[NukeNet] Alert: Energy bill update; new nuclear loan guarantee threat: Act now

Fri Dec 7 17:06:44 EST 2007

YOU KEPT NUCLEAR LOAN GUARANTEES OUT OF THE ENERGY BILL!

NOW, ONE MORE TIME, LET'S STOP THEM ENTIRELY!

December 7, 2007

Dear Friends,

As you probably know, the U.S. House of Representatives has passed the
energy bill. I'm happy to tell you that the bill did not include the
onerous provision for virtually unlimited loan guarantees for new
nuclear reactors. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi did an excellent job of
ensuring that these guarantees were not in the final bill.

That's the good news. The unsurprising news is that Sen. Pete Domenici
(R-NM) is continuing his crusade to shower the nuclear power industry
with as much of your taxpayer money as he possibly can before he retires
next year. His new effort is to try to include $25 billion in taxpayer
loan guarantees on the upcoming Fiscal Year 2008 appropriations bill.

We stopped him on the energy bill. With your help, we can stop him now!

*Below is a sign-on letter to Congress. We encourage your organization
to sign on to this letter by 9 am Eastern Time, Wednesday, December 12.
To sign on, send your name, organization, city and state to
nirsnet at nirs.org.

*Individuals (and people representing organizations): please call your
Congressmembers, even if you have done so before, and tell them not to
accept any federal loan guarantees for nuclear power for FY 2008.
Capitol Switchboard: 202-224-3121. Your calls and actions have played
the pivotal role in stopping the loan guarantees in the energy bill-but
now we all need to act again.

*While the energy bill has passed the House, its future is uncertain in
the Senate. Already this morning, a minority of Senators stopped the
Senate from considering the bill. They don't like the idea of oil
companies being forced to pay their fair taxes, and, inexplicably, many
don't support the very modest renewable energy provision in the energy
bill-it calls for 15% renewable energy by 2020. This opens the door for
Senators to try to change the Senate version, in particular, for Sen.
Domenici to try to trade renewable energy support for nuclear loan
guarantee support! Call your Senators today (same number as above) and
tell them that an energy bill with nuclear loan guarantees is
unacceptable! You might also want to indicate your support for renewable
energy! It would be especially helpful to call those who voted against
the bill this morning (vote list is included below).

Thank you for your activism. It is certainly needed now.

Michael Mariotte

Executive Director

Nuclear Information and Resource Service

Sign-on letter to Congress. Please send your name, organization, city
and state to nirsnet at nirs.org to sign on to this letter.

December 12, 2007

Dear Congressmember:

We urge you to keep costly loan guarantees for nuclear power out of the
Energy and Water and omnibus appropriations bills. 

We understand from media reports that the Energy and Water
Appropriations conferees are considering $25 billion in loan guarantees
exclusively to the nuclear industry. The Administration proposed $9
billion for all energy loan guarantees and the House approved $7 billion
for all energy loan guarantees in FY 2008.  

There has been no Congressional debate or vote on this large sum of
money. There has also been no discussion or hearings on the implications
for other energy projects, if the $25 billion nuclear loan guarantee
package is passed. $25 billion is more than the entire annual budget for
the Department of Energy. Doesn't Congress have the obligation to debate
the ramifications of risking $25 billion?

Moreover, there is no hurry for a nuclear loan guarantee package: no
nuclear utilities will be in a position in 2008 to use any federal funds
for new reactor construction. Only four utilities so far have submitted
applications for new reactors and the NRC licensing process is expected
to take a minimum of 30 months for complete applications referencing
certified standardized reactor designs. But none of the applications has
been certified as complete by the NRC (Constellation Energy so far is
missing half its application; NRG Energy's application has deficiencies
the NRC projects will take a year to correct), and none of the
applications references a certified standardized reactor design (while
the NRG Energy application references a standardized design, NRG is
seeking 16 changes from the design as certified; TVA is seeking major
changes from its standardized design; while Constellation and Dominion
Resources are both seeking licensing of reactor decisions that have not
yet gone through the certification process). It will be at least 2011,
and probably later, before any utility can begin reactor construction. 

The cost of new atomic reactors, and thus the usefulness of loan
guarantees, is an issue that Congress has not yet fully explored. Cost
estimates by nuclear utilities for new reactors have essentially doubled
over the past two years, and are far above the $1,500-$2,000/kilowatt
price the Nuclear Energy Institute said in 2005 was necessary to make
nuclear power economically competitive. In October 2007, Moody's
Investor Service estimated that new reactors will cost far more than the
nuclear utilities have estimated. Indeed, Moody's estimates that new
U.S. reactors will cost from $5,000 to $6,000 per kilowatt. If Moody's
is correct, a 1,600 MW reactor such as that proposed by Constellation
for the Calvert Cliffs, Maryland site would cost from $8 to nearly $10
billion. Risking taxpayer funds on a project with such dubious
cost-effectiveness would be unwise-especially years before the funds
could actually be used. A full Congressional examination of nuclear
construction costs should be undertaken before large amounts of taxpayer
funds are risked.

The Energy Department's Office of Inspector General warned in September
that even $9 billion in loan guarantees proposed by the Department for
FY 2008 "will result in significant risk to the American taxpayer."
What would $25 billion mean to the American taxpayer, especially given
the skyrocketing cost estimates for new nuclear reactors?

Not only is the nuclear industry not ready to use loan guarantees, it is
far from clear that the Department of Energy is yet capable of managing
such an enormous program. By way of comparison, the U.S. Export-Import
Bank-staffed with recognized experts in banking and lending--reported
guaranteeing 736 loans valued at $8.2 billion in FY 2006. The Department
of Energy does not have a similar expertise.

