We interrupt candidate bashing for a very important issue (Energy bill)

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

This article is posted in LBN but the TITLE of the article is VERY misleading in that while it suggests ARCTIC DRILLING has been tabled..which might look like a victory, what the title DOES NOT say is far more dangerous.

I simply wanted DU'ers to be aware of WHAT is IN the energy bill.

Here is an analysis by another DU'er:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=121020#121084


salin (1000+ posts) Thu Sep-18-03 07:53 AM
Response to Reply #6

8. You can't put regulation and lost $ and growing energy co influence


back in the bottle either.

THe point is the pubs have been doing this strategically. If the provision (which is awful) remained. The bill would have died. It was better in where it would have been killed along with everything else - than out where the rest will pass.

Imagine more California energy crisis (many believe that the economic impact of that spun a weak economy into full recession). But with more ways to game the system.

Imagine more and prolonged blackouts (they allow the justification of the GOVERNMENT - rather than the industries - paying the business costs of infrastructure - used to be under regulation that rate payers and companies would pay- but that rate hikes were monitored and abled to be rejected when gouging was occuring. Now the gouging can be more sophisticated and even harder to protect).

Imagine sinking further and futher into debt - due to the tax provisions - with absolutely no public good (rates will go up and be subject to wild swings; while no long-term planning for energy independence or renewables will occur - thus we will be in a worse situation (even MORE dependent on foreign energy supplies) and paying more for energy out of pocket and in taxes. Once upon a time businesses figured in the "cost of doing business" into their budgets - the biggest corporations now seem to believe that the tax payers should pay that (re: socialize the costs - privatize the profits).

And there are many drilling provisions within this - kiss even more parkland goodbye as it gets devoured by privatized energy drilling.

[disgruntella]

1. thanks n/t

:kick:

[buddhamama]

2. and more DU

from the nuclear power plants they want to build.

[buddhamama]

3. it's an important issue- the Energy Bill

a priority on many levels.

i apologize for my above post.
i am frustrated.

[Robbien]

4. This is a bad bill, very bad bill

And noone is talking about it, just talking about link/nolink. Bush goes off on vacation to come back with the dirty work all done for him.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

6. It is..I will be gone for the day

(funeral for a family member) please keep this kicked and do all you can to get people to pay attention...maybe we can put out a thread that says ONE MORE REASON TO HATE ALL OUR CANDIDATES...THE ENERGY BILL! That will get people to click :D

[prolesunited]

8. Sorry for your family's loss

and if all else fails, I promise to start a thread with that title.

[blm]

12. Peace to you and

your family.

Will keep kicked, nsma.

[buddhamama]

40. my condolences, NMSA

sorry for your loss.

[blm]

5. Energy deregulation is SCARY.

And I hope it becomes a HUGE campaign issue so it can get more attention than it does.

[rucky]

7. blah, blah, energy, blah... Clark Rules!

Dontcha know all our problems were solved yesterday at 1pm ET?

:sarcasm off:

[indigo32]

9. Kick

:kick:

[Robbien]

10. Who gets the money?

Sen. Pete Domenici, who has vowed to rewrite the energy legislation in conference committee, was the top Senate recipient of money from electric utilities during the 2002 election cycle. He received more than $175,000 from this industry alone, and received more than $400,000 from the energy and natural resources sector overall.

This is from Open Secrets. They have a lot on this issue

http://www.opensecrets.org/payback/issue.asp?issueid=EN3&CongNo=108

[Cheswick2.0]

11. kick

.

[buddhamama]

13. more info provided here on the Energy Bill

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=213825

warning long.

[Robbien]

15. Thanks

Guess I have a lot of reading to do.

[Robbien]

16. Wow, you guys have done a lot of work

Am only half way through the posts and know it is going to take a good amount of time to go through the linked articles.

[Robbien]

14. There is a clause in this bill

that will force private citizens to give up their homes if it is in the way of any drilling or pipelines they may want to do.

See this
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/16/politics/16ENER.html

The GOP is against this, but it is still going to be in the bill.

[Capn Sunshine]

17. In the Western US

that is already an "given" unless your deed comes with enerygy rights attached. Most do not, and most do not realize they have given de facto approval for energy company easments. Which means, the oil cos can build a road across your land----even in a city--- and build a well on your property in much of the non urban areas.

Oh, and you're free to sue them in court if you have the money.

[salin]

70. Geeeeez

I missed that. Callous, greedy bushengergiecos. Great find and contribution to the greater knowledge.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

88. This was the conversation I was discussing with you about them

abusing the "takings" clause of the constitution..it was planned from the start of the Bush administration to pull this.

[salin]

91. This needs to be trumpeted.

He has a history of 'taking land' that isn't his for profit (the rangers Stadium). Property Rights folks need to hear about this gem (and repeat behavior) pushed by bushandco.

[Robbien]

94. Maybe a short form letter outlining what is happening

and provide them the link to the story. Then send emails off to left, right and middle organizations and ezines.

[indigo32]

18. Kick again

:kick:

[Butterflies]

19. kick

:kick:

[Booberdawg]

20. *sigh*

It looks like the writing is already on the wall with this. I haven't seen anything here to suggest the Democrats will try to filibuster this bill.

:kick:

[Robbien]

21. I haven't either. There is not even one

activist site who is sponsoring a letter writing campaign. Cannot find a one.

When does this go to conference?

[bigtree]

38. here's a letter

Dear

I am writing to urge you to oppose the Department of Energy's (DOE) plans to build a Modern Pit Facility (MPF) to produce new plutonium triggers for the U.S. nuclear weapons arsenal.

There is no need for such a facility. It will waste billions of taxpayer dollars, threaten global nuclear non-proliferation efforts and create further environmental contamination and health risks for workers and community members.

The DOE's Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) states that the need for the MPF is based on classified analyses of long-term pit production requirements. Congress and the public should be informed and involved in the debate about the future of the U.S. nuclear arsenal and therefore whether any new pit production capability might be needed.

The DEIS calls for a new facility that could produce in excess of 500 plutonium pits per year. This level of production is simply not needed given the recently ratified Moscow Treaty under which both Russia and the U.S. have pledged to reduce their deployed nuclear weapons to 2,200 or under by 2013.

The DEIS presents no data indicating that pits need to be replaced for any reason. The publicly available data on safety and reliability indicate that there is no scientific basis for asserting that plutonium pits in the current U.S. arsenal need replacement. Hence, the existing facts indicate that there is no safety or reliability requirement even for the capacity of 20 pits per year that will be established at the Los Alamos National Laboratory by 2007, much less the vast expansion that is proposed in the form of the MPF.

The DEIS clearly states that the MPF would have the capability to produce new-design pits for a new generation of U.S. nuclear weapons. We fundamentally oppose any country embarking on the production of additional nuclear weapons. Such production is likely to launch a chain of events that leads to the resumption of explosive nuclear testing in order to evaluate new weapons designs. By planning to produce large numbers of new-design plutonium pits, the U. S. also will signal to the rest of the world that it is walking away from its commitment under Article VI of the Non-Proliferation Treaty to continue taking steps toward nuclear disarmament.

The DOE Fiscal Year 2004 budget request includes $22 million to fund MPF design work and to continue the Environmental Impact Statement process for the project. DOE estimates the MPF will cost $2 to $4 billion for construction with operating costs at approximately $300 million per year. These early estimates preceding design selection will undoubtedly increase. Expenses for decommissioning, decontamination, cleanup and health care for affected workers and members of the public are very likely to push the costs much higher.

The MPF will also pose health and environmental risks. For instance, the DOE itself projects radiation doses to workers that are so high that they would be expected to cause several cancer deaths over the life of the plant. The MPF will generate significant amounts of radioactive waste and require transportation of tons of weapons grade plutonium on U.S. highways. Such a costly new pit production effort will absorb funds that might otherwise be devoted to cleaning up the Cold War legacy of environmental contamination from the nuclear weapons complex.

I urge you to cut the funding for the DOE's Modern Pit Facility and cancel this program immediately. For more information, please contact the Alliance for Nuclear Accountability at 202/544-0217 or visit http://www.ananuclear.org/nompf.html.
Sincerely,



