nuclear-news

The News That Matters about the Nuclear Industry Fukushima Chernobyl Mayak Three Mile Island Atomic Testing Radiation Isotope

Legal case against UK’s Nuclear Decommissioning Authority

money-in-nuclear--wastesUK nuclear body faces £200m damages claim from Energy Solutions. Ft.com By Gill Plimmer 15 June 14,Britain’s Nuclear Decommissioning Authority is facing a £200m damages claim from one of the bidders who lost out on a £7bn deal to clean up Britain’s oldest nuclear power plants.

Energy Solutions, a Salt Lake City-based company, filed a High Court writ last week after losing the 14-year contract to engineering company Babcock and Texas-based Fluor. The deal is one of the largest and most sensitive government contracts ever put out to tender.

The Nuclear Decommissioning Authority, the government-funded body responsible for Britain’s state-owned nuclear sites, started the competition two years ago and work is expected to start by Babcock in September.

But Energy Solutions, which has been managing the nuclear sites for the past 14 years, has alleged in documents filed to the High Court last week that the NDA’s point scoring system is flawed and that it didn’t follow its own procedures. It competed for the contract in partnership with the US company Bechtel but is taking legal action alone……..http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/d7394394-f483-11e3-a143-00144feabdc0.html#axzz34qaWV0UC

 

June 16, 2014 Posted by | Legal, UK | Leave a comment

Fukushima radiation has killed one sailor from USS Ronald Reagan, with rare cancer

radiation-warningFirst Sailor from USS Ronald Reagan dies from radiation from FUKUSHIMA http://investmentwatchblog.com/first-sailor-from-uss-ronald-reagan-dies-from-radiation-from-fukushima/#TpACD1zIVugkBWMs.99 June 12th, 2014 1st death in USS Reagan case; rare cancer takes 38 yr old Tomodachi samaritan. RIP Theodore Holcomb

Information just released today by the legal team representing the USS Reagan sailors in their billion dollar lawsuit against TEPCO.

http://www.nuclearhotseat.com/1964/

The Ronald Reagan spent a couple months at sea after being dosed off with radiation, trying to clean itself up; then, according to a lawyer for the sailors claiming injury, it was decontaminated at port in Washington State for another year and a half before returning to service.

June 13, 2014 Posted by | health, Legal, USA | 2 Comments

Nuclear company sued over radiation exposure to workers

justiceLawsuit filed against E. Idaho nuclear contractor June 12, 2014 San Francisco Chronicle, IDAHO FALLS, Idaho (AP) — A lawsuit has been filed involving a 2011 accident at an eastern Idaho nuclear facility that exposed 16 workers to plutonium. Jodi Stanton, the wife of an exposed worker, filed the lawsuit in federal court Tuesday, the Post Register reported (http://www.postregister.com/node/56654). She contends the couple’s home might have been contaminated with radioactivity because the company withheld information or offered false information about her husband’s medical condition following the accident.

The lawsuit targets Battelle Energy Alliance, the company contracted by the government to operate the Idaho National Laboratory. It seeks an undisclosed amount in damages………

The accident happened in a building that once housed a nuclear reactor. Workers had been taking plutonium fuel out of storage when they came upon radioactive materials held in two containers, each marked with a label stating the containers were damaged.

After talking to supervisors, workers removed the wrapping on one of the containers and a radioactive black powder spilled out. The workers had on lab coats and some had gloves, but none had respiratory gear or other protective clothing, according to a report released in 2013 by the Department of Energy. http://www.sfchronicle.com/business/energy/article/Lawsuit-filed-against-E-Idaho-nuclear-contractor-5548176.php

June 13, 2014 Posted by | Legal, USA | Leave a comment

Legal case continues over Australian govt’s plan to dump nuclear waste on Aboriginal land

Indigenous land owners accuse lawyer of manipulating nuclear waste storage report June 4, 2014 –  Legal Affairs Reporter for The Age A lawyer who was key to the Howard government’s plan to store nuclear waste on indigenous land has been accused of manipulating the legal process required to ensure its approval.

