Posted by Brad Johnson on 02/01/2008 at 08:06AM
In today’s Washington Post, Anita Kumar writes Uranium Lode in Va. Is
Feared,
Coveted:
Underneath a plot of farmland used to raise cattle, hay and timber in
south central Virginia lies what is thought to be the largest deposit
of uranium in the United States.
Now, three decades after the deposit was found, landowner Walter Coles
has set his sights on mining the 200-acre site despite concerns of
environmental groups and residents about unearthed radioactive
material that could contaminate the area’s land, air and source of
drinking water.
Coles is attempting to convince the Virginia General Assembly to approve
a $1 million safety study in advance of reversing the 25-year ban on
uranium mining in the state. Gov. Timothy Kaine (D) supports the study.
Others lobbying for approval include Coles’s brother-in-law Whitt
Clement, a former legislator, and investor Henry Hurt, whose son is a
state senator.
Posted by Brad Johnson on 17/12/2007 at 01:11PM
The omnibus appropriations bill (H.R. 2764) wending its way to passage
in the year-end Congressional rush.
As EE News reports,
included in the bill are $18.5 billion in nuclear loan
guarantees
that have been championed by Sen. Pete Domenici (R-N.M.) and Rep. Steny
Hoyer (D-Md.). Related provisions grant $6 billion for coal-based power
generation and industrial gasification activities at retrofitted and new
facilities that incorporate carbon capture and sequestration; $2 billion
for advanced coal gasification; $10 billion for renewable and/or energy
efficient systems and manufactoring and distributed energy generation,
transmission and distribution; and $2 billion for uranium enrichment
technology.
The loan guarantees come with the caveat that Congressional
appropriators must approve any project implementation 45 days before the
Department of Energy could activate the guarantee.
Funding for continuing nuclear programs includes $1.1 billion for
DOE’s nuclear programs and $8.8 billion for
the National Nuclear Security Administration.
Environmental groups have come out strongly against the nuclear and
coal-to-liquids provisions. NRDC’s Heather
Taylor told EE News, “The loan guarantee is certainly a poison pill for
us. It’s an investment in the bad policies of the past.
In a joint letter to Congress, seventeen environmental organizations
wrote:
On behalf of our millions of members and activists, we regretfully ask
you to vote no on H.R. 2764, the State, Foreign Operations, and
Related Programs Appropriations Act, 2008 (Consolidated Appropriations
Act, 2008) because it would take America down a dirty energy path.
Although Congress started with the promise of leading our country into
a new energy future, H.R. 2764 breaks faith and continues the
misguided, polluting policies of the past.
Posted by Brad Johnson on 11/12/2007 at 04:55PM
In Bali, EE News reporter Darren Samuelson interviews David G.
McIntosh, Sen. Lieberman
(I-Conn.)’s counsel and legislative assistant for energy and the
environment, about the prospects for Lieberman-Warner (S. 2191) on the
Senate floor in 2008.
Before joining Senator Lieberman’s staff in April 2006, McIntosh served
briefly as a Maryland assistant attorney general representing the
state’s air agency. Before that, he worked at
NRDC
as a Clean Air Act litigator and regulatory lawyer. After graduating
from Harvard Law School in 1998, he clerked for a U.S. District Court
judge in Washington, DC before joining the legal and lobbying firm
Covington &
Burling,
for one year. He is not to be confused with former representative David
M. McIntosh (R-Ill.), a strong fighter against environmental
regulations.
“We could probably predict a half-dozen issues that would be top-line
amendment issues,” McIntosh said during an interview at the United
Nations’ global warming negotiations in Bali. “Some of them, we have
the ability through negotiation and engagement to have those
amendments be presented in a way that is not divisive, that does not
divide up the votes that would otherwise support passage on the
floor.”
McIntosh predicted Senate negotiations over the climate bill from
Lieberman and Sen. John Warner (R-Va.) would center foremost on the
economic implications tied to creating a first-ever mandatory cap on
U.S. greenhouse gas emissions. He also expects a strong push on
incentives for nuclear power.
McIntosh hopes to be able to craft a nuclear title suitable for
inclusion in Lieberman-Warner:
The bill’s lead cosponsors are interested in “seeing if it is possible
to craft an amendment or to encourage others on nuclear enegry in ways
that’d be seen as targetted and relevant and fitting within the
confines of the bill rather than efforts to revive every type of
support for nuclear power that anyone has ever thought of.”
Sen. Kerry (D-Mass.), the only Senator in Bali, also spoke on
Lieberman-Warner:
I can’t tell you precisely when, but we’re committed to having this
debate regardless of whether or not we can pass it or where the votes
are. We believe it’s an important marker, and we intend to make this
part of the debate in the presidential elections of 2008.
Posted by Brad Johnson on 04/12/2007 at 04:44PM
Tomorrow morning’s Environment and Public Works markup of the
Lieberman-Warner climate bill (S.
2191)
promises to be long and contentious, quite possibly to be extended to
Thursday. Republicans have proposed over 150 amendments, with Sen. Craig
offering 46; EE News reports they expect votes on upwards of 50 of the
amendments. Democrats have submitted about 30 amendments.
