Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘loan guarantee’

Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz announced on Wednesday, February 19th, that his agency approved a multibillion dollar taxpayer-backed loan guarantee for the first nuclear reactors to be built in the U.S. in more than 30 years.  We view this as a costly act of desperation for a failing project.

An $8.3 billion loan guarantee was conditionally approved four years ago for two new reactors at Southern Company’s Vogtle plant in Waynesboro, Ga.  Since then, negotiations around the terms of the loan guarantee have been extended five times. Secretary Moniz’s announcement – that the government has finalized terms with two of three companies – accounts for just $6.5 billion of the loan. With approval for $1.8 billion of the loan still pending, the agency is clearly attempting to give momentum to the stalled project.

The construction of the two new reactors at the Vogtle plant are 21 months behind schedule and $1.6 billion over budget.  The original two units at Vogtle resulted in 1000% cost overruns from the original $1 billion dollar estimate as well as decades-long set-backs and construction delays.  This not only calls into question the decision to underwrite this risky project with taxpayer dollars, but proves that the same issues that plagued reactor construction more than three decades ago have not been resolved.

Nuclear energy continues to be beset with safety issues and produces toxic wastes that we still don’t have a solution for – hardly a technology the government should be promoting and propping up with taxpayer funds.

We berate wall street for their high-risk investments, yet the Department of Energy seems to have little to no risk aversion for these types of loan guarantees.  This is a bad deal for the American people who have been put on the hook for a project that is both embroiled in delays and cost overruns and to a company that has publicly stated that it does not need federal loans to complete the project.

This is a classic case of throwing good money after bad.

Read Full Post »

California solar energy company Solyndra had its offices raided  last week by federal agents as part of an ongoing investigation into their bankruptcy and federal loan guarantees they’d received form the Department of Energy. Some critics have cried foul, trying to show how federal money spent on emerging technology is a waste. Others  have tried to disparage solar energy itself, trying to show the industry is not ready for prime time. In fact, these allegations couldn’t be further from the truth.

However, it does bring up important questions about the Obama administration, ethics, and the influence of campaign contributions. This is entirely a self-inflicted wound, a bone-headed mistake if not an ethical problem, and is the type of landmine the White House needs to avoid. There is another, similar trap they need to avoid touching in the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline, where Big Oil’s big money tendrils and the revolving door are even more frightening than those from Solyndra.

The first charge against Solyndra is the wastefulness of the federal loan guarantees that it received and the loan guarantee program in general.  Well, if solar was the only industry getting this aid, that might be something. But given the incredibly large amounts given in federal subsidies to fossil fuels compared to solar, that is not the case. Indeed, direct subsidies for nuclear in recent energy legislation adds up to over 13 billion (that’s with a b, kids) and recent loan guarantees for nuclear construction are over $60 billion, $18 billion of which have already been allocated in Georgia.  This amounts to a pre-emptive bailout of the nuclear industry, especially since the CBO estimates those loans will have a 50% default rate.

Other critics have gone after Solyndra because they say solar isn’t ready for prime time– while, in fact, it shows the opposite. Solyndra was pioneering a new method of making photovoltaic cells and got buried under the onslaught of cheap solar imports from China.  Their process, which you can see below, courtesy BusinessWire, is very different from traditional photvoltaic arrays.

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j1GODzk0bgg]

Their technology just didn’t get cheap quickly enough compared to traditional PV manufacturing, largely from Chinese imports. But in the silver lining to that otherwise not as nice cloud, those same cheap Chinese imports have meant a huge boon to American manufacturing who provide many of the materials and heavy equipment needed to manufacture PV.

Meanwhile, because of that change, solar has reached grid parity in terms of its costs.  Grid parity means that the cost of producing electricity through a pv cell is less than or equal to the average cost of electricity.  Other companies are making huge solar breakthroughs. Solyndra, unfortunately, was not one of them. But this is market economics, and this is what we expect, nay, desire from our entrepreneurs.

Meanwhile, the Department of Energy, undeterred, has announced two more loan guarantee programs for solar innovation. Meanwhile, the Department of Defense is getting on the solar train, too, with a Solar City program that will provide clean energy to the homes of 160,000 of our troops and their families. I can’t think of a better way to commemorate 9/11 than with true energy independence being given to some of the most deserving among us.  Now, let’s just do it for all of our military, veterans, firefighters, police officers, teachers, and other public servants. But 160,000 homes to start with is pretty darn nice.

But why Solyndra is troublesome is because it appears undue influence may have been exerted to get them these loan guarantees.  One of Solyndra’s top investors was also a bundler for the Obama campaign responsible for tens of thousands of dollars in campaign donations.  A commitment to the highest ethical standards that the Obama Administration guaranteed when they took office meant they should have done extra due diligence on giving any loan guarantees to anyone with any sort of money connection to the White House. Every i dotted, every t crossed– special treatment, but special treatment to insure they weren’t receiving funds because of political donations. Indeed, they should have been held to a much higher standard than their peers.