Traditional owners from four indigenous clans are challenging the Ngapa clan’s 2007 nomination of Muckaty Station for the dump site in the Federal Court in Melbourne. The owners, including Aboriginal elders, argue they did not consent to the nomination, were not consulted on the agreement reached and were misled on the government’s proposal for the nuclear storage site.

aboriginal-issues

Ron Levy was then the chief legal counsel for the Northern Land Council, which was set up to help indigenous people in the Northern Territory acquire and manage traditional lands. Mr Levy will be called as a witness later in the five-week case before Justice Anthony North.

Ron Merkel, QC, for the traditional owers, told the court on Thursday that Mr Levy “personally edited” anthropologists’ views in a Council report which concluded that only the Ngapa Lauder clan owned the site. Mr Levy also wrote a new section in the final report, reflecting his view that the Land Commissioner could depart from judges’ previous decisions on land claims, “if relevant material was before the commissioner.”

Mr Merkel said that he did this “(so) that the Lauder Ngupas would be recognised by the Northern Land Council as the only traditional owners of the site so their consent could be secured.” The site nomination could then “jump a hurdle” of having to consult in more detail about about the plan with other clans, he said………..

Mr Merkel told the court on Tuesday that Mr Levy, who controlled the consultation process, also failed to tell the full Northern Land Council or traditional owners about the only up-front $200,000 payment given to traditional owners for the site nomination or the terms of their agreement.

But he later told the federal goverrnment that he had all traditional owners’ full consent.

Mr Merkel said there was no explanation for this “unless … Mr Levy had a plan from the outset about how to achieve the end result and he did”. http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/indigenous-land-owners-accuse-lawyer-of-manipulating-nuclear-waste-storage-report-20140604-39jk8.html#ixzz33nhZjp26.

June 5, 2014 Posted by | AUSTRALIA, indigenous issues, Legal, wastes | Leave a comment

In Australian Federal Court, Aborigines continue the fight against radioactive waste dumping on their land

flag-AustraliaNuclear waste dump on Aboriginal land invalid, court told The West Australian, 3 June 14. Sydney (AFP) – The earmarking of a remote Australian outback area as a nuclear waste dump was invalid because officials failed to contact all traditional Aboriginal landowners affected, a court heard Monday.Muckaty Station in the Northern Territory was nominated in early 2007 as a site to store low and intermediate radioactive waste under a deal negotiated with the Aboriginal Ngapa clan.

While Australia does not use nuclear power, it needs a site to store waste, including processed fuel rods from the country’s only nuclear reactor at Lucas Heights, on the outskirts of Sydney,…..Opponents have fought against the dump for years, with a trial starting in the Federal Court in Melbourne Monday alleging Muckaty’s nomination was invalid due to a failure of the government and the land council to obtain the consent of all Aboriginal owners.

“What we’re here to say is ‘no more’ and that this process was so legally flawed that it is invalid,” Ron Merkel, who is representing traditional owners, told the court.

“The opposition is in no small part based on a spiritual affiliation to the land and that radioactive waste will poison the land,” he said in comments cited by Australian Associated Press.

aboriginal-issues

The court was told the consent of all groups with a claim to the land was required for the facility to go ahead, but some Aboriginals whose country was affected have never had a chance to voice their concerns until now……..Speaking to reporters, Kylie Sambo, of the Warlmanpa people, said the idea of a waste facility on the land, which is in the centre of the country, was “poison”.

“We don’t want it to spoil our country because we love our land and we’ve been there for centuries,” she said. “My uncle once told me, ‘You may think you own the land, but in fact the land owns us’.”

The Australian Conservation Foundation said the case raised questions about the country’s management of long-lived radioactive waste.
“Australia has never has an independent assessment of how best to manage radioactive waste; now we urgently need one,” campaigner Dave Sweeney said.

The case is set to run for five weeks. https://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/world/a/24084083/nuclear-waste-dump-on-aboriginal-land-invalid-court-told/

June 3, 2014 Posted by | AUSTRALIA, indigenous issues, Legal, wastes | Leave a comment

Settlement reached between Vancouver Province and uranium company

justiceflag-canadaVancouver’s Boss Power closes on $30-million settlement with province over uranium ban By Tyler Orton http://www.biv.com/article/20140602/BIV0108/140609993/vancouvers-boss-power-closes-on-30-million-settlement-with-province Mon Jun 2, 2014  A Vancouver-based resource company has closed on a $30-million settlement with the B.C. government, officially putting to bed a nearly six-year-old lawsuit.