Organizational List:
National Groups - 27
Alliance for Nuclear Accountability, Seattle, WA
Americans for Democratic Action, Washington, DC
Atomic Mirror, Port Hueneme, CA
British American Security Information Council, Washington, DC and London
Churches' Center for Public Policy, Washington, DC
Council for a Livable World, Washington, DC
Fellowship of Reconciliation, Nyack, NY
Fourth Freedom Forum, Washington, DC
Friends Committee on National Legislation (Quakers), Washington, DC
Friends of the Earth, Washington, DC
Grandmothers for Peace International, Elk Grove, CA
Greenpeace International, Washington, DC
Lawyers' Committee on Nuclear Policy, New York, NY
Military Toxics Project, ME
Peace Action (National Office), Silver Spring, MD
National Nuclear Workers for Justice, McDermott, OH/Richland, WA
Natural Resources Defense Council, Washington, DC
NETWORK: A National Catholic Social Justice Lobby, Washington, DC
Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, Santa Barbara, CA
Nuclear Information Resource Service, Washington, DC
Nuclear Policy Research Institute, Washington, DC
National Priorities Project, Washington, DC
Physicians for Social Responsibility, Washington, DC
20/20 Vision, Washington, DC
Union of Concerned Scientists, Washington, DC
Women's Action for New Directions, Washington, DC
Women's International League for Peace & Freedom, US Section
Local Groups - 114
Action for a Clean Environment, Alto, GA
Albuquerque Center for Peace and Justice, Albuquerque, NM
American Friends Service Committee/Denver, CO
A. Philip Randolph Institute-Savannah, GA
Atlanta/Physicians for Social Responsibility, GA
Atlanta Women's Action for New Directions, GA
Blue Ridge Environmental Defense League, Glendale Springs, NC
Brooklyn Parents for Peace, Brooklyn, NYCenter for Energy Research, Salem, OR
Central Coast Peace and Environmental Council, San Luis Obispo, CA
Central New Mexico Group of the Sierra Club, Albuquerque, NM
Charleston Peace, Charleston, SC
Citizen Action / New Mexico, Sandia Park, NM
Citizen Alert, Las Vegas, NV
Citizens for Alternatives to Radioactive Dumping, Albuquerque, NM
Citizens for Environmental Justice, Savannah, GA
Citizens for Environmental Safeguards, Santa Fe, NM
Cleveland Peace Action, OH
Coalition for Health Concern, Paducah, KY
Coalition for Nuclear Justice, Brookport, IL
Coalition for Peace and Justice, Linwood, NJ
Colorado Coalition for Prevention of Nuclear War, Denver, CO
Community of John XXIII, San Luis Obispo, CA
Carolina Peace Resource Center, Columbia, SC
Committee of Radical Attorneys, Savannah, GA
Concerned Citizens for Nuclear Safety, Santa Fe, NM
CT Peace Coalition/New Haven, CT
Cumberland Countians for Peace & Justice, Pleasant Hill, TN
East Bay Peace Action, Albany, CA
East San Jose Community Awareness Council, Albuquerque, NM
Eastside Suburban Peace Network, Bellevue, WA
Environmental Center of San Luis Obispo, CA
Everett Peace Action, Everett, WA
Fernald Residents for Environmental Safety and Health, Inc., Ross, OH
Food Not Bombs/Atlanta, GA
Fort Ord Environmental Justice Network, CA
Georgia Peace Coalition, Atlanta, GA
Georgians Against Nuclear Energy, Atlanta, GA
Government Accountability Project, Seattle, WA
GRACE Public Fund, New York, NY
Gray Panthers Chapter of Albuquerque, NM
Great Neck SANE/Peace Action, NY
Green Party Bernalillio County, Albuquerque, NM
Hartford Catholic Worker, Hartford, CT
Heartwood, Bloomington, IN
Helping Our Peninsula's Environment, Pacific Grove, CA
Hiroshima-Nagasaki Commemoration Committee, Baltimore, MD
Interfaith Stewards of Creation, Gallup, NM
International Feminists for a Gift Economy, Austin, TX
Jonah House Community, Baltimore, MD
PeaceWorks Kansas City, KS
Labor/Green Party of Georgia, Savannah, GA
Las Vegas Citizens for Affordable Responsible Energies, Las Vegas, NMLas Vegas Committee for Peace and Justice, Las Vegas, NM
League of Women Voters of SC, Columbia, SC
Liberator-Savannah (newspaper), GA
Loretto Community, Denver, CO
Los Alamos Study Group, Albuquerque, NM
Massachusetts Peace Action, Boston, MA
Metanoia Community, Jacksonville, FL
Mothers for Peace, San Luis Obispo, CA
National Coalition to Repeal the USA Patriot Act, Savannah, GA
National Environmental Coalition of Native Americans, Prague, OK
Native Forest Network, Albuquerque, NM
Nevada Nuclear Waste Task Force, Las Vegas, NV
New Mexico Environmental Law Center, Santa Fe, NM
No New Nukes, Clinton, IL
No Nukes North, Fairbanks, AK
North Carolina Peace Action, Cary NC
Nuclear Watch of New Mexico, Santa Fe, NM
Oak Ridge Environmental Peace Alliance, Oak Ridge, TN
Obed Watershed Association, Pleasant Hill, TN
Office of Peace, Justice and Creation Stewardship, Diocese of Gallup, NM
Oregon PeaceWorks, Salem, OR
Pajarito Group of the Sierra Club, Los Alamos, NM
Panhandle Area Neighbors and Landowners, Panhandle, TX
Peace Action of New York State, New York, NY
Peace Action Wisconsin, Milwaukee, WI
Peace & Social Concerns Com./Central Coast Friends Meeting, San Luis Obispo, CA
Peace Dance Collective, Santa Fe, NM
Peace Farm, Panhandle, TX
Peace Pals, Las Vegas, NM
Peace Resource Center of San Diego, San Diego, CA
Portsmouth/Piketon Residents for Environmental Safety and Security, McDermott, OH
South Carolina Progressive Network, Columbia, SC
Reaching Critical Will, New York, NY
Regional Endocrinology Associates, PC, Santa Fe, NM
Rocky Mountain Conference Peace and Justice Task Force, Denver, CO
Rocky Mountain Peace & Justice Center, Boulder, CO
Sacramento Area Peace Action, CA
St. Isaac of Ninevah - Gift of Tears Catholic Worker, Spencer, WV
Serious Texans Against Nuclear Dumping, Amarillo, TX
Sierra Club, Georgia Chapter, Atlanta, GA
Shundahai Network, Las Vegas, NV
Snake River Alliance, Boise, ID
Southern Alliance for Clean Energy, Savannah, GA
Southern Cooperative for Radical Art and Politics, Savannah, GA
Southwest Environmental Center, Las Cruces, NMSouthwest Research and Information Center, Albuquerque, NM
The Atomic Mirror, Port Hueneme, CA
The Justice Lobby, Pittsburgh, PA
The Nuclear Abolition Committee of Santa Cruz, CA
Trident Resistance Network, New Haven, CT
Tri-Valley CAREs, Livermore, CA
UCC, Network for Environmental & Economic Responsibility, Pleasant Hill, TN
UCC, 29th Annual Meeting of the Rocky Mountain Conference, Denver, CO
UNPLUG Salem Campaign, Linwood NJ
Vandenberg Watch, San Luis Obispo, CA
Western States Legal Foundation, Oakland, CA
Wild Watershed, Santa Fe, NM
Women's International League for Peace and Freedom/Branch, Santa Cruz, CA
Women Strike For Peace, Silver Spring, MD
Yggdrasil Institute, Georgetown, KY
York County Greens, SC

[Robbien]

42. This is the action they did the back in July

and it was one of the main reasons that first Energy bill did not pass. I don't see on the site where they are doing it for this bill. Did I miss it?

We need to call Bob Schaeffer tomorrow morning and find out where this stands. 239-395-6773 (6779 Fax) or email Bob at [e-mail].

[bigtree]

44. you didn't miss it. these are old issues under a new assault

But, since it is in conference there will be an effort to strip the offensive provisions from the bill.

What has occured in the committee is that the Republicans on the conference committee decided that instead of opening the two bills to discussion, they would draw up their own interpretation of the competing bills and open the debate with their own biased document.

Now the Democrats will have to offer their objections in the form of amendments to the fabricated rag. Out-numbered on the committee, the Dems amendments are doomed to fail. The only strategy they have now is to tie the conference up with a barrage of amendments.

It makes sense to continue to lobby your representative and senators with the same appeals to keep the pressure on.

What appeal to use is a Hobson's choice. I say scrap the whole bill, but that probably isn't realistic. There is something for every interest, from alternative energy funding (wind power etc.), to electrical issues, to Indian energy ownership sell-out lures. I don't know where your interests lie.

And there is plenty to oppose.
Choose your issue from the legislation. Google your subject; the issues are pretty old. They are just under a new assault from the emboldened majority. But they are soft on the issues of nuclear development, storage, and clean-up. All of their nuclear ambitions are contained in this bill in the guise of research and funding for new revitalization and refurbishment facilities that are to be formatted in the future for the new generation of nuclear weapons.

So, don't be dismayed by the old links. Learn up.
These issues will not disappear, whatever happens with this Energy bill. Watch Bingaman. He sometimes bends towards the energy industry lobby.

Write Your Representative-
http://www.house.gov/writerep/

Home Page of the Senate of the United States
http://www.senate.gov/

View the Active Legislation list-
http://www.senate.gov/pagelayout/legislative/b_three_sections_with_teasers/active_leg_page.htm

Try the http://thomas.loc.gov/ link again after the storm

[Robbien]

47. We can try the call in campaign suggested

by PIRG because it is nice and simple and generic. http://pirg.org/alerts/alert.asp?id=322&id3=alert&id4=USAA&

For the write in campaign this press release seems to be the easist one to follow. http://www.commondreams.org/news2003/0908-05.htm It just needs to be edited down to a more manageable size.

[salin]

71. I haven't checked recently, but Public Citizen and the various PIRGS

have generally tried to push their constituents to write and act on this issue.

Perhaps our job is to at least inform other groups that might take action (eg - Citizen Works? Moveon?)

[Robbien]

22. Noone is paying attention to this at all.

Dammit

[pmbryant]

23. Not no one

This is a hugely important issue. The energy bill MUST be defeated. Even if ANWR drilling is not in it!

I'm not sure how to go about it, but a starting point would be for everyone here to call and write your Senators NOW.

Thanks!

:hi:

--Peter

[Robbien]

25. I'm thinking we need to get MoveOn, ActforChange, TrueMajority

Sierra and the others to set up Action Campaigns on this.

[pmbryant]

28. Yes

I was shocked to find nothing on the Sierra Club website about this.

:wtf:

--Peter

[Robbien]

29. I've been going through Moveon's member recommendation entries

but it is taking forever. Their system is so user unfriendly.

[Forkboy]

24. What the hell NSMA!?!?!

We dont want to read about important stuff!!

Dont you know that Kerry once played hockey with a BFEE member,Clark is a raving war-monger,Dean is really a neo-con in disguise and Kucinich is stark raving mad?

So cut out this "issues" stuff! Jeez :eyes:

:)

[Robbien]

26. Public Citizen is again doing something

Check out these two actions:

http://www.commondreams.org/news2003/0911-04.htm

http://www.commondreams.org/news2003/0908-05.htm

[blm]

31. good for them...

I hope the candidates talk about this issue.

[salin]

73. unless they try to influence immediate issues

I really don't care whether they talk about it or not - the issue at hand (so to speak) is to STOP THIS LEGISLATION in this cycle. This is one moment where I have to say: screw the election - that is a long way off. Once done - it doesn't matter who is president - this damage is permanent.

[blm]

97. No one else is getting airtime.

We can launch a phone and email campaign here and at other boards and do what we can, but how else will we get it out front ASAP?

[MrPrax]

27. Much More Important...so Kicked n/t

[prolesunited]

30. I agree

:kick:

[Robbien]

32. Found these guys

this is a press release

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
September 2, 2003
9:54 PM
CONTACT: U.S. PIRG http://uspirg.org/
Anna Aurilio, Jennifer Mueller [phone]



America Doesn't Need More Deregulation: America Needs A Smarter, Cleaner Energy Future

WASHINGTON - September 2 - Statement of Anna Aurilio, Legislative Director.

While we are still waiting to hear what triggered the most massive blackout in U.S. history, it is clear that it is a tangible consequence of our over-reliance on cumbersome centralized power sources largely based on polluting fossil and nuclear power plants. To prevent future blackouts, we should use our technological know-how to increase energy efficiency and conservation, and shift to clean, renewable energy sources, especially smaller clean local power sources with more local control.

The Bush energy plan and House and Senate energy bills take us in the wrong direction. These bills will increase the risk of blackouts by repealing existing consumer protections and subsidizing the construction of more large centralized coal and nuclear plants. National deregulation is not the answer. Congress should reject the House and Senate energy bills and focus on requiring the industry to meet mandatory reliability standards. These standards must not be solely created and enforced by the same industry that caused the problem. Instead they must give consumers a voice, contain strong enforcement standards and provide a process for reconciling local and national interests.

The state PIRGs and other local groups that have spoken out today represent states which have both regulated and deregulated electricity systems from all parts of the country. We recognize that our electric grid needs some modernization. But the emphasis should be on industry accountability, energy efficiency and cleaner, local power options not on more business as usual such as building more power lines to link larger dirty power plants.

The electricity industry is already calling for weaker air pollution regulations and $100 billion in transmission expenditures. U.S. PIRG's research shows that American's suffered through more than 33,000 violations of the smog standard over the last five years. The last thing we need is more air pollution from old dirty power plants. We are outraged that the electric industry is using the recent blackouts to justify yesterday's massive weakening of the Clean Air Act. This is just as false an argument as the Bush administration's attempt to blame California's energy problems on environmental regulations when in fact they were caused by corporate contributors to the Bush energy plan and campaign coffers.

In today's economy, Americans are struggling to pay their bills yet the industry is also using the blackouts to propose more than $100 billion for transmission line construction and upgrades paid for by the ratepayers. State PIRGs around the county call on regulators to refuse to allow utilities to charge ratepayers for the construction of new transmission lines and power plants unless they have proven that energy efficiency and cleaner, more local power options won't do the job.

This is a teachable moment that should remind us that, as we update our electric system we must strive for a nimbler, less cumbersome system. We need a system that recognizes the economic value of conservation and efficiency and puts an emphasis on smaller, more local generation sources that do not rely on fossil fuels.


and if you follow their link they have an action link

[Robbien]

33. I am going to have to leave

don't know if I will be able to make it back tonight.

Please keep bumping.

[salin]

74. I have been gone since this morning

and will be gone most of tomorrow. But am so appreciative of the work you have done to bring more information to the table - and a greater action focus on moving us to do something about it.

I will try to compose something later that explains how I came to this issue more than a year and a half ago (really by choice) - through a DUer - and how alarmed I became.

I can not express how amazed and gratified I am to see this thread, to see how widely read it is. To see folks paying attention - and taking action.

Each time it comes back - or a story comes about on it - a few more DUers dig in and get involved. That is fantastic.

Tonight I came home - and was incredibly encouraged - by you and all on these threads. Thanks for the inspiration. We are not just speaking in the middle of the wilderness (the old if a tree falls - scenario).

Thank you.

[Robbien]

80. Salin I jumped in because I also was inspired by your story

I only lurked then, and I really don't have the technical knowledge, but I skimmed along picking up glimmers.

Everyone here is so knowledgeable and it was nice working with this group as my fear mounted by each piece discovered.

