October, 06 2011, 03:50pm EDT
For Immediate Release
Contact:
Elliott Negin,Media Director,enegin@ucsusa.org
Energy Efficiency, Renewable Energy Cheaper and Safer than Building New Nuclear Plants in Florida and Georgia, Report Finds
According to a new report, ratepayers in Florida and Georgia would be better served by investments in energy efficiency and renewable energy resources, rather than building new nuclear reactors in those states. The report, "Big Risks, Better Alternatives," (PDF) was released today by Synapse Energy Economics, a Cambridge, Massachusetts-based consulting and research firm.
WASHINGTON
According to a new report, ratepayers in Florida and Georgia would be better served by investments in energy efficiency and renewable energy resources, rather than building new nuclear reactors in those states. The report, "Big Risks, Better Alternatives," (PDF) was released today by Synapse Energy Economics, a Cambridge, Massachusetts-based consulting and research firm.
The report, prepared for the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS), takes a close look at two nuclear power projects: Progress Energy's proposal to build Levy 1 and 2 in Florida, and a Georgia Power-led consortium plan to build two new reactors, Vogtle 3 and 4, at an existing nuclear power facility in Georgia. Both projects were proposed in 2006 to meet then-anticipated growth in electricity demand.
The report evaluates both nuclear projects and compares them with other low-carbon alternatives that could meet projected consumer demand at lower cost and risk.
"The report shows that there are major risks associated with the construction of both the Levy and Vogtle projects," said Ellen Vancko, UCS's nuclear energy and climate change project manager. "They include cost escalation, construction and regulatory delays, and lack of transparency, all of which could lead to much higher costs for Georgia and Florida ratepayers."
The two projects provide illuminating case studies for the next phase of nuclear power production in the United States. They both would use the same reactor design--the new, untested Westinghouse AP1000--and are located in states that allow utilities to recover costs from ratepayers years before reactors actually produce electricity.
They represent different construction scenarios, however. Levy 1 and 2 would be a new "greenfield" power plant that would not begin to operate until sometime after 2021; the Vogtle project is an expansion of an existing plant that is projected to become operational around 2016. They also have different financing mechanisms. The Vogtle project will receive two federal subsidies: an $8.3 billion loan guarantee and production tax credits. Progress ratepayers would cover all of the Levy project's costs.
If history is any guide, the cost estimates for both plants are likely to increase dramatically over time, Vancko said. The anticipated cost and rate impact for the Vogtle project, in particular, could increase significantly. Georgia Power routinely cites outdated cost estimates despite significant changes in economic and regulatory conditions over the past five years. At the same time, the company has refused to publicly disclose cost and schedule data for the project, hindering any independent analysis of the company's justification for building the two new reactors.
"This lack of transparency, combined with the fact that nuclear cost estimates have skyrocketed since the plant was first announced, puts Georgia Power ratepayers at significant risk for major price hikes in the coming years," Vancko said.
The Synapse report found that other options are readily available in Florida and Georgia that could meet energy demand and be implemented at a lower cost with far less risk to ratepayers. Energy sales growth in both states has slowed considerably compared with earlier company projections, making it possible to meet future retail energy sales growth through increased energy efficiency and renewable energy development.
The Synapse analysis found that both Florida and Georgia have significant room to improve their energy efficiency investments. In 2010, Georgia ranked 37th and Florida ranked 30th among the states across six energy efficiency categories.
The Florida Public Service Commission (PSC) recently approved a significantly scaled-back demand-side management plan for Progress Energy that will capture at most 2 percent energy savings over a 10-year period. If Progress Energy were to pursue an efficiency target of 15 percent cumulative load reduction over the same time frame, it could maintain its energy load below peak 2006 levels based on its 2010 forecast retail sales. Georgia Power, meanwhile, has no energy efficiency targets, although the state has large, untapped energy efficiency potential.
Both Florida and Georgia also have significant potential to develop renewable energy resources, but neither state has meaningful renewable energy standards. Studies have shown that achievable renewable capacity in Florida could account for 4 to 16 percent of electricity sales in 2020, while the renewable energy potential in Georgia could meet much of the state's future energy needs--as much as 27 percent of 2008 retail electricity sales.
Available efficiency and renewable alternatives are not only capable of meeting projected demand growth for each state at a lower cost than adding new nuclear capacity, they also would reduce each state's carbon emissions. Neither Florida nor Georgia have established carbon-reduction goals, Vancko pointed out, but the ability of clean energy resources to reduce these emissions is an important consideration when comparing the overall impact of these options with the proposed nuclear projects. The Synapse analysis shows that CO2 abatement through energy efficiency, natural gas and some renewable energy options would be less expensive and much less risky than increasing either state's reliance on nuclear energy.