This is an entirely self-inflicted wound on the part of the Obama Administration. It should have been avoided, and questions not only the ethics of those in charge but the rationality. Surely they should have seen this coming.

If they didn’t, here’s a warning sign for you: Keystone XL. The pipeline, proposed by Canadian company Transcanada, would bring the world’s dirtiest oil from the Alberta tar sands to refineries in the Houston area along the Texas Gulf Coast. They are currently doing their best to get the pipeline approved, including a slick PR campaign, push-polling in areas around where the pipeline would be and promising jobs if the pipeline is built, and using Washington’s revolving door of lobbyists, staff, and political consultants. Dirty money, dirty campaign, dirty tactics, dirty ethics. In fact, knowing that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton would be the final decider on whether the State Department issues the permit or not, Transcanada hired her former campaign operative Paul Elliot to be their chief lobbyist, among other hires with ties to the Obama campaign and administration.

Clinton and Obama approving Keystone XL would be another avoidable landmine for the White House. Unfortunately, this landmine has much more dire consequences if approved, as it would signal both Business as Usual in Washington with Big Oil getting their way, the end of any veneer of ethics or being serious about campaign finance by the Obama Administration, and. . .oh, “game over” for the planet because of runaway climate change.  More on this later.

Read Full Post »

The tragic events unfolding in Japan demand a re-examination of U.S. nuclear policy.  While stocks in nuclear plummet and nuclear industry lobbyists scramble on Capitol Hill to shore up support for massive federal subsidies to kick-start the stagnate industry, concerns regarding the existing aging fleet are surfacing and should be heeded.  Click here to read more about specific concerns about some of the aging US nuclear fleet.

Amazingly, despite emerging concerns about existing and proposed reactors, the Obama administration has said it will not back off its plans to further prop up the nuclear industry through increased taxpayer-backed loan guarantees and the inclusion of nuclear power technology in the administration’s clean energy standard. The administration has included $36 billion in loan guarantees in its budget proposal for fiscal year 2012. Instead, it should immediately halt subsidies and instead focus on developing solar and wind power.  Take Action on Nuclear Subsidies

The administration  must take off the blinders, look hard at what is going on in Japan and realize that yes, a catastrophe can happen here.

Read Full Post »

NRG desperate for PPAsNRG Energy, Inc. posted their 2010 Full-Year and Fourth Quarter results today.  It appears that if no loan guarantees are forthcoming and the company fails to secure sufficient Power Purchase Agreements (PPA) for the STP expansion project by the third quarter of this year, NRG could make a final decision to pull the project.

For this reason, Central Texas utilities like Austin Energy, LCRA, and San Marcos are going to be lobbied heavily by NRG representatives in the coming months.  Click here to read our earlier post on NRG’s approach to Austin Energy.

A section directly from their 4th quarter report is excerpted below:

On November 29, 2010,  NINA awarded the EPC contract for the development of STP Units 3 and 4 to a restructured EPC consortium formed by Toshiba America Nuclear Energy Corporation and The Shaw Group Inc. Shaw is providing a $100 million credit facility to NINA to assist in financing STP. The credit facility will convert to equity in NINA upon the satisfaction of certain conditions including the project receiving full notice to proceed, which is expected in mid-2012. The project is presently scheduled to come online with one unit in 2016 and the second in 2017.  The project remains subject to receipt of a conditional loan guarantee from the Department of Energy and to the satisfaction of certain conditions, most notably, the arrangement of long term PPAs for a significant portion of the plant’s capacity. It is anticipated that the pace of development and pre-construction work required to meet the 2016/2017 online schedule dictates that the loan guarantee needs to be received and critical conditions satisfied in the third quarter of 2011. As a result, NRG expects to make a final decision with respect to its continued funding of STP 3&4 during the third quarter of 2011.

###

By promoting cleaner energy, cleaner government, and cleaner air for all Texans, we hope to provide for a healthy place to live and prosper. We are Public Citizen Texas.

Read Full Post »

Constellation Energy Group Inc. said last week it was pulling out of talks on a $7.5 billion loan guarantee to build a reactor at its Calvert Cliffs facility in Maryland.  Constellation Energy Group’s Chief Operating Officer Michael Wallace told the Energy Department that they felt the estimated $880 million the company would have to pay the Treasury Department was “shockingly high”.

Still, that’s only 12% of the loan guarantee, and only 7% of the estimated (pre-financed) cost of building a nuclear plant.  Compare that to low-risk lender qualifications for buying a home in this country and it doesn’t seem so shockingly high.  Traditionally lenders required a down payment of at least 20% of the home’s purchase price for a home mortgage, and to qualify for owner-builder construction loans, the down payment can be up to 30 percent of the requested loan amount.  Seems to me the industry is getting a better break than the American public right now.

