Nuclear Energy Information Service Illinois' Nuclear Power Watchdog for 25 Years |
NEIS Action Alerts |
|
Nuclear Energy Information Service Illinois' Nuclear Power Watchdog for 25 Years |
NEIS Action Alerts |
About Us
Who We Are Our History Join NEIS Support & Donate ContactNews
For the Press Nuclear News NEIS NewsInformation & Resources
About Nuclear Power Know Nukes Nuclear Illinois Literature For Young People Newsletter Links Contacting Officials & AgenciesOngoing Programs & Campaigns
Citizen Epidemiology GNEP You Can't Nuke Global WarmingGot a Question?
EMail Us!NEIS is a Proud Member of
Earthshare of Illinois
The Environmental Workplace Giving Program
Last week the Senate passed energy legislation which was a very mixed bag for safe-energy. As reported in the NYT on Monday (see below) the legislation was intended to support new and safe-energy development. Instead, it got hijacked at the last minute, without debate, by the nuclear industry which had a clause inserted which could grant up to $50 BILLION in loan guarantees for the nuclear industry to construct new reactors, even of the old type. Sen. Pete Domenici (R.-NM) cried crocodile tears about this, saying that this was not the intention of the legislation. Regardless -- this is the reality of the Senate legislation.
The House is next slated to take action on its version of the bill, HR 3221. Sec. 9202 of this bill contains the offending pro-nuclear language. An amendment to the bill -- H.R. 969, the Federal Renewable Energy Standards Act -- is expected to be introduced soon to possibly eliminate these nuclear loan guarantees, and promote other positive things, including a renewable energy portfolio standard mandating electricity production levels from renewables.
The message to your Representative is simple:
If you know your Representative's name, the easy way to contact him/her is through the Capitol Switchboard at: (202)224-3121.
To find out the direct contact numbers for your Representative, you can look this up at Thomas (Library of Congress): http://thomas.loc.gov. Look on the left hand sidebar for information on how to reach your House Rep. You find him/her using the zip +4 tool they provide.
Thanks once again for your continued support of safe-energy and a less-nuclear world.
--Dave Kraft, Director--
By EDMUND L. ANDREWS and MATTHEW L. WALD
WASHINGTON, July 30 — A one-sentence provision buried in the Senate’s recently passed energy bill, inserted without debate at the urging of the nuclear power industry, could make builders of new nuclear plants eligible for tens of billions of dollars in government loan guarantees.
Lobbyists have told lawmakers and administration officials in recent weeks that the nuclear industry needs as much as $50 billion in loan guarantees over the next two years to finance a major expansion.
The biggest champion of the loan guarantees is Senator Pete V. Domenici of New Mexico, the ranking Republican on the Senate Energy Committee and one of the nuclear industry’s strongest supporters in Congress.
Senator Jeff Bingaman, Democrat of New Mexico and the energy bill’s author, has long argued that nuclear power plants do not need federal loan guarantees. Mr. Bingaman said that the industry was over-interpreting the provision and that it would provide loan guarantees for only the most innovative power plants.
But the provision has the potential to considerably expand the nuclear industry, which plans to build 28 new reactors at an estimated cost of about $4 billion to $5 billion apiece. And while the nuclear industry would be the biggest beneficiary, the provision could also set the stage for billions of dollars in loan guarantees for power plants that use “clean coal” technology and renewable fuels.
The nuclear industry is enjoying growing political support after decades of opposition from environmental groups and others concerned about the risks. An increasing number of lawmakers in both parties, worried about global warming and dependence on foreign oil, support some expansion of nuclear power.
But the provision could go much further than many lawmakers had in mind by giving the Department of Energy the power to approve an unlimited amount of loan guarantees for “clean” power generation. Under legislation enacted in 2005, nuclear power qualifies as a clean technology because it does not emit carbon gases that contribute to global warming.
Power companies have tentative plans to put the 28 new reactors at 19 sites around the country. Industry executives insist that banks and Wall Street will not provide the money needed to build new reactors unless the loans are guaranteed in their entirety by the federal government.
The federal government guarantees many billions of loans each year to help farmers, exporters, small businesses and students. The government does not actually lend the money but agrees to pay it back in case the borrower defaults.
While the nuclear industry says it will need $25 billion in loan guarantees in 2008 and $50 billion over the next two years, President Bush had proposed a far smaller amount — $4 billion — in new loan guarantees next year for “clean” electric power technologies, which include plants that run on so-called clean coal technologies and renewable fuels.
Many experts fear that the proposed subsidies could leave taxpayers responsible for billions of dollars in soured loans.
“Such projects, by their nature, pose significant technical and market risks,” the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office warned last month in an analysis of the provision. “Studies of the accuracy of cost estimates for pioneering technologies have found that estimates are consistently low.”
Michael J. Wallace, the co-chief executive of UniStar Nuclear, a partnership seeking to build nuclear reactors, and executive vice president of Constellation Energy, said: “Without loan guarantees we will not build nuclear power plants.”
The little-noticed provision in the Senate bill subtly refines and expands the loan guarantee program that Congress passed in the Energy Policy Act of 2005.
