US utilities, regulators sue DoE over (nuclear) waste fund

[jpak]

http://www.world-nuclear-news.org/WR-US_utilities_regulators_sue_DoE_over_waste_fund-0604108.html

Sixteen electricity utilities, together with US nuclear industry organisation the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI), have filed a lawsuit against the Department of Energy (DoE) seeking a suspension of payments into the country's nuclear waste fund. The suit follows a similar one filed days before by state utility regulators.

On 2 March, the National Association of Utility Regulators (NARUC), which represents state regulators and public utility commissions, filed a lawsuit against the DoE's decision to continue collecting fees for the management of spent nuclear fuel pending a decision on the country's future waste disposal strategy. Now, together with sixteen nuclear utilities, the NEI has also filed a suit with the same court, the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, seeking suspension of the fee.

A fee of one-tenth of a cent for every kilowatt-hour of nuclear generation has been levied by the DoE since the Nuclear Waste Fund was established by Congress in 1982. The fund was set up to pay for the transportation and permanent disposal of commercial nuclear waste. However, since the Obama administration decided to terminate the project to build a permanent waste repository at Yucca Mountain in Nevada, DoE is still a long way from fulfilling its promise to move and safely dispose of the waste.

Following on from the decision to halt work on Yucca Mountain, the Blue Ribbon Commission on America's Nuclear Future was announced earlier this year, tasked with developing a new strategy for nuclear waste management in the US. This could potentially include options such as reprocessing and recycling of spent fuel.

<more>

Who pays for disposing the spent nuclear fuel that these utilities used to make piles of $$$$$$????

((((((YOU DO)))))))

yup!

:thumbsdown:

[jpak]

1. kick

:evilgrin:

[kristopher]

2. I'm sure if we leave it to them they'll find a cost effective solution..

They'd love to pay a third wold country to "store it" for 100,000 years.

[Dogmudgeon]

3. A waste fund is BAD?

If there was NO waste fund, you'd complain, too.

In fact, you HAVE complained that the cost of nuclear "waste" was never accounted for, when it actually had been for 25+ years.

But at 1/10th of a penny per kilowatt-hour, I'm certain that it is a bad situation -- for the antis. You can't get traction out of that kind of number.

--d!

[jpak]

4. No it is not bad, the nuclear industry should pay the full cost of spent fuel disposal 24,000 years

from now

yup

[Go2Peace]

5. did you read the OP? Your rant had nothing to do with it

Industry is fighting the fund wanting to shift the cost to consumers. That is *good* news to you?

[Dogmudgeon]

6. I did read it. Did YOU?

The industry wants the consumers' money back, since it was paid to the federal government under the pretense of building a permanent waste storage site at Yucca Mountain. Yucca may have been a boondoggle from Day One, but the fund was a good idea.

That money can be put into on-site storage much more efficiently, particularly since they are still legally responsible for it. That money should either be returned, OR a better federal solution should be proposed, A.S.A.P.

Anti-nukes will twist ANYTHING they can to make nuclear energy look like The Devil's Lightning. Fortunately for everyone but the antis, people are no longer easily impressed by either absolutism or FUD.

--d!

[jpak]

7. the nuclear industry made money off that spent fuel and decided that it would cost too much to deal

with it so they passed the costs on to the taxpayers

what Corporate Welfare is all about

yup