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 …

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…

Why Nuclear Plant Closures Are a Crisis for Small Town USA

Nuclear plants occupy an unusual spot in the towns where they operate: integral but so much in the background that they may seem almost invisible. But when they close, it can be like the earth shifting underfoot.

Lohud.com, the Gannett newspaper that covers the Lower Hudson Valley in New York, took a look around at the experience of towns where reactors have closed, because the Indian Point reactors in Buchanan are scheduled to be shut down under an agreement with Gov. Mario Cuomo.


From sea to shining sea, it was dismal. It wasn’t just the plant employees who were hurt. The losses of hundreds of jobs, tens of millions of dollars in payrolls and millions in property taxes depressed whole towns and surrounding areas. For example:

Vernon, Vermont, home to Vermont Yankee for more than 40 years, had to cut its municipal budget in half. The town closed its police department and let the county take over; the youth sports teams lost their volunteer coaches, and Vernon Elementary School lost th…