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

Fri Dec 7 17:12:47 EST 2007

I have sent this piece to Sen. Pat Leahy & Bernie Sanders.

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

Stannard Associates, Inc.

Robert J. Stannard, Pres

117 Sleepy Hollow Dr.

Manchester Center, Vt. 05255

802-362-3658 phone/fax

802-345-0786 cell

bob at bobstannard.com

Please note the change in E-mail Address and replace the old
stannard at sover.net address with the new bob at bobstannard.com

  _____  

From: nukenet-bounces at energyjustice.net
[mailto:nukenet-bounces at energyjustice.net] On Behalf Of Michael Mariotte
Sent: Friday, December 07, 2007 5:07 PM
To: nukenet at energyjustice.net
Subject: [NukeNet] Alert: Energy bill update;new nuclear loan guarantee
threat: Act now

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
<https://secure.campagne-online.com/registrant/donate.aspx?EventID=2927&Lang
Pref=en-CA> &LangPref=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/d4d0865a/attachment.html 