French "nuclear miracle" plagued by fast-rising reactor costs and "crowding out" of renewables

A new study by Dr. Mark Cooper of Vermont Law School, released today, warns "it is highly unlikely that the problems of the nuclear industry will be solved by an infusion of federal loan guarantees and other subsidies to get the first plants in a new building cycle completed. U.S. policymakers should resist efforts to force the government into making large loans on terms that put taxpayers at risk in order to ‘save' a project or an industry that may not be salvageable." The press release contains a link to the executive summary and the full report. Steven Thomas of Greenwich University in London, expert on Electricite de France and Areva economic woes, joined Dr. Cooper for the press conference, a full audio recording of which can be found at www.nuclearbailout.org after 6 p.m. today.

"Alms for the Rich and Powerful"

A New York Times editorial has blasted the latest end run around campaign finance regulations, being carried out by Members of Congress and their friends in industry. It involves unlimited giving by companies to charities set up by U.S. Representatives and Senators, who then return the favor by supporting those companies' legislative agendas. The editorial cited the example of James Clyburn, the third most powerful Democrat in the House, stating: "...consider the dozen or so nuclear energy companies that were suddenly interested in financing scholarships for needy South Carolina students once Representative James Clyburn set up a charity to do so. The foundation holds an annual golf tournament and dinner at which corporate givers can hang around Mr. Clyburn, the Democratic whip, and donate to his favorite charity. Nuclear companies said openly they were happy to reward Mr. Clyburn for his support of their industry." These nuclear companies include: Fluor Daniel, Savannah River Remediation, Nuclear Innovation North America LLC, Nuclear Energy Institute, Shaw Areva Mox Services LLC, Duke Energy, Progress Energy, and SCANA. Several of those very companies are the same ones whose lobbyists are working the "halls of power" to secure nuclear loan guarantees and other subsidies worth tens or even hundreds of billions of dollars -- at taxpayer risk and expense -- for new reactors and other atomic facilities in the U.S.

How can "fiscal conservatives" support risky taxpayer loan guarantees for new reactors?!

Although it won't be known for sure until next month, Alaska's Republican U.S. Senator, Lisa Murkowski, may have just lost to "Tea Party" insurgent candidate Joe Miller in yesterday's primary elections. Murkowski, and her father and predecessor in the same U.S. Senate seat, Frank Murkowski, have been top pro-nuclear power champions from their perch atop the Senate's Energy and Natural Resources Committee dating back over a decade. (The elder Murkowski, in fact, was strongly criticized for nepotism when he, just elected Governor of Alaska, tapped his own daughter to fill his own just vacated U.S. Senate seat!) But Tea Party candidates, including kingmaker Sarah Palin herself, are very pro-nuclear power in their own right. For example, Tea Party candidate Sharon Angle in Nevada, challenging Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, has advocated reprocessing at Yucca Mountain in lieu of radioactive waste disposal there -- an activity that wouldn't require underground containers to eventually fail and leak over time, but would rather spew large amounts of harmful radioactivity directly into the environment in real time! And Palin herself, whose endorsement of Miller may have put him over the top in his campaign against Murkowski, has lambasted Reid and President Obama for their opposition to the Yucca dump in Nevada. So a Murkowski ouster may not signal any let up in pro-nuclear efforts to expand nuclear power and open radioactive waste dumps in the U.S. Senate, by any means, if they are simply replaced by equally pro-nuclear power Tea Party candidates! How Tea Party candidates can support taxpayer subsidies for new atomic reactors, and exorbitantly expensive government programs such as the Yucca Mountain dump or reprocessing facilities, given their supposed fiscal conservatism and concern for protecting taxpayers, is difficult to reconcile! Similar questions have been asked of currently serving supposedly "fiscal conseratives" in the U.S. Senate who also support massive taxpayer subsidies for new reactors in the form of risky federal loan guarantees.