We urge you to accept this summer's decision of the House Appropriations
Subcommittee on Energy and Water, which determined that no loan
guarantee funding should go for nuclear power projects in FY 2008. 

Sincerely,    

Michael Mariotte

Executive Director

Nuclear Information and Resource Service

--------------------------------------------------------------------

Vote list on Senate Energy Bill, December 7, 2007

(a "yes" vote was in favor of the energy bill and renewable energy; 60
votes were needed to continue consideration of the bill)

YEAs ---53 
Akaka (D-HI) 
Baucus (D-MT) 
Biden (D-DE) 
Bingaman (D-NM) 
Boxer (D-CA) 
Brown (D-OH) 
Cantwell (D-WA) 
Cardin (D-MD) 
Carper (D-DE) 
Casey (D-PA) 
Clinton (D-NY) 
Coleman (R-MN) 
Collins (R-ME) 
Conrad (D-ND) 
Dodd (D-CT) 
Dorgan (D-ND) 
Durbin (D-IL) 
Feingold (D-WI) 
Feinstein (D-CA) 
Harkin (D-IA) 
Inouye (D-HI) 
Johnson (D-SD) 
Kennedy (D-MA) 
Kerry (D-MA) 
Klobuchar (D-MN) 
Kohl (D-WI) 
Lautenberg (D-NJ) 
Leahy (D-VT) 
Levin (D-MI) 
Lieberman (ID-CT) 
Lincoln (D-AR) 
McCaskill (D-MO) 
Menendez (D-NJ) 
Mikulski (D-MD) 
Murray (D-WA) 
Nelson (D-FL) 
Nelson (D-NE) 
Obama (D-IL) 
Pryor (D-AR) 
Reed (D-RI) 
Reid (D-NV) 
Rockefeller (D-WV) 
Salazar (D-CO) 
Sanders (I-VT) 
Schumer (D-NY) 
Smith (R-OR) 
Snowe (R-ME) 
Stabenow (D-MI) 
Tester (D-MT) 
Thune (R-SD) 
Webb (D-VA) 
Whitehouse (D-RI) 
Wyden (D-OR)

NAYs ---42 
Alexander (R-TN) 
Allard (R-CO) 
Barrasso (R-WY) 
Bayh (D-IN) 
Bennett (R-UT) 
Bond (R-MO) 
Brownback (R-KS) 
Bunning (R-KY) 
Burr (R-NC) 
Byrd (D-WV) 
Chambliss (R-GA) 
Coburn (R-OK) 
Cochran (R-MS) 
Corker (R-TN) 
Cornyn (R-TX) 
Craig (R-ID) 
Crapo (R-ID) 
DeMint (R-SC) 
Dole (R-NC) 
Domenici (R-NM) 
Enzi (R-WY) 
Graham (R-SC) 
Grassley (R-IA) 
Gregg (R-NH) 
Hagel (R-NE) 
Hatch (R-UT) 
Inhofe (R-OK) 
Isakson (R-GA) 
Landrieu (D-LA) 
Lott (R-MS) 
Lugar (R-IN) 
McConnell (R-KY) 
Murkowski (R-AK) 
Roberts (R-KS) 
Sessions (R-AL) 
Shelby (R-AL) 

------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------People sometimes ask us why we
urge you to call your Congressmembers, rather than set up an e-mail form
for you to fill out. The reason is simple: we strongly believe your
phone calls are far more effective than e-mails. Congressmembers know it
takes little effort to send an e-mail; they are far more persuaded by
constituents who take the effort to call. Congressional offices receive
so many e-mails, they can't possibly read them, and often don't know
which side of the issue the e-mailer is supporting. Moreover, many
Congressmembers believe e-mail campaigns are rigged, or otherwise phony.

Consider these paragraphs from a Washington Post article on November 22,
2007: "A poll of 350 congressional staffers conducted by the
Congressional Management Institute in 2005 indicated that half of them
did not believe that form-letter messages were sent with the knowledge
or approval of constituents. 

Yet the volume of e-mail has skyrocketed. House and Senate offices last
year received 318 million electronic messages, up from 200 million
e-mails and postal letters in 2004."

Your phone calls are effective. Your e-mails to Congress often are not.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------

481 organizations have now signed the statement on nuclear power and
climate! Let's get to 500! Please check the list of organizational
signers (US: http://www.nirs.org/petition2/ussigners120507.pdf;
international: http://www.nirs.org/petition2/intsigners120507.pdf) and
if your organization hasn't signed, please do so at:
http://www.nirs.org/petition2/index.php. And if you haven't signed yet
personally, please sign (although please don't sign if you already
have)!

------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------

Finally, please consider making a tax-deductible contribution to NIRS
this holiday season. Your support enables us to do the outreach and
mobilization needed to stop a nuclear power resurgence and build a
sustainable, carbon-free, nuclear-free energy future. You can do so
safely on our secure website at:
https://secure.campagne-online.com/registrant/donate.aspx?EventID=2927&L
angPref=en-CA

------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------

This is the NIRS E-Mail Alert list. You are on this list because you
signed up on our website, at a NIRS table at a concert, on a petition,
or directly to NIRS. Your name and address are never sold, rented, or
traded with anyone for any reason.

For address changes or to unsubscribe, just send an e-mail to
nirsnet at nirs.org. If you have friends or colleagues who would like to be
on this list, have them send a note to nirsnet at nirs.org

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mail.energyjustice.net/pipermail/nukenet_energyjustice.net/attachments/20071207/b73c0fd7/attachment-0001.html 