity.
3. GRU has repeatedly failed in its attempts to secure firm availability on the available transmission lines. 

Bielarski: “So it’s a moment in time, can be several moments in time, and it can be a period in time, but it is not the way the (GRU electric) plants (will be able to) operate over a long period of time”.

Facts:

1. Bielarski correctly differentiates between a rebuilt dirty, uneconomic plant and a new, clean, efficient plant.
2. No mention is made as to how the unquantified GRU expenditures for rebuilds will impact GRU debt.
3. No independent expert cost or risk analysis is offered.

Bielarski: “… getting the extensions buys us time to thoughtfully think through the next level of generating that we work with.”

Facts:

1. Since the GRU electric generating plant “extensions” will cost untold millions, it is important to understand
   • GRU is behind schedule on any such extension
   • Even without independent expert cost and risk analysis, such “extensions” will surely increase GRU debt significantly, making a “next level” of plants impossible.

Bielarski: “(what) we’re talking about is paying down $400 million of debt over the 10 years”.

Facts:

1. The goal is $300 million of $1.8 billion (reduction from $1.8 billion to $1.5 billion) of long term debt in 10 years.
2. GRU is only on track to reduce its debt from $1.8 billion to $1.7 billion (in the first 3 years of its plan).
3. Additional debt for behind-schedule extensions of plant “useful life” is unknown.

Bielarski: “… in summary, we’re moving forward with looking at the (useful, not paper) life extension of DH2 and now DH1, the same thing with CT1 and CT2.”

Fact: Bielarski cannot explain how GRU survives the purchase of the biomass plant for $750 million (plus costs) and the solar feed-in tariff, among all the other managerial blunders.

Many untold millions will be needed for an apparent default decision BY BIELARSKI – NOT THE GRU AUTHORITY. This unauthorized decision has not been formally acknowledged or openly made in public, like everything else. Bielarski has dropped numerous hints that GRU will attempt to temporarily extend for five (5) years the useful life of four (4) uneconomic, dirty GRU electric plants with expiring “paper lives” by 2032, representing over 50% of GRU’s TOTAL generating capacity. Such an approach will:

1. Increase GRU debt levels, wiping out the modest debt reductions achieved (1.8 BILLION reduced to 1.7 BILLION in two years). The GRU debt defeasance plan for $300 million over ten (10) years ($1.8 to 1.5 BILLION) was based on three (3) faulty assumptions: 
   • The IRP will cost nothing
   • No decommissioning costs
   • 3% annual electric rate increases
2. Make ultimate construction of new efficient gas plants impossible
3. Require a state organized bailout bringing new transmission line capacity into Bielarski’s GRU “energy island” to facilitate abandonment and decommissioning of antiquated GRU electric plants.
4. Will certainly not allow for a ten-year pause in GRU electric rate increases. Bielarski has already gone up 8% in 2025 on GRU residential electric rates over 1000 Kwh.

Bielarski is well aware of all this. So are the two neighboring investor-owned electric utilities controlling our transmission line ties, who will not be doing GRU any favors. The actual GRU “net position” is ALREADY NEGATIVE if one takes account of the massive OVERVALUATION of the depreciated biomass plant on the GRU financial statements as originally being worth over $800 million – by none other than Bielarski, et al.

Taken together with ongoing large scale concealment of myriad, Service Level Agreement (SLA) losses with numerous entities, of course citizens who shed light on the deepening financial morass will be vilified in any way possible as “over the line” or as being “disrespectful” of GRU workers. Hanrahan built the biomass plant. Bielarski bought it for way too much money and accounted for it improperly. Neither are royalty nor a deity and are forever linked to this unprecedented financial disaster.

Jim Konish, Gainesville

The opinions expressed by letter or opinion writers are their own and do not necessarily represent the views of AlachuaChronicle.com. Assertions of facts in letters are similarly the responsibility of the author. Letters may be submitted to info@alachuachronicle.com and are published at the discretion of the editor.