Skip to main content

Dollars and the Nuclear Waste Fund

By
The Nuclear Waste Fund was established in 1982 when Congress passed legislation that those who use electricity supplied by nuclear energy would pay for the used nuclear fuel disposal program. For every kilowatt-hour used, consumers of nuclear generated electricity contribute one-tenth of a cent into the waste fund -- about $750 million per year. For Fiscal Year 2005 Congress appropriated far less than that, allocating $572 million to the program. In previous years the program has received an average of $194 million annually.

As of March 31, 2005, the total revenue paid into the Nuclear Waste Fund amounted to $24.9 billion. Of that amount, only $8.9 billion has been spent on program costs, leaving a balance of $16.02 billion that has been collected, but not applied to the used nuclear fuel disposal program.

So what should Congress be doing with all that other money? Last month at the 2005 Nuclear Energy Assembly, NEI President and CEO Skip Bowman said:
We must ensure a dedicated, available funding program for the Yucca Mountain repository and other components of the integrated federal program.

The Congressional intent for establishing the fund was to use it to support the Yucca Mountain project. That'’s what consumers deserve. It's what we should do.
Illinois, the state that relies most heavily on nuclear generation for electricity, has contributed more to the fund than any other state: $3.1 billion. Next is Pennsylvania at $2.1 billion, followed by South Carolina at $1.7 billion. In all, 34 states contribute to the fund, averaging total contributions of $747 million each.

Originally, the fund began was a separate account in the federal treasury -- sort of like a "lock box". However, back in 1987, Congress amended the law so that the Fund is dependent on capping appropriations.

According to the Nuclear Waste Policy Act, the Department of Energy was supposed to open a nuclear waste repository by 1998. That date got pushed back to 2010. More recently, the estimated time frame for opening the facility stands at 2012.

For more information go on used nuclear fuel management, click here.

EDITOR'S UPDATE: For more on the topic of used nuclear fuel and Yucca Mountain, click here for a story from the Los Angeles Times.

Technorati tags: , , , , ,

Comments

Matthew66 said…
Unfortunately, the contributions made by electricity consumers are effectively a tax. The "Nuclear Waste Fund" "invests" all contributions in US government debt securities. Effectively it is a means of improving the US government's cash flow position whilst maintaining the pretence of having a used fuel management strategy. If Congress were serious about managing used nuclear fuel, it would have offered serious incentives to a state or local community willing to host the used fuel storage facility, as the Korean government has done. It would also ensure that there are sufficient funds available for managing used fuel. The money involved is more than enough to establish a reprocessing plant to enable recycling of uranium and plutonium into the fuel cycle and immobilizing the unusable fission products in glasss or ceramic, thereby reducing waste volume by 97% and reducing the storage period required to about 500 years.
June 16, 2005 at 7:35 AM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Fluor Invests in NuScale

By
You know, it’s kind of sad that no one is willing to invest in nuclear energy anymore. Wait, what? NuScale Power celebrated the news of its company-saving $30 million investment from Fluor Corp. Thursday morning with a press conference in Washington, D.C. Fluor is a design, engineering and construction company involved with some 20 plants in the 70s and 80s, but it has not held interest in a nuclear energy company until now. Fluor, which has deep roots in the nuclear industry, is betting big on small-scale nuclear energy with its NuScale investment. "It's become a serious contender in the last decade or so," John Hopkins, [Fluor’s group president in charge of new ventures], said. And that brings us to NuScale, which had run into some dark days – maybe not as dark as, say, Solyndra, but dire enough : Earlier this year, the Securities Exchange Commission filed an action against NuScale's lead investor, The Michael Kenwood Group. The firm "misap...
1 comment
Read more

Wednesday Update

By
From NEI’s Japan micro-site: NRC, Industry Concur on Many Post-Fukushima Actions Industry/Regulatory/Political Issues • There is a “great deal of alignment” between the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the industry on initial steps to take at America’s nuclear energy facilities in response to the nuclear accident in Japan, Charles Pardee, the chief operating officer of Exelon Generation Co., said at an agency briefing today. The briefing gave stakeholders an opportunity to discuss staff recommendations for near-term actions the agency may take at U.S. facilities. PowerPoint slides from the meeting are on the NRC website. • The International Atomic Energy Agency board has approved a plan that calls for inspectors to evaluate reactor safety at nuclear energy facilities every three years. Governments may opt out of having their country’s facilities inspected. Also approved were plans to maintain a rapid response team of experts ready to assist facility operators recoverin...
Post a Comment
Read more

Nuclear Utility Moves Up in Credit Ratings, Bank is "Comfortable with Nuclear Strategy"

By
Some positive signs that nuclear utilities can continue to receive positive ratings even while they finance new nuclear plants for the first time in decades: Wells Fargo upgrades SCANA to Outperform from Market Perform Wells analyst says, "YTD, SCG shares have underperformed the Regulated Electrics (total return +2% vs. +9%). Shares trade at 11.3X our 10E EPS, a modest discount to the peer group median of 11.8X. We view the valuation as attractive given a comparatively constructive regulatory environment and potential for above-average long-term EPS growth prospects ... Comfortable with Nuclear Strategy. SCG plans to participate in the development of two regulated nuclear units at a cost of $6.3B, raising legitimate concerns regarding financing and construction. We have carefully considered the risks and are comfortable with SCG’s strategy based on a highly constructive political & regulatory environment, manageable financing needs stretched out over 10 years, strong partners...
Post a Comment
Read more