The province imposed a halt on all uranium exploration and development in April 2008. Boss Power Corp. (TSX.V: BPU) filed suit later in the year claiming the B.C. government expropriated the company’s interest in its Blizzard uranium property near Kelowna when it imposed a “no registration reserve” under the Mineral Tenure Act.

The reserve allowed the government to ensure no future claims included the rights to uranium, however, Boss Power argued the property was registered before this ban went into effect.

Boss Power and Victoria settled for $30 million in 2011 before the case went to court.

The final amended settlement will divide the settlement up between other parties with interests in the property.

About 80% of the settlement will be held in a trust until Boss Power is reorganized into two different corporations, an arrangement expected to be approved in August.

June 2, 2014 Posted by | Canada, Legal | Leave a comment

Largest environmental settlement ever to clean up South Dakota uranium mine

justiceFlag-USASettlement gives $179 million to clean up abandoned uranium mine in Harding County, Rapid City Journal, 1 June 14 Used in the early years of America’s thirst for nuclear fuel, the Riley Pass uranium mine in Harding County was one of hundreds of sites mined to provide fuel for nuclear weapons and reactors.

Companies strip-mined the site, which sprawls across 250 acres of bluffs and other land in the North Cave Hills, about five miles east of the town of Ludlow about 130 miles northwest of Rapid City. In those days, there were no regulations forcing companies to clean up old mines.

“Back in the Cold War era, there was almost sort of a gold rush going on up there for uranium,” said Dan Seifert, a project coordinator for the Riley Pass mine with Custer National Forest.

But for the past 50 years, the mining site has been abandoned, and waste products known as spoils have sat exposed to the wind and rain. That allowed toxic metals and elements like arsenic, uranium, radium and thorium vulnerable to be carried away by the weather.

Now, a tangled series of court proceedings has resulted in a $179 million plan to clean up the majority of the mine site. That money is part of a settlement, announced last month by the U.S. Department of Justice and approved by a judge last week, required Anadarko Petroleum Corp. to pay a $5.15 billion settlement of fraud claims from a 2006 acquisition of Kerr-McGee. Continue reading

June 2, 2014 Posted by | Legal, Uranium, USA | 1 Comment

Corporate executives could be liable for damages for funding climate denialsim

climate-changeBig Carbon’s Big Liability Environmental groups have warned directors of fossil fuel companies that they may be held personally liable for misleading the public about climate change. The Nation Dan Zegart   May 29, 2014  

A new and potentially potent weapon is being unleashed in the climate wars. Yesterday, three major international environmental organizations warned the corporate executives of some of the largest fossil fuel companies that they could be personally liable for damages for funding climate change denialists and working against efforts to slow climate change. Continue reading

June 2, 2014 Posted by | business and costs, Legal, USA | Leave a comment

A legal precedent that could stall Japan’s nuclear power restart

judge-1flag-japanOi ruling may fuel anti-nuclear push  Plaintiffs elated as district court prioritizes rights over profits Japan Times, BY ERIC JOHNSTON MAY 22, 2014 Wednesday’s court ruling blocking restarts of the No. 3 and 4 reactors at Kansai Electric Power Co.’s Oi plant may embolden opponents of nuclear power nationwide.

It creates a legal precedent and could fuel resistance to restarts, throwing into question whether the administration of Prime Minister Shinzo Abe will be able to push ahead with them as swiftly as planned.

The government earlier asserted that the ruling, by the Fukui District Court, would have no impact on its plans.

Kepco announced Thursday it has appealed the lower court’s decision to the Kanazawa branch of the Nagoya High Court. There, the case could take two or three years to be decided……….

Kepco came under intense criticism from the Fukui court, which said the utility had made optimistic safety projections with no clear evidence. But in a move that could have ramifications nationwide, the court also ruled that 166 plaintiffs living within a 250-km radius of the Oi plant faced concrete dangers from the operation of nuclear power stations.

That could open the door to lawsuits from anyone living within 250 km of a nuclear plant, if the Fukui court’s decision is used as the basis for a claim that other utilities, as well as the Nuclear Regulation Authority, have created inadequate safety measures to deal with the possibility of an accident.

The entire Kansai region, most of Chubu, including Nagoya, much of Chugoku, including Hiroshima, and roughly a third of Shikoku lies within 250 km of the Oi plant.

Plaintiffs were particularly happy the court ruling included language that said providing electricity via nuclear plants is a mere economic activity, and as such has a lower priority than personal rights……..ww.japantimes.co.jp/news/2014/05/22/national/oi-ruling-may-fuel-anti-nuclear-push/#.U4PbrnJdWik

May 26, 2014 Posted by | Japan, Legal | Leave a comment

Legal ruling in Japan throws doubt on ANY nuclear reactor restarts

safety-symbol1Reflect on Fukui nuclear ruling, Japan Times 23 May 14   The Fukui District Court’s ruling this week that it will not allow the restart of two nuclear power reactors run by Kansai Electric Power Co. challenges the Abe administration’s energy policy of keeping nuclear power as a key source of the nation’s electricity supply despite the safety risks that materialized in the wake of the Fukushima flag-japannuclear power plant disaster in March 2011.

The court’s Wednesday ruling was on a lawsuit filed by a group of 189 people from Tokyo, Fukui and other prefectures against the 2012 restart of two of the reactors at
Kepco’s Oi Nuclear Power Plant in Oi, Fukui Prefecture.

The two Oi reactors — the first to have been reactivated after all of the nation’s nuclear reactors were shut down following the triple meltdowns at Tokyo Electric Power Co.’s Fukushima No. 1 plant — were taken offline last year for regular maintenance, leaving the nation again without nuclear power.

judge-1The content of the court’s ruling, in effect, questions the plans by power firms and the government to restart more than a dozen nuclear reactors around the country just three years after the disaster in Fukushima, ……

The district court said the Nos. 3 and 4 reactors at the Oi plant have “structural deficiencies” in their safety measures against severe earthquakes, and determined that restarting their operation would violate the fundamental rights to life of plaintiffs who live within 250 km of the plant — the maximum range where the effects of a worst-case nuclear power plant disaster are estimated to spread in simulations based on the Fukushima case……

The ruling dismissed an argument by Kepco in court, noting that it is legally irrelevant to discuss people’s fundamental rights to life on the same level as the question of rising costs of generating electricity.

It went on to say that even if Japan suffers large trade deficits because of the nuclear power plant shutdowns, the real loss of national wealth is when people become unable to live stable lives on their land — an apparent reference to the shattered lives of those residents around the Fukushima plant who were forced to flee their homes. The court also called the radiation fallout from the Fukushima disaster “the worst environmental contamination” in Japan’s history and brushed aside as completely missing the point the argument that the nation needs to have nuclear power as a clean energy that reduces emissions of global warming gases.

One of the key points of the ruling is that operation of the Oi reactors needs to be stopped if there is “even a slightest chance” that the reactors’ ability to keep cooling their cores and contain radioactivity could be lost — as happened in the case of the Fukushima No. 1 plant — if the plant is crippled by severe earthquakes.

The crucial point of the ruling is its contention that it is inherently impossible to determine on scientific grounds that an earthquake more powerful than assumed in the operator’s worst-case scenario would not happen. It noted that since 2005, four nuclear power reactors around the country have experienced quake shocks more powerful than the maximum level anticipated on their sites. It is “groundless optimism” in this quake-prone country that such a temblor would never hit the Oi plant, the ruling stated……..

The Abe administration and the power companies need to stop and reflect on the Fukui court ruling in the context of what the events of the Fukushima disaster. The core meltdowns at Tepco’s Fukushima plant took place after the operator deliberately underestimated tsunami risks and failed to take necessary precautions. When it hit, Tepco sought to excuse its lack of preparedness by characterizing the tsunami as simply beyond the scope of “conventional assumptions.”

What the ruling called the “groundless optimism” about safety of the Oi plant can be a malady common to all nuclear power plants in this country. The “safety myth” in nuclear power was shattered in the Fukushima disaster. Such a myth should not be resurrected. http://www.japantimes.co.jp/opinion/2014/05/23/commentary/reflect-on-fukui-nuclear-ruling/#.U4ENcHJdWik

 

May 24, 2014 Posted by | Japan, Legal, safety | Leave a comment

USA Energy Dept in a fix about legal cases and no answer for nuclear wastes

any-fool-would-know

they should stop making this toxic radioactive trash

wastes-1Tiny nuclear waste fee added up to billions LA Times, 17 May 14 A charge for electricity that millions of Americans didn’t even know they pay will suddenly disappear Friday, after the Energy Department this week quietly notified utilities across the country that it was suspending its fees for a future nuclear waste dump.

