Skip to main content

Loan Guarantees in the "American Recovery and Reinvestment Act" of 2009

Today might be the day we find out if $50B in loan volume for the existing loan guarantee clean energy program makes it into the final "stimulus" bill. The Conference Committee members are supposed to meet at 3 pm today to iron out the details.

As promised last week when I explained how the loan guarantees were scored, below is page 20 (out of 69 pages) from the Congressional Budget Office's detailed version of the Senate's final "stimulus" bill. A summary of the costs of the stimulus bill can be found here (pdf).

loan guarantees stimulus billWhat I'm going to discuss below is what's in the table above. (Click on the image to expand.) The "Account Total for Title 17 innovative technology loan guarantee program" shows $9,000M in Budget Authority (BA) for all energy loan guarantees. A week ago it was $10B but was one of the provisions that changed to get the votes of three Republican Senators.

Right above the "Account Total" is the "Supplemental Emergency" budget authority which shows that $500M is to be appropriated to the existing loan guarantee program to provide $50 billion in loan volume. And then right above that is the $8,500M to be appropriated to "sec.1705 loans" which are the renewable energy projects and the transmission lines necessary to bring that renewable energy to market. These loans are separate from the existing loan guarantee program and were one of the specific provisions cut by $1B to pass the Senate.

According to CBO's page above, $50B in loan volume for the current loan guarantee program is expected to cost the taxpayers $500M (NEI, however, doesn't believe it will cost taxpayers anything (pdf)). The $50B in loan volume goes to all projects that "avoid, reduce, or sequester air pollutants or anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases and employ new or significantly improved technologies as compared to technologies in service in the United States at the time the guarantee is issued." Any renewables and transmission lines, however, will receive a separate $8.5B in appropriation to support $56B-$85B in loan volume. (I don't have the documentation yet, but the word is that this $8.5B in appropriation scores at 10-15 percent of the loan volume.)

The House's "stimulus" package does not include any budget authority for the existing loan guarantee program. Since the House and Senate versions don't match on this topic, the Conference Committee members will need to agree on whether the $50B in loan volume should be included or not. This will be a battle because certain House members on the committee don't want it in there.

Now that it's hitting crunch time, I ask that if you're a proponent of the nuclear energy industry, please call the Senate and House conference committee members to indicate your support for $50B in loan volume for the existing loan guarantee program! [And while you're at it, sign up with the Nuclear Advocacy Network.]

If you're interested in the many benefits loan guarantees could provide, then see our policy brief on Financing New Nuclear Plants (pdf).

Update 5:10 pm: Mr. Joseph Romm has a different take on what these loan guarantees mean at AlterNet and Climate Progress (they're identical posts). I left the same comment at his blog, Climate Progress, as the one at AlterNet...we'll see if he approves it on his own blog. :-)

Update 8:00 pm: My comment never showed up on Romm's blog (big surprise) but it was the first one on his Gristmill post.

Update 2/12, 5:30 am: Sad news, the $50B in loan volume for the existing loan guarantee program was stripped from the final bill. :-(

Well, there's always the next piece of legislation...

Comments

Friend. Nice work. Do you know if it is still in - the $50 billion loan guarantees? Suggestions in how to make sure it dies?
Joseph said…
Isn't Joseph Romm the same person who counts nuclear subsidies in terms of total amount since the technology was invented and wind subsidies in terms of cost per day per household?
gunter said…
The $50 billion in loan guarantees was cut out of the stimulus bill.
The Democrats caved in to 'Friends of the Earth' and the Republicans including the senator who proposed the 50 billion in additional loan guarantees refused to vote for the stimulus package even with the loan guarantees for the nuclear industry.

I never liked the loan guarantee program since I believe that states and utilities should get direct Federal loans for building new reactors. But I'm more concerned about the chilling effect that this could have on the US nuclear industry and even more importantly, on our economy and on our environment.

This was pure politics over science and a severe set back for our environment and our economy. The Democrats and the Republicans should be ashamed of themselves for playing politics with our future!

Marcel F. Williams

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…

Nuclear Is a Long-Term Investment for Ohio that Will Pay Big

With 50 different state legislative calendars, more than half of them adjourn by June, and those still in session throughout the year usually take a recess in the summer. So springtime is prime time for state legislative activity. In the next few weeks, legislatures are hosting hearings and calling for votes on bills that have been battered back and forth in the capital halls.

On Tuesday, The Ohio Public Utilities Committee hosted its third round of hearings on the Zero Emissions Nuclear Resources Program, House Bill 178, and NEI’s Maria Korsnick testified before a jam-packed room of legislators.


Washingtonians parachuting into state debates can be a tricky platform, but in this case, Maria’s remarks provided national perspective that put the Ohio conundrum into context. At the heart of this debate is the impact nuclear plants have on local jobs and the local economy, and that nuclear assets should be viewed as “long-term investments” for the state. Of course, clean air and electrons …