"We can't know with certainty the final cost of any of the options we evaluated in this report, but we do know that the overall trend for nuclear projects--and other large-scale construction projects for that matter--is one of increasing costs, while the overall trend for energy efficiency and renewable energy projects is one of decreasing costs," said Max Chang, the Synapse report's lead author. "Florida and Georgia policy makers should reexamine their decision to place the considerable risks of new nuclear construction on ratepayers when there are cost-effective, environmentally sustainable alternatives available to meet their states' energy needs. Pursuing these alternatives would enable Florida and Georgia to reliably meet demand growth and reduce carbon emissions at lower cost and with less risk than those posed by the proposed Levy and Vogtle projects."
The Union of Concerned Scientists is the leading science-based nonprofit working for a healthy environment and a safer world. UCS combines independent scientific research and citizen action to develop innovative, practical solutions and to secure responsible changes in government policy, corporate practices, and consumer choices.
LATEST NEWS
Extending Trump Tax Cuts Would Add $4.6 Trillion to Deficit: CBO
"We can't afford 10 more years of giveaways to the wealthy and corporations and fail to invest in the people who drive our economy," said the head of Groundwork Collaborative. "This tax law should expire."
May 08, 2024
As former U.S. President Donald Trump and congressional Republicans campaign on extending their 2017 tax cuts if elected in November, a government analysis revealed Wednesday that doing so would add $4.6 trillion to the national deficit.
When Trump signed the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act during his first term, the initial estimated cost was $1.9 trillion. Last year, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projected that extending policies set to expire next year would cost $3.5 trillion through 2033.
The new CBO report—sought by U.S. Senate Budget Committee Chair Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) and Senate Finance Committee Chair Ron Wyden (D-Ore.)—says continuing the income, business, and estate tax cuts will now cost $4.6 trillion through 2034.
"The Republican tax plan is to double down on Trump's handouts to corporations and the wealthy, run the deficit into the stratosphere, and make it impossible to save Medicare and Social Security or help families with the cost of living in America."
Responding in a statement Wednesday, the senators cited an Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy (ITEP) estimate that "extending the Trump tax cuts would create a $112.6 billion windfall for the top 5% of income earners in the first year alone."
They also slammed their GOP colleagues, who Whitehouse said "are awfully eager to shield their megadonors from paying taxes."
He recalled that just last year, "Republicans held our entire economy hostage," refusing to raise the debt ceiling and risking the first-ever U.S. default, because they didn't want the Internal Revenue Service to get more funding to "go after wealthy tax cheats."
"Remember the Trump tax scam cutting taxes for billionaires and big corporations," Whitehouse continued. "Now they're set on extending those tax cuts, even though it would blow up the deficit. The Trump tax cuts were a gift to the ultrarich and a rotten deal for American families and small businesses. With their impending expiration, we have a chance to undo the damage, fix our corrupted tax code, and have big corporations and the ultrawealthy begin to pay their fair share."
Wyden similarly took aim at the GOP, warning that "the Republican tax plan is to double down on Trump's handouts to corporations and the wealthy, run the deficit into the stratosphere, and make it impossible to save Medicare and Social Security or help families with the cost of living in America."
"Republicans have planned all along on making Trump's tax handouts to the rich permanent, but they hid the true cost with timing gimmicks and a 2025 deadline that threatens the middle class with an automatic tax hike if they don't get what they want," he argued. "In short, they're focused on helping the rich get richer, and everybody else can go pound sand. Democrats are going to stand by our commitment to protect the middle class while ensuring that corporations and the wealthy pay a fair share."
Groundwork Collaborative executive director Lindsay Owens also responded critically to the CBO report, saying Wednesday that "extending Trump's tax law and effectively subsidizing corporate profiteering and billionaire wealth is a nonstarter."
"This tax law, on top of decades of failed trickle-down cuts, has come at the expense of workers and families," Owens stressed. "We can't afford 10 more years of giveaways to the wealthy and corporations and fail to invest in the people who drive our economy. This tax law should expire."
While some of the tax cuts in the 2017 law are temporary—unless they get extended—the legislation permanently slashed the statutory corporate tax rate from 35% to 21%. As Common Dreamsreported last week, a new ITEP analysis shows that tax rates paid by big and consistently profitable corporations dropped from 22% to 12.8% after the law's enactment.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Sanders, Khanna Lead Push to Tackle Medical Debt Crushing US Workers
"The time has come to cancel all medical debt and guarantee healthcare to all as a human right, not a privilege," said Sen. Bernie Sanders.
May 08, 2024
A quartet of progressive U.S. lawmakers on Wednesday introduced bicameral legislation "to eliminate all $220 billion in medical debt held by millions of Americans, wipe it from credit reports, and drastically limit the accrual of future medical debt."
The Medical Debt Cancellation Act—introduced by Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.), Sen. Jeff Merkely (D-Ore.), and Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.)—is a four-point plan for ending the medical debt that's crushing so many working-class Americans.
"Our current healthcare system is bankrupting Americans."
"The medical debt crisis has exploded in recent years, decimating Americans' bank accounts and deterring them from seeking healthcare," Sanders' office said in a statement. "Among all working-age adults in the United States, an estimated 27% are currently carrying medical debt of more than $500, and 15% have medical debt loads of $2,000 or more."