As before, the Department of Energy would be allowed to guarantee 100 percent of the loans and up to 80 percent of the total cost to build a reactor.
But the bill essentially allows the department to approve as many loan guarantees as it wants for both new reactors and plants that use other “clean” technologies.
That is a big change. Under current law, the government is only allowed to guarantee a volume of loans authorized each year by Congress. Last year, Congress limited the government to awarding just $4 billion in loan guarantees for clean energy projects during the 2007 fiscal year.
Mr. Domenici, who has been pushing the Energy Department to move much more aggressively in approving loan guarantees, has argued that there is no need for limits on the loan volume because power companies will be required to pay an upfront fee to cover the estimated cost of the guarantee. In essence, the “credit subsidy” payments would be used as a kind of insurance premium that could be used to cover the cost of any defaulted loan.
“It is very clear that this is a self-financing program,” Mr. Domenici told James Nussle, Mr. Bush’s nominee to become the White House budget director, at Mr. Nussle’s confirmation hearing last week. “There should already be $25 billion to $30 billion in the loan guarantee fund.”
But the Bush administration opposes the measure, fearing that it could prove extremely costly.
The provision would “remove appropriate controls over the size of the program and increase taxpayer liability,” the Office of Management and Budget wrote in an official position statement on the energy bill.
Michele Boyd, legislative director of the consumer advocacy group Public Citizen, said the measure would subsidize plants with conventional technology.
“None of these so-called ‘advanced’ nuclear reactors deal with the fundamental flaws of nuclear power, such as dangerous radioactive waste, vulnerabilities to air attack and excessive cost,” said Ms. Boyd, whose staff began investigating the provision shortly after the Senate passed the bill last month.
Mr. Bingaman, the bill’s primary architect, said that he was aware of the provision but believed that it would apply only to reactors with fundamentally new technology.
“I would be amazed if this generic loan program applied to most of the plants that are being proposed, either for the nuclear industry or coal industry,” Mr. Bingaman said Monday night. “The idea of this is not just to help an industry build plants. It’s to demonstrate new technology that meets the nation’s energy needs.”
But industry officials say the measure would directly affect the reactors on the drawing board.
“I think we can say that with all the projects moving forward on the schedule they are now on, that there could be a need for $20 to $25 billion in loan guarantees,” said Richard Myers, vice president for policy development at the Nuclear Energy Institute, a trade association.
The House is hoping to pass its own energy bill this week. But leading House Democrats have made it clear they oppose any kind of loan guarantees for nuclear reactors.
The House recently passed an appropriations bill for energy and water programs that included $7 billion in loan guarantees for projects involving renewable energy and specifically excluded nuclear plants.
Representative Peter J. Visclosky, Democrat of Indiana and chairman of the House Appropriations Committee’s panel on energy and water, said last month that the nuclear industry had estimated a need of $25 billion in guaranteed loans for next year and “more than that” in 2009.
The industry’s request, Mr. Visclosky warned, “overwhelms” what the committee had been willing to offer the entire energy industry.
Still, nuclear industry executives say they hope the Senate’s loan guarantee provision will be adopted by House lawmakers.
Greetings All!
We urge you to send comments to the DOE and members of the Illinois Delegation to oppose plans considering sites in Illinois as centers that would reprocess spent nuclear fuel from commercial nuclear reactors. As part of President Bush's "GNEP" proposal (Global Nuclear Energy Partnership program) this issue brings together concerns of both safe-energy activists and peace activists concerned about the proliferation of nuclear materials.
BOTH of our Illinois Senators -- especially Presidential candidate Obama -- need to get the message that expansion of nuclear industries in Illinois is not acceptable policy: not for energy, not for peace. They can be reached at:
Sen. Richard Durbin:
Washington: 332 Senate Dirksen Building, Washington, D.C. 20510
(202)224-2152; (202)228-0400 fax
Chicago: Kluczynski Federal Building, 38th floor, Chicago, IL 60604
(312)353-4952; (312)
Sen. & Presidential Candidate Barack Obama:
Washington: B40-B Senate Dirksen Building, Washington, D.C. 20510
(202)224-2854; (202)228-5417 fax
Chicago: Kluczynski Federal Building, 39th floor, Chicago, IL 60604
(312)886-3506; (312)886-3514 fax
In particular this is an early opportunity to help the good Senator/Candidate Obama shape what will be an acceptable platform for peace and energy security.
More information about GNEP from:
NEIS
The Union of Concerned Scientists
Public Citizen
Nuclear Information & Resource Service
It is up to us to draw the line in the sand once and for all on nuclear issues here in Illinois. We are the Thin Green Line.
Dave Kraft, Director
This September marks the 5th anniversary of the 9/11 attack. Five years into the alleged "war on terror", we cannot say with any certainty that nuclear reactors are intruder resistant, or that they could withstand an aircraft impact - either today's vintage aircraft or the new, larger ones planned - without releasing radiation into the environment. In fact there are serious reasons to believe that reactors remain susceptible to terrorist assaults - whether from land, sea, or air.