Tommorrow is a bad day for me also. I might have an hour or so in the morning, but then will be gone for a couple of days.

[salin]

82. If we have enough people reading

maybe they will keep adding - even if reading what is here (various links) and commenting. I will be back Friday evening, out much of saturday but around Sunday.

You have inspired me again on this. I had really just gotten tired and frustrated (hence my cynical posts on the other thread). Funny thing is that 18 months ago I had no knowledge. Some DUer posted a Public Citizen alert on the senate eliminating PUHCA (public utilities holding company act) and a bunch of stories I had followed closely - along with my late father's work in anti-trust issues came together. Did a bunch of digging to try to get some basic understanding - but came to it with none. On a technical level I still have only a rudimentary knowledge - but I do understand policy formulation and consequences (have an advanced degree in another area of public policy), and I follow politics. The more I read - the more crazy it drove me.

The wonderful thing about DU is that inspired me to pursue this - even though it has zero to do with my professional life or work. I just had to dig in. Spoke with folks in California who had done early research on the energy crisis and with folks in DC (both on the Hill and through Public Citizen - who at that point had done some of the best analysis on some of the dereg issues). Then there was this forum to try to sort out the ideas. Of course I didn't know enough to make any sense of it so most of my posts were pretty darn confusing. But over time, when the conversation has come up again, more and more folks weigh in. More and more neophytes like myself and you are educating ourselves to where we can begin to inform others - at least enough to get them to realize this is an issue.

I can not tell you what it meant to log in tonight and see this thread - and see how much was on it - without having posted on it and tried to keep it current, to keep folks posting (sort of 'thread managing - which you have taken on in this thread, whether you intended to or not - and thanks for doing so!) I have watched this evolve on other issues - where a level of understanding of an issue takes hold and more and more people feel comfortable posting and conversing on the topic. But aside for a few wonderful folks who have dove in their with me... I have never seen it get to the 'conversant' level. And today - perhaps because I wasn't looking - it appears to have happened. It does my soul good.

To others who find an issue - even if it is not in their expertise - compelling, let this be some encouragement that if one keeps at it, others who may not post - do read. And suddenly those who are ready to jump on a limb to figure out ways to take more action (and when I began on this I had some of that energy... but without encouragement I lost it - still have tried to get conversations going... but lost the zeal to push beyond letter writing... but here you and others are - talking about Moveon and others - are they acting? they have in the past... who do we encourage action now... I LOVE IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!)

Maybe others will help us to keep this discussion alive while we are in and out over the next couple of days.

Again - thanks for your diving in - it has been very, very encouraging to read and follow.

[bigtree]

34. here's the meat of it; at least what I've collected

H.R.6 Energy Bill
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d108:h.r.00006:

The Energy Bill has passed both houses and is now in conference http://energy.senate.gov/ to reconcile the two bills.( and )

If reconciliation is successful then the conference bill will be sent back to both houses for passage.

Thomas Government Info Center
http://thomas.loc.gov/
Enter Bill Identification (example: H.R.6)

ENERGY CONFERENCE UPDATE #4

ENERGY CONFERENCE UPDATE #5

Ranking Democratic Committee member, Sen. Jeff Bingaman's Floor Statement on Energy Bill (S. 14)

also:

A New Advanced Plutonium Lab For Los Alamos?
http://nukewatch.org/facts/nwd/CMRreplacement052803.pdf

Most modern nuclear weapons depend on a plutonium pit as the "primary" that begins the chain reaction resulting in a thermonuclear explosion. The Department of Energy (DOE) announced on September 23, 2002 its intent to begin an examination of several possible sites for a Modern Pit Facility to produce plutonium pits for new and refurbished nuclear weapons.
Department of Energy Certifies Need to Build a Modern Pit Facility- 2002- http://www.dp.doe.gov/docs/2002-05-31-Need_to_build_MPF.pdf

Simplified illustration of a plutonium trigger, or "pit", with storage "AL-R8" storage container.
Source: U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), Office of Fissile Materials Disposition (OFMD). http://www.md.doe.gov

Nuclear Watch Plutonium Pit Fact Sheet
http://nukewatch.org/facts/nwd/Overview_of_Pits.pdf

A New Advanced Plutonium Lab For Los Alamos?
http://nukewatch.org/facts/nwd/CMRreplacement052803.pdf

The Leaked Department of Energy Modern Pit Facility Site Screening Report
http://nukewatch.org/importantdocs/resources/plutopit10-18-02v2.pdf

Senate rejects ban on nuclear tests, "bunker-busters": The US Senate on Tuesday rejected a measure that would have halted the development of "bunker buster" bombs -- small nuclear weapons created for battlefield use -- while also allowing the resumption of underground nuclear tests in Nevada. (Pit Facilities)
http://www.spacewar.com/2003/030917011755.h9f4oqph.html

[blm]

35. bump.

.

[bigtree]

36. rush job

Thomas Government Info Center
http://thomas.loc.gov (temp out of order, hurricane)
Enter Bill Identification (example: H.R.6)


ENERGY CONFERENCE UPDATE #4
http://energy.senate.gov/news/rep_release.cfm?id=211061

ENERGY CONFERENCE UPDATE #5
http://energy.senate.gov/news/rep_release.cfm?id=211238

Ranking Democratic Committee member, Sen. Jeff Bingaman's Floor Statement on Energy Bill (S. 14)
http://energy.senate.gov/news/dem_release.cfm?id=203615

[bigtree]

37. what the hell. here's the rest. try to get through it

U.S. to Build Power Plants in Russia, Replacing Plutonium-Making Reactors
http://www.floydreport.com/view_article.php?lid=426

The Energy Department announced a $466 million deal to build two coal-burning power plants for Russia in return for a Russian promise to close three plutonium-producing reactors considered among the most dangerous in the world.

Two American companies - Washington Group International and Raytheon Technical Services - will oversee construction of the two fossil fuel plants. Most of the actual work is expected to be done by Russian companies and workers.

Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham called it a major step in the U.S.-Russia nuclear nonproliferation effort, although it will be five to eight years before the Russian reactors will shut down and stop making plutonium.

While the Russians have agreed to halt plutonium production and dispose of 34 metric tons of weapons-grade plutonium that is already stockpiled, they have refused to shut down the three reactors until a way is found to replace the electricity and industrial heat the reactors produce for nearby communities.

In addition to making enough plutonium for three warheads each week, the reactors in the Russian cities of Seversk and Zheleznogorsk also are viewed as among the most dangerous because of their design, which is similar to the Chernobyl reactor involved in the 1986 nuclear disaster in Ukraine. Unlike U.S. reactors, for example, they do not have concrete containment domes to hold in radiation in case of an accident or major leak.

"They're the most dangerous reactors they've got," said Kenneth Baker, the top Energy Department official involved in nuclear nonproliferation issues. And, he adds, "when you have three reactors producing enough plutonium for three bombs a week you want to (deal with them) as fast as you can."

USA earmarks $200m for Russian MOX plant
http://www.bellona.no/en/international/russia/nuke_industry/siberia/seversk/30948.html

MOX-fuel production plant’s construction to start in Siberia
http://www.bellona.no/en/international/russia/nuke_industry/siberia/seversk/30196.html

Radioactive dogs in Siberia
http://www.bellona.no/en/international/russia/nuke_industry/siberia/seversk/20944.html#29473


US reverses weapons plutonium policy- January 02
http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99991833

The US has reversed its policy and decided to burn plutonium from decommissioned nuclear weapons in reactors, instead of "immobilising" it in other radioactive waste. Critics say the move increases the risk of nuclear terrorism.

The Bush administration announced on Wednesday that 34 tonnes of surplus weapons grade plutonium was to be converted into mixed oxide (MOX) fuel for reactors. The previous Clinton administration backed the alternative of immobilisation - solidifying it in glass with other waste.

Spencer Abraham, the US Energy Secretary, argues that ditching immobilisation will save nearly $2 billion. MOX fuel, used in continental Europe for 20 years, is also favoured by Russia, which has promised along with the US to get rid of 34 tonnes of weapons plutonium.

The US Department of Energy (DOE) now plans to start building two new plants at Savannah River Site in South Carolina in 2004, one to take apart the plutonium cores of weapons and the other to make MOX fuel. The fuel will be burnt in two existing nuclear power stations near Charlotte, North Carolina, run by Duke Power Company


The MOX route will lock up plutonium in radioactive spent fuel from the reactors, which would be as unattractive to terrorists as radioactive blocks of glass, the DOE says. "We are trying to keep the world's most dangerous materials out of the hands of the world's most dangerous people," it adds.

But Tom Clements from the Nuclear Control Institute, a lobby group based in Washington DC, claims that the extra processing and transport necessary for MOX fuel will increase the opportunities for terrorists.

Encouraging Russia, where there are serious doubts about nuclear security, to make MOX "invites catastrophe", he says. "Immobilisation presents fewer proliferation, terrorism and environmental risks."


Go-ahead expected for controversial nuclear fuel plant
http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99991276


Plutonium disposal, Nuclear Control Institute
http://www.nci.org/nci-wpu.htm



ENVIRONMENT, NATIONAL SECURITY ADVOCATES TELL ENERGY DEPT:
ABANDON DANGEROUS, COSTLY U.S. NUCLEAR BOMB TRIGGER FACTORY


Leaders of more than 140 national and grassroots organizations urged the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) to drop plans to construct a new factory to manufacture plutonium bomb triggers -- known as "pits" -- for the nation's arsenal.

Speaking at a news briefing prior to a DOE headquarters hearing on the plant, Susan Gordon, Director of the Alliance for Nuclear Accountability (ANA), explained that the groups oppose the proposed "Modern Pit Facility" (MPF) because it will "waste billions of taxpayer dollars, threaten global nuclear non-proliferation efforts and create further environmental contamination and health risks for workers and community members." A letter from the groups that was read into the hearing record explained that a factory producing more than 500 plutonium pits per year was "simply not needed given the recently ratified Moscow Treaty" which limits deployed U.S. and Russian nuclear weapons to 2,200.

DOE projects the MPF will cost between $2 and $4 billion to construct and $300 million per year to operate, money that Georgia State Rep. and Majority Whip Nan Grogan Orrock said, "would better be devoted to cleaning up the legacy of environmental contamination from nuclear weapons production at Savannah River and other polluted sites." Orrock, who is also President of the Women Legislators' Lobby of Women's Action for New Directions, added, "Savannah River Site already has 33,000,000 gallons of radioactive waste in leaking tanks, and tritium is seeping into drinking water wells in east Georgia." In addition to Savannah River, other finalists for the MPF include: Los Alamos National Laboratory and Carlsbad in New Mexico; the Pantex Plant near Amarillo, Texas, and the Nevada Test Site.

Producing additional nuclear weapons components will also have serious international consequences according to Tom Clements, Senior Campaigner at Greenpeace International. Clements said, "Building the MPF will be seen as a provocative renunciation of U.S. disarmament obligations under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and further isolate the U.S. internationally. The Bush Administration's push for an unjustified new nuclear bomb plant will run up against the solid opposition of many nations that have signed the NPT."

The groups contend that the MPF will pose significant risks to public health and the environment. "DOE's proposal for the MPF fails to offer methods and procedures for avoiding the accidents and other environmental releases that led to the closure of the Rocky Flats Plant, the nation's previous plutonium production factory," explained Michael McCally, MD, PhD, of Oregon Health and Sciences University, a leader of Physicians for Social Responsibility. "It also fails to plan for cleanup after operations have contaminated the site."

Other national groups that oppose the MPF include the Natural Resources Defense Council, Union of Concerned Scientists, and Council for a Liveable World.


City of Santa Fe Resolution against the Modern Pit Facility
http://nukewatch.org/mpf/MPFSFRes.pdf

Nuclear Watch New Mexico's comments on the Modern Pit Facility.
http://nukewatch.org/mpf/NWNMMPFComments82503.pdf


The DOE received $5 million from Congress for Fiscal Year 2003 to continue work on the draft Environmental Impact Statement on the Modern Pit Facility. Public hearings are planned on the MPF during the summer of 2003.

Meanwhile, the DOE requested $22 million for the MPF in its Fiscal Year 2004 budget request and Congress funded the request in the House and Senate versions of the Defense Authorization bill, but the House cut over half of the funding for the MPF citing the Administration's failure to issue revised stockpile requirements following the ratification of the Moscow Treaty which will dramatically reduce deployed nuclear weapons.

Citing "classified analyses" the DOE claims it needs to have a new pit facility capable of producing 125-500 pits per year. The DOE's Notice of Intent for the MPF also states that one of the functions for the facility will be to have the ability to produce new design pits for new types of nuclear weapons.

The administration has yet to demonstrate what its stockpile needs are following the signing of a new Strategic Offensive Reductions Treaty (SORT, also referred to as the Moscow Treaty) with Russia in May this year. The United States is awash in plutonium, possessing as many as 23,000 - 25,000 plutonium pits, of which 10,700 are in warhead form, and only 1,700-2,200 will be "operationally deployed" as a result of the Moscow Treaty.

A new pit facility will send a strong signal to the world community that the United States intends to ignore its obligation to seek nuclear disarmament, as agreed to in the 1970 Non-Proliferation Treaty and reaffirmed by the United States in 2000 as an "unequivocal commitment." In addition, a modern pit facility would be hugely expensive, costing $2-4 billion to build, $200-300 million to operate each year and billions of dollars to dismantle and clean up.

LEGISLATIVE ANALYSIS
The Defense Authorization bill includes $22.81 million, the same as the request, to complete the Environmental Impact Statement and begin design work on the proposed Modern Pit Facility. This is a large increase from the $5 million appropriated in FY03.

The request specifies that $7 million will go to design work and the rest, $15.81 million will go to completing the Environmental Impact Statement. In a remarkable move, the House cut $12 million from the MPF request, citing the Administration's failure to issue revised stockpile requirements following the ratification of the Moscow Treaty which will dramatically reduce deployed nuclear weapons.

The Senate will be voting after the August recess on an amendment by Sen. Feinstein to cut the MPF and other new nuclear programs.


DOE MODERN PIT FACILITY ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
http://www.mpfeis.com/PDFs/Doe.pdf

Audio file resource for monitoring nuclear safety issues that effect citizens of New Mexico and the world
http://www.nuclearactive.org/audio/mp3.html



Nation's Remaining Uranium Plant in Jeopordy (...so what?)

According to a new study by the Paper, Allied-Industrial, Chemical and Energy Workers International Union (PACE), the U.S Enrichment Corp., operator of the nation's only remaining uranium enrichment plant, is saddled with huge debts that could halt production, and in Pace's view, could 'jeapordize global efforts at nuclear disarnament'.

The USEC obtained the exclusive contract from the Department of Energy to purchase the blended uranium from Russia's dismantled nuclear warheads to meet DOE's committment to provide uranium for the 20% of electric utilities which rely on nuclear power in the US. while drawing down the Russian nuclear arsenal. In return for the exclusive contract, USEC agreed, as a quid pro quo, to build an additional uranium plant. But, the company's weak financial conditions makes the prospect of a new plant unlikely without government support.

The faltering USEC points up the DOE's short-sighted reliance on the nuclear industry to facilitate Russian disarnament. But, more importantly, it reveals that the U.S. uranium industry is on the brink of collapse, and raises serious questions about whether the U.S. should be in the uranium production buisness at all..

In PACE's report it states that "the U.S. government, and thus U.S. taxpayers, must either bail out USEC or take back production and control of uranium enrichment in the United States. The alternative is to become dependent on Russia and Europe for all of the uranium fuel necessary to generate 20% of this country’s electricity.", the report states.

However, the 20% of electrical energy that is provided by companies which operate nuclear facilities could be replaced by any combination of alternative sources of power already available. Indeed, the president's own energy bill requires the Secretary of Energy to review the available assessments of renewable energy resources within the United States, including solar, wind, biomass, ocean (tidal and thermal), geothermal, and hydroelectric energy resources, and undertake new assessments as necessary, taking into account changes in market conditions, available technologies, and other relevant factors.

In 1993, the United States agreed to a 20-year program, Megatons To Megawatts, of buying highly enriched uranium from dismantled Russian nuclear weapons, imported in a form suitable to fuel commercial reactors. The Energy Department created the U.S. Enrichment Corp. to handle the purchases, then let the corporation be privatized through a July 1998 public offering that brought the Treasury $1.9 billion. Both governments agreed that they wanted the program to be sustained through commercial purchases and sales of the LEU fuel. This meant that a government appropriations process was not necessary.

Congress's investigative arm, the General Accounting Office, found that a committee of officials from several federal agencies, formed to oversee the uranium purchases, "has not fulfilled all of its responsibilities." Among the problems tey found that:

"Technical uncertainties included the planned use of technologies that were unproven or perhaps not well suited to the site's conditions." Also, the report finds that, "the plan excludes nearly a million cubic feet of waste and scrap in areas known as DOE Material Storage Areas and 16 unused and inactive buildings and structures. The additional materials, buildings, and structures are excluded from the plan not because they require no action but because they fall under the purview of a different departmental program; and this distinction prevents the Paducah cleanup managers from assessing risk or planning a cleanup on a comprehensive, sitewide basis, and distorts the picture of the cleanup task at hand. "

The "growing dependence on Russian-origin material for nuclear fuel" that emerged from the 1993 agreement has prompted worries among industry officials about the United States' continued ability to produce fuel sufficient for commercial nuclear power plants domestically, the report said. But, the GAO's Enrichment Oversight Committee had no contingency plan for replacing USEC. USEC had even considered resigning as executive agent in 1999 unless the U.S. bailed them out with a $200 million payment.

The report emphasized that although the goal of drawing down of Russia's nuclear arsenal had been realized; Russian-origin material for nuclear fuel now makes up almost 40 percent of annual U.S.sales.

USEC was the beneficiary of several other favorable arrangements with the U.S. government, including:
• an advantageous lease providing for nominal rent payments for the use
of the two enrichment plants with an open-ended renewal option,
• low-cost power purchase arrangements whereby USEC purchases
electricity (which represents nearly 60 percent of USEC’s production
costs) from DOE at an average cost of less than 2 cents per kilowatt
hour, and
• the U.S. government’s retention of substantially all liabilities arising
from the operation of the enrichment plants prior to privatization,
including nearly all environmental clean-up and decommissioning
liabilities.

USEC also received from DOE contracts with 64 nuclear utility customers
operating 273 nuclear reactors in 14 countries. As of March 31, 1998, these
contracts were worth $3.2 billion through fiscal year 2000 and $7.4 billion
through fiscal 2009.

Nuclear power supplies about 20 percent of U.S. electricity needs. In 1999, about half the 47.9 million pounds of uranium bought by U.S. utilities for commercial reactors came from the United States and Canada. The other half came from overseas sources.
From June 1995 through October 2000, USEC paid Russia $1.6 billion for slightly more than one-fifth of the 500 metric tons of uranium that the United States agreed to buy between 1993 and 2013.

In August,1999 the Washington Post reported that workers at the USEC's Paducah facility had been unwittingly exposed to plutonium and other radioactive metals that entered the plant over decades in shipments of used uranium from military nuclear reactor fuel.

The Paducah plant's workers were exposed to plutonium through shipments of contaminated uranium that arrived at the plant from 1953 to 1976, a period when national security priorities often surmounted concerns over risks to workers and the environment. The plutonium shipments stopped, but contaminants remain spattered over hundreds of acres of buildings and grounds. Workers did not learn of the problems until at least 1990, and some contend they were never told. The US Enrichment Corp., which took over management of the plant after privatisation, contends that all significantly contaminated areas have been cleaned up or marked with warning signs.

Current and former workers at the plant have linked past exposures to a string of cancers and other diseases. Besides the health study by the National Academy of Sciences' Institute of Medicine, the Energy Department will institute a medical surveillance and screening program for employees.

The Post said the Paducah plants issue was an "unpublished chapter in the still unfolding story of radioactive contamination in the chain of factories in the country that produced America's Cold War nuclear arsenal."

Radioactive contaminants from the 300 hectare plant, built in 1952, spilled in ditches and eventually seeped into creeks. Workers claim that former plant managers allowed contaminated waste to be dumped into a state-owned wildlife area and a landfill not licensed for hazardous waste. They further contend that radioactively contaminated gold and other valuable metals may have been shipped out of the plant without being properly tested.

The corporation closed its Portsmouth, Ohio, uranium enrichment facility in June 2001, leaving just the one plant, in Paducah, Ky. The GAO said that would increase USEC's production costs and cause reliance on an aging plant that lies in an earthquake zone. The Energy Department is apparently spending $630 million over five years to keep the Ohio plant in "cold standby" status to be reopened quickly if needed.

In August, U.S. Department of Energy finally agreed to an initial plan and timetable for cleaning up non-radioactive wastes at the uranium enrichment plant in Paducah. The agreement requires the Energy Department to remove toxic chemicals and metals from the soil and ground water around the Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant between 2010 and 2019. Also as part of the agreement, the Energy Department will pay a $1 million fine. Another $200,000 from the department will pay for environmental improvements around the enrichment plant.

Louisiana Energy Services, a consortium of some of the world's biggest companies in the nuclear power field, is working towards an application to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to build a new uranium enrichment plant in central Tennessee that would supply enriched uranium for commercial nuclear power reactors.

Environmentalists say, the industry hopes that a new, vertically-integrated uranium enrichment operation would propel the development of new nuclear power plants by reducing the cost of fuel and making new nuclear plants more economically feasible. Compounding the problem, they say, is the massive amount of toxic and radioactive waste that such facilities produce on a day-to-day basis.

The uranium enrichment facilities at Oak Ridge, Tennessee; Paducah, Kentucky; and Portsmouth, Ohio have produced a total of 700,000 metric tons of depleted uranium—a radioactive and toxic byproduct of nuclear fuel production—over the past half-century. This waste now sits in some 50,000 steel cylinders, each weighing about thirteen tons, stacked in huge piles outside the enrichment plants, where it has the potential to enter into the environment through leaks in the cylinders.

Conventional wisdom says that low-enriched uranium is not suitable for making nuclear weapons. However, an article in USA Today claims that “rogue” states and terrorists have discovered that this is untrue. Not only that, but it has been reported that terrorists could separate plutonium from irradiated fuel more easily than previously thought. For a terrorist state wanting to make high-enriched uranium, the nuclear fuel poses less difficulty than natural uranium.

As of Spring 2003, 175 metric tons of bomb grade HEU had been converted into 5,124 metric tons of LEU power plant fuel through the Megatons to Megawatts program. This is equivalent to the elimination of 7,000 nuclear warheads.

[buddhamama]

49. nuclear power reference page

this will explain nuclear power plants/processes

http://www.nirs.org/factsheets/fctsht.htm

[shanti]

76. yes

rush job, just like the patriot act. they LOOOOVE to do this.

[salin]

75. Great additional information

geez they are trying to get everything but the kitchen sink drain into this bill. Much of it toxic.

[bigtree]

107. This link to the H.R. 6 bill works

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d108:h.r.00006:

Conference bill link:
http://energy.senate.gov/legislation/energybill2003/energybill2003.cfm

Dive in!

[bigtree]

111. stiil won't work. I see the problem

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d108:h.r.00006:

you gotta use the : at the end. For some reason the post won't include the :

enter it manually.

[blm]

39. bump

.

[buddhamama]

41. been away for a few hours...a little

will catch up on my reading and add info as i find it.

:kick:

[blm]

43. kick...

.

[Robbien]

45. Glad you are back

edited because I just read bigtree's last post

[buddhamama]

46. i belong to both groups USPIRG and Public Citizen

my fear is that either version House or Senate will pass.
there are both pretty bad. i still have hope but,i can almost guarantee that we're getting more nuclear power plants(that'll come in handy for the mini-nukes we're developing).

[Robbien]

48. Just made a recommend ed plan in post 47

Your thoughts?

[buddhamama]

51. excellent i am in

i added a nuclear reference site under bigtree's last post.

it's alot of info but it explains how the different nuclear porcesses work. :scared:

[buddhamama]

53. looking at that, i already did it.

can't hurt to do it again.

[Robbien]

58. We still need

that press release shortened and in a letter format, so that people can just send it in to their representatives.

Plus, the phone number was only for senators, we can also call our representatives this time also.

[buddhamama]

59. i have to sign off for the night

but i'll be back tomorrow.

i'd be willing to try and make the press release into a letter.

the calling of Congress should definitely happen.
we'll figure that one out too.

sorry, guys.

see y'all tomorrow.

[blm]

50. Cool. I didn't know that about you.

Real activist citizens are few and far between.

Most have no idea how important Public Citizen has been to this country, and in how many different ways.

[buddhamama]

55. i only recently joined

but i have been on their 'mailing list' for a while.

both Orgs are an invaluable asset.

[Robbien]

52. Double that cool!

Has there been any reaction to Public Citizen's press releases?

edit: I've been reading through some of that nuclear material. It is very hard to understand, but mostly it seems very scary stuff.

[buddhamama]

54. not much unfortunately

the media just isn't talking about it, not even with the massive blackout. make sure to sign up for the action updates and press releases.

the USPIRG will send you info on local issues dedicated to your state.
i get at least an update a week.

[Robbien]

56. This is my read on what is happening right now

Bush needed to dispel the 9-11/Iraq link because of Clark. Bush's fall guy is Cheney. Cheney's payment is the SCOTUS Appeal and passage of this bill. Of course Bush benefits from all the contributions he's been getting and a bought election. And the press is happy because they get to play with a scandel.

Bush releases his minions to prey on the left and on the right (remember they are going to hate this bill also because of private domain issue). We are all too distracted to pay much attention. Bill Passes.

[buddhamama]

57. And,

they're PR campaign is excellent. nuclear power is being touted as clean, drilling will save us from the unruly oil countries,get rid a lot of the regulations and consumers will save money and won't experience pesky outages.

[bigtree]

60. or,

get us jazzed about ANWAR and pull it at the last minute, appeasing the most vocal opposition. The rest goes through.

Still hope on the mini-nukes, though. The house bill doesn't include the funding. Some daylight could scare it out of the bill.

[Robbien]

65. It is so hard to believe these guys are going to even want

to live in a world like ours will be once this bill goes through. Their power will be going out also.

[Booberdawg]

61. I'm not convinced Cheney will win a SCOTUS appeal

but interesting observations nevertheless.

Good job kicking butt with this you guys! Good stuff here!:hi:

[Robbien]

63. In a way, he doesn't need to win

Just delay releasing any documents until the bill is passed.

[Booberdawg]

68. Ah yes, I see your point

[blm]

66. They might if it is made a campaign issue.

.

[salin]

92. you might know this... on the lbn thread

someone posted that Kerry was prepared to filibuster this bill. Do you know if this threat was made - and if so if it was contingent on the ANWR provision (i.e. filibustering due to ANWR) - which seems to be the only reason anyone has fought this bill, or does the threat (if made) still stand? That would force it to be a campaign issue. Would be the best news I have heard in a while.

[blm]

98. check

your PM

[salin]

118. Thanks

:D

[Robbien]

62. first try at cutting the release down into a letter

Dear

RE: Vote No on the H.R.6 Energy Bill

I feel this legislation would actually promote nuclear power and further deregulation, making nuclear power even more dangerous to the public.

The report details the dilapidated state of the country’s 103 nuclear reactors and their heightened vulnerability during power outages, debunking nuclear proponents’ claims of reliability. Despite a detailed history of leaks, maintenance problems, weak security and overall deteriorating conditions of U.S. nuclear plants, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has granted operating license renewals to all 16 reactors that have submitted applications.

By next summer, the United States will have a 34 percent reserve margin for electricity generation capacity, according to Goldman Sachs & Co.’s managing director, Larry Kellerman.

"This glut of power plants give us no reason to build more nuclear power plants nor keep all the current, dilapidated nuclear fleet running.The same is true for transmission capacity; at the time of the blackout, the grid was only at 75 percent capacity. We don’t need to relicense or build more nuclear plants.

The blackout demonstrated the current bottlenecks and strains on the nation’s electric grid. The transmission system was designed to accommodate local electricity markets, not the large, free-wheeling trading of electricity and movement of power over long distances under deregulation, in which energy companies seek to supply power to the highest bidder. Sending power over a much wider area decreases efficiency and burdens a transmission system designed to serve local utilities.

For these reasons I respectfully request you vote no.

Sincerely

what changes are needed?

[blm]

64. It looks like a great letter to me...

but, I am one of the less knowledgeable people on this. But, I'm happy to bump it, till someone brilliant comes along.

[Robbien]

67. Thanks for your help here today

Even with your bumps, it was hard to keep track of where the thread was.

[blm]

72. anything for the good...

last bump tonight for nsma...

[buddhamama]

90. excellent letter, Robbien

i was going to work on this today,
but you've already done it! :thumbsup:

i do have some suggestions(always feel uncomfortable in these situations)mostly with the opening.

i have a busy morning but i'll be back later.

thank you for all your work!

[buddhamama]

93. good morning!

this a suggestion for the opening, i feel bad, but tell me what you think.

Dear ,

As a concerned constituent, I urge you to Vote No on the H.R.6 Energy Bill.(then continue with your wording) " I feel this legislation would actually promote nuclear power and further deregulation, making nuclear power even more dangerous to the public."

one question. in the next paragraph you start off with "In the report..." are you refering to Public Citizen report and would you like mention it and ohter Orgs reports by name?

thanks again.

be back later.

[Robbien]

96. both very good suggestions

When these are final we should start a thread so people can start using them.

What is also needed is calls to TrueMajority, MoveOn, Sieera and so forth to see if they will do action alerts and put these on their sites.

Maybe also calls to USPIRG and Public Citizen to see if they may want to try this approach and put it on their sites.

What we really need is a home for these. A thread is good for DUers, but we need some place to send people who are not DU. I mean, if we send emails and links to articles to groups and organizations, it would be good to have a link to send them to a place if they want to call and write their congresscritters.

Also, calls to Guy James, Mike Malloy, etal to see if they will mention it on their shows.

That's all I got. Oh wait, shouldn't we be asking admin if this is okay to do here?

I really wish I could be around to help out, but am having surgury this afternoon so will not be around for a couple of days.

Have fun with this guys. It feels good to be doing something, not just waiting around for the hammer to fall.

[buddhamama]

101. surgery!

wow. i did not know.


well wishes for a speedy recovery and complete healing.
take care Robbien, and look forward to you return.

[buddhamama]

129. more...

i am all over the place with this.

i'm posting paragraph's. everyone can give input in how to bring it all together.

"In section 16011 of H.R.6, the House seeks $100 billion from taxpayers for the construction of new transmission lines. The House Bill ignores the main culprit; once required re-investment in the infrastructure was foregone for higher profit margins. Therefore, responsibility for such upgrades should be placed solely on the Electricity producers and providers."

*Since deregulation was ushered in via the Energy Policy Act of 1992, the ability of states to order utilities to reinvest their profits back into the transmission system has been undermined. In 1990, utilities spent $3.3 billion (in today’s dollars) to upgrade and maintain the nation’s transmission system. In 2000, utilities spent less ($3 billion) at a time when more power was moving through the grid. In addition, deregulation forced the firing of thousands of utility workers, hindering the ability of utilities to adequately staff maintenance and operation.

*Source: Compiled by Public Citizen from North American Electric Reliability Council Data.*



"The House Bill also fails to address the evidence that a larger transmission system is not what is needed. The blackout demonstrated the current bottlenecks and strains on the nation’s electric grid. The transmission system was designed to accommodate local electricity markets, not the large, free-wheeling trading of electricity and movement of power over long distances under deregulation, in which energy companies seek to supply power to the highest bidder. Sending power over a much wider area decreases efficiency and burdens a transmission system designed to serve local utilities."

[Robbien]

69. first try at the phone campaign notice

Please take a moment to call your senators at toll free 1-888-280-6279. If the line is busy call the switchboard directly at 1- 202-224-3121 (just tell the operator which state you're from and they can connect you to your senators - you may have to call twice to reach both senators). Here's a sample message you can leave:

"Hello, my name is _____ and I live in _______. Please oppose the dirty and dangerous H.R.6 energy bill because the bill is loaded with provisions written by and for the utility, nuclear, coal and oil industries that threaten our pocketbooks, public health, national security and environment."

Then please call your State Representative at the same numbers above and ask to be switched to your representatives office

[bigtree]

77. link to the current conference version. lots here

http://energy.senate.gov/legislation/energybill2003/energybill2003.cfm

I clicked on the link on the page labeled nuclear matters and it didn't exist. Hmm...


night.

[grasswire]

78. kick

[Robbien]

79. None of the sections are coming up for me

He is probably still in his secret room marking them all up.
Thanks so much bigtree. It has been an interesting ride helping out and working with this team.

[bigtree]

81. energy bill as reported

Subject: energy bill as reported
http://energy.senate.gov/legislation/energybill2003/AsReported.pdf

big bill. wait for it

[salin]

83. during the first round

Waxman's Office on governmental affairs (or investigations? - the same committee Dan burton on the pub side used to head and fight the clinton's on everything - Waxman is the ranking minority leader and thus has staff) - they had a great analysis of earlier house versions. Maybe we can send a slew of letters to see if they would do a similar analysis on this bill. They have the experience and manpower to do it.

[bigtree]

84. nuclear research section. here's the money shot

http://energy.senate.gov/legislation/energybill2003/CMTitleIX.pdf

Subtitle D—Nuclear Energy

SEC. 941. NUCLEAR ENERGY. 5
(a) CORE PROGRAMS.—The following sums are authorized to be appropriated to the 6

Secretary for nuclear energy research, development, demonstration, and commercial application 7
activities, including activities authorized under this subtitle, other than those described in 8
subsection (b): 9

(1) for fiscal year 2004, $273,000,000; 10
(2) for fiscal year 2005, $305,000,000; 11
(3) for fiscal year 2006, $330,000,000; 12
(4) for fiscal year 2007, $355,000,000; and 13
(5) for fiscal year 2008, $495,000,000. 14

(b) NUCLEAR INFRASTRUCTURE SUPPORT.—The following sums are authorized to be 15
appropriated to the Secretary for activities under section 942(f): 16
(1) for fiscal year 2004, $125,000,000; 17
(2) for fiscal year 2005, $130,000,000; 18
(3) for fiscal year 2006, $135,000,000; 19
(4) for fiscal year 2007, $140,000,000; and 20
(5) for fiscal year 2008, $145,000,000. 21

(c) ALLOCATIONS.—From amounts authorized under subsection (a), the following sums 22
are authorized: 23
(1) For activities under section 943— 24
(A) for fiscal year 2004, $140,000,000; 25
(B) for fiscal year 2005, $145,000,000; 26
(C) for fiscal year 2006, $150,000,000; 27
(D) for fiscal year 2007, $155,000,000; and 28
(E) for fiscal year 2008, $275,000,000. 29
(2) For activities under section 944— 30
19

(A) for fiscal year 2004, $33,000,000; 1
(B) for fiscal year 2005, $37,900,000; 2
(C) for fiscal year 2006, $43,600,000; 3
(D) for fiscal year 2007, $50,100,000; and 4
(E) for fiscal year 2008, $56,000,000. 5

(3) For activities under section 946, for each of fiscal years 2004 through 6
2008, $6,000,000. 7
(d) None of the funds authorized under this section may be used for decommissioning the 8
Fast Flux Test Facility. 9

SEC. 942. NUCLEAR ENERGY RESEARCH PROGRAMS. 10

(a) NUCLEAR ENERGY RESEARCH INITIATIVE.—The Secretary shall carry out a Nuclear 11
Energy Research Initiative for research and development related to nuclear energy. 12

(b) NUCLEAR ENERGY PLANT OPTIMIZATION PROGRAM.—The Secretary shall carry out a 13
Nuclear Energy Plant Optimization Program to support research and development activities 14
addressing reliability, availability, productivity, component aging, safety and security of existing 15
nuclear power plants. 16

(c) NUCLEAR POWER 2010 PROGRAM.—The Secretary shall carry out a Nuclear Power 17
2010 Program, consistent with recommendations in the October 2001 report entitled “A 18

Roadmap to Deploy New Nuclear Power Plants in the United States by 2010” issued by the 19 Nuclear Energy Research Advisory Committee of the Department. http://nuclear.gov/nerac/ntdroadmapvolume1.pdf

The Program shall include— 20
(1) utilization of the expertise and capabilities of industry, universities, and 21
National Laboratories in evaluation of advanced nuclear fuel cycles and fuels testing; 22
(2) consideration of a variety of reactor designs suitable for both developed and 23
developing nations; 24
(3) participation of international collaborators in research, development, and 25
design efforts as appropriate; and 26
(4) encouragement for university and industry participation. 27

(d) GENERATION IV NUCLEAR ENERGY SYSTEMS INITIATIVE.—The Secretary shall carry 28
out a Generation IV Nuclear Energy Systems Initiative to develop an overall technology plan 29
and to support research and development necessary to make an informed technical decision 30
20
about the most promising candidates for eventual commercial application. The Initiative shall 1
examine advanced proliferation-resistant and passively safe reactor designs, including designs 2
that— 3

(1) are economically competitive with other electric power generation plants; 4
(2) have higher efficiency, lower cost, and improved safety compared to reactors 5
in operation on the date of enactment of this Act; 6
(3) use fuels that are proliferation resistant and have substantially reduced 7
production of high-level waste per unit of output; and 8
(4) use improved instrumentation. 9

(e) REACTOR PRODUCTION OF HYDROGEN.—The Secretary shall carry out research to 10
examine designs for high-temperature reactors capable of producing large-scale quantities of 11
hydrogen using thermo-chemical processes. 12

(f) NUCLEAR INFRASTRUCTURE SUPPORT.—The Secretary shall develop and implement a 13
strategy for the facilities of the Office of Nuclear Energy, Science, and Technology and shall 14
transmit a report containing the strategy along with the President’s budget request to the 15
Congress for fiscal year 2006. Such strategy shall provide a cost-effective means for— 16

(1) maintaining existing facilities and infrastructure, as needed; 17
(2) closing unneeded facilities; 18
(3) making facility upgrades and modifications; and 19
(4) building new facilities. 20

[Robbien]

87. How long does it take for a bill to come out of conference?

Then it goes for seperate votes in both the House and Senate right?
What I am trying to get at here is what is the timeframe are we looking at?

[Robbien]

85. Just found an interesting financial article

Piercing the clouds in capital’s smoke-filled rooms

Documents in a legal challenge to campaign finance rules provide a detailed look at what happens when political parties crank up their fund-raising machinery

<snip>

Another document is a letter from Entergy's (ETR, news, msgs) then-CEO to Rep. Tom DeLay (R-Texas), reminding the lawmaker of their chat at a dinner for donors of $100,000 or more. The executive told DeLay that he wants Congress to repeal certain energy regulations. Guess what? This fall's energy bill may deliver exactly what the power company wanted.

The third document is a memo for then-RNC chairman Jim Nicholson prepping him to call Pat Patrick, chief executive of Patrick Petroleum and owner of an auto racing team. Patrick implied he wouldn't donate $100,000 until officials heard his pitch to toughen their estate tax-cut proposal. Guess what? Congress slashed the tax the next year.

http://moneycentral.msn.com/content/CNBCTV/Articles/TVReports/P61319.asp

[blm]

99. What about a new thread

that hits all these points and includes your action email and phone guides?

The extra info and actions are lost this far downthread.

[Robbien]

100. Just checking in before I go

I love your idea because that article makes me get so angry I want to do something.

See you in a couple of days. Make Whistle Ass cry!

[salin]

133. Excellent idea

will be back a little later this morning (after a more thorough read of the new information included here) to do just this. :thumbsup:

[Terwilliger]

86. kick!

I believe Kucinich bankrupted Cleveland trying to fight the energy companies for municipal power

[buddhamama]

89. morning kick

:kick:

[G_j]

95. great thread, kick

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

102. Thanks kick!

[blm]

104. What about a new thread kick

that lays out the points made here, and spurs some email and phone action?

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

106. Betwen Buddhamama, Robbien and BigTree I have NOT even had a

chance to digest this info but THANK YOU ALL for your hard work!

I will go through this later today.

and to all the well wishers...thanks very much. My favorite aunt died. She was a POWERHOUSE and a pistol....I haven't much had the desire to write about her and wouldn't know where to start she did so much...but my uncle who passed before her was an entertainer and her funeral was like a WHO'S WHO from 50's and early 60's TV. It was really actually quite uplifting...and it was amazing as well..sorry for the LONG aside.

[blm]

109. aawwww....

you really know how to earn your bumps, dontcha?

;)

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

112. Wow someone read that

[buddhamama]

116. a few of us have

i'd imagine.

I picture your Aunt as being an older You,Teena.

She sounds wonderful!

You All gave her a great farewell/send off. May she be at Peace.

Again, I am sorry for you family's loss.

[buddhamama]

103. i am still working on the letter

actually on working on adding to Robbien's letter.

i don't have a lot of time today
and there are a lot of provisions/issues included in this Bill.
right now i am working on the language to address the repeal of PUHCA.

any help would be appreciated.

hope to have something by tomorrow.

[blm]

105. thanks kick

.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

108. IF this thread falls into the archives, the terrorists win!!!

:kick:

[Champion Jack]

110. KICKED

[LittleApple81]

114. kick n/t

[bigtree]

113. don't forget the nukes

Subject: don't forget the nukes
The Energy bill aims to facillitate the next generation of nukes and nuke plants. Also, there are countless issues regarding waste storage, transportation, and conversion into new deadly applications, like mini-nukes, bunker-busters, as well as the continuation and expansion of nuclear energy plants.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d108:h.r.00006: (enter manually and include the : symbol)

Nuclear energy accounts for about 20% of our electricity needs; 30% worldwide. It's promoted as a clean energy alternative. But, the 20-30% could be made up by renewable sources. However, the administration and the nuclear industry insist that we preserve and expand our nuclear program, using "energy security" as their justification.

Here's the hook.

In December 2002 the United States Department of Energy's Nuclear Energy Research Advisory Committee and the Generation IV International Forum issued "A Technology Roadmap for the Generation IV Nuclear Energy Systems." http://gif.inel.gov/roadmap/pdfs/gen_iv_roadmap.pdf
(big file, a must read!)

The Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory (INEEL) was named in 1999 the Department of Energy's lead laboratory for Environmental Management, responsible for the long-term stewardship of DOE facilities. The major elements within the INEEL's Environmental Management Program are Environmental Restoration, Waste Management, Spent Nuclear Fuel, and High-Level Waste. http://www.inel.gov/

In 1999, DOE's Office of Nuclear Energy, Science and Technology (DOE-NE) designated the INEEL and Argonne National Laboratory (ANL) as lead laboratories for Nuclear Reactor Technology. In the summer of 2002, Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham announced the INEEL will serve as the nation's primary nuclear technology center. (The place where the nuclear madness is mushrooming).

The Environmental Management Program (http://www.inel.gov/environment/documents/2003-sep-prog-rpt.pdf) funds slightly over 70% of the work at the INEEL. This includes Waste Management, Environmental Restoration, Spent Nuclear Fuel, High-Level Waste, INTEC, and Validation and Verification. The remaining funding sources consist of Work for Others (WFO), offices of Nuclear Energy, Energy Efficiency and Reenewable Energy, Fossil Energy, Office of Science, Nonproliferation and National Security

So, INEEL is deep in Nuclear waste management. And their focus is on the recycling of nuclear waste as opposed to primary immobilization and storage. It doesn't solve the waste issues, it compounds the problem by dispersing degraded, spent, or blended materials to new weapons and new and existing nuclear energy plants. Much of the converted waste will be redistributed outside of the country.

But they are also charged by those in and out of the Bush administration who have an interest in preserving the faltering industry with developing new nuclear technologies to counter the declining support and the disappearing rationale for nuclear power.

So, INEEL is the place where nuke resaerch and development has been centered since 1952. But, in 1989 the EPA placed the INEEL on the National Priorities List of Uncontrolled Hazardous Waste Sites because of confirmed contaminant releases into the environment.

Yet, the INEEL is still considered the primary site for nuclear energy research and development.


Current activities are:

Generation IV As the DOE's lead laboratories for nuclear reactor technology development, The INEEL (http://www.inel.gov/initiatives/generation.shtml) and Argonne National Laboratory are organizing and coordinating the Generation IV Initiative.Generation IV Roadmap supporting documents:
http://gif.inel.gov/roadmap/


The INEEL provides specialized management, applied research, systems analysis, proof-of-concept engineering, technological support, and related services for various offices of the Department of Energy (DOE):

Environmental Management
http://www.inel.gov/environment/

Nuclear Energy, Science and Technology
http://www.inel.gov/major-programs/#ne

Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy
http://www.inel.gov/major-programs/#ee

Office of Science (SC)
http://www.inel.gov/major-programs/#sc

Nonproliferation And National Security
http://www.inel.gov/major-programs/#nn

Fossil Energy (FE)
http://www.inel.gov/major-programs/#fe

Defense Programs
http://www.inel.gov/major-programs/#fe

Environment, Safety, and Health
http://www.inel.gov/major-programs/#fe

All are just fronts for the expansion of nuclear, oil, and hydrogen ambitions; financed by the taxpayer in the Energy bill.

To address the environmental mismanagement and abuse, INEEL was divided into 10 clean-up sites.
Nine strategic initiatives were developed around these objectives to accelerate cleanup. They include:

Accelerate Tank Farm Closure
Accelerate High-level Waste Calcine Removal from Idaho
Accelerate Consolidation of Spent Nuclear Fuel to the Idaho Nuclear Technology and Engineering Center
Accelerate Off-site Shipments of Transuranic Waste Stored in the Transuranic Waste Storage Area
Accelerate Remediation of Miscellaneous Contaminated Areas
Eliminate On-Site Treatment and Disposal of Low-Level and Mixed Low-Level Waste
Transfer all EM-Managed Special Nuclear Material Off-site
Remediate Buried Waste in the Radioactive Waste Management Complex
Accelerate Consolidation of INEEL Facilities and Reduce Footprint

Contained within these remedial inituatives are expansive plans for the next generation of renewable nukes; regeneration of spent waste, namely uranium, the extraction of hydrogen from oil and water, and the blending of waste as in the Mixed-Oxide(MOX)reactors in Russia and elsewhere. And, funding for all of these inituatives is buried in the Energy and Defense bills.

“Nuclear Energy Finance Act of 2003.”

SEC. 433. PROJECT MANAGEMENT.
(a) MANAGEMENT.— The project shall be managed within the Department by the Office of
Nuclear Energy Science and Technology.
(b) LEAD LABORATORY.—The lead laboratory for the program, providing the site for the
reactor construction, shall be the Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory (“INEEL”).
(c) STEERING COMMITTEE.—The Secretary shall establish a national steering committee with
membership from the national laboratories, universities, and industry to provide advice to the Secretary
and the Director of the Office of Nuclear Energy, Science and Technology on technical and program
management aspects of the project.
(d) COLLABORATION.—Project activities shall be conducted at INEEL, other national
laboratories, universities, domestic industry, and international partners.