If passed, the Medical Debt Cancellation Act would:
- Amend the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, making it illegal to collect medical debt incurred prior to the bill's enactment and creating a private right of action for patients;
- Amend the Fair Consumer Credit Reporting Act, effectively wiping medical debt from credit reports by preventing credit reporting agencies from reporting information related to debt that arose from medical expenses;
- Create a grant program within the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services to cancel medical debt, prioritizing low-resource providers and vulnerable populations; and
- Amend the Public Health Service Act, updating billing and debt collection requirements to limit the potential for future debt to be incurred.
"This is the United States of America, the richest country in the history of the world," said Sanders. "People in our country should not be going bankrupt because they got cancer and could not afford to pay their medical bills. No one in America should face financial ruin because of the outrageous cost of an unexpected medical emergency or a hospital stay."
But many do. In 2018 alone, 8 million people in the U.S. were driven into poverty due to medical debt. According to Sanders' office, nearly three-quarters of U.S. adults say they are worried about unexpected medical bills and nearly 1 in 4 people report having foregone medical treatment over cost concerns—including almost 20% of adults covered by health insurance.
"The time has come to cancel all medical debt and guarantee healthcare to all as a human right, not a privilege," said Sanders, a longtime proponent for Medicare for All in the only industrialized nation without universal coverage.
Khanna lamented that "our current healthcare system is bankrupting Americans."
"I've heard heartbreaking stories from constituents who have skipped doctor's appointments due to cost, who have lost loved ones because they couldn't afford their medication, and who aren't able to buy a house or get a job because of crippling medical debt," the congressman said.
"I'm so proud to join Sen. Sanders to cancel medical debt, wipe it from credit reports, and reform our system going forward," he added. "This bill would transform the lives of millions of Americans and I couldn't ask for a better partner in the fight."
This isn't Congress' first attempt to address the issue of medical debt. Last year, Tlaib
introduced the Restoring Unfairly Impaired Credit and Protecting Consumers Act, which would reduce the amount of time that negative information remains on a credit report from seven years to four and compel reporting agencies to erase adverse data stemming from "predatory loans and fraudulent activity."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Study Links Abortion Restrictions and Intimate Partner Homicide
"In thinking about pregnancy itself as a risk factor for homicide, it follows that the ability to prevent or end a pregnancy" could have "immediate implications" for the safety of pregnant people, said one researcher.
May 08, 2024
A new study links abortion restrictions to an increased risk that pregnant people will be murdered by their intimate partners—and since researchers examined laws that were in place before the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade and cleared the way for statewide abortion bans, the authors warn that the threat may be even greater than the analysis shows.
In the study released Monday, researchers at Tulane University looked at five separate abortion restrictions and compared them to the intimate partner homicide rates reported by the National Violent Death Reporting System at the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
For each of the abortion restrictions, all of which were in place from 2014-22, the rate of intimate partner homicide among women and girls of reproductive age rose 3.4%.
The researchers found that extrapolated across the United States, an additional 24 women were killed by their intimate partners over the time period.
The study controlled for domestic violence risk factors including income inequality and gun ownership.
Intimate partner homicide is "consistently among the leading causes of death in pregnant and postpartum people," lead author Maeve Wallace, an associate professor at Tulane, toldThe Guardian.
Because it is still relatively rare, however, the research team used girls and women of reproductive age as a proxy for victims of violence who were likely pregnant or postpartum.
"In thinking about pregnancy itself as a risk factor for homicide, it follows that the ability to prevent or end a pregnancy" could have "immediate implications" for the safety of pregnant people in states with severe abortion restrictions and bans, Wallace told The Guardian.
The newspaper reported that the research "is almost certainly an underestimate of the potential risk to pregnant and postpartum women, because intimate partner violence is generally underreported."
The study is the latest research illustrating "the horrific reality for women in America," said U.S. Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.).
Another study published in the Journal of the American College of Surgeons in February found a 75% higher rate of peripartum homicide—the murder of a pregnant person or within a year of their giving birth—in states that restricted abortion access from 2018-20.
Reproductive justice advocates have pointed out that at least four states with abortion bans in place also ban divorce for married people who are pregnant.
"An abusive partner oftentimes views pregnancy as a loss of control, that their victim will now not be solely dedicated to them but will have somebody else that diverts their attention away from the abusive partner," Crystal Justice, chief external affairs officer at the National Domestic Violence Hotline, told The 19th last month after the Arizona Supreme Court reinstated an 1864 abortion ban, which has since been repealed by state lawmakers but still could be in effect for part of this year.
"Not only is the state now saying with this harmful and antiquated law that you must stay pregnant against your will," Justice said, but "during that pregnancy, the state is not going to let you legally divorce your abusive partner. I can't think of anything more outrageous or cruel."
The U.S. National Domestic Violence Hotline can be reached at 1-800-799-SAFE (7233), by texting "START" to 88788, or through chat at thehotline.org. It offers 24/7, free, and confidential support. DomesticShelters.org has a list of global and national resources.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular