Archive for the ‘News’ Category

January 11, 2010

By KATHERINE LING
Greenwire

While President Obama’s fiscal 2011 budget proposal is expected to sound a death knell for the planned Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository, the administration has so far failed to launch the blue-ribbon commission it promised almost a year ago to decide on a waste-disposal alternative.

Hanging in the balance is 60,000 metric tons of commercial and defense nuclear waste.

"I find it quite disconcerting that a commission with a proper broad charter to look at this problem hasn’t been created," said Arjun Makhijani, president of Institute for Energy and Environmental Research, a nonprofit opposed to nuclear power.

"I think the bigger danger is that inaction will simply lead us back to Yucca Mountain," Makhijani said, adding, "Leaving the problem to fester is not good."

No one expected the issue would be left to fester last February when Obama dramatically cut funding for the Nevada repository in his fiscal 2010 budget request and announced his intention to form a commission to chart an alternative waste-management solution. Energy Secretary Steven Chu quickly followed up, telling Congress last March that the commission would be formed "ideally" within a month and would craft recommendations by the end of 2009.

Last week, Chu responded to questions about the commission by saying the Energy Department is "working as hard and fast as we can on that."

The lawmaker who has led opposition to the Yucca project, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), is confident that the administration’s delay won’t translate into a revival of the Nevada project. "The administration has been very clear that Yucca will never be built," Reid spokeswoman Regan Lachapelle said. "Senator Reid understands that it takes time to assemble the highly qualified people needed to determine how best to dispose of the nation’s nuclear waste."

But despite agreements between Reid and the administration, Yucca Mountain remains — by law — the disposal site for U.S. nuclear waste. The DOE repository license has not been withdrawn, nor has the department moved to do so, according to an industry source. Meanwhile, Reid is facing a tough re-election battle this year.

Moreover, some say that disagreement over whether the blue-ribbon panel should consider Yucca Mountain as a potential waste management solution is one reason the administration has taken so long to get the commission going. Qualified candidates, several sources say, do not agree Yucca should be taken off the table.

"I think it is too early to predict what the long-term prospects for Yucca Mountain will be, but the project certainly appears to be near death right now," said Ed Lyman, a senior scientist for the nonprofit Union of Concerned Scientists.

"Ultimately, the U.S. will have to restart the siting process for a nuclear waste repository, and whether Yucca Mountain will be a viable candidate again remains to be seen, given its technical and political challenges."

Ramifications

Lyman said the Yucca project suspension "has created a vacuum in the nation’s nuclear waste disposal policy that is allowing a lot of silly ideas … to flourish." Among those ideas, he said, is a push for reprocessing spent fuel.

Meanwhile, Lyman said, new nuclear power plants are being proposed that will create even more waste than the nation’s fleet of 104 reactors.

"It will be a risky proposition if the U.S. goes forward with the construction of a large number of new nuclear plants if there is no credible plan to safely dispose of the waste they will generate, and development of such a plan will take time and effort," Lyman said.

On the other hand, Derrick Freeman, senior director of legislative programs at the Nuclear Energy Institute, maintains that the delay in getting the commission launched should not affect the power industry’s plans for more plants, since the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has ruled that plants’ waste may be stored on-site for at least 100 years.

But while the federal efforts lag, the industry — and therefore its customers — is still paying fees on electricity generated by nuclear plants into a waste fund that currently has no objective. The industry wants that to end.

"Yucca has been something that DOE has been working on for the last 20 years, funded through our fees, and now we continue to pay fees into the waste fund," Freeman said. "If the administration does defund or eliminate Yucca, we should be able to suspend our fees or put them into an escrow account."

Several Republicans, including Sen. John McCain of Arizona, have introduced measures to do just that, but to no avail. The problem: The fees — worth about $750 million a year — go to the Treasury. Take them away and Congress would need to cut spending or find alternative sources of revenue. On paper, the waste fund is worth about $25 billion.

Another financial ramification of delay is the increasing federal financial liability.

Under DOE’s contract with utilities, the government was supposed to have started taking spent fuel from power plants by 1998. Utilities have so far recovered more than $7 billion for the partial breach of contract from Treasury’s general judgment fund.

A key question: Would a federal defunding of the Yucca Mountain project without providing an alternative mean the government has breached the utility contract? NEI is examining the matter and has not ruled out taking legal action.

There are also nine power plants that have been decommissioned but still have 2,800 metric tons of on-site used fuel, said Brian O’Connell, director of the nuclear waste program at the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners.

"The properties would otherwise be turned back for productive use but for the stranded nuclear waste," O’Connell said. "We subscribe to the belief that it is economic and safer to collect all that stuff in the nine locations and put them in a central site that is better designed, managed and operated for that purpose."

‘Not some political football’

While a federal commission should be formed quickly to address questions of waste storage, financial liability and a final depository, most experts say determining a U.S. course on nuclear waste should not be hasty.

An energy bill that cleared the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee last year requires the blue-ribbon commission to provide a report within two years of its establishment. While some Republicans pushed for a six-month timeline, Chairman Jeff Bingaman (D-N.M.) said that was too little time.

IEER’s Makhijani and others agree, although Makhijani said the commission should not be part of any energy bill.

"This is a serious thing. This is not some political football," he said.

The panel should examine a wide range of issues for a repository before considering any dump site, Makhijani said. Such an examination would require scientists, engineers and policy experts. But companies and groups with stakes in the issue say they are in the dark as to who might be asked to join the panel.

Among the names being floated for the commission: former Rep. Lee Hamilton (D-Ind.), who has participated in several commissions, including the Iraq Study Group, and is now president and director of the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, and Shirley Ann Jackson, a former NRC chairwoman and current president of Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute.

Another big question about the commission: Would it be established under the Federal Advisory Committee Act, which requires a public record and hearings, and formally provides its report to Congress? The 9/11 Commission, which Hamilton co-chaired, worked under that law.

The panel could also be established through executive branch authority. The energy advisory committee headed by then-Vice President Dick Cheney worked that way. It was the subject of much controversy and lawsuits regarding the participants in the dozens of private meetings held before the final report — which heavily influenced the 2001 and 2005 energy bills — was published in 2001.

Copyright 2010 E&E Publishing. All Rights Reserved.

For more news on energy and the environment, visit www.greenwire.com.

January 11, 2010

By Anton Caputo
San Antonio Express-News

CPS Energy acting General Manager Jelynne LeBlanc-Burley walked out of Monday talks aimed at settling the $32 billion nuclear project lawsuit and said she questioned whether the other side took the negotiations seriously.

LeBlanc-Burley exited the Westin River Walk Hotel, where the discussions took place, after making a short statement noting that neither Nuclear Innovation North America CEO Steve Winn nor NRG Energy CEO David Crane made the trip to San Antonio.

"Obviously they had better things to do," LeBlanc-Burley said. "I find it unacceptable that they are not here."

Monday’s meeting was set up by Mayor Julián Castro last week. Castro urged the sides to engage in round-the-clock negotiations if necessary to settle the suit.

In LeBlanc-Burley’s absence, the partners’ legal teams continued negotiations behind closed doors.

CPS is suing NINA, which is a partnership between NRG Energy and Toshiba Inc., for $32 billion. The utility claims that NINA, NRG and Toshiba lured CPS into the project through "fraudulent, defamatory and illegal conduct" and then tried to push out CPS by disseminating false information in the press.

NRG spokesman David Knox said the two sides actually began talking last Thursday in Washington, D.C., and that NINA appropriately sent the same team to San Antonio to continue the negotiations. NINA sent General Counsel Jamie Seely and Chief Financial Officer Bruce Chung to the discussions.

"This is not about senior leadership being in the room but about commitment to get results in complex negotiations," Knox said. "We have that commitment and our team is fully empowered to negotiate."

Castro declined comment on the situation.

Monday, January 11, 2010

By Mike Reddell
Bay City Tribune

Matagorda County is tied to a pair of billion-dollar-plus lawsuits filed by the City of San Antonio.s two utilities . CPS Energy and the San Antonio Water System (SAWS).

The SAWS breach of contract lawsuit against the Lower Colorado River Authority for $1.23 billion last year was the first.

The most recent came in December when CPS sued Nuclear Innovation North America (NINA) – a joint venture of NRG and Toshiba – for $32 billion in a contractual battle over new units 3 and 4 at STP.

CPS and NRG both are partners in STP units 1 and 2, as well as units 3 and 4. Toshiba is the manufacturer of the two new reactors.

The San Antonio Business Journal reported the dispute surfaced over the cost estimates for the two new STP reactors and CPS filed its original lawsuit against NINA Dec. 6.

CPS Energy claims the estimate was $4 billion higher than expected, the Journal said.

In its answer to the lawsuit, NINA counters that the CPS litigation is delaying the project and wants the utility to either commit to funding the project or withdraw, the Journal also reported.

When San Antonio city council first reacted to the estimates, its anger was first directed at CPS for not keeping council duly updated.

San Antonio city council was to take up discussions about investing in units 3 and 4 in January. Some San Antonio officials are pushing the city to alternatives other than nuclear.

STP itself is a neutral party in all of this.

The SAWS lawsuit against LCRA came about in 2009 because the river authority determined there wouldn’t be enough water in the lower Colorado River basin in future years to participate in a water-sharing deal with San Antonio and to accommodate residential and economic development in the lower river basin, including Matagorda County.

December 27, 2009

Jan Jarboe Russell
San Antonio Express-News

In 2009, the local political sleeper was – drumroll, please –District 8 Councilman Reed Williams.

Williams was anything but a brand name when he was elected. He’d worked 35 years in the oil industry but wasn’t part of the small clique of local business leaders who regularly influence City Hall.

At 62, Williams has an unassuming demeanor and zero political ambitions. Yet when it came to the debate over expansion of the South Texas Project, he played a critical behind-the-scenes role. He offered expertise and common sense that has made him a key voice in charting the city’s energy future.

He started out inclined to support the nuclear expansion. When he had an interview with the Sierra Club during the campaign, one of the leaders asked where he and the organization would differ.

Since he isn’t a politician by nature, Williams didn’t obfuscate but told the plain truth: "We’ll probably part ways on the nuclear project."
Once elected, he set aside his bias and began to look at the project in a disciplined manner. He and a friend locked themselves away and methodically worked through CPS Energy’s numbers. Williams did not like what he found: The model was too complex, the project was loaded with risks, and NRG, the utility’s partner, had what Williams considered a home-team advantage.

Normally, City Council members depend on briefing sessions from experts to educate them on issues. In other words, they are passive. Williams got active, treating the nuclear deal as if it were his own business deal.

He asked questions that helped define the debate at City Hall and CPS Energy, and he constructed his own financial model for the nuclear expansion, complete with risk analysis. When the estimates for the expansion were at $10 billion, Williams said it made economic sense – barely.

Given the risks, he emerged as Mayor Julián Castro’s most effective ally in urging CPS Energy to sell down its share of the expansion from 40 percent to 20 percent or lower.

Once it became public that CPS Energy withheld a $4 billion increase in the cost estimate – and that number continues to go up – Williams no longer believed the expansion made economic sense. As a speculator, he believes natural gas is a better fix.

After all, a major part of the rationale for the nuclear expansion, that San Antonio would need more generating capacity by 2016, no longer exists. Now, CPS Energy says it won’t need extra capacity until 2023.

"We don’t have to get in a big hurry to find another source," drawled Williams, who is given to folksy talk. "We can just sit on our rear ends awhile."

Beyond his influence on the most important local issue of 2009, Williams offers a new model of leadership. He’s proof that you don’t have to be a household name, have a long track record in politics or have a fixed agenda to change things.

Too often in San Antonio, the tendency is to rely on the same cast of characters – seasoned politicians and activists, well-connected business people, paid lobbyists – to solve problems.

Maybe we need more rookies.

December 24, 2009

By MATTHEW L. WALD
New York Times

WASHINGTON – When experts on power grid reliability asked themselves recently how a cleaner energy future would look, seven of eight regional councils imagined how their systems would work with 10 percent wind power.

Only one, representing the southeastern United States, chose a radically different option: doubling nuclear power capacity.

Thirty years after the American nuclear industry abandoned scores of half-built plants because of soaring costs and operating problems like the Three Mile Island accident, skepticism persists over whether the technology is worth investing in.

Yet the pendulum may be swinging back. The 104 plants now running have sharply raised their output, emboldening utilities across the country to make a case for building new ones.

And the industry is about to get a big boost. In the next few days, the Energy Department plans to announce the first of $18.5 billion in loan guarantees for building new reactors.

The guarantees were authorized in a bill passed by Congress in 2005.

It has taken four years for the department to set up a system to evaluate applications and determine how much the borrowers will be charged for the guarantees to compensate the government for taking the risk.

Industry experts think the first guarantee will go to the Southern Company to build two units at its Vogtle nuclear plant near Augusta, Ga.

The money will flow amid a national credit squeeze and intense jockeying among the nation’s wind, solar, geothermal and nuclear sectors. Each is trying to cast itself as an ideal "clean" energy option as the nation moves toward reining in the carbon dioxide emissions linked to global warming.