"Energy Dept. ignores Obama's openness pledge," by Peter Bradford

Former Nuclear Regulatory Commissioner Peter Bradford has slammed the U.S. Department of Energy in a recent op-ed in the Madison, Wisconsin Cap Times for its secrecy surrounding federal loan guarantees for new atomic reactors. Bradford argues that such secrecy harms taxpayers, the renewable energy and energy efficiency industries, and public service commissions' ability to protect ratepayers. He should know, he used to chair the utility regulatory commissions for the States of New York and Maine. A year ago, a coalition of national environmental groups, including Beyond Nuclear, wrote the Energy Secretary, urging that the nuclear loan guarantee program be made open and transparent, in accord with President Obama's calls for such on his very fist day in office.

Kerry-Lieberman bill averted for now, but "energy-only bill" nuclear threats persist in U.S. Senate

Democratic Party leaders have indefinitely postponed the Kerry-Lieberman “American Power Act” climate-energy bill, due to lock-step Republican opposition to carbon cap “energy taxation,” but nuclear power subsidies must still be vigilantly guarded against in other legislation.

The Kerry-Lieberman "American Power Act" would have subsidized new atomic reactors in various ways, including raising nuclear power loan guarantee funding levels to $54.5 billion, as called for by the Obama administration. In addition, Kerry-Lieberman would have introduced a number of significant rollbacks on nuclear safety regulations. Analyses by NRDC, PSR, FOE, and UCS have highlighted numerous environmental and taxpayer concerns with the bill. NIRS has reported on how the nuclear loan guarantees would actually benefit foreign firms and workers, not American firms and workers, despite the financial risks being borne by American taxpayers. Despite Kerry-Lieberman's postponement, attachment of such provisions to other bills that are moving must still be guarded against.

However, the Senate has not recessed for its annual summer getaway from Washington D.C.'s blistering heat and humidity yet, and won't till August 7th. Thus, we must remain vigilant against any attempts by the politically savvy and powerful nuclear power industry to attach its mile-long-wish-list to another package of energy legislation that might reach the Senate floor, including by amendments offered by pro-nuclear Senators.

One bill to continue to watch out for is Sen. Bingaman's "American Clean Energy Leadership Act" (ACELA), which passed the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee in June 2009. It contains unlimited nuclear power loan guarantees, without congressional appropriations oversight.

Appropriations bills in both houses of Congress must also be watched out for. The House of Representatives passed $9 billion in nuclear loan guarantees on the emergency supplemental war and disaster relief funding bill on July 1st. The House Energy and Water Appropriations subcommittee also recently passed $25 billion in nuclear loan guarantees on its Fiscal Year 2011 Energy and Water Appropriations bill. If ultimately enacted into law, this would add up to the $34 billion in expanded nuclear loan guarantees called for by the Obama administration for FY2011.

Although final Senate action on such provisions is still pending, the Senate Appropriations Committee today did approve another $10 billion in nuclear loan guarantees.

It's ironic that the House and Senate continue to lard radioactive pork, in the form of nuclear loan guarantees, onto appropriations, climate and energy bills, given the U.S. Government Accountability Office's scathing report on the failing state of the Department of Energy Loan Guarantee Program. This includes the finding that DOE has given significant and undue advantage to nuclear power applicants, over other applicants.  Nuclear power subsidies even seem to be given priority over such basic societal needs as teachers' salaries, as pointed out by FOE.

As these appropriations bills continue to make their way through each house of Congress, and eventually merge in conference committee, we must continue to express our opposition to nuclear power subsidies at every turn.

Call both your U.S. Senators and Representative via the Capitol Switchboard at (202) 224-3121. At the Library of Congress website, you can also look up your Members' fax numbers and postal addresses for submitting hand written letters, as well as their webform for submitting electronic mail: click on "Senate" and "House of Representatives" on the left hand side, to look up your own Members of Congress.

Urge them to block any nuclear power subsidies, or nuclear safety regulation rollbacks, from being added to any energy or appropriations legislation. Gather together a group of concerned citizens, or representatives of environmental and taxpayer groups in your area, and request a meeting with both of your Senators, as well as your U.S. Representative, during their visit home during the August congressional recess. If your Members of Congress say they are too busy to meet with you, request to meet with their staff instead. Contact Kevin Kamps at Beyond Nuclear, (301) 270-2209 ext. 1 or kevin@beyondnuclear.org, if you have any questions about how to set up a meeting with congressional home-district offices.