(#10 Censored Story) New Nuke Plants: Taxpayers Support, Industry Profits

[Guest guest]

http://www.projectcensored.org/publications/2005/10.html

 

(#10 Censored Story) New Nuke Plants: Taxpayers

Support, Industry Profits

 

 

NUCLEAR INFORMATION AND RESOURCE SERVICE, November 17,

2003

Title: “Nuclear Energy Would Get $7.5 Billion in Tax

Subsides, US Taxpayers Would Fund Nuclear Monitor

Relapse If Energy Bill Passes”

Authors: Cindy Folkers and Michael Mariotte

 

WISE/NIRS NUCLEAR MONITOR, August 2003

Title: “US Senate Passes Pro-Nuclear Energy Bill”

Authors: Cindy Folkers and Michael Mariotte

 

Faculty Evaluators: Lynn Cominsky, Ph.D., Tamara

Falicov, Ph. D.

Student Researchers: Andrea Martini and John Hernandez

 

Senator Peter Domenici (R-NM), along with the Bush

Administration, is looking to give the nuclear power

industry a huge boost through the new Energy Policy

Act. The Domenici-sponsored bill will give nuclear

power plants a production credit for each unit of

energy produced. This provision, costing taxpayers an

estimated 7.5 billion dollars, will be used to build

six new privately owned, for-profit, reactors across

the country. This is in addition to the $4 billion

already provided for other nuclear energy programs.

 

Through the Energy Policy Act, Senator Domenici

intends to create more incentives for nuclear power.

It gives 1.1 billion dollars for the production of

hydrogen fuel and 2.7 billion for research and

development of new reactors under the Nuclear Power

2010 program. The Nuclear Power 2010 program is a

joint government/industry effort to identify sites for

new nuclear power plants and develop advanced nuclear

technologies. In 2003 Congress approved an amendment

to the Senate energy legislation, giving approximately

$35 million to the Nuclear Power 2010 program. The

program's aim is to advance and expand the nuclear

industry’s Vision 2020 policy, which has, as its goal,

the addition of 50,000 megawatts of atomic power

generation (i.e. 50 new reactors) by the year 2020.

Toward this effort, the bill provides new regulations

and subsidies to promote private sector investment by

2005 in order to get new power plants deployed in the

U.S. by 2010.

 

Total capital investment for a new nuclear reactor

could be in excess of $1.6 bilion dollars. The bill—

up for vote in Congress, will establish a " preferred

equity investment " provision requiring taxpayers to

back private investment in new facilities up to $200

million. The Nuclear Power bill provides a set volume

at which the government will buy power from nuclear

companies. Nuclear companies would charge the

government 50 percent above the market price and the

government would in turn resell the power to taxpayers

at higher than normal rates to make up for the

difference.

 

Domenici’s will allow leach mining of uranium and push

for more uranium enrichment facilities, maintaining

that they are necessary for energy production.

Although a new revision of the bill addresses some of

the environmental concerns of a number of Senators,

the charge is that this has been done simply to push

the Nuclear Program forward. The new bill still allows

depleted uranium to be treated as “low level” waste

and requires the Department of Energy to take

possession and dispose of waste generated at privately

owned facilities (at no cost to the owner). The bill

makes it easy to construct enrichment facilities by

speeding up the process and easing EPA regulations.

 

The Energy Policy Act’s promotion of enrichment

facilities is likely to benefit Louisiana Energy

Services, which is run by a European corporation,

Erenco. This corporation has made unsuccessful

attempts to build private uranium enrichment plants in

Louisiana and Tennessee and is looking to get a

license to build an enrichment plant in New Mexico,

Domenici's home state.

 

Finally, the bill will repeal a ban on exporting

highly enriched uranium to other countries, ignoring

provisions made in the House that protect against

terrorist attacks. The chance that nuclear bomb

material could fall into terrorist hands would be much

increased with an open market for highly enriched

uranium. Also, more reactors in the United States

provide terrorists with more targets. The current

Administration supports the expansion of nuclear

energy, yet has made no attempt to provide for its

safety or oversight under Homeland Security

legislation.

 

UPDATE BY: MICHAEL MARIOTTE AND CINDY FOLKERS: The

2003/2004 Bush Energy Bill has continued to stall in

the Senate despite use of several convoluted

legislative procedures to pass it. This legislation

was born from the secretive Cheney Energy task force

meetings, which have been the focus of much legal

action. The secrecy of this task force is renowned and

is yet another attempt by the Bush Administration to

cut off the public from government access. The energy

industry trade organization, Nuclear Energy Institute,

met with the task force more times than any other

single energy interest. It is no surprise that the

bill is loaded with tax breaks, subsidies and policy

initiatives for old energy sources, giving very little

to energy efficiency or renewable energy efforts. This

is an energy policy more suitable for 1960 and lacks

vision and any foundation for our energy independence.

 

Through the relentless efforts of NIRS and many other

national and local activists and environmental groups,

the Energy Bill (HR-6) was defeated on November 21,

2003 by a cloture vote of 57-40. Bill proponents could

not overcome a filibuster supported by both

Republicans and Democrats. The many controversial

provisions contained in HR 6, including the $6-15

billion tax production credit for new nuclear

reactors, made it unpopular among both parties. In

total, there was more to hate about this bill than to

like and it couldn’t even be brought to the floor for

a final vote.

 

In 2004 Senator Domenici introduced the energy bill

again as S 2095. This bill changed very little from

the original legislation. The notable exception is

that the nuclear tax production credits (PTC) were

excluded. But the bill still did not have the support

to pass the Senate so Domenici decided to split the

bill in two, attempting to pass the policy and tax

sections separately. NIRS is now in the process of

opposing these two bills. The policy portion of the

bill has failed at this point, but the tax portion of

S 2095 could still pass as an amendment to another

bill. Again, the nuclear PTC is not part of this

energy tax package, but Domenici has threatened to add

it separately. This tax credit will amount to at least

$6 billion and could reach as much as $15 or even $19

billion, according to estimates by EarthTrack.

 

Throughout this entire process, the press has covered

the overall bill, especially controversial

MTBE-related provisions, and numerous newspapers have

taken strong editorial stands against it. However,

virtually without exception these stories are/were

woefully silent on the bill’s nuclear provisions.

Since the PTC could be upwards of $15 billion in total

cost, it deserves the spotlight as yet another amazing

giveaway to the nuclear industry, this time to

initiate a nuclear resurgence with taxpayer-supported

construction of new reactors.

 

For more information, contact NIRS, 1424 16th Street,

NW, Suite 404, Washington, DC 20036. www.nirs.org;

202-328-0002, nirsnet

 

Or contact Public Citizen’s Critical Mass Energy and

Environment Program, 215 Pennsylvania Avenue, SE,

Washington, DC 20003, 202-546-4996,

www.citizen.org/cmep