The Energy Department has been collecting $750 million from electricity bills every year justicefor such a dump since 1983, putting it into a trust fund that now contains $31 billion.

The court-ordered suspension may be a modest victory for consumers, but it reflects the government’s failure over the last 40 years to get rid of what is now nearly 70,000 metric tons of highly radioactive spent fuel, accumulating at 100 nuclear reactors across the nation……… Continue reading

May 17, 2014 Posted by | Legal, USA, wastes | Leave a comment

The Marshall Islands Nuclear Zero Lawsuit deserves all our support

justiceThe Nuclear Zero Lawsuits: Who will speak for the people? http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/homeland-security/206271-the-nuclear-zero-lawsuits-who-will-speak-for-the-people#ixzz3216oOGyg  By Jody Williams and Robert Dodge, M.D. 16 May 14, The U.N. just concluded the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) Preparatory Committee with representatives from the 189 signatory nations and of civil society. The meeting was in preparation for next year’s NPT conference and to discuss the current status of fulfilling the obligations under the treaty and in particular, the mandate of the nuclear weapons states for global disarmament. The outcome was a continued foot dragging by the nuclear states motivating a demand for meaningful steps and progress toward disarmament by the other 184 nations in view of current international events.

Recent scientific studies by the International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War on the humanitarian consequences of limited nuclear war have shed additional light on the danger these weapons pose.  Describing a hypothetical conflict between India and Pakistan using less than ½ of 1 percent of the global nuclear arsenals, the studies confirm 2 billion people would be at risk of dying due to global climatic change.

Combined with recent scandals involving U.S. ICBM missile controllers and a growing accounting of nuclear mishaps and near misses in our nuclear forces over the years, the sense of urgency for disarmament is greater than ever. It has become a question of who will step forward and speak for humanity.

On April 24, the Republic of the Marshall Islands (RMI) filed the Nuclear Zero Lawsuits in the International Court of Justice against all nine nuclear-armed nations, as well as against the United States in U.S. Federal District Court. RMI claims that the nuclear weapon states are in breach of Article VI of the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), which entered into force 16,121 days prior to the filing. In this David vs. Goliath action this tiny island nation has found the voice to speak on behalf of the world and the other nations signatory to the Treaty.

The case for the Nuclear Zero Lawsuit comes directly from the NPT where Article VI states: “Each of the Parties to the Treaty undertakes to pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament, and on a treaty on general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control.”

This was the grand bargain that convinced many non-nuclear weapon states to sign the treaty and agree not to develop nuclear weapons of their own. Forty-four years later, with no meaningful negotiations on the horizon and no end in sight to the “step-by-step” process heralded by the permanent five members of the UN Security Council (P5), the RMI has stepped in to change the discourse on nuclear disarmament.

RMI is seeking declaratory relief from the courts that will compel the leaders of the Nuclear Weapons States (NWS) to initiate good-faith negotiations for an end to the nuclear arms race and to nuclear disarmament. They are challenging the leaders of the NWS to answer, on the record, why 44 years have passed and nuclear arsenals continue to be modernized, national security strategies continue to place nuclear weapons at the top of the list, and the P5 don’t even expect to have a “Glossary of Key Nuclear Terms” to talk about nuclear disarmament until 2015.

In addition to the five Nuclear Weapon States named in the NPT, the lawsuit also includes the four nuclear weapon states that are not parties to the NPT – Israel, India, Pakistan and North Korea – which, RMI argues, are bound to Article VI obligations under customary international law.

