By Matt Dempsey, EPW

Taxpayers Face up to $11 Billion in Liability Costs

WASHINGTON, D.C. –U.S. Senator James Inhofe (R-Okla.), Ranking Member of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, along with sixteen of his Republicans colleagues, sent a letter today to Energy Secretary Steven Chu asking about his comment that Yucca Mountain is “not an option” for disposing nuclear waste.  Specifically, in the letter, the senators raise several questions about the legal, scientific, and technical justifications for the Obama Administration’s decision to derail the Yucca Mountain project, which has been studied for decades and supported by the National Academy of Sciences and other leading scientific organizations as a viable storage site for nuclear waste. 

“The Obama administration’s approach to Yucca Mountain is nothing short of puzzling,” Senator Inhofe said. “Despite President Obama’s pledge that science will guide public policy and his commitment to an unprecedented level of openness, I find it difficult to understand Secretary Chu’s statement that Yucca Mountain is ‘not an option,’ made after only six weeks in office. This comment is of particular interest considering that, as recently as August 2008, all ten National Lab directors, including Secretary Chu, signed a letter on the essential role of nuclear energy, which advocated continuing the licensing of a geologic repository at Yucca Mountain.”

“The American taxpayer has invested too much money in Yucca Mountain to simply have it be pushed aside without a full explanation. As of today over $7.7 billion has been spent researching Yucca Mountain as a potential repository site, and neither the National Academy of Sciences, the Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board, nor any of our National Labs involved in conducting studies and evaluating data have concluded that there is any evidence to disqualify Yucca Mountain as a repository. Taxpayers face up to $11 billion in liability costs if the Department of Energy begins accepting used fuel and nuclear waste in 2020 and an additional $500 million with each passing year of delay.”

See release here.

By Matt Dempsey, EPW

Senator James Inhofe (R-Okla.), Ranking Member on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, today welcomed new economic analysis by the Coalition for Affordable American Energy (CAAE), a coalition of more than 180 trade associations and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. The report analyzes the projected costs of the climate provision recently proposed in the Obama Administration’s 2010 budget. The study, conducted by Charles River Associates, predicts job losses and increased energy costs, as well as disparate regional impacts.

“The CAAE and Chamber analysis shows clearly that President Obama’s cap and trade proposal will destroy jobs, raise energy prices, and harm consumers,” Senator Inhofe said. “The American people are suffering enough without an additional national energy tax.  Congress instead should focus on passing an energy policy that encourages innovation, new technologies, and all forms of domestic energy production.”

Key Numbers from the CRA Report:

- Electricity costs are estimated to increase by 27% relative to baseline levels in 2020, rising by 44% in 2025.

- After an initial net job loss of 800,000 in 2015, net job losses are projected to more than double by 2020 to 1.9 million and continue to mount to a net loss of approximately 3.2 million jobs by 2025 from baseline levels.  While all regions of the country would be adversely impacted, the Southeast, Oklahoma, Texas, and California would be disproportionately affected. 

- The policy would force a shift towards the use of natural gas for electricity generation and thus demand increase would result in an estimated cost increase of natural gas to consumers of 56%.

Read the full report here.