SEC. 434. PROJECT REQUIREMENTS
(a) RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT.—The project shall include planning, research and
development, design, and construction of an advanced, next-generation, nuclear energy system suitable
for enabling further research and development on advanced reactor technologies and alternative
approaches for reactor-based generation of hydrogen.
(1) The project shall utilize, where appropriate, extensive reactor test capabilities
resident at INEEL.
(2) The project shall be designed to explore technical, environmental, and
economic feasibility of alternative approaches for reactor-based hydrogen production.
(3) The industrial lead for the project must be a United States-based company.
(b) INTERNATIONAL COLLABORATION.—The Secretary shall seek international cooperation,

(1) The project may contract for assistance from specialists or facilities from member countries of the Generation IV International Forum, the Russian Federation, or other international partners where such specialists or facilities provide access to cost-effective and relevant skills or test capabilities.
(2) International activities shall be coordinated with the Generation IV International Forum.
(3) The Secretary may combine this project with the Generation IV Nuclear Energy Systems Program.

The term “National Laboratory” means any of the following laboratories
owned by the Department:
(A) Ames Laboratory.
(B) Argonne National Laboratory.
(C) Brookhaven National Laboratory.
(D) Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory.
(E) Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory.
(F) Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory.
(G) Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory.
(H) Los Alamos National Laboratory.
(I) National Energy Technology Laboratory.
(J) National Renewable Energy Laboratory.
(K) Oak Ridge National Laboratory.
(L) Pacific Northwest National Laboratory.
(M) Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory.
(N) Sandia National Laboratories.
(O) Stanford Linear Accelerator Center.
(P) Thomas Jefferson National Accelerator Facility.


The nuclear industry is scrambling to justify its existence and is bolstered by the rhetoric of the administration and congressional supporters who defend their efforts in the preservation and expansion of nuclear energy systems as a national security concern.

“Nuclear Energy Finance Act of 2003.”

SEC. 423. RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE SECRETARY.
(a) FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE.— Subject to the requirements of the Federal Credit Reform Act
of 1990 (2 U.S.C. 661 et seq.), the Secretary may, subject to appropriations, make available to
project developers for eligible project costs such financial assistance as the Secretary determines is
necessary to supplement private-sector financing for projects if he determines that such projects are
needed to contribute to energy security, fuel or technology diversity, or clean air attainment goals. The
Secretary shall prescribe such terms and conditions for financial assistance as the Secretary deems
necessary or appropriate to protect the financial interests of the United States.

(b) REACTOR CONSTRUCTION.—The following sum is authorized to be appropriated to the
Secretary for all project-related construction activities, to be available until expended, $500,000,000.


We import the spent fuel from Russian nukes and process it for the remaining uranium powered electric plants in the U.S. and abroad. The program has been successful in the elimination of some 4,000 Russian warheads, but has created a dependence on the Russian uranium to power the U.S. plants; prompting the Energy Dept. to explore and pursue new sources of nuclear fuel for these plants.

Also new plants are contemplated in the Energy and Defense legislation which would utilize the new generation of recycled nuclear fuels (MOX mixed-oxide, hydrogen based, depleted uranium, etc.) . These centers will almost certainly be formatted to accomodate the next generation of nuclear weapons, such as, mini tactical nukes and bunker- busters.

INELL will undoubtably be at the center of this effort.

The INEEL is operated for the DOE by Bechtel BWXT Idaho, LLC. Members of the LLC are Bechtel National, Inc., BWX Technologies Co and INRA. INRA is a consortium of eight regional universities.The DOE field office is the Idaho Operations Office.

The University of Chicago operates Argonne National Laboratory West (http://www.inel.gov/facilities/anl-w-status.shtml) and reports to DOE's Chicago Operations Office. Bechtel Bettis, Inc. operates the Naval Reactors Facility that reports to DOE's Pittsburgh Naval Operations Office.

The INEEL consists of the eight major facility areas scattered across an 890-square-mile area in southeastern Idaho typically referred to as the "site." The ninth area includes several laboratories located approximately 30 miles east in the city of Idaho Falls.

The Test Area North - TAN consists of facilities for handling, storage, examination, and research of spent nuclear fuel. TAN also houses the Specific Manufacturing Capability Project, which makes armor packages for Army tanks.
Background, Cleanup Status
http://www.inel.gov/facilities/tan.shtml
http://www.inel.gov/facilities/tan-status.shtml

The Test Reactor Area - TRA is the world's most sophisticated materials testing complex and has extensive facilities for studying the effects of radiation on materials, fuels, and equipment.
Background, Cleanup Status
http://www.inel.gov/facilities/tra.shtml
http://www.inel.gov/facilities/tra-status.shtml

The Idaho Nuclear Technology and Engineering Center - INTEC provides safe interim storage for government-owned spent nuclear fuels. INTEC currently develops new approaches and technologies to prepare spent fuel and other nuclear materials for eventual disposal in a national repository. It also is the center for the INEEL's High-Level Waste treatment program.
Background, Cleanup Status
http://www.inel.gov/facilities/intec.shtml
http://www.inel.gov/environment/intec/

The Central Facilities Area - CFA houses many technical and support services including monitoring and calibration laboratories, fire protection, medical services, warehouses, vehicle and equipment pools, and bus operations.
Background, Cleanup Status
http://www.inel.gov/facilities/cfa.shtml
http://www.inel.gov/facilities/cfa-status.shtml

The Waste Reduction Operations Complex/Power Burst Facility - WROC/PBF is housed in an area formerly used for reactor operations. WROC/PBF provides safe treatment, storage, and recycling of the INEEL's radioactive, mixed, and industrial/commercial wastes.
Background, Cleanup Status
http://www.inel.gov/facilities/wroc-pbf.shtml
http://www.inel.gov/facilities/wroc-pbf-status.shtml

The Radioactive Waste Management Complex - RWMC studies the strategies for waste storage, processing, and disposal. Some 32,000 drums containing waste are safely stored at this facility.
Background, Cleanup Status
http://www.inel.gov/facilities/rwmc.shtml
http://www.inel.gov/facilities/rwmc-status.shtml

The Naval Reactors Facility - NRF is the birthplace of the U.S. Nuclear Navy. NRF receives and examines Naval spent fuel, and works together with other INEEL facilities to continually improve nuclear propulsion systems
Background, Current Status (operations/remediation)
http://www.inel.gov/facilities/nrf.shtml
http://www.inel.gov/facilities/nrf-status.shtml

The Argonne National Laboratory-West - ANL-W is part of Argonne National Laboratory operated by the University of Chicago, conducts research and development and operates facilities for DOE in areas of national concern including energy, nuclear safety, spent nuclear fuel treatment, nonproliferation, decommissioning and decontamination technologies, and nuclear material disposal.
Background, Current Status (operations/remediation)
http://www.inel.gov/facilities/anl-w.shtml
http://www.inel.gov/facilities/anl-w-status.shtml

The INEEL Research Center - IRC is located in Idaho Falls, and is INEEL's primary research complex with activites in the areas of fundamental and applied R&D in science and engineering areas critical to national and DOE missions.
Background
http://www.inel.gov/facilities/irc.shtml

The Areas Outside Facility Boundaries and Snake River Plain Aquifer are original aboriginal territories of the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes of the Fort Hall reservation. A wide variety of natural and cultural resources and areas at the INEEL directly reflect the Tribes’ cultural heritage. These resources are of great importance in the maintenance of tribal spiritual and cultural values and activities, oral tradition and history, mental and economic well-being, and overall quality of life. The DOE has long acknowledged its commitment to protect not only the health and safety of the Tribes but also the environment and cultural resources that are essential to their subsistence and culture. In the holistic worldview of the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes, land, air, water, plants, animals and humans are all interconnected. Changes and losses in the landscape are seen as leading to an imbalance in nature that affects all things.
Cleanup Status
http://www.inel.gov/facilities/outside-areas-status.shtml

Map of facility locations:




Help me expose the money people behind INEEL. I'll bet they lead to Energy Sec. Abraham or Bush & Co. http://www.inel.gov/about/

[buddhamama]

115. good reference comparison file H.R.6 S 14

this was posted in a previous Energy thread

http://www.citizen.org/documents/energybillcomparison.pdf

[buddhamama]

119. excellent,bigtree

and thank you for all the info and time you have given to this thread.

nuclear weapons/power are forever linked and that alone would make me opposed to this Bill.

[buddhamama]

117. i've ran into a little snag

with my letter writng.
my ink has run out on my printer and it is proving quite difficult to compose the letter but not have the printed info in front of me.

i have what i need for most of the nuclear info and PUHCA but that's about it.

i'll do what i can.

[salin]

120. Bless you Buddhamama (or is that BuddhaHAL)

;-)

I had to be out much of yesterday and today. This weekend hope that we can formulate some letters, maybe some talking points - and see if we can't create a media strategy. There really are a number of sexy angles (the additional costs - in light of the hostile public reaction to the requested 87billion for additional Iraq; the Cheney connection and Cheney's request for the SC to get involved (to help him keep the info secret re: his energy task force); the nuclear info - while suddenly there is more nuke interest due to the congressional efforts to restart nuke weapons programs; and the deregulation -PUHCA (tie to california and enron; and tie to first energy).)

[buddhamama]

121. you make me laugh.

it has been a long day...thanks. :-)

sexy issues, like Cheney having to bare all and hand over the Energy papers...i wish. yuck! i just myself sick :puke:

yeah there is a lot to discuss and read.
my head is swimming.

may need help on my wording you guys are better writers than i am but we'll have a starting point anyway. and i have what Robbien wrote last night too, so it should work out.

i'll give what i have as soon as it is done.

:hi:

[bigtree]

123. looking foward to the letter

I'd better get on the phone tomorrow, though. My letters have a two month delayed response.

It's good to call. You never know what aide is taking the call or what influential person is in the room at the time. Good way to make an impact. Then follow-up with the written appeal.

Thanks to everyone for giving me a reason to return to DU. Sorry for the long info response. Links are ephemeral. They disappear before your eyes these days. If you know what I mean...:hippie:

[Terwilliger]

122. kicking again

[Booberdawg]

124. kick for the team!

[Booberdawg]

125. morning kick

:kick:

[buddhamama]

126. the opening paragraph

i had started to make revisions but decided to post it here instead and let you all pick it apart. my SO says my anger and disappointment are coming thru and he thinks it should be toned down a little. i have tried to do this but it's not working.
so i'm leaving it up to you.

it's shaping up to be another bust day and i still have some writng to do but i'm going to try to post everything i have by tonite.

anyway here's the opening

"As your constituent, I urge to vote against the Energy Bill H.R.6 that is currently under consideration in conference committee. The House must avoid the rush to pass legislation that is not in the best interest of the public. The White House is looking to exploit recent events and push through this legislation that further deregulates our energy markets while repealing key consumer protections and most egregious of all, once again, taxpayers will be asked to bear the burden.
If the past three years have taught us anything it is that, deregulation hasn’t lived up to its promise of cheaper more reliable electricity; and has in fact been the impetus in which market manipulation for profit by Enron and others, power outages and black outs have occurred."

[salin]

128. great timing

am printing everything up - and over a coffee doing a solid read. I will start with this.

Good morning buddhaHal! :D

[buddhamama]

131. good morning,salin

buddhaHal needs a recharge not enough coffee :-)

i realized earlier that i am getting way too wordy.
turning into a dissertation and i apologize.
edit out whatever you want i won't be offended.

it is helping me though, get a clearer understanding of this Bill and its ramifications.

be back soon. :hi:

[salin]

132. my suggestions make it more wordy

don't know if it is where you want to go. But by explaining rather than alluding to the lessons learned re: deregulation - you can take some of the more colorful language (I love it! but it may be true that it lets your anger bleed through which may downplay the sense of urgency you are going for).