Below is a summary of the amendments the senators of the committee are
planning to submit, in addition to Sen. Boxer’s manager’s
mark.
Major amendments include Sen. Clinton’s two amendments. The first
establishes 100% auction of permits, and the second dramatically
restricts CCS funding. Sanders #4 establishes
an 80% target and #7 limits total offset permits. Vitter #10 restricts
ownership of allowances primarily to covered entities. Carper #1 places
caps on traditional air pollutants and Carper #2 bases permit giveaways
to power sector on historical electricity production, not emissions.
Isakson proposed various pro-nuclear amendments.
Friends of the Earth has highlighted five
amendments they
support.
Posted by Brad Johnson on 01/11/2007 at 10:41AM
At today’s markup of Lieberman Warner (S
2191),
changes were made to win the support of Sen. Lautenberg (D-N.J.),
ensuring passage by a 4-3 vote (Sanders, Isakson, and Barrasso voting
no) to send the bill to the full Committee on Environment and Public
Works.
The changes, according to CQ:
- Extending the scope of the bill to cover all emissions from the use of
natural gas. The introduced bill covered natural gas burned in power
plants and industrial processes but not in commercial and residential
buildings.
- Requiring the EPA to make recommendations to
Congress based on periodic reports from the National Academy of
Sciences. The bill already would direct the academy to evaluate
whether changes in the law are necessary, based on the state of the
environment and available technology.
These were two of the four specific changes called for by
NRDC at the initial hearing on the
bill.
Amendments were introduced by Sen. Sanders (I-Vt.) and Sen. Barrasso
(R-Wyo.). Changes made by amendments adopted at the markup:
- Advanced tech auto funding limited to vehicles with minimum of 35 mpg
(Sanders 3)
- More allocations given to states, taken from international forest
protection (Barrasso 4)
- Definition of lower-rank coal eligible for 25% of
CCS funding changed from “for example,
bituminous and lignite” to coal with a heat content below 10000
BTU/lb (Barrasso 3)
Sen. Isakson reiterated his passion for nuclear power, and Barrasso
argued for stronger coal subsidies, a sentiment supported by Sen.
Baucus. Lautenberg compared their role to that of doctors faced with a
sick patient who could become terminal, asking why anyone would withhold
the necessary medicine. The Senators often laughed about their needs to
compromise and balance each others’ parochial interests.
The Environmental and Energy Study Institute (EESI) invites you to learn
about the loan guarantee provisions in the 2007 energy bills that have
passed the House and Senate and await conference (HR. 6/HR. 3221). The
Senate bill’s provision would significantly alter how the Department of
Energy (DOE) provides taxpayer-funded loan guarantees for new energy
technologies, especially to costly nuclear power plants. Section 124(b)
of the Senate bill (HR. 6) allows loan guarantees to be given to
multiple projects to construct an existing nuclear power design; exempts
DOE’s loan guarantee program from Sec 504(b)
of the Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990 (FCRA) which allows
DOE to write unlimited loan guarantees without
Congressional oversight; and gives DOE
unfettered access to the Incentives for Innovative Technologies Fund
(EPACT 2005) without requiring appropriations or any fiscal year
limitation. This provision, if adopted, would eliminate Congressional
authority and the safeguards provided through the appropriations process
regarding expenditures for these potentially risky projects and shift
enormous financial risk from Wall Street banks to America’s taxpayers.
The House-passed legislation on loan guarantees is different; it says
that no eligible technology can be excluded from consideration from loan
guarantees.
Because of the likelihood of delays and cost overruns in building new
nuclear power plants, Wall Street banks are unwilling to accept any
financial risks for nuclear power loans. Six of the nation’s largest
investment banks-Citigroup, Credit Suisse, Goldman Sachs, Lehman
Brothers, Merrill Lynch, and Morgan Stanley- recently told the
DOE, “We believe these risks, combined with
the higher capital costs and longer construction schedules of nuclear
plants as compared to other generation facilities, will make lenders
unwilling at present to extend long-term credit.” Our briefing panel
will discuss whether the loan guarantee provisions constitute a
significant taxpayer liability and/or poor governance. Speakers include:
- Peter Bradford, President, Bradford Brook Associates; former Chair,
New York State Public Service Commission and Maine Public Utilities
Commission; and former Commissioner, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission
- Jerry Taylor, Senior Fellow, Cato Institute
- Jim Harding, CEO, Harding Consulting
- US Government Accountability Office (GAO)
Not only is the cost to the taxpayers potentially very high, so is the
risk. The Congressional Budget Office has said there is a good chance
that the DOE will underestimate the costs of
administering these loans and that more than 50 percent of new reactor
projects will default on their loan repayments, leaving taxpayers at
risk. U.S. taxpayers will be fully liable for any potential shortfalls.
The nuclear industry ask is $25 billion for FY
2008 and more than that in FY 2009-more
than $50 billion in two years. According to the Congressional Research
Service, this is more than the $49.7 billion spent by the
DOE for all nuclear power R&D in the 30 years
from 1973-2003. This is also well over the Administration’s target of $4
billion in loan guarantees for nuclear and coal for
FY 2008.
This briefing is open to the public and no reservations are required.
Environmental and Energy Study Institute
340 Cannon
30/10/2007 at 10:30AM