Senator Feinstein Opposes Federal Subsidies for Constructing New Nuclear Plants
June 10, 2003

Washington, DC - U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) today announced her opposition to federal subsidies for the construction of new nuclear plants and her intent to vote to remove the subsidies from the Energy bill. The following is Senator Feinstein's floor statement on the issue:

"Mr. President, I rise to support the amendment by Senators Wyden, Bingaman, Sununu, and Enzi to strike the section of the Energy Bill providing federal subsidies for the construction of new nuclear plants.

Title IV of the Energy Bill includes loans, loan guarantees, and other forms of financial assistance to subsidize the construction of new nuclear power plants.

In the past 50 years, California has licensed five nuclear power plants and one experimental reactor. Today, just two of these nuclear power plants are still operating in the State. The plant at San Onofre (operating at diminished capacity) and Diablo Canyon nuclear power plants provide 4,400 megawatts of power in California - close to a fifth of California's energy supply.

Impressive as these numbers may be in terms of the power-generating capacity of nuclear energy, they tell only part of the story of California's experiment with nuclear power. Of six nuclear power plants built in California, four have been decommissioned due to high operating costs and excessive risk:

• In the late 1950s, an experimental reactor at the Rocketdyne site in Ventura County was shut down after a severe meltdown.
• In 1967, the Vallecitos plant closed its doors after 10 years of operating because its owner, General Electric, was unable to obtain accident insurance due to the high risk of operating a nuclear power plant.
• In 1976, the plant at Humboldt Bay shut its doors after 13 years of operation as a result of the discovery of a fault line near the plant that would have required millions of dollars in seismic retrofits.
• And in 1989, the Rancho Seco plant near Sacramento was closed by public referendum after 14 years of operation plagued by mismanagement that resulted in cost overruns.

Nuclear power is expensive and risky, yet I believe that if private investors are not willing to put their own money on the line to support new nuclear plants, then the Federal government should not put taxpayers' money at risk either. However, under the nuclear subsidy provision in this Energy Bill, taxpayers would be required to subsidize up to 50 percent of construction costs of new nuclear plants - costs that the Congressional Research Service (CRS) estimates to be in the range of $14-16 billion dollars. CRS also estimates that the risk of default on these loan guarantees to be "very high - well above 50 percent."

I strongly believe it is NOT in the public interest for our nation to subsidize costly nuclear plants. Instead we should devote more resources to the development of renewable energy.

Mr. President, I strongly believe that we should be doing more to encourage the development of renewable power like solar, wind, geothermal, and biomass, instead of providing subsidies to an industry that has not built a new power plant since the 1970s. Unfortunately this energy bill currently has an over-reliance on promoting traditional energy resources, such as nuclear power.

The U.S. nuclear power industry, while currently generating about 20% of the nation's electricity, faces an uncertain long-term future. No nuclear plants have been ordered since 1978 and more than 100 reactors have been canceled, including all those ordered after 1973. No units are currently under construction.

The nuclear power industry's troubles include high nuclear power plant construction costs, public concern about nuclear safety and waste disposal, and regulatory compliance costs.

Controversies over safety have dogged nuclear power throughout its development, particularly following the March 1979 Three Mile Island accident in Pennsylvania and the April 1986 Chernobyl disaster in the former Soviet Union. These events shaped much of our opinions about nuclear power.

Safety continues to raise concerns today. In a recent example, it was discovered in March 2002 that leaking boric acid had eaten a large cavity in the top of the reactor vessel in Ohio's Davis-Besse nuclear plant. The corrosion left only the vessel's quarter-inch-thick stainless steel inner liner to prevent a potentially catastrophic release of reactor cooling water.

Furthermore, nuclear power plants have long been recognized as potential targets of terrorist attacks, and I remain skeptical that there are enough safeguards in place to defend against potential terrorist attacks on our nuclear plants.

Concern about nuclear safety and waste disposal makes Californians apprehensive about nuclear power. California has shifted away from nuclear power over the years and activists in the communities surrounding the Diablo Canyon and San Onofre plants continue to express concerns about the safety of the remaining reactors in California.

Mr. President, the construction of new nuclear reactors would also exacerbate the nuclear waste problem. Since the volume of nuclear waste in the U.S. is expected to exceed capacity at the controversial Yucca Mountain repository by 2010, any new plants will create even more waste storage problems.

Mr. President, I voted with Senator Bingaman to strike these nuclear subsidies in Committee and today I will vote with Senator Wyden to do the same."

###