Skip to main content

DOE Issues Final Regs For Loan Guarantee Program

From DOE:
Secretary of Energy Samuel W. Bodman today announced that the Department of Energy (DOE) has issued the final regulations for the loan guarantee program authorized by Title XVII of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPAct). DOE’s action today will pave the way for federal support of clean energy projects using innovative technologies and will spur further investment in these advanced energy technologies.
DOE also today invited 16 project sponsors, who submitted pre-applications last Fall, to submit full applications for loan guarantees. These projects include advanced technologies involving the uses of biomass, fossil energy, solar, industrial energy efficiency, electricity delivery and energy reliability, hydrogen, and alternative fuel vehicles. Projects supported by loan guarantees will help fulfill President Bush’s goal of reducing our reliance on imported sources of energy by diversifying our nation’s energy mix and increasing energy efficiency.

“Loan guarantees aim to stimulate investment and commercialization of clean energy technologies to reduce our Nation’s reliance on foreign sources of energy,” Secretary Bodman said. “Finalizing this regulation for the Department’s Loan Guarantee program puts Americans one step closer to being able to use new and novel sources of energy on a mass scale to reduce emissions and allow for vigorous economic growth and increased energy security.”

The final regulation provides that the Department may issue guarantees for up to 100% of the amount of a loan, subject to the EPAct limitation that DOE may not guarantee a debt instrument for more than 80% of the total cost of an eligible project. Under the final rule, if DOE issues a guarantee for 100% of a debt instrument, the loan must be issued and funded by the Treasury Department’s Federal Financing Bank. While Congress must provide authority in an appropriations act for the loan guarantees that the Department will issue, DOE’s intent is to only issue loan guarantees if borrowers and project sponsors pay the “credit subsidy cost” for any loan guarantee they receive. Therefore, DOE does not plan to use taxpayer funds to pay for the credit subsidy costs of these loan guarantees.
Senator Pete Domenici (R-N.M.) issued the following statement in wake of the news:
“I am very pleased that DOE has issued the final regulation for its Loan Guarantee Program. At last, we now know that the program will proceed in a way consistent with our intent in the Energy Policy Act of 2005.

“In particular, I would note that the Administration has kept its commitment to me to guarantee up to 100 percent of a loan, subject to the overall cap of 80 percent of the project cost. This represents a significant and important change from the proposed draft rule.

“While alternative energy projects have attracted strong interest and growth, they have not yet secured the stable debt financing necessary to ensure their long term success. It is my belief and hope that a robust loan guarantee program will provide these projects the stability that will allow them to flourish, starting with the 16 pre-applicants that will now be invited to submit full applications.”
More later. When the regs get published online, we'll have the link.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

How Nanomaterials Can Make Nuclear Reactors Safer and More Efficient

The following is a guest post from Matt Wald, senior communications advisor at NEI. Follow Matt on Twitter at @MattLWald.

From the batteries in our cell phones to the clothes on our backs, "nanomaterials" that are designed molecule by molecule are working their way into our economy and our lives. Now there’s some promising work on new materials for nuclear reactors.

Reactors are a tough environment. The sub atomic particles that sustain the chain reaction, neutrons, are great for splitting additional uranium atoms, but not all of them hit a uranium atom; some of them end up in various metal components of the reactor. The metal is usually a crystalline structure, meaning it is as orderly as a ladder or a sheet of graph paper, but the neutrons rearrange the atoms, leaving some infinitesimal voids in the structure and some areas of extra density. The components literally grow, getting longer and thicker. The phenomenon is well understood and designers compensate for it with a …

Why America Needs the MOX Facility

If Isaiah had been a nuclear engineer, he’d have loved this project. And the Trump Administration should too, despite the proposal to eliminate it in the FY 2018 budget.

The project is a massive factory near Aiken, S.C., that will take plutonium from the government’s arsenal and turn it into fuel for civilian power reactors. The plutonium, made by the United States during the Cold War in a competition with the Soviet Union, is now surplus, and the United States and the Russian Federation jointly agreed to reduce their stocks, to reduce the chance of its use in weapons. Over two thousand construction workers, technicians and engineers are at work to enable the transformation.

Carrying Isaiah’s “swords into plowshares” vision into the nuclear field did not originate with plutonium. In 1993, the United States and Russia began a 20-year program to take weapons-grade uranium out of the Russian inventory, dilute it to levels appropriate for civilian power plants, and then use it to produce…

Missing the Point about Pennsylvania’s Nuclear Plants

A group that includes oil and gas companies in Pennsylvania released a study on Monday that argues that twenty years ago, planners underestimated the value of nuclear plants in the electricity market. According to the group, that means the state should now let the plants close.

Huh?

The question confronting the state now isn’t what the companies that owned the reactors at the time of de-regulation got or didn’t get. It’s not a question of whether they were profitable in the '80s, '90s and '00s. It’s about now. Business works by looking at the present and making projections about the future.

Is losing the nuclear plants what’s best for the state going forward?

Pennsylvania needs clean air. It needs jobs. And it needs protection against over-reliance on a single fuel source.


What the reactors need is recognition of all the value they provide. The electricity market is depressed, and if electricity is treated as a simple commodity, with no regard for its benefit to clean air o…