Skip to main content

Thoughts on the DOE Loan Guarantee Program

The Department of Energy is moving forward with its clean energy Loan Guarantee program. In a press release last week, DOE announced that it had received applications from 17 companies to build 14 nuclear power plants totaling 21 new units and almost 29,000 megawatts of new electrical capacity. In total, the applications seek $122 billion in loan guarantees, while the program is authorized to commit only $18.5 billion to new nuclear plants. Following the DOE announcement, NEI's Richard Myers, Vice President, Policy Development, noted in an interview with Bloomberg that the oversubscription is a sign that $18.5 billion is not adequate to provide the financing support necessary. In a piece on the loan guarantee program and another on the debt ceiling of the Tenessee Valley Authority, Dan Yurman explains why.

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. That's what we take from the oversubscription in loan guarantee applications last week.

Comments

Martin Burkle said…
Looks like these plants average 7.1 billion each. Would the total cost of the plant be guaranteed or is there more cost than this?
David Bradish said…
Martin, in order to receive a loan guarantee, as much but not more than 80% of the project costs can be financed by debt. The loan guarantee backs all of the debt. The other 20% has to come from equity.

So if the plant costs $7.1B, then the government can guarantee at most up to 80% of the total cost (depending on how the utility wants to finance the project) or $5.7B.
Arvid said…
Of course, one idea is that the government does carry 100 % of the cost, and ownership, like in France...

By the way, does the industry pay anything for these loan guarantees? One could argue that they won't cost the US government a single cent as long as nothing goes wrong, but the government is taking on quite a bit of risk which could end up as real debts. And the guarantees are obviously very valuable to the industry, one could probable even put a dollar value on them.

I propose a bold and (imho) fair plan: give loan guarantees to all serious power projects in the US! That would be fair but would tilt the competitive board so capital intensive technologies (wind and nuclear) become more competitive than they are today.

Of course, you could argue that it wouldn't tilt anything, and that the current system instead is tilted in the interest of low capital plants, that is, gas.

As a matter of fact, that is exactly what I claim: in the power business there is no such thing as a level playing field, just a number of diifferently sloping ones, and it's up to the government to choose the one which is most in the national interest.
David Bradish said…
By the way, does the industry pay anything for these loan guarantees?

Definitely. Here's what Exelon will pay for the loan guarantee on the two proposed reactors in Texas:

"Exelon will pay DOE a program fee of more than $400 million for the application, Nesbit said. There will also be an annual loan maintenance fee of $200,000 to $400,000, a one-time facility fee of about $55 million and a one-time application fee of about $800,000."

One could argue that they won't cost the US government a single cent as long as nothing goes wrong

We try to make that argument, but it doesn't always get heard. Oh well, gotta keep at it.

Popular posts from this blog

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…

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 …

A Billion Miles Under Nuclear Energy (Updated)

And the winner is…Cassini-Huygens, in triple overtime.

The spaceship conceived in 1982 and launched fifteen years later, will crash into Saturn on September 15, after a mission of 19 years and 355 days, powered by the audacity and technical prowess of scientists and engineers from 17 different countries, and 72 pounds of plutonium.

The mission was so successful that it was extended three times; it was intended to last only until 2008.

Since April, the ship has been continuing to orbit Saturn, swinging through the 1,500-mile gap between the planet and its rings, an area not previously explored. This is a good maneuver for a spaceship nearing the end of its mission, since colliding with a rock could end things early.

Cassini will dive a little deeper and plunge toward Saturn’s surface, where it will transmit data until it burns up in the planet’s atmosphere. The radio signal will arrive here early Friday morning, Eastern time. A NASA video explains.

In the years since Cassini has launc…