Analysis: Trump’s Saudi bet has become much riskier,By MATTHEW LEE, 17 Oct, WASHINGTON (AP)— President Donald Trump put a big and risky bet on Saudi Arabia and its 33-year-old crown prince. It’s now become much riskier.
From the early days of his presidency, Trump and his foreign policy team embraced the kingdom and Mohammed bin Salman as the anchors of their entire Middle East strategy. From Iran and Iraq to Syria, Yemen and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the administration gambled that Saudi Arabia, effectively run by the prince, could credibly lead, and willingly pay for, a “Pax Arabica” in a part of the world from which Trump is keen to disengage.
For nearly two years, through an ongoing crisis with Qatar and international outrage over civilian casualties in the Saudi-led campaign against Yemeni rebels, the prince has managed to keep Washington’s confidence. But now, the tide is turning amid growing outrage over the disappearance and likely death of a U.S.-based journalist inside a Saudi Consulate in Turkey, and that confidence appears to be waning. The Trump administration’s grand strategy may be upended with far-reaching ramifications that extend well outside the region.
Even if an investigation into what happened to Washington Post contributor Jamal Khashoggi in Istanbul exonerates the prince and the top Saudi leadership, the administration’s deep reliance on him will be severely tested not least because of broad bipartisan revulsion in Congress to as-yet unconfirmed accounts of Khashoggi’s fate. Already, prominent lawmakers from both parties are questioning his fitness to lead the country and suggesting it might be time to re-think U.S.-Saudi relations and sharply curb arms sales.
Trump ally Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., and other influential politicians warned of dire consequences on Tuesday, saying the prince, often known as MBS for short, should be removed from his post……….
The impact of a U.S.-Saudi rift, however remote the possibility, could send shockwaves around the world, destabilizing oil markets and the global investment climate, not to mention dealing a blow to the Trump administration’s own plans in the Middle East.
Trump’s son-in-law and senior adviser Jared Kushner has made Saudi Arabia a centerpiece of his yet to be revealed Israeli-Palestinian peace plan, which is expected to call for massive Saudi and Gulf Arab contributions to fund reconstruction and development projects in the West Bank and Gaza.
Saudi support will also be key to the political elements of the plan that Israel insists put its security on par with Palestinian statehood. That means that Israel will likely seek assurances that any deal with the Palestinians be followed by a broader agreement that normalizes its relations with the rest of the Arab world, particularly Saudi Arabia.
In Syria, the administration relied almost entirely on Saudi Arabia, along with the closely allied United Arab Emirates, to make up for steep cuts in U.S. stabilization assistance to areas liberated from Islamic militants. Next door in Iraq, the current secretary of state, Mike Pompeo, and his predecessor, Rex Tillerson, have leaned heavily on the Saudis to make large financial pledges for reconstruction of war-shattered communities.
But it is the administration’s policy of isolating Iran that may suffer the most from Saudi-U.S. estrangement. Trump is counting on the Saudis to shore up and complement its Iran policy on several fronts………https://www.apnews.com/5f0516d3358b4acab27ca4ec56dd711e
How To Get Nuclear-Weapons Treaties Back on Track, Defense one BY DARYL G. KIMBALL, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, ARMS CONTROL ASSOCIATION, 16 Oct 18,Back in March, President Trump told reporters at the White House in March that he wanted to meet with Putin in large part “to discuss the arms race, which is getting out of control” and has characterized the costly nuclear weapons upgrade programs being pursued by each side as “a very, very bad policy.”Three months have elapsed since the July summit between Trump and Putin in Helsinki – after which the U.S. president said, “Perhaps the most important issue we discussed at our meeting…was the reduction of nuclear weapons throughout the world.”
But since the summit, there has been no apparent progress. The long-running dispute over Russia’s violation of the 1987 Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty remains. The two sides have not begun to discuss the future of the successful 2010 New START agreement, which limits each side to 1,550 deployed strategic warheads. That treaty will expire on Feb. 5, 2021, unless Trump and Putin agree to extend it.
Without these treaties in place, the door will be opened to an unconstrained nuclear arms race. The already abysmal U.S.-Russian relationship will become even more complicated and dangerous.
Next week, National Security Advisor John Bolton will travel to Moscow to meet with his counterpart in the Kremlin, Nikolai Patrushev. It is past time for both sides to get serious about resolving the INF compliance crisis, to agree to discuss the extension of New START, and to resume regular talks on “strategic stability.”
INF Woes:U.S. and Russian officials both say they support the 1987 INF Treaty, which led to the elimination all U.S. and Soviet ground-launched ballistic and cruise missiles with ranges between 500 and 5,500 kilometers. But the treaty is now at risk because Russia has tested and deployed a prohibited ground-launched cruise missile: the 9M729. Moscow, for its part, alleges, far less credibly, that Washington is deploying missile defense systems in Europe that could be used to launch offensive missiles.
Contrary to what some observers may want to believe, the arms control community has been working hard to raise the alarm belland put advance serious options to put out the INF fire. Since Russia’s INF violation became known in early 2014, the Arms Control Association has steadfastly reported on and published expert analyses on the problem in our monthly journal Arms Control Today. We have convened U.S. and European and Russian experts from inside and outside government on the INFissue, and met with U.S. lawmakers and staff to exchange views on the problem. We have confronted senior Russian officials in private consultations Washington and in Moscow and, along with a number of experts and former U.S. officials, we have put forward options for resolving the dispute. ………
The Future of New START: New START remains one of the few bright spots in an otherwise broken U.S.-Russian relationship. Ratified in 2011, the Treaty limits the number of deployed strategic warheads to a maximum of 1,550 on each side, a target each met earlier this year, and which is far below the tens of thousands we pointed at each other during the Cold War.
The Treaty imposes important bounds on strategic nuclear competition as long as it is in force. As allowed in Article XIV of the treaty, it can be extended by up to five years by agreement by the two Presidents, without requiring further action by the Congress or the Duma.
Before and after the Helsinki summit, Russian officials have reiterated their interest in talks designed to extend the treaty. But after his first post-Helsinki meeting with Patrushev, in Geneva on Aug. 23, Bolton said the administration remains in the “early stages” of an interagency review about whether to extend, replace, or jettison New START or to pursue a different type of approach.
Unfortunately, some elements in the Trump administration want to hold New START hostage until Russia acknowledges its INFviolation—an extremely unlikely possibility. Sacrificing New START, given the transparency it provides, would only create a bigger nuclear headache and do nothing to bring Russia back into compliance with INF.
Key Senate Democrats have called for an extension of New START so long as Russia remains in compliance with it, and several leading Senate Republicans have also voiced their support for New START. U.S. military leaders continue to see value in New START; for example, Gen. John Hyten, commander of U.S. Strategic Command, told Congress last March that “bilateral, verifiable arms control agreements are essential to our ability to provide an effective deterrent.”
If New START is not extended, there will be no legally binding limits on the world’s two largest strategic arsenals for the first time since 1972. In its absence, each side could quickly increase the number of warheads deployed on their strategic delivery systems. Unconstrained U.S.-Russian nuclear competition—in both numbers and technology—could spark an arms race as dangerous as that of the 1950s and 1960s. That would add scores of billions in additional costs to an already unrealisticU.S.nuclear upgrade plan.
Every resident in Essex County can now obtain potentially life-saving pills to protect them from radiation in case of an accident at one of the nearby U.S. nuclear power plants.
Every resident in Essex County can now obtain potentially life-saving pills to protect them from radiation in case of an accident at one of the nearby U.S. nuclear power plants.
The potassium iodide (KI) pills are available to people in Essex County and part of Chatham-Kent who live within range of Michigan’s Enrico Fermi 2 Nuclear Generating Station or the Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station in Ohio. Dr. Wajid Ahmed, the acting medical officer of health for the Windsor-Essex County Health Unit, said taking the tablets in the wake of a nuclear accident can help prevent thyroid cancer.
“The most common thing that is released in the event of a nuclear emergency is the radioactive iodine,” he said. “Anyone who gets exposed to the radioactive iodine, it tends to get absorbed in the thyroid gland, and then potentially someone can develop thyroid cancer after some time.”
The health unit launched the potassium iodide distribution plan for the “primary zone” in April for households within 16.1 km of the nuclear power plants. Ahmed said Essex County’s primary zone included about 400 Amherstburg and Boblo Island home
Holtec International, a New Jersey-based company specializing in nuclear storage, has applied to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission for a license to construct the nuclear waste storage facility about 35 miles east of Carlsbad.
The Hobbs News-Sun reported that the commission staff is conducting a detailed security review of Holtec’s security and safeguards plan for the proposed $2.4 billion storage facility.
According to a letter sent to Holtec last week, the staff determined more information is necessary for its review.
New Mexico-based Holtec spokesman Gerges Scott said the questions were anticipated and Holtec is preparing responses.
Nuclear innovation legislation becoming law, Post Register., Mike Crapo, a U.S. Senator, 16 Oct 18
Congress’s recent passage of S. 97, the Nuclear Energy Innovation Capabilities Act (NEICA) ………. Senators Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), Cory Booker (D-New Jersey), Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) and Dick Durbin (D-Illinois) also co-sponsored this legislation that directs the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) to prioritize partnerships with private innovators to test and demonstrate advanced reactor concepts.
The measure authorizes the creation of a National Reactor Innovation Center that brings together the technical expertise of the National Labs and the DOE to enable the construction and testing of experimental reactors. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) would partner with the DOE in this effort, contributing its expertise on safety issues while also learning about the new technologies developed through the Center. This legislation strengthens the ability of national laboratories, like Idaho National Laboratory (INL), to partner with private industry to prove the principles behind their research. ………ttps://www.postregister.com/star/opinion/nuclear-innovation-legislation-becoming-law/article_dbbcc9f3-0cab-523b-aa97-0e0d783b371c.html
The Sandpaper.net, Gina G. Scala, ggscala@thesandpaper.net, Oct 17, 2018 Less than a month after submitting a license renewal application to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Holtec International Inc., a New Jersey-based company known globally for its used nuke fuel management technologies and interested in purchasing the Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station from its current owners, submitted a revised report outlining its decommissioning plans for the plant.The Holtec Post-Shutdown Decommissioning Activities Report will be reviewed separately from the license transfer application, according to Neil Sheehan, public information officer for the NRC Region 1 office. The license transfer provides information on how and why the company is financially and technically capable of handling the Oyster Creek decommissioning as well as managing the spent nuclear fuel storage onsite for the foreseeable future, he said. In their joint license renewal application, the two companies requested that the NRC adhere to a schedule to help meet a May 1, 2019, deadline for its decision on ownership……..
The revised PSDAR, submitted Sept. 28, highlights the accelerated schedule for the prompt decommissioning of Oyster Creek and the unrestricted release of the site, with the exclusion of the Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation, or spent fuel pad, on site.
“This DECON PSDAR is contingent upon NRC approval of the LTA (license transfer application), completion of transfer of the licenses and asset sale closure. If the licenses are not transferred, this DECON PSDAR will be ineffective, and the May 21, 2018 PSDAR submitted by Exelon Generation will remain in effect,” according to the revised PSDAR. “Exelon Generation has reviewed the contents of this letter and is aligned.”
The Master Summary Schedule is based on the assumptions that the licenses are transferred to Holtec in July 2019, according to the report.
From the beginning, Holtec officials have said the company’s preferred method for decommissioning Oyster Creek was a DECON, or decontamination, method, in which equipment, structures and portions of the facility and site that contain radioactive contaminants are promptly removed and decontaminated to a level that permits termination of the license shortly after cessation of operations.
The one timeline change from an Aug. 15 meeting with the NRC and Exelon Generation is the transfer of spent nuclear fuel to the ISFSI. Under the revised PSDAR report, that activity is slated to be finalized in 2023, providing for the complete dismantlement of the reactor and turbine buildings. Radiological decommissioning, according to the revised plan, is expected to be completed by 2024. That would allow full release of the Route 9 site, located on 779 acres of land in the Forked River section of Lacey Township, with the except of the spent fuel pad.
In August, Holtec’s expedited timeline called for this process to begin with still-hot spent fuel being moved sometime next year and a 2021 completion date, with a full removal from the site by 2034 and full license termination by 2035.
“The Oyster Creek spent fuel is projected to be accepted by the DOE (Department of Energy) for shipment away from the Oyster Creek site in the years 2034 and 2035,” according to the revised report. “Spent fuel storage operations continue at the site, independent of decommissioning operations, until the transfer of the fuel to the DOE is complete. At that time, the ISFSI is decommissioned and the site released for unrestricted use.”
The NRC is currently reviewing applications for two potential interim sites to house spent nuclear fuel, one in Texas and the other in New Mexico. In the meantime, the only option for U.S. nuclear power plants is to store spent fuel from the reactor vessel on site.
Just last month, the deadline to request a public hearing on Holtec International’s interim repository in New Mexico closed. However, there is still time to request a public hearing for a similar spent fuel facility in West Texas. That window closes Oct. 29. The federal agency resumed reviewing the application after it received two letters, dated June 8 and July 19, from Interim Storage Partners, a joint venture between Waste Control Specialists and Orano CIS LLC. ……. https://thesandpaper.villagesoup.com/p/would-be-nuclear-plant-owner-submits-revised-decommissioning-plan-for-oyster-creek/1784585
Dominion seeks new 20-year Licensing for Surry Nuclear Reactors Power Engineering 10/17/2018, By Rod Walton Dominion Energy has filed an application with federal regulators asking to keep its Surry nuclear power station licensed for additional 20-year terms.
Surry Units 1 and 2 were commissioned in 1972 and 1973, respectively. Dominion has previously said it believes the nuclear plant along the James River in Virginia could be safely operational through 2053.
Residents around the West Lake Landfill will be thrilled to learn that the Environmental Protection Agency is weighing a plan to rewrite science regarding the amount of tolerable human exposure to low-level radiation. The EPA has begun touting the idea that a little radiation could actually be good for you.
Despite prevailing medical and scientific research showing a direct link between various forms of cancer and low-level radiation, the EPA wants to rewrite exposure guidelines in an apparent nod to industries that either produce radioactive waste or encounter it in their operations, such as gas fracking and oil drilling.
Easing the danger threshold helps corporations reduce their costs and boost profits. But it decidedly does not mean radiation, even at low levels, isn’t hazardous to human health.
The EPA rethink is happening not because scientists suddenly are surging forth with new findings about supposedly beneficial effects of radiation. Rather, the agency is relying on the findings of a single outlier, Edward Calabrese, a University of Massachusetts toxicologist.
Reducing EPA standards on exposure “would have a positive effect on human health as well as save billions and billions and billions of dollars,” Calabrese stated in 2016. He told a Senate oversight panel on Oct. 3 that cancer-risk assessments on radiation are “based on flawed science” and “ideological biases.”
Calabrese appears to suggest that high cancer rates among humans exposed to radiation from atomic-bomb research and explosions in the 1940s and ’50s caused an overreaction regarding the threat from lower-level exposures. Scientists concede that low-level radiation might not be as harmful as once feared, but that’s a far cry from being harmless or beneficial.
The new proposed EPA guidelines coincide with Trump administration efforts to de-emphasize science if it relies on health data that cannot be revealed without violating individuals’ right to privacy. In April, then-EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt declared, “The era of secret science at EPA is coming to an end.” If source data remained secret, the administration would discount it in determining environmental and climate policy — a Catch-22 situation since medical data involving individuals’ health records must be kept secret under the 1996 Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act.
This new interpretation would be great news for companies like Republic Services, whose West Lake Landfill contains tons of radioactive waste that the company wants to keep capped and buried in an unlined pit instead of spending millions of dollars to dig it up and transferring it to a proper radioactive-waste facility. Oil- and gas-drilling companies could realize major savings if pipes and other equipment contaminated by underground radioactivity were designated as safe and allowed to be reused.
Sure, it would mean some St. Louis-area residents or oilfield workers are exposed to potentially dangerous radioactivity. But think of the savings for Trump’s big-business donors!
In recent years, the U.S. Department of Energy has been working to retrieve the nuclear waste left in storage tanks, and in one area known as C-Farm, they’ve removed as much as they can get.
“But there is some amount they were not able to get,” said Jeff Burright, nuclear waste remediation specialist with the Oregon Department of Energy. “And that equates to approximately 70,000 gallons of waste.”
The Energy Department wants to downgrade that remainder to “low-level radioactive waste,” so they can leave it in place and fill the tanks with grout. The area would then be sealed off to prevent the waste from migrating.
It’s the first step in a long closure process for about 10 percent of the storage tanks on the site. But the Oregon Department of Energy has raised concernsthat federal officials are moving too quickly. The state has filed public comments asking federal officials to do additional reviews before making any decisions.
“The movement of waste through the Hanford environment is a very complex process that we’re still trying to fully understand,” Burright said. “Despite their best efforts, there are still uncertainties over very long time scales that could represent future risk.”
Burright said closing the tanks could prevent the future removal of the 70,000 gallons of remaining waste should new technologies emerge. Plus, he said, there may be additional risks stemming from the million gallons of waste that have already leaked or spilled into the ground underneath the tanks on the site.
Joshua S Hill 16 October 2018 A bill currently working its way through the Washington D.C. City Council will require all local utilities to source 100% of their electricity from renewable energy sources by 2032.
Like the Australian Capital Territory in Canberra, which has its own 100 per cent renewable energy target that will be met by 2020 – it is a strong and not-so-subtle reprimand to the occupant of the capital district’s most famous house.
The CleanEnergy DC Omnibus Amendment Act of 2018 was introduced to the Council of the District of Columbia (Washington D.C.) in July and has been working its way through procedures before the first of two public hearings was held last week.
In addition to increasing the District’s Renewable Portfolio Standard to 100% – which would mandate utilities operating in the District source all their electricity from renewable energy sources by 2032 – the omnibus bill also seeks to establish a solar energy standard and require utilities to procure at least 5 per cent of their power from solar by 2032.
In a move obviously intended to increase solar development in the area, the bill includes an interesting wrinkle which proposes to increase the mandated share of solar, up until a limit of 1.68GW.
“The fight to reduce the impacts of climate change is the most important environmental issue of our time,” said council member Mary M. Cheh (D-Ward 3) in July, who drafted the bill.
“The District has been a leader in this fight, but we need to do much more if we wish to achieve the greenhouse gas reduction goals in the Sustainable DC Plan and in our commitment to the Paris Accords on Climate Change.
By changing the way we approach energy consumption and building emissions, we will have a clear path forward in the fight against the devastating effects of climate change.”
The first of two hearings comes at an opportune time for the successful passing if the omnibus bill, coming as it did only a day after the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) released a Special Report on global warming, which outlined “rapid, far-reaching and unprecedented changes in all aspects of society” are needed in order to limit global warming to 1.5°C.
“If passed, this will be the strongest clean energy and climate protection law in the nation,” said Mark Rodeffer, chair Sierra Club DC Chapter. “To meet DC’s pledge to reduce greenhouse gas emissions 50 percent by 2032 and 80 percent by 2050 and to protect our communities from the catastrophic effects of climate change, this kind of resolute action is needed.”
In addition to the aforementioned provisions in the omnibus bill, it also includes new building emissions standards, funding for local sustainability initiatives, and the promise of new rules on transportation emissions.
“This bill provides the bold action needed to match the urgency of the climate crisis,” added Cliff Majersik, Executive Director of the Institute for Market Transformation. “It builds on the Clean Energy DC plan and the District’s 12-year legacy of clean energy and green building policy achievement, again blazing a path for other cities to follow.
It will stimulate investments to cut energy costs, reduce the flow of money from the District for energy imports, and create jobs for DC residents advancing renewables and energy efficiency.
The Nuclear Trump Card, The American Conservative,The Donald has the best shot at nuclear disarmament of any president over the last 20 years. By HUNTER DERENSIS • October 15, 2018There is no greater issue facing America today than that of war and peace. Marginal changes in the corporate tax rate, the precise number of visas provided to foreign workers, minor adjustments to the Social Security retirement age—all are peripheral when compared to the immense weight of foreign policy decisions. Using military force, deciding what’s in the national interest, and setting geopolitical strategy all have consequences that can affect whole nations, regions, even the world.It is the responsibility of statesmen to be as judicious as possible when it comes to military force, to act realistically and practice restraint. This prevents unwarranted infrastructure destruction, unforeseen blowback, and criminal loss of life. This carries over into a duty to work towards mutually beneficial arms control agreements and non-proliferation treaties to rein in the most destructive weapons ever created by man.
Unfortunately, outside the post-retirement advocacy of former secretary of defense William Perry and whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg, very few public figures seem to realize the dangers of nuclear brinksmanship and the importance of disarmament.
Currently, an exchange of 100 atomic bombs would kick up enough dust and debris to blot out part of the sun and starve one third of the earth’s population. Eight countries have the capability to carry out such a mass genocide. Further down the line, if 100 hydrogen weapons (H-bombs) were used, the planet would experience a nuclear winter and up to seven billion people would starve to death. Ellsberg terms this “omnicide”: the murder of everyone. Russia and the United States, as the only countries possessing H-bombs, are especially obligated to reduce their nuclear stockpiles and lessen the danger of nuclear war. The cost of not doing so could be the world itself.
……….Politically, Trump is in a better position than either of his predecessors on nuclear issues. His presidency is not dominated by ideological neoconservatives who buck any tactical diplomacy, and as a Republican his hawkish right flank has been partly neutered. Some of President Obama’s better intentioned efforts, like the nuclear agreement with Iran, were hindered by domestic politics and hawkish Republicans, always adversarial to Democratic-led peace initiatives. Trump, as a Republican, is not encumbered by such political restraints, a la “only Nixon can go to China.”
Thus far, Trump has squandered his opportunity. Jumping feet-first into Obama’s trillion dollar nuclear modernization plan launched in 2016, Trump has not made nuclear discussions with Russia a first-tier, or even fourth tier, issue. And when he has commented on it, it’s with his typical pugnaciousness. This attitude contradicts his efforts with North Korea, and isn’t the first contradiction in “Trumpism.” Meanwhile, pulling out of the nuclear agreement with Iran has exacerbated diplomatic tensions, but from Trump’s point of view, he sees the abrogation as a step in the direction of his vaunted “better deal.” His offer of new negotiations without preconditions shows that his goal is resolution, albeit in a tactically poor way. The administration should crystallize a consistent outlook on nuclear de-escalation, even if it’s only out of selfish motivations………
Most Americans support the Korean peace initiative. In the 2000, 2008, and 2016 presidential elections, voters chose the less hawkish candidate. Peace is popular, especially when the consequences of a possible nuclear fallout are explained. Hypothetically, if Trump were to invite Russian President Vladimir Putin to Washington, D.C. to initiate negotiations on nuclear weapons, he would do so from a position of political strength.
Some analysts postulate that a world power needs no more than a couple hundred nuclear weapons to achieve a deterrence factor as envisioned by MAD (mutually-assured destruction). This makes the United States’ and Russia’s combined 13,500 warheads (active and decommissioned) more than a little overkill. It’s within both countries’ interest to reduce their stockpiles to make accidents less likely and lessen the chance of death on a scale not since the extinction of the dinosaurs. Since the United States and Russia possess over 90 percent of the world’s nuclear weapons, this one diplomatic overture could, over years, end the nuclear crisis on our planet. Donald Trump could make all the difference.
States that want to keep their aging nuclear power fleet from retiring now have a court-approved roadmap for doing so. That’s because two federal courts of appeals last month upheld very similar state laws in Illinois and New York aimed at subsidizing those states’ under-performing and at-risk nuclear power plants.
The current market conditions are, quite literally, killing the nuclear power industry. With natural gas prices low and cheap renewable energy flooding the markets, it’s been virtually impossible for many nuclear power plants to compete.
Some view this as simply the market picking winners and losers. But others see this as a problem. To significantly lower this country’s greenhouse gas emissions, they argue, we’ll need baseload power (i.e., power plants that can run all of the time). And only three current large-scale power sources fit that bill: coal, natural gas, and nuclear. Of those three, only nuclear power can generate energy without carbon dioxide emissions. [ What a lie!!]
Yet in Illinois (and in most other states), nuclear energy does not qualify as a “renewable energy resource,” which means nuclear generation facilities are categorically ineligible to produce and sell renewable energy credits.
That’s why, in response to concerns that two of Exelon Corporations’ nuclear generation facilities were on the brink of closing and that the zero-emission value of nuclear generation was not being recognized, the Illinois legislature passed the Future Energy Jobs Act.
The Act directed the Illinois Power Agency to create a subsidy program requiring generators that use coal or natural gas to buy zero-emissions credits (ZECs) from nuclear power plants connected to the regional grid. The price of each credit was set at $16.50 per megawatt-hour, a number Illinois derived from a federal working group’s calculation of the social cost of carbon emissions. But, to ensure that the new program does not cause power prices to skyrocket, the price of ZECs under the program goes down if average annual energy prices on the market exceed a set cap.
Almost immediately, a group of generation facilities and consumers filed a lawsuit challenging the Illinois law. The group alleged, among other things, that the ZEC program invades the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission’s (FERC) exclusive authority over the wholesale sale of electricity in the interstate markets.
Under the Federal Power Act, FERC has sole jurisdiction over the interstate sale of electricity at wholesale; yet states are authorized to regulate energy production within their borders, including the power plants that produce that energy.
The challengers in the case, called Electric Power Supply Association v. Star, argued that Illinois’ ZEC program went too far because it tied the price of ZECs to future wholesale market prices.
On September 13, 2018, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals disagreed. “The zero-emissions credit system can influence the [market] price only indirectly,” according to the Court, because the value of a credit does not depend on the producer’s bid in the market.
Interestingly, at the Seventh Circuit’s request, FERC submitted a brief in the case, which argued that Illinois’ ZECs program was “not preempted” by the Federal Power Act because it does not expressly require generation facilities to participate in the FERC-regulated markets.
Exactly two weeks after the Seventh Circuit issued its decision, the Second Circuit issued a strikingly similar ruling in a case called Coalition for Competitive Electricity v. Zibelman.
Plaintiffs in the Zibelman case, a group of electrical generators and trade groups, also alleged that the Federal Power Act preempts New York’s ZEC program.
That program subsidizes three specific nuclear plants: FitzPatrick, Ginna, and Nine Mile Point, all of which are also owned by Exelon Corporation. Each of the plants under the New York program will obtain an additional $17.48 per megawatt-hour over the program’s first two years, and then the ZEC price every two years thereafter will be reset.
Brushing aside similar arguments from the challengers as the Seventh Circuit did, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals on September 27, 2018 ruled that the ZEC program is not preempted “because Plaintiffs have failed to identify an impermissible ‘tether’ . . . between the ZEC program and wholesale market participation.”
Together, these two decisions won’t just save the specific nuclear power plants at issue. They may give a lifeline to the entire nuclear power industry.
Charleston-area public hearing focuses on SCE&G, failed nuclear project, etc. Post and Courier 15 Oct 18
The hour is drawing near for Charleston-area residents who want to vent to the powers-that-be about the failed V.C. Summer nuclear project.
Or about their South Carolina Electric & Gas power bills.
Or about whether Dominion Energy should get the go-ahead to buy SCE&G.
The S.C. Public Service Commission, which regulates utilities in the state, is coming to the Lowcountry this week for the last of three public hearings.
The agency held previous meetings in Columbia and Aiken. The final roadshow is set for Monday at Charleston County Government’s Lonnie Hamilton Public Services Building at 4045 Bridgeview Drive in North Charleston. It starts at 6 p.m.
To keep things moving along, the floor will open for 3 minutes per speaker. All comments will be folded into several ongoing cases surrounding SCE&G, which was financially responsible for more than half of the failed expansion of the V.C. Summer Nuclear Station before abandoning the site in mid-2017. The disastrous project has already cost ratepayers billions of dollars — and is likely to cost them much more.
The feedback that the commissioners gather will factor into other hearings scheduled for early November, when attorneys for SCE&G will face off against a slew of lawyers for environmental groups, industrial power users and the state’s utility watchdog agency. Those cases will decide whether the Cayce-based energy company misled the public about the progress of construction at the Midlands nuclear plant. They also will determine whether SCE&G executives acted prudently in allowing work to continue for so long before pulling the plug. And they will ultimately resolve whether SCE&G and Dominion can charge ratepayers another $3.1 billion for the unfinished reactors over the next 20 years should their tie-up be approved……….https://www.postandcourier.com/business/charleston-area-public-hearing-focuses-on-sce-g-failed-nuclear/article_9dbb8958-c8ad-11e8-885a-53
A lot of SC power customers don’t know they’re paying for $9 billion nuclear debacle, Greenville News
Bristow Marchant, The State Oct. 15, 2018 COLUMBIA, S.C. — More than a year after construction of two nuclear reactors was abandoned, many S.C. residents still are unfamiliar with the project that could end up costing them billions.
In a statewide poll of electric ratepayers, 40 percent of those surveyed said they were not familiar with the collapse of the V.C. Summer expansion project in Fairfield County.
The joint project by the state-owned Santee Cooper utility and SCE&G, a subsidiary of Cayce-based SCANA, collapsed in July 2017, leaving power customers holding the bag for some $9 billion spent on the now-abandoned project.
The project’s failure has roiled both companies, sparked investigations and prompted action from the Legislature.
But the controversy has passed many South Carolinians by.
Slightly less than half of the S.C. residents surveyed, 48 percent, reported being familiar with the project’s collapse. Another 12 percent weren’t sure.
Part of the reason could be that not all S.C. residents get their electricity from SCE&G or Santee Cooper.
Duke Energy’s S.C. customers made up 25 percent of those surveyed, while 29 percent get their power from SCE&G and 12 percent from Santee Cooper. Another 21 percent are members of electric co-ops — that get their power indirectly from Santee Cooper — and another 13 percent get their energy from some other source or were unsure.
Only 46 percent of Santee Cooper and electric co-op customers reported being familiar with the V.C. Summer debacle.
The poll by Clout Research was conducted for the S.C. Club for Growth, a conservative free-markets advocacy group, to gauge public opinion on the potential sale of state-owned Santee Cooper. But among S.C. residents who are not Santee Cooper customers, 50 percent told pollsters they were unfamiliar with the state-backed utility.
BBC 15th Oct 2018 US President Donald Trump has accused climate change scientists of having a “political agenda” as he cast doubt on whether humans were responsible for
the earth’s rising temperatures. But Mr Trump also said he no longer
believed climate change was a hoax. The comments, made during an interview
with CBS’s 60 Minutes, come less than a week after climate scientists
issued a final call to halt rising temperatures. The world’s leading
scientists agree that climate change is human-induced. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-45859325
nuclear-news 