A senior energy and environment analyst for a Milwaukee-based brokerage whined that the administration is offering terms no better than Constellation could get from private investors, yet we are not seeing private investors lining up to get a piece of this action-especially considering that these projects are projected to have a 50% loan default rate.

If the administration must support a nuclear renaissance, it is irresponsible of them to not consider limiting the risk that taxpayers will be stuck with should a nuclear utility default, and the Office of Management and Budget is doing just that by requiring these fees.

Constellation’s decision probably places NRG Energy Inc., a Princeton, New Jersey-based power producer, in the lead for the next loan-guarantee award.  However, if the fees are this large, it might be a victory that NRG and its partners will also not necessarily want, dooming that project too.

NRG is seeking a guarantee to add two units at its South Texas power plant in Matagorda County.  The company is also seeking to secure Japanese government financing, but that is also contingent upon the project securing the US loan guarantee.  Perhaps this is a project that needs to be doomed.  Clearly the building of nuclear plants are so high risk that the private sector appears unwilling to take on that risk, without the US government (read US taxpayer) bearing the brunt of the risk.  If they put it up to a vote, I certainly wouldn’t vote to put my money into such a high risk project, would you?

###

By promoting cleaner energy, cleaner government, cleaner cars, and cleaner air for all Texans, we hope to provide for a healthy place to live and prosper. We are Public Citizen Texas.

Read Full Post »

On Thursday, July 15, the House Energy and Water subcommittee is scheduled to vote on $25 billion in loan guarantees for new nuclear reactors in the FY2011 Energy and Water Appropriations bill. Only last month, the House passed $9 billion in nuclear loan guarantees in the 2010 Supplemental Appropriations bill (it has not yet passed the Senate). Together with the Department of Energy’s existing nuclear loan guarantee authority, the US taxpayer’s burden would be tripled to an enormous $52.5 billion.

The additional $25 billion in nuclear loan guarantees comes at the behest of Rep. Chet Edwards (D) to fund two proposed reactors at Comanche Peak in his district in Texas.  The proposed new reactors have an uncertified and untested design, and are years away from licensing approval. There are also two reactors proposed for the South Texas Project site in Bay City, Texas.  

Putting another $25 billion into costly, economically risky and polluting new reactors will be at the expense of solving climate change with clean, renewable energy and efficiency.  Call or email your Representatives today and tell them that these subsidies are unacceptable! 

(Find out who represents you at http://www.fyi.legis.state.tx.us)

Feel free to use this message or edit as you’d like:
————————————————————–

Dear Representative __________________,

I am writing to urge you to oppose $25 billion in additional nuclear loan guarantee authority in the FY2011 Energy and Water Appropriations bill.  Given the nuclear industry’s inability to reduce the soaring capital costs of new reactors, assure the safety of its technology, or resolve radioactive waste storage issues, burdening U.S. taxpayers with tens of billions dollars of additional liability for new reactors is irresponsible.  

The Department of Energy currently has over $10 billion in unallocated existing authority. The House has passed an additional $9 billion in nuclear loan guarantees in its 2010 Supplemental Appropriations bill. Together, this would triple the nuclear loan guarantees to a massive $52.5 billion. Many of the proposed new nuclear projects even have designs that are certified.

Moreover, according to a recent Governmental Accountability Office (GAO) report, the DOE’s loan guarantee program does not even have a way to evaluate whether the program is meeting its goals.  GAO also found that DOE has provided preferential treatment to nuclear applicants that it has not given to renewable and efficiency applicants.  Additional nuclear funding will only exacerbate these structural problems.

Please oppose an additional $25 billion in nuclear loan guarantees in the FY2011 Energy and Water Appropriations bill.  US taxpayers should not be expected to bail out yet another industry.

Sincerely,

—————————-

Read Full Post »

Call it a preemptive bailout if you like, my Friends…

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wi5L18ZV_qU]

…but the Department of Energy recently issued a press release stating that they have received 19 applications for federal loan guarantees to build 14 nuclear power plants. The price tag: $122 billion.

http://www.energy.gov/news/6620.htm

I know after the $700 billion bailout package, on top of $100+ billion just for AIG, $122 billion for nukes doesn’t sound that impressive. But it is a little scary when you realize that the feds only appropriated $18.5 billion for loan guarantees. Now children, don’t push in line!

The DoE estimated the total cost to construct the 21 proposed reactors at $188 billion, which they say averages out to around $9 billion per reactor.

Taxpayer-backed loan guarantees would total $5.8 billion per reactor based on DoE’s numbers. That’s a hard pill to swallow for an industry with a notorious history of default. From Bloomberg:

Taxpayers are on the hook only if borrowers default. A 2003 Congressional Budget Office report said the default rate on nuclear construction debts might be as high as 50 percent, in part because of the projects’ high costs.

-Matt

Read Full Post »