Senate Energy Bill S 517: Still More Handouts for Dangerous Nuclear Power
!QU!: Senator Tom Daschle, Majority Leader, (D-SD) introduced an energy bill (S. 517) in the Senate late last month. originally, the bill had only partially reauthorized Price-Anderson. On Thursday, March 7, Voinovich (R-OH) introduced an amendment (2983) to add the commercial side of Price-Anderson to S 517. Reid (D-NV) introduced his amendment (2984) to the Voinovich amendment, but withdrew it for consideration and the Voinovich amendment passed 78 to 21 that same day. (See below for issue background, links to recorded vote and text). The text of 2983 is basically a straight reauthorization with one important exception: it contains a clause which allows modular reactor licensees, (PBMRs) to insure many reactors in a single complex as just one reactor core. Realistically, these reactors will be built on existing sites to avoid the inevitable public scrutiny involved with new sites. This is one more major subsidy for an inherently unsafe 2nd generation of reactors. Price-Anderson subsidy for Department of Energy nuclear contractors is also in the bill and will be reinstated indefinitely. It exempts DOE contractors from liability even if they are found guilty of gross negligence and willful misconduct.
OPPOSE SENATE ENERGY BILL S 517: S 517 contains both funding for nuclear power technology research and deployment, and full Price-Anderson reauthorization. WE MUST OPPOSE S 517. This bill is more of the same bad energy policy that brought us nuclear waste, global climate change and ENRON. It repeals PURPA AND PUHCA (see below for details). It continues to subsidize nuclear power while discouraging small energy producers to sell energy into the electrical grid-a move which could severely damage renewable energy producers.
ACTION: Contact your Senators www.senate.gov or call the capital switchboard: 202-224-2131 and ask them to oppose the Energy Bill. AND tell them to oppose PA reauthorization in any form. We are not sure when S 517 will come up for a vote, but we need to start contacting Senators as soon as possible.
VOTE RECorD: Visit
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/vote1072/vote_00042.html to see the full voting record.
BOTH AMENDMENT TEXTS: see
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?r107:3:./temp/~r107RhFs4c:e0:
The following Senators voted AGAINST the Voinovich Price-Anderson Amendment:
NAYS --- 21
Baucus, Feingold, Reed, Biden, Feinstein, Reid, Boxer, Harkin, Rockefeller, Clinton, Inouye, Schumer, Collins, Jeffords, Snowe, Dayton, Kerry, Wellstone, Ensign, Leahy, Wyden
NOT VOTING --- 1
Kennedy
All others voted for the Voinovich Price-Anderson reauthorization amendment.
BACKGROUND
Price Anderson is the 1957 law which allows the commercial nuclear industry to operate with a cap on their liability for a catastrophic accident. (see Nuclear Monitor, December 2001) The effect of this cap is twofold: obviously it saves the nuclear industry money in case of an accident which would cost more than about 10 billion dollars.
Additionally, this cap guarantees a limit for which insurers will be responsible. Without a guarantee capping accident costs at a certain amount, insurance companies would never offer to insure nuclear reactors-it's that simple. Without Price Anderson, nuclear power would have to purchase insurance entirely with its own resources, if it could even find a willing insurer, which is doubtful. The annual estimated worth of this insurance subsidy could be as much as 3.4 billion dollars for all currently operating reactors. It also exempts from any liability DOE contractors even when guilty of gross negligence and willful misconduct. A full Price Anderson bill passed the House in late November 2001 without a recorded vote and with very few House members present. While the House version of Price Anderson is less bad than the existing law in areas such as security, it also gives favorable treatment to the PBMR reactor design which does not even have a containment structure. The principle of Price Anderson-subsidizing the nuclear industry-is fundamentally flawed and distorts the energy market by making nuclear power seem more cost competitive with more responsible, more secure, less dangerous renewable and efficiency technologies. For more info on Price-Anderson, see our website: www.nirs.org.
Other reasons to vote against S 517:
It funds nuclear power research and deployment.
For renewable energy, the bill provides appropriations of 2.5 billion over 4 years. Energy Efficiency receives 3.3 billion over 4 years. Nuclear research and technology deployment will receive 1.3 billion over 4 years to "enhance nuclear energy" by building new reactors and extending licenses of existing ones. However, the Senate Finance Committee also granted nuclear power over 1 billion dollars in tax breaks from 2002-2012 for decommissioning which will be rolled into S 517. Funding decommissioning will encourage closing of current reactors and building of dangerous and faulty reactor designs like the PBMR.
More ENRONS?
The legislation does not address the market failures and weakened laws that allowed ENRON to slip through the regulatory cracks- it would repeal entirely the already weakened Public Utility Holding Company Act
of 1935 instead of strengthening it. A strong PUHCA would have limited ENRON's ability to invest in holding companies, making it less able to
inflate its worth. Additionally, PURPA currently makes it possible at the federal level, for small power producers to sell energy back to the grid. Repealing PURPA will have a negative impact on distributed power generators.
-30-
< Return to Previous Page
|
