Skip to main content

Finally – Loan Guarantees

pln01122 We’ve been discussing loan guarantees for what now seems like years – about five of them in fact, as they were established as part of the Energy Policy Act of 2005, though guarantees specifically for nuclear energy came along a couple of years later – so it’s about time that we saw a few of them.

Here’s President Obama this morning at IBEW [International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers] Local 26 Headquarters in Lanham Maryland:

We are announcing roughly $8 billion in loan guarantees to break ground on the first new nuclear plant in our country in nearly three decades. It’s a plant that will create thousands of construction jobs in the next few years, and some 800 permanent jobs in the years to come. And this is only the beginning.  My budget proposes tripling the loan guarantees we provide to help finance safe, clean nuclear facilities – and we’ll continue to provide financing for clean energy projects here in Maryland and across America.

Why?

Now, I know it has long been assumed that those who champion the environment are opposed to nuclear power. But the fact is, even though we have not broken ground on a new nuclear power plant in nearly thirty years, nuclear energy remains our largest source of fuel that produces no carbon emissions. To meet our growing energy needs and prevent the worst consequences of climate change, we’ll need to increase our supply of nuclear power.  It’s that simple.  This one plant, for example, will cut carbon pollution by 16 million tons each year when compared to a similar coal plant. That’s like taking 3.5 million cars off the road.

---

The guarantee goes to the Southern Company, which intends to build Vogtle 3 and 4 in Georgia.

Here is Southern Co.’s press release on the loan guarantees. The company is pleased, naturally, but here’s what caught our eye:

Units 3 and 4 are expected to begin commercial operation in 2016 and 2017 respectively.

That’s fast. And, relevant to the concerns of the day:

The additions of units 3 and 4 are expected to to produce approximately 3,500 jobs during construction and an additional 800 permanent jobs once the units begin operation.

---

What are loan guarantees?

Loan guarantees represent no taxpayer outlay – instead, they put the imprimatur of the government behind loan applications made to private banks, reducing risk considerably. It’s really the nuclear interests and the banks that pull the financial freight here.

Now, the government would be on the hook if a project went pear-shaped, but there’s no advantage to letting that happen – any potential nuclear renaissance would wither away if the plants cannot be successfully built and the dream of reversing climate change would wither with it.

So the onus falls on the industry to ensure that the projects do not fail. And industry would not put itself willingly into a position to fail.

---

And why is the government interested in loan guarantees?

Established under Title XVII of the Energy Policy Act of 2005, the Secretary of Energy is authorized to make loan guarantees to qualified projects in the belief that accelerated commercial use of these new or improved technologies will help to sustain economic growth, yield environmental benefits, and produce a more stable and secure energy supply.

So the government promotes these projects for the common good, recognizing that a nudge to the financial sector might get the ball rolling on what can be expensive or untested technologies – nuclear falls in the first category, with much of its costs front loaded in construction, and renewables (tend to) fall in the latter category.

NEI’s Jim Slider did a nice job of explaining this:

In essence, there are some jobs so big they are beyond what the private sector alone can do. Federal support, such as loan guarantees, enables the private sector to attract more capital to the enormous projects needed than would occur otherwise. Without that public-private partnership, the entire cost of these massive projects would be borne entirely by the federal government (i.e., the taxpayers). With federal encouragement, the private sector is willing to bear a fair share of the risk and put its money on the line to contribute to dealing with the nation's energy and environmental needs.

We’ll have more on this later. DOE Secretary Steven Chu will be speaking this afternoon. We hope to get more from Southern Co.’s CEO David Ratcliffe, too. Stay tuned.

Vogtle nuclear plant – breaking ground.

Comments

Anonymous said…
Now, the government would be on the hook if a project went pear-shaped, but there’s no advantage to letting that happen – any potential nuclear renaissance would wither away if the plants cannot be successfully built and the dream of reversing climate change would wither with it.

You don't think Pelosi and Reid would happily write off 8,000,000,000 of our dollars to kill the nuclear industry? I do.
SteveK9 said…
This is a great day. We need to get back to being a can-do nation.

Anonymous:
'You don't think Pelosi and Reid would happily write off 8,000,000,000 of our dollars to kill the nuclear industry? I do.'

You are a lunatic.
Anonymous said…
You are a lunatic.

Time will tell.
Anonymous said…
I knew Obama would kill the nuclear industry! I'm just glad that those prophetic commenters that frequent this blog warned us so I would be adequately prepared for this moment.
Anonymous said…
Any idea what the fee for this guarantee will be?
kg said…
If I recall, the program required an $800,000application fee, an underwriting fee of 1/2% of the guarantee amount, and an annual maintenance fee for the loan. Net result is the federal government will end up close to $50 million in the black for each two unit plant that is successful.
gman said…
"Federal support, such as loan guarantees, enables the private sector to attract more capital to the enormous projects needed than would occur otherwise. Without that public-private partnership, the entire cost of these massive projects would be borne entirely by the federal government (i.e., the taxpayers)."

Whaaa? The feds are not in the electric power gen business (thank goodness). If the utilities can't afford to build the units, and the feds don't pitch in, the units simply won't be built.

"With federal encouragement, the private sector is willing to bear a fair share of the risk and put its money on the line to contribute to dealing with the nation's energy and environmental needs."

The utilities have no real interest in "contributing" anything - they are interested in making profits. As they should be. That's their "motivation" for putting up money.

Popular posts from this blog

Fluor Invests in NuScale

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

An Ohio School Board Is Working to Save Nuclear Plants

Ohio faces a decision soon about its two nuclear reactors, Davis-Besse and Perry, and on Wednesday, neighbors of one of those plants issued a cry for help. The reactors’ problem is that the price of electricity they sell on the high-voltage grid is depressed, mostly because of a surplus of natural gas. And the reactors do not get any revenue for the other benefits they provide. Some of those benefits are regional – emissions-free electricity, reliability with months of fuel on-site, and diversity in case of problems or price spikes with gas or coal, state and federal payroll taxes, and national economic stimulus as the plants buy fuel, supplies and services. Some of the benefits are highly localized, including employment and property taxes. One locality is already feeling the pinch: Oak Harbor on Lake Erie, home to Davis-Besse. The town has a middle school in a building that is 106 years old, and an elementary school from the 1950s, and on May 2 was scheduled to have a referendu

Wednesday Update

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