The following suggestion is more in theme than word. Take it for what it is worth - and if you like it - use your wonderful language to make it your own.

-------------
"As your constituent, I urge to vote against the Energy Bill H.R.6 that is currently under consideration in conference committee. The House must avoid the rush to pass legislation that is not in the best interest of the public. The White House is looking to exploit recent events and push through this legislation that further deregulates our energy markets while repealing key consumer protections and most egregious of all, once again, taxpayers will be asked to bear the burden.

(great opening - only suggested change is to the second sentence:

It appears that the White House in lobbying very hard to get this bill, that had been on the backburner for a year, to move forward again, is exploiting recent events to push through this legislation....)

If the past three years have taught us anything it is that, deregulation hasn’t lived up to its promise of cheaper more reliable electricity; and has in fact been the impetus in which market manipulation for profit by Enron and others, power outages and black outs have occurred."

(Leave the first sentence - but then instead of allusion - spell out the lessons learned:)

As a country, in the past three years, we have learned a great deal about the unintended consequences of supporting energy deregulation in the name of lower rates through two big lessons:

First was from a now known to be industry induced energy crisis on the west coast. The scale of market manipulation, that may have initially been spurred by an Enron that saw an opportunity to save itself (though the rest of us did not know of the financial problems them company had), has been upsetting as it appears that the opportunities to manipulate the market to gouge consumers was so irresistable that many energy companies such as ________________ (need to check with Californians for names of companies such as Duke that have been 'caught' in the gaming) jumped into the gaming of west coast rate payers. Any savings initially brought by deregulation were quickly wiped away and left rate payers with higher and higher costs.

Second was the problem of overuse on an aging infrastructure, which lead to one of the broadest blackouts in recent memory. More companies were using the infrastructure without any investment to modernize that infrastructure. It is as if the new energy market was without overhead/infrastructure costs, with the assumption that consumers should pay for the 'cost of doing business' rather than traditional business model of companies' earning profits investing some of those into infrastructure (to increase the ability of earning future profits).

In both cases it appears that rate payers and tax payers will have to foot the bill. This comes at a time, due to the economy, that consumers and tax payers have fewere and fewer resources to foot the bill for higher energy costs.

I ask you to pay particular attention to a provision in the bill that eliminates the last vestage of corporate SEC regulation over companies delivering energy to consumers. the Public Utilities Holding Commission Act (PUHCA) prevents companies providing utility services to consumers from owning a great deal of stock in subsidiaries that provide services to the utilities. Before PUHCA was established, some corporations would use a subsidiary to sell services to the parent company at an exagerated rate thus pushing the overall rates to the consumer up much higher. Shutting down PUHCA opens yet another means for energy companies to manipulate the market in ways that are outside of the view of government regulators. Recent events suggest that rate payers and tax payer interests are still in need of the protection that regulators provide.


(I warned you this was even more wordy - if you can summarize it - or make it more concise - all for the better!)

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

140. Less wordy not more...they won't read it.

I really think the manner to go about this is to contribute to public advocacy groups that will testify before congress.

Keep the letters shorter rather than longer...and more powerful.

Here is MY rewrite:

I am writing to request your opposition to Energy Bill H.R.6. This bill removes major protections from consumers including their property rights. Any bill that weakens the takings clause of the constitution in favor on the enrichment of private interests in NOT in the interest of the American people.

The American public should not be asked to finance the expansion of the energy grid to the benefit of CEO's who then pull the profit out or pay the shareholders at the expense of the public.

The evidence submitted by the Attorney General of California regarding wide spread market manipulation and fraud should be enough to sour any representative in the house from further removing consumer protections in favor of privatization.

Had the energy companies that had been using the grid invested in the infrastructure all along, perhaps the recent blackout could have been avoided.

It is beyond reason that Americans are being asked to pay 87 billion dollars to rebuild Iraq but here in America we do not see fit to pour federal money into infrastructure without handing it off to private interests with less oversight not MORE.

If you pass this bill you will be passing the single largest folly of unintended consequences since the railroads companies of the late 1800's were permitted to manipulate commerce in the west.

I urge you to act in honor of the public whose interests seem to continually be sidelined in favor of corporations with less and less accountability to the public which funds them.

IF Ken Lay taught us nothing else, it is more important to keep the American public confident in their markets than to make one unaccountable individual wealthy at the expense of that public.

[buddhamama]

141. it's good !

i knew that i was getting carried away.
that was just my opening :-)

i submitted more further down and at present have another paragraph
to address the nuclear issue.

Robbien's idea was to put a letter together so people could e-mail it off to their Congressional Rep. and Senator.
(making it easier for people to participate,and possible getting more to do it if the writing is done for them.)

I think that is/was a good idea.

what do you think?

should i scrap the letter i am composing and concentrate on putting the sound bites/talking points together?

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

143. I think that posting this letter and a couple variations

that capitalize on these points and some that have not yet been made is the best route to go...about 5 different letters from different angles that riase different issues rather than all the issues in ONE letter is best...it removes the idea that the letters are form letters and it mixes up a grab bag of issues.

Regardless of your position or issue ..the letter is a letter urging a NO VOTE and the reasons therefore..NOT a policy paper.

When writing to legislators K(eep)It)S(imple)S(weetie)

[buddhamama]

142. i don't think i can write like that.

i've never been able to write in a short but concise form.

once i get started i do tend to overdue it.

[salin]

127. Morning folks!

I am printing all of this up for closer read - and will be back a little later - maybe time to start a second - action oriented thread?

Lets set the goal of developing some talking points, or writing points be that the case over the next two days. Boiling the complex into attention-grabbing (while factual) sound bites.

Then address a strategy of pushing the story.

[blm]

136. Aye, aye, Cap'n.

Looking forward to the follow through. Now THAT I can do. ;)

[buddhamama]

137. good morning,blm

did ya' read the parts of the letter that i haven't posted so far?

you're feedback is encouraged and welcomed!

[buddhamama]

130. i am not awake yet

posted this above in the wrong place.

more...
i am all over the place with this.

i'm posting paragraph's. everyone can give input in how to bring it all together.

"In section 16011 of H.R.6, the House seeks $100 billion from taxpayers for the construction of new transmission lines. The House Bill ignores the main culprit; once required re-investment in the infrastructure was foregone for higher profit margins. Therefore, responsibility for such upgrades should be placed solely on the Electricity producers and providers."

*Since deregulation was ushered in via the Energy Policy Act of 1992, the ability of states to order utilities to reinvest their profits back into the transmission system has been undermined. In 1990, utilities spent $3.3 billion (in today’s dollars) to upgrade and maintain the nation’s transmission system. In 2000, utilities spent less ($3 billion) at a time when more power was moving through the grid. In addition, deregulation forced the firing of thousands of utility workers, hindering the ability of utilities to adequately staff maintenance and operation.

*Source: Compiled by Public Citizen from North American Electric Reliability Council Data.*



"The House Bill also fails to address the evidence that a larger transmission system is not what is needed. The blackout demonstrated the current bottlenecks and strains on the nation’s electric grid. The transmission system was designed to accommodate local electricity markets, not the large, free-wheeling trading of electricity and movement of power over long distances under deregulation, in which energy companies seek to supply power to the highest bidder. Sending power over a much wider area decreases efficiency and burdens a transmission system designed to serve local utilities."

[salin]

134. Second cup of coffee

hadn't red this when I gave the above advice.

Will read with coffee and comeback.

[buddhamama]

135. i am difficult ,aren't i?

:-) sorry about posting this in pieces. i wanted to post what i had 'done' so others like yourself could get to work on editing/adding to it.

because of the printer troubles i had, i was only able to focus my writing on the opening of the letter, nuclear issue, PUHCA and some of deregulation stuff that i had already printed out.

i am working on the PUHCA issue now and will post that as soon as its done.

thanks for the suggestions above. :thumbsup:

this is a joint effort so whatever works for everyone is fine with me. revise correct wherever you feel it is need.

i guess later, we can put everything together and hopefully have a powerful letter.

[buddhamama]

138. giving a kick

:kick:

[Flying_Pig]

139. Thanks forthe post. I've made my calls, and written my letters, ...

and hell, I think I'll do it again!!!

:thumbsup:

[jus_the_facts]

144. KICK.....fwiw.....*sigh*

x(

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

145. afternoon kick

[salin]

146. Sorry ... got pulled away

have tried to turn this thread into a single document (so I could integrate some of the links - and try to get a gestalt from the whole read). Then realized I had to go buy new ink for the printer, and more paper... got distracted with some phone calls... etc.

Now am going to try to print it up and make sense out of it.

Several letters (as those above) are a great idea. Also above is a link to an easy call action site from USPIRG - those willing to make quick calls to register opinions is a great step.

What about talking points. I wonder if we could get Bev Harris interested in doing a fax blast to media outlets is we develop a series of talking points?

Above several folks identified groups that are taking action (e.g., PIRGS and Public Citizen) and groups that aren't but one would think would or might be interested. Lets compile those into seperate lists - voice support to the existing actions, and (when we develop talking points) send info on with a request for action to the second group (who should/could be calling for action).

Then - and I have no idea how to do this - lets attempt to develop a media strategy.

After I read through the print version of this thread - I will pull out the posts that refer to a) condensed information on the bills; b) summary (articles) of key issues; c) identified groups calling for action (with links); d) identified groups that we think might be willing to call for action; e) samples - or drafts of letters (or parts of letters) that DUers have drafted; f) ideas for creating an overall strategy for action. I will create a thread where each of the subcomponents (a-f) will be a post - so additional information can be linked directly to that part of the thread. This may take a couple of hours - so please be patient. If you think of anything else (sub-component) that should be included - please add here.

Thanks all.

Salin

[buddhamama]

147. i am trying to overcome my wordiness

it is hard. and i am having a hard time being powerful without being angry.

this is just one partial re-write i did, no where near done just playing around.

The House Bill ignores the main culprit for the Nation’s Energy woes, the Industry itself. There is nothing in this legislation for the citizenry. Instead lawmakers favor the Industry by enacting regressive energy policies, funding of projects with taxpayer money with less oversight than ever before; ensuring more Enron style manipulation and plunder, all the while stripping the public of its protections by seeking the repeal of PUHCA.

[salin]

150. can I include each of these snippets as drafts?

some folks may resonate with the themes and want to run with them.

[buddhamama]

153. please do.

if it helps i'm all for it.

thanks again!

[bigtree]

148. kick

what a blast of energy to find the post still active. Great work!
:hippie:

I'm still posting on nuke matters. come visit (if you have time)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=115&topic_id=1374

[salin]

151. bigtree

glad you are still with us on this thread. After my long read, I have to admit that I am still a bit at sea on making sense of some of the nuclear issues. I will devote a subthread on the new (action) thread to you, and ask for a quick summary (think of it as highlights for dummies ;-) ) on: the MTP issue - is this included in the energy bill - or is it a related issue (so folks know how to refer to it). If in the bill - quick summary of how/where it slips in. Same with INEEL (this stuff looks very, very scary, btw). Finally you post great information on the money angle - I am going to ask if anyone is willing to take the time to try to add up the amounts for each year. (across the catagories). Right now - legislators and the public are starting to get very, very nervous about big spending. Any hook to get folks attention and perhaps thus get them to read more - all for the better.

[buddhamama]

149. salin,

it's a lot of work you're doing thanks.

i wanted to remind you of the previous energy thread we did. not sure if there is issues/info that are being left out. i did think of two more groups that would most likely be interested Union of Concerned Scientists and Corporate Watch.

so you ran out of printer ink too! :hi:

[salin]

152. funny how that happens

(re: ink and paper ;-) )

I will add those to the list. Great!

[Terwilliger]

154. > > >

< < <