Should Taxpayers Subsidize Catastrophe Insurance For Nuclear Power Plants?

[DrFunkenstein]

Ralph Nader and virtually every progressive organization say no.

Energy: Subsidized Insurance for Nuclear Power Plants

Agreed to: 78-21
Edwards: Yea
Kerry: Nay

This vote was on an amendment offered by Sen. George Voinovich to the Senate energy bill, which would reauthorize the Price-Anderson Act. Price-Anderson provides an unfair taxpayer subsidy to nuclear plant operators by limiting their liability to the public in the event of a nuclear accident. This mitigates the industry’s investment risk and dramatically reduces the cost of retaining liability insurance. Estimates of the value of the annual subsidy range from $366 million to $3.4 billion.

http://action.citizen.org/pc/issues/votes/?votenum=42&chamber=S&congre...



To: Senators and Congress

I strongly oppose the expected rubber stamp renewal of The Price-Anderson Act when it is presented next to congress and demand that a serious study be conducted to determine the morality and constitutionality of this act for the following reasons:

Congress enacted the Price-Anderson Act in 1957 to establish a means to ensure that funds would be available to the public in the event of a nuclear incident. It does not do this. The Price Anderson Act excuses nuclear generators from all but a tiny fraction of the damages which could result from a major nuclear accident.

The refusal to accept full responsibility for actions which cause harm to others is unethical and distinctly defines an attitude of gross irresponsibility. The Price Anderson Act supports politically favored commercial enterprise at the expense of the public's safety and well-being.

The consequences of a major nuclear accident would threaten the lives of millions, and would render vast areas of land unfit for habitation for hundreds or thousands of years, threatening the viability of the entire economy as well as the health and welfare of the current and future public.

The Price Anderson Act applies a statute of limitations for illnesses (like cancer), caused by an accident, and victims of such diseases will be rendered ineligible for any compensation whatsoever after the limiting date expires. This will deprive them of any remedy for damage since most cancers take longer to develop than the statute of limitations in the Act.

The Price Anderson Act in effect has discouraged the development of alternative safer sources of energy which are much less costly to the American taxpaying utility rate payer, as the direct and hidden costs of nuclear plants have proved to be astronomical.

Now Therefore Be It Resolved:

1. The Price Anderson Act must not be renewed.
2. Nuclear Contractors and Operators must assume full responsibility for all damages to the public, without any statute of limitations.


Sincerely,

The Undersigned

http://www.petitiononline.com/repealpa/petition.html

Read more here:

http://www.geocities.com/priceanderson/pricepower.html#covering

[mac2]

1. Insurance companies have declared you get no...

money if your home is destroyed in a terrorist or act of war. You will be on the streets...and still have to pay your mortgage.

They are destroying all our institutions to protect our society for their own profit and power.

Bush takes no responsibility for your safety and future. He wouldn't even be a good king.

[DrFunkenstein]

2. We Have To Hammer This Home

Bush is not a "regular guy." Regular guys don't live in pockets. And a pair of jeans and a handshake can't change the fact that he is willing - every time! - to put the interests of his contributors over the public interest.

Kerry 2004!!!

[ramapo]

3. Typical hypocrisy

Republicans, conservatives, et. al. love to rail against welfare and government handouts.

Price Anderson is a hugh subsidy to the nuclear industry, without which there would be no commercial plants.

For all the rhetoric about the safety of these plants, the insurance industry does not agree and refuses to underwrite any losses resulting from a nuclear peacetime incident.

The liklihood of such an incident may be low but the potential losses are economically, not to mention socially, catastrophic.

So if your local plant experiences a serious "event" resulting in contamination of private property, don't expect to be reimbursed for the loss of your home by your insurance company. Of course, that assumes you're fortunate enough not to be contaminated also.

[snoochie]

4. Disappointing.

:(

[DrFunkenstein]

9. Why Are You Disappointed?

The man who stood up with a handful of Senators to oppose this example of corporate welfare at it's worst is on his way to the nomination.

[coltman]

5. he wants this because

they are having so much trouble with Davis-Bessie a power plant on Lake Erie they want to be ready when the big blow comes oops, sucks to be you.

[buckeye1]

6. Its been done since the '50's.

When you don't have electricity we won't have to see your posts here. I am all for that. cutie

[DrFunkenstein]

8. One Of The Reasons Nuclear Energy Is "Cheap"

Is because their insurance costs are minimal.

Let's not even get into the systematic dismantling of Superfund programs. Kerry has been blasting these both for a very long time. It's time for these companies to get off the public sugar tit, and pay for their own responsibilities.

We assume the costs of nuclear energy in more ways than one.

Kerry 2004!

[kodi]

7. socialize costs, privatize profits

so, riddle me this: what the hell kind of free market captialism is that?

we have socialism for corporations, and buccaneer capitalism for individuals.

this crap is reminding me more and more of the roman catholic church circa, 1517 around the time luther pounded his theses on the wittenberg church door.

there is a serious disconnection of rhetoric from the right when they claim that the Price-Anderson Act is necessary for the common good necessitating that some inherent costs of operations of a private company are socialized, all the while refusing to apply similar logic to a national health care system.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

10. I tried bringing this to people's attention back when it was being

passed and got almost no interest. If it weren't for the construction of nuclear bombs, there would be nobody getting into nuclear power...it's a money loser.