The RMI is a small sovereign nation, among the smallest in the world. However, their courage could not be greater. Having been a testing ground for 67 nuclear tests between 1946 and 1958, the Marshall Islanders have seen their land, sea and people poisoned from radiation. These tests had an equivalent explosive force greater than 1.5 Hiroshima bombs being detonated daily for 12 years.  The Marshall Islanders paid a heavy price in terms of their health and well-being for these destructive tests. They have experienced firsthand the horrible destruction caused by nuclear weapons and those that possess them. They are willing to stand up to the nine nuclear giants and say, “Never again. We have seen the destructive impact of these horrific weapons and vow to do all we can so the world never sees such atrocities again.”

The RMI does not act alone in this action. A consortium of NGOs working to highlight the legal and moral issues involved in the Nuclear Zero Lawsuit has come together around the world coordinated by the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation in Santa Barbara.  Respecting the courage of the plaintiff in bringing these lawsuits against some of the most powerful nations in the world they have developed a call to action.

The consortium urges everyone to join them by raising your voice in support of the Nuclear Zero Lawsuit. Go to www.nuclearzero.org, where you can read more about the lawsuits and sign the petition encouraging leaders of the Nuclear Weapon States to begin good-faith negotiations.

Williams received the 1997 Nobel Peace Prize for her work with the International Committee to Ban Landmines (ICBL) and is chair of the Nobel Women’s Initiative. Dodge is a family physician on the Board of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation and Physicians for Social Responsibility Los Angeles. PSR is the U.S. affiliate of the International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War – recipient of the 1985 Nobel Peace Prize. 

http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/homeland-security/206271-the-nuclear-zero-lawsuits-who-will-speak-for-the-people#ixzz3216oOGyg

Continue reading

May 17, 2014 Posted by | Legal, OCEANIA | Leave a comment

New nuclear reactor plans for Ontario stopped by Federal Court ruling

thumbs-downflag-canadaOntario nuclear reactor plans go back to drawing board http://metronews.ca/news/canada/1035484/reactor-plans-go-back-to-drawing-board/TORONTO – A Federal Court ruling has thrown out the preliminary approvals for a series of new nuclear power reactors in Ontario.

Ruling in a case brought by environmental groups, Justice James Russell says the environmental assessment for the proposed expansion of the Darlington nuclear plant fell short.

Russell says the assessment should have examined the environmental effects of radioactive fuel waste, a Fukushima-type accident and hazardous emissions.  As a result of the decision, the whole project is stalled until a panel can redo the assessment.

Ontario Power Generation’s plan to expand Darlington has been in the works since 2006 and would have seen up to four new reactors built.

Environmentalists welcomed the ruling.“This is a win for Canadians’ right to meaningfully participate in environmental reviews and understand the risks of nuclear power,” said Theresa McClenaghan, executive director of the Canadian Environmental Law Association. The group was part of the suit, along with Lake Ontario Waterkeeper, Northwatch and Greenpeace.

“This is a common sense ruling,” said Shawn-Patrick Stensil of Greenpeace. “It boggles the mind that the federal authorities approved new reactors without first considering the environmental effects of radioactive waste and reactor accidents.”

The Ontario government decided last October to suspend its reactor plans. But the ruling means that the project cannot be revived without more assessment.

“The Federal Court has confirmed that federal authorities must do more than simply kick the tires before approving new nuclear reactors,” said lawyer Justin Duncan.“Fully assessing radioactive waste, major accidents, and hazardous emissions is essential to protecting the health of Ontarians.”

May 16, 2014 Posted by | Canada, Legal | Leave a comment

Right wing attack on Colorado Clean Energy Standard fails in court

judge-1Court Slaps Down Right Wing Attack On Colorado Clean Energy Standard http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/05/13/3437403/right-wing-attack-on-colorado-res-slapped-down-by-court/ BY TOM KENWORTHY ON MAY 13, 2014 COLORADO’S RENEWABLE ENERGY STANDARD, ONE OF THE MOST AMBITIOUS IN THE U.S., HAS THE DISTINCTION OF BEING APPROVED NOT JUST BY THE STATE LEGISLATURE BUT ALSO BY VOTERS IN A STATEWIDE REFERENDUM.

Now it’s been approved in the courts.

In a decision that could have implications for other renewable energy requirements under attack by the fossil fueled right wing, a U.S. District Court judge has upheld Colorado’s RES. Judge William J. Martinez flatly rejected arguments by the Energy and Environment Legal Institute that Colorado’s RES violated the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution. Martinez granted summary judgment to the three defendants in the case, all commissioners of the state’s Public Utilities Commission.