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the nuclear industry resisted making the changes needed to make reactors less vulnerable to the kinds of attacks possible. Last year Congressman Christopher Shays (R.-CT) observed that, "Rather than asking what security do we need, plant operators are asking how much security can we afford." We've been lucky the last five years. But in a war, you don't get "time outs" from the enemy to prepare or to hold public hearings and inconclusive debates. The clock is ticking ...
As we have done every year since 2002, NEIS will deliver our Nuclear Security Petitions to the Illinois Congressional delegation and to the Governor. In the past, these petitions have gone largely unacknowledged. However, recent terrorist plots in England and the upcoming 5thanniversary make it imperative that we be heard this time. With every reactor in Illinois and Western Michigan less than 28 minutes flight time to the World's busiest airport at O'Hare Field, we simply must take action and force meaningful change. Now.
We ask for your help in making this possible. NEIS is planning a press conference and petition drop on Monday, Sept. 11, 2006. We would like to have at least 5,000 signatures in hand by that date. We call on you to help gather these signatures calling for either real nuclear reactor security, or nuclear shut-down.
Please make a commitment to get at least one completed petition back to NEIS by Labor Day, Sept. 4th. Download the petition here, and get to work. Feel free to pass it along to others to distribute. If you live in another state, modify the petition to suit your local needs. The clock is ticking….
We will not enjoy the kinds of opportunities that this anniversary will provide any time soon again. And we may not be able to dodge bullets like we did in August the next time. We must succeed now. And only you can make this possible. As the saying goes, "If you support our work, then support our work!"
Thanks for all you can do to help prevent a nuclear 9/11 from occurring.
Gratefully,
Dave Kraft, Director
P.S. -- For more information, see our report, "Here Today, There Tomorrow: Commercial Nuclear Reactor Sites as Terrorist Targets"
Please forward! The House / Senate Conference Committee is not likely to
complete work until the end of October or early November, providing more time
for grassroots action!
ACTION ALERT:
Urge Congress to stop dangerous nuclear weapons and energy programs
Call your Senators and Representative at 202-224-3121 and urge them to contact the Chairmen of the Conference Committee, Senator Pete Domenici (R-NM) & Representative David Hobson (R-OH)
SUMMARY: Congress could save taxpayers nearly a billion dollars by simply agreeing to cuts already made in the House and Senate versions of the FY 2006 Energy & Water spending bill (H.R. 2419). The Chairmen of the Conference Committee have the most power over what cuts or increases survive in the final bill. Call your legislators and urge them to tell the Chairmen to accept the House and Senate funding cuts to nuclear weapons and energy programs while preserving the House increases to environmental cleanup and nuclear warhead dismantlement.
TIMING: Valid for the month of October, 2005.
BACKGROUND
Differences between the House and Senate versions of the Energy & Water spending bill must be worked out by a joint House-Senate Conference Committee. With the deficit over $330 billion, it is imperative that Congress approve the $1 billion in cuts to nuclear weapons and energy programs that were adopted earlier this year.
Budget cuts that we support include:
* $85 million for the Advanced Fuel Cycle Initiative, a dangerous and expensive return to REPROCESSING nuclear waste.
* $74 million from the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository;
* $303 million for plutonium fuel fabrication (MOX), a commercial reactor fuel;
* $7.6 million for a new plutonium bomb plant to mass-produce nuclear bomb triggers;
* $4 million for research into a nuclear bunker buster that has the potential of a million casualties but would be unable to penetrate many of the deepest targets;
* $25 million to increase the readiness to resume underground nuclear testing;
* $146 million for constructing the National Ignition Facility for nuclear weapons research;
Budget increases we support include:
* $115 million to dismantle nuclear warheads as pledged by the President following the Moscow Treaty;
* $190 million to the environmental cleanup budget for sites to adhere to legal obligations for cleanup of contamination from U.S. nuclear weapons production.
Alliance for Nuclear Accountability, 202.544.0217
You can also send a letter to your members of congress by going to the following
links:
Nuclear Age Peace Foundation has posted the alert on Capwiz (which has already
generated over 1,000 messages) at: http://capwiz.com/wagingpeace/mail/oneclick_compose/?alertid=8067771
Working Assets has posted a similar alert on its Act for Change site (which has already generated over 11,650 messages) at http://www.workingforchange.com/activism/action.cfm?itemid=19499
A postcard version of the alert is attached, which can be copied, cut and distributed at local events. The alert is posted online at http://www.ananuclear.org/action.html
See ANA’s radioactive pork report at http://www.ananuclear.org/topten2005.html
See sign-on letter from 44 national and local groups to Energy & Water Conferees at http://ananuclear.org/E%26Wletteroct305.html
_______________________________
This Alert originated with:
Jim Bridgman, Program Director
Alliance for Nuclear Accountability
322 4th Street, NE, WDC, 20002
202-544-0217 x3
FAX: 202-544-6143
jcbridgman@earthlink.net
www.ananuclear.org
Back to the top of this Page
Copyright 2004 - 2006 NEIS, Nuclear Energy Information Service
Last Revised
05/22/08