[Date Prev][Date Next][Date Index]

E-M:/ Upton wants nuclear subsidies

Subject: Urge U.S. Rep. Upton to stop doing the nuclear industry's dirty work!!!
From: "Kevin Kamps" <kevin@nirs.org>
To: "Kevin Kamps" <kevin@nirs.org>

Urgent Action Alert ? Please Spread the Word!
Phone U.S. Congressman Fred Upton?s office(s) right away ? urge him to represent the people of west Michigan, instead of the nuclear power industry!!!
Tell him to withdraw his Energy Bill Amendment that would lavish $5.5 billion or more of federal taxpayer funded ?loan guarantees? on new nuclear power plants
Call Rep. Upton TODAY! His office phone numbers are:
Washington, D.C. (202) 225-3761
Kalamazoo (269) 385-0039
St. Joe (269) 982-1986
Dear Friends and Colleagues in Michigan,
            We have just learned that U.S. Congressman Fred Upton is yet again doing the dirty work for the national nuclear power industry. Ten years ago, he was the main sponsor of the ?Mobile Chernobyl? bill, to rush tens of thousands of shipments of deadly high-level radioactive wastes onto the roads, rails, and waterways (including Lake Michigan!) for burial on Western Shoshone Indian land at earthquake-plagued Yucca Mountain, Nevada. Michigan grassroots groups have played an essential role in stopping this dangerous, environmentally racist scheme from happening, while continuing to work against the risks of nuclear reactor operations, and high-level radioactive wastes piling up on the Great Lakes shorelines, as at Palisades nuclear power plant near South Haven.
            Now, Rep. Upton has introduced an amendment to the U.S. House of Representatives? Energy Bill that would lock in a full 50% of federal loan guarantees for the construction of new nuclear reactors. The short text of Rep. Upton?s amendment is pasted in at the bottom of this email. His amendment will first be considered by a U.S. House subcommittee. If passed, it would then move on to the full House Energy and Commerce Committee (headed by Michigan Congressman John Dingell), and then to the full House when it takes up the Energy Bill just after the 4th of July.
            Federal loan guarantees for the construction of new energy infrastructure were approved in the Energy Policy Act of 2005. In the lead up to that Act, the Congressional Budget Office reported that new nuclear power plant construction projects could be expected to default on their loans a whopping 50% of the time. With federal loan guarantees, this means that American taxpayers would be left holding the bag for those loan repayments. Rep. Upton?s amendment would thus transfer the huge financial risks from the nuclear power industry onto the backs of hard-working American taxpayers. Rep. Upton?s $5 billion giveaway would be to an industry that has already enjoyed lavish subsidization at the expense of U.S. taxpayers for the past fifty years, to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars in research and development support, liability coverage in the event of a catastrophic radiation release, high-level radioactive waste disposal costs, and much more.
            The nuclear power industry is trying to present itself as the solution to the climate crisis. But the last order for a new reactor in the U.S. that actually got built was placed in October, 1973 ? nearly 35 years ago. That reactor cost $7 billion, and took 23 years to build. To try to solve the climate crisis with nuclear power could cost a trillion dollars, and would take far too long to make a difference. It would gobble up all the funding, leaving no money for real solutions like energy efficiency, energy conservation, and renewable sources of electricity like solar and wind. And expanding nuclear power would exacerbate its inherent, insurmountable risks: the spread of nuclear weaponry; the specter of catastrophic releases of lethal radioactivity due to accident, terrorist attack, or sabotage; and the intractable threat of forever deadly high-level radioactive wastes.
            While concerned citizen volunteers struggled to shut down the dangerously-decrepit Palisades nuclear power plant, Rep. Upton urged the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission to rubberstamp the old reactor?s 20 year license extension. This was a reversal of Rep. Upton?s 1996 position, communicated to concerned citizens at a face-to-face meeting in Kalamazoo, that Palisades should only be allowed to operate till the 2007 expiration of its original 40 year operating license.
            When news broke in May that Palisades? head of security was a pathological liar who had faked his resume and exhibited disturbing behaviors such as making death threats and suicide threats, Rep. Upton said he?d wait for a report back from Entergy Nuclear, the new owner of Palisades, which itself was guilty of failing to detect this major security breach inherited from Palisades? previous owner Consumers Energy. It took U.S. Congressman Ed Markey from Massachusetts to call this security breach at Palisades to NRC?s attention, demanding answers.
            Phone Rep. Upton today, and urge him to work on behalf of the health, safety, security, environment, and pocketbook of West Michigan?s residents and taxpayers, rather than the nuclear power industry?s bottomless greed.
            For more information, contact Kevin Kamps at Nuclear Information and Resource Service at (301) 270-6477 ext. 14, or kevin@nirs.org. For more information on Palisades, see http://www.nirs.org/reactorwatch/licensing/palisades.htm
At the appropriate place insert the following new
Section 1702 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (42 U.S.C. 16512) is amended by adding at the end the following new subsection:
??(l) A
??(1) I
N GENERAL.­Subject to paragraph (2), at least 50 percent of the amount of loans guaranteed under this title for a fiscal year shall be for advanced nuclear energy facility projects.
??(2) H
IGHER PERCENTAGE.­If the amount described in paragraph (1) for a fiscal year is not sufficient to support a loan guarantee for an advanced nuclear energy facility project, a higher percentage shall be used as necessary to support such a loan guarantee.
??(3) M
ERITORIOUS APPLICATIONS.­The requirements under paragraphs (1) and (2) shall be effective only to the extent that meritorious applications have been submitted for a fiscal year.??

Alex J. Sagady & Associates        http://www.sagady.com

Environmental Enforcement, Permit/Technical Review, Public Policy,
Expert Witness Review and Litigation Investigation on Air, Water and
Waste/Community Environmental and Resource Protection
Prospectus at:  http://www.sagady.com/sagady.pdf

657 Spartan Avenue,  East Lansing, MI  48823 
(517) 332-6971; (517) 332-8987 (fax); ajs@sagady.com