In a news release responding to the decision, EarthJustice — which represented environmental groups which intervened in the case — said the decision will have implications beyond Colorado because renewable standards in some of the 30 other states that have them are “under legal attack by the fossil fuel industry and its supporters.”

Michael Hiatt, an EarthJustice attorney, said in an interview there have been a number of cases attacking clean energy and climate change efforts that have been rooted in Commerce Clause arguments and that the Colorado decision is important in beating back that line of legal attack. “It confirms that states do have the authority to mandate the use of renewables,” he said.

The Colorado case dates to 2011 when plaintiff Energy and Environment Legal Institute was known as the American Tradition Institute (ATI), a longtime opponent of mainstream climate science and clean energy. ATI had a partner organization called the American Tradition Partnership. According to theInstitute for Southern Studies the groups have ties to fossil fuel interests including the Koch brothers.

According to SourceWatch, ATI or its employees have been involved in campaign finance violations in Montana, in suing the University of Virginia to obtain access to the emails of climatologist Michael Mann, and in an effort to build a nationwide movement against wind power.

Colorado voters approved the state’s first RES in 2004, which required large investor-owned utilities to get 10 percent of their power from renewable sources. The state legislature has twice improved upon that first requirement, and those large utilities must now get 30 percent of their power from renewable sources by the year 2020. Municipal utilities and large rural electric co-ops must meet less stringent standards.

May 14, 2014 Posted by | Legal, USA | Leave a comment

Germany’s nuclear industry fights to make tax-payers pay for cleanup

text-my-money-2German utilities and government clash over nuclear ‘bad bank’ By Jeevan Vasagar in Berlin  http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/49c5b222-d926-11e3-837f-00144feabdc0.html#axzz31XFPjIHH 11 May 14, 

Germany’s nuclear industry is fighting Berlin over a plan to transfer the risks of shutting down facilities to a publicly owned foundation that would act as a “bad bank”.

flag_germanyThe power companies are engaged in a decommissioning exercise with an estimated cost of more than €30bn after Berlin announced an accelerated exit from nuclear energy following the Fukushima disaster in 2011. The work includes demolishing nuclear plants and disposing of radioactive waste.

German utilities Eon, RWE and EnBW have discussed the creation of a state-owned foundation to oversee the decommissioning process. Under their plan, the utilities would transfer to the foundation billions of euros in reserves that they have built up to pay for demolition and disposal. In return, the German government would shoulder the risk for any cost overruns.

But that proposal, first reported in Der Spiegel on Sunday, was rejected by German environment minister Barbara Hendricks. She said: “The full responsibility for the safe phasing out, closure, decommissioning and interim storage of nuclear waste lies with the energy companies.”

One German energy executive said on Sunday that while the idea had been discussed, there were no concrete plans. Eon, RWE and EnBW all declined to comment.

The proposal is the latest sign of strain between Berlin and utilities, which have clashed in the courts over the closure of nuclear plants and the validity of a nuclear fuel tax.

The fight comes at a time when German power companies are struggling because the favourable treatment given to renewable energy has battered the profitability of their conventional electricity plants.

The country’s seven oldest nuclear plants were all taken offline immediately after the Japanese disaster, while an eighth plant that was offline at the time stayed shut: the remaining nine are to be closed down by 2022.

Eon said in March that it intended to shut the Grafenrheinfeld nuclear plant in Bavaria seven months before schedule because of its lack of profitability.

That plant, in a state that is home to some of Germany’s most successful manufacturers, will now close in May 2015.

Berlin’s abrupt decision to phase out nuclear energy represented a U-turn on a 2010 deal to extend the lives of nuclear plants. The companies agreed, in that deal, to a tax on nuclear fuel, which was introduced at the start of 2011 – and remains in place, despite the change of policy.

A court in Hamburg ruled in April that the German state should repay more than €2.2bn in nuclear fuel taxes to the utilities.

However, this decision is not legally binding and the case has been referred to the European Court of Justice.

RWE is pursuing a civil claim for damages over the decision by the state government of Hesse to order the closure of the Biblis nuclear power plant after Fukushima.

May 12, 2014 Posted by | Germany, Legal, politics | Leave a comment