All of these sources could potentially benefit under a cap-and-trade system that is being considered in Congress as part of climate change legislation. Such a system would set a ceiling on carbon dioxide emissions and allow trading of pollution permits, handicapping the carbon-intensive coal and natural gas sectors.

Historically Republicans have been more enthusiastic than Democrats about nuclear power. So as the climate bill winds its way through the Senate, some Democratic members are seeking to add to the $18.5 billion in loan guarantees for the nuclear industry to attract Republicans and some industrial-state Democrats. (The House version passed in June, 219 to 212.)

Some of the foremost Congressional climate change campaigners are unenthusiastic.

Representative Edward Markey, a Massachusetts Democrat who has hounded the nuclear industry for decades over safety questions and who is a sponsor of the House bill, does not favor direct aid to the nuclear industry. He argues that a cap-and-trade system would give the nuclear sector the only boost it deserves.

If that system goes into effect, he said, nuclear power "will be able to compete more effectively in a new marketplace. How effectively they can compete is going to be the question."

Others see combining a cap-and-trade system with a nuclear aid package as a sensible tactic to get Congress to address environmental problems.

"One can argue it certainly is bringing about an unusual marriage of interests here," said Philip R. Sharp, an Indiana Democrat who served in the House of Representatives from 1975 to 1995 and led a House committee with jurisdiction over the electric system.

"It is one of the potential paths for actually getting real action and real legislation", said Mr. Sharp, who now heads the nonpartisan group Resources for the Future.

Economic issues have helped scramble alliances on the state and local level, too. Because new reactors create so many jobs and big tax revenue, the Democratic governors of Maryland and Ohio are working hard to get them built in their states.

State legislatures from Louisiana to South Dakota and local governments from Port Gibson, Miss., to Oswego, N.Y., are also on record favoring new reactors.

Peter A. Bradford, a former member of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission who is now vice chairman of the Union of Concerned Scientists, questions the wisdom of direct aid to the industry.

Unlike cap and trade, in which industries buy and sell the right to release carbon dioxide in a market-oriented system, he said, the loan guarantees finance projects that the private sector deems too risky.

The government would be "picking some winners and bestowing a lot of taxpayer support on them," he said.

By Mr. Bradford’s count, of 28 reactors that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission now lists as planned, half have had major delays, large increases in estimated cost or have been canceled.

If new plants built with government guarantees prove to be a commercial success, the program costs taxpayers nothing; if they prove too expensive to finish or are completed but cannot earn enough to repay the loans, the taxpayer is on the hook.

Complicating the challenge, the forthcoming loan guarantees amount to only $18.5 billion, and the nuclear industry says it needs tens of billions more.

President Obama’s energy secretary, Steven Chu, acknowledged that the sum was small. He said it could finance at most perhaps one plant for each new reactor design, making it hard to determine which design was most practical.

"If I were a power company, maybe one of each would not be helpful," he said. He suggested that the nuclear industry would need to build two or three of each.

But Dr. Chu insists that nuclear power will be an important piece of any climate solution.

"We have a dormant nuclear industry," he said. "We have to start it up in a way that gives the people who are going to make investments the confidence that this is economically viable."

Mindful of the challenges posed by global warming, some environmentalists are cautiously evaluating their positions on nuclear power.

"There is an increasing number of people who have spent their lives as environmental advocates who believe that carbon is such an urgent problem that they have to rethink their skepticism about nuclear power," said Jonathan Lash, the president of the World Resources Institute, who puts himself in that category.

"But there are many people who are passionate environmentalists who are also passionate opponents of nuclear power, and remain so," he said.

Among the foes is Karen Hadden, executive director of the Sustainable Energy and Economic Development Coalition in Austin, Tex., which is fighting a nuclear project there that is in line for a loan guarantee. While she strongly favors carbon limits, she said, she opposes construction of reactors.

She warned that money for solar, wind and geothermal projects could get siphoned off "in these multibillion-dollar projects that may or may not ever get built."

Daniel L. Roderick, senior vice president for nuclear plant projects at GE-Hitachi Nuclear Energy, a partnership between General Electric and Hitachi of Japan, said that a year and a half ago, there were expectations that more than 20 units would be under construction by now in the United States. "That number is currently zero," he said.

Nonetheless, G.E. and other companies have invested tens of millions of dollars in plans for reactors they hope to build around the world, including dozens in the United States.