Senate Budget Revives 'Nuclear Pork'
Nuclear energy advocates quietly slipped an extra $50 billion for an Energy Department program into the Senate's budget blueprint last week, giving new life to a provision that had been rejected as "nuclear pork" in February's economic stimulus bill.
Without debate, explanation or a recorded vote, senators accepted an amendment by Sen. Michael D. Crapo, Idaho Republican, to boost the department's "low-carbon" energy loan construction guarantee program by $50 billion over five years. The program would make it easier for the nuclear power industry to secure financing for plants, including the more than two dozen that are now pending.
The amendment is another challenge by the Democrat-led Senate to President Obama, whose energy policies have been antagonistic toward nuclear power. Part of a cluster of 15 changes proposed Thursday night at the tail end of the budget debate, the provision was offered on the Senate floor by Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad, North Dakota Democrat.
The same proposal was stripped from the stimulus bill after a leading environmental group, Friends of the Earth, called it a bailout for the nuclear power industry. At the time, the group ran ads attacking the sponsorship by Sen. Robert F. Bennett, Utah Republican, and called on Senate Appropriations Committee Chairman Daniel K. Inouye, Hawaii Democrat, and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, Nevada Democrat, to spurn the provision.
Friends of the Earth plans to lobby against the plan again. It says the measure's reappearance, even in its current nonbinding form in the Senate-passed budget resolution, is proof that its sponsors are determined to win the money this year.
"There is no question the nuclear industry is not giving up," said Nick Berning, a spokesman for Friends of the Earth. The industry's backers in the Senate, he said, are "trying again and we're going to fight it."
A spokesman for Mr. Crapo said the senator backed the amendment as a way to expand nuclear energy but noted that the Energy Department guarantee program, created in 2005, targets several so-called "clean energy" programs and does not favor nuclear power over other sources.
The program is designed to use taxpayer money only if utilities default on their loans. Still, the Congressional Budget Office estimates that the cost of the plan will be roughly $500 million over five years. Large defaults could push the price tag much higher, even though borrowers would have to pay fees to the federal government to obtain the loan guarantees and thus defray taxpayer costs.
The loan guarantee amendment was stripped from the stimulus bill in February at the insistence of House leaders. Its re-emergence in the Senate, as a nonbinding rider to the budget, is seen as a first step to inclusion in legislation later this year.
Mr. Crapo is one of several senators eager to expand the loan program. Sen. Byron L. Dorgan, North Dakota Democrat, and Sen. George V. Voinovich, Ohio Republican, included the measure in an energy proposal they announced last week.
Mr. Dorgan sits on the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee and chairs the appropriations subcommittee that oversees energy and water spending.
In the 2007-08 election cycle, electric utilities represented Mr. Dorgan's top contributor among industry sectors. Utility company political action committees and individuals associated with utility companies gave his campaign $181,326, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.
Mr. Dorgan's office declined to comment for this report.
Mr. Crapo, a member of the Senate Budget Committee, received $87,004 from utilities executives and PACs, the sixth-largest among his industry sector donors.
Mr. Dorgan drew up his energy legislation with the help of Securing America's Future Energy, or SAFE, which includes business executives and retired military leaders who advocate less reliance on foreign oil through expanded nuclear energy. The nonprofit organization, headed by FedEx Chairman Frederick W. Smith and retired Marine Corps Gen. P.X. Kelley, has called for additional guarantees for nuclear and "clean coal" technology.
"This proposal puts together a broader mosaic of what an energy plan would be to reduce the vulnerability of this country," Mr. Dorgan said at a news conference last week. Jonathan A. Grella, a spokesman for SAFE, said the legislation is not intended to benefit the nuclear industry alone.
"In terms of intentions, if we intended to make it specific, we would have picked a winner," he said.
The loan guarantee program was created to insure up to $38.5 billion in loans to 10 types of low-emissions energy projects, including "advanced nuclear energy projects," which refers to next-generation nuclear power plants.
The program, which is funded by user fees, did not issue any guarantees until this year, when the Obama administration pledged to begin acting on a backlog of applications. The Energy Department issued its first award last month to a solar panel manufacturer in California.
The chairman of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, Sen. Jeff Bingaman, New Mexico Democrat, has said he also wants to expand the scope of federal financing in the energy bill that his committee is writing.
A spokesman for the committee said Mr. Bingaman is working with the ranking Republican, Sen. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, on a measure to change the program into a "clean energy bank," an idea first proposed last year by Sen. Pete V. Domenici, a New Mexico Republican who has since retired.
Mr. Domenici maintained that the current loan guarantee program was subject to political influence and therefore was ineffective. His plan called for creating an independent entity to "level the playing field" among energy technologies and speed up the transition to low-carbon electricity.
Mitchell Singer, a spokesman for the Nuclear Energy Institute, which represents nuclear utilities, had no comment on the Dorgan-Voinovich bill or the Crapo amendment.
The industry has strongly supported federal loan guarantees to help it win financing for new nuclear plants, which can cost more than $10 billion for a single, moderate-sized 1,000-megawatt plant. The Energy Department's current loan guarantee authority includes $18.5 billion for nuclear financing.
Kevin Book, an industry analyst and consultant who has testified before Congress on the guarantee program, said climate and energy legislation headed for approval in Congress this year likely will include some kind of financing assistance for nuclear power but isn't likely to meet the industry's request. "Do I think they're going to get $50 billion? No," he said.
Twitter
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Newsvine
Google
Yahoo
Technorati
11 Comments so far
Show AllSenators and Congressmen need to have their terms in office limited too. This would cut down on corruption considerably. Senate and Congress are nothing more than vipers' nests, all happily scratching each other's backs. This is NOT the way to run a country.
Senators and Congresspeople already have their terms limited--by elections. Replacing a senior senator with a parade of faceless unknown junior senators who use corporate money to get name recognition and create a false persona every 8 or 10 years and are then indoctrinated and directed by durable corporate-friendly gatekeeping staffers and lobbyists will accomplish nothing--except to deprive us of the rare Barbara Boxers, Dennis Kucinichs, Henry Waxmans and Cynthia McKinneys (oops, sorry, gone already) we have. We don't need term limits, we need an intelligent, informed, emotionally healthy electorate. Help with that if you want to improve candidates.
If Shaw-Westinghouse-Toshiba are as well organized as they claim to be, it will debunk the common wisdom of nuclear being too expensive. The flip side of the recession is that materials costs are way down and sub-contractors are getting hungry. I have to agree the guarantees would really help, and come to think of it - the funds might not ever have to be spent.
I'm not knee-jerk anti nuke, but there are a lot of other "core climate solutions" such as CSP, smart grid, plug-in hybrids, wind, cogeneration, waste heat, insulation... that also deserve funding and guarantees.
If as you say, bbr, that costs to build plants are way down, then how come nuclear construction cost estimates by the utilities and the nuke industry have gone from $1,500 in 2006 to as high as $10,000 per kilowatt of electrical capacity?
The answer lies in the fact that it takes 10 years to build a nuke (actually more on average), and after the recession is over, the cost of nuclear steam supply systems, generators, labor, and more, will be high.
Nukes are very expensive to build. They are very expensive per kilowatt-hour, to the tune of 25 cents per kilowatt-hour or more, for future nukes. This compares with wind at 13 cents (including all costs to the ratepayer), and energy efficiency at 3 cents.
Nukes are very expensive up front in the short run (the 25 cent/KWH figure), and in the long range with waste costs (who knows how much it will cost for a million years of waste guarding?).
I don't believe the Obama administration is antagonistice towards nuclear. Chu is pretty much pro-nuclear. Neutral might be a better term.
Nuclear seems to be doing fine all by itself right now. The two leaders are Westinghouse and Areva. Think Boeing and Airbus. Their order books are filling up, and Westinghouse is already building standardized modular new generation plants. Costs will be coming down.
The government is supporting a large Gen IV and recycling research program in the national labs and affiliated universities, and this should continue only until the industry can support the resarch itself. The $50b would be much better used as start-up money for renewables projects.
bbr,
"antagonistice" is the perfect word for it--an armistice with bad feelings all around, kind of the way everything gets done in congress--media consolidation, bailouts, forced autoworker (outoworker?) concessions for autoexec crimes, etc. First they propose something inconceivably unjust and disastrous, then when people get riled up senators and representatives grandstand, bloviate and granfalloon (televised congressional hearings with 5-minute tag-team rules so anyone can avoid answering the real questions in the unlikely event they get asked.) When the public thinks it's all OK and the congress is on the case they sneak through a "compromise" that is virtually identical to the original.
Vote them all out. Go green next time.
bbr said: "Nuclear seems to be doing fine all by itself right now.'
bbr, With the current banking mess, it is going to be slow going for the new nuclear plants without loan guarantees. It won't stop them but it sure will slow them down.
If nuclear is going to play an expanded role in reducing the US's GHG emissions, we need to have the guarantees. We also need stiff carbon taxes.
On a brighter note, Southern has turned loose Shaw to start digging and construction for the Vogtle 3 and 4 reactors. (Without loan guarantees!)
Bill
I have recently read numerous reports of how Three Mile Island was under- reported by both the NRC and the state of Pennsylvania, "What happened at TMI was a whole lot worse than what has been reported," Randall Thompson said. "Hundreds of times worse."
Thompson and his wife, Joy, a nuclear health physicist who also worked at TMI in the disaster's aftermath, claim that what they witnessed there was a public health tragedy. The Thompsons also warn that the government's failure to acknowledge the full scope of the disaster is leading officials to underestimate the risks posed by a new generation of nuclear power plants. What the Thompsons say they found out during their time inside TMI suggests radiation releases from the plant were hundreds if not thousands of times higher than the government and industry have acknowledged -- high enough to cause the acute health effects documented in people living near the plant but that have been dismissed by the industry and the government as impossible given official radiation dose estimates. source http://www.southernstudies.org/2009/04/post-4.html or
http://www.stpns.net/view_article.html?articleId=107521732510654512305
Any nuclear renaissance is based on TMI's bad information from the NRC, etc.
"Nuclear Pork" would be a great band name. That is all.
This is total Crapo. Fifty billion for cancer forever increasing.
Just as the financial industry set themselves up to be too big to fail, and the pharmaceutical industry is setting themselves up to be too big to fail, the "$50 billion dollar energy department program" will be just the down payment on a multi-trillion dollar drain on the US treasury to bail out nuclear power projects that are too big to fail.
Grab your ankles America and become accustomed to a third world lifestyle.