Setting some sort of record for the number of botched attempts to enact bad legislation, the U.S. Congress has now struck out a fourth time in as many months, failing to bail out the desperately dysfunctional uranium enrichment company, USEC Inc. USEC and the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) issued fresh threats that the company would terminate its long-dying "American Centrifuge" uranium enrichment project, if not go belly up, without a new federal cash infusion by March 31. But the Senate and the House ignored those threats and left for two-week recess on March 29, after passing a 90-day Transportation holdover bill absent any USEC provision.
In reaction, USEC stock hit a low of $1.00 per share on March 29, eight cents below its previous all-time low. That represents a loss of 96 percent of equity value from the high of nearly $24 per share reached in 2007, after USEC was awarded a construction and operating license for a centrifuge plant by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). NRC awarded the license for a commercial-scale plant near Piketon, Ohio, even though USEC had failed to even initiate a supposedly-mandatory testing program called the Lead Cascade, and even though USEC had no financing plan for building a commercial plant.
This week's developments demonstrate that an elaborate stock speculation swindle has been conducted, supported by DOE, NRC and those members of Congress who took large amounts of campaign cash from USEC and then proposed federal payouts to the privatized company. Accusations of corruption involving USEC campaign contributions also emerged from congressional candidates this week, explaining the otherwise-mysterious retreat of the USEC caucus in Congress.
USEC's empty belly began to growl when the company was denied a $2 billion loan guarantee by the Department of Energy for a second time in October of 2011. Secretary of Energy Steven Chu then requested of Congress two annual installments of $150 million each for an ill-defined and unjustified "Research, Development and Demonstration" program (RD&D), to accomplish the Lead Cascade viability test that USEC had failed to perform on its own, despite contractual obligations and thirteen years of heavy federal subsidy.
The Chu-Chu Train
But something was very strange about the Chu request, something revealing the RD&D project as a phantom, something glaringly obvious but not publicly discussed until now. In Chu's October 2011 letters to the Senate and the House, he requested funds for the construction of "one train of centrifuges (720 centrifuges)" and that number was never publicly altered or retracted.
However, in February of 2012, in writing off the costs of 38 centrifuges damaged in the 6-11-11 crash event at Piketon, USEC placed the cost of the centrifuges at $120 million, or $3.16 million per centrifuge. At that price, 720 centrifuges would cost almost $2.3 billion, not including R&D, far more money than what was being requested of Congress by Chu.
After the tax write-off, USEC and DOE began discussing the proposed RD&D project as involving 120 centrifuges, not 720. Apparently, the 720 figure had been a misprint, but the misprint in an official funding request to Congress was never corrected, and Congress was left for the duration of the bailout effort believing that it could buy 720 centrifuges for an investment of only $300 million in federal money.
No fuss was made about the huge disparity in numbers, because the inside players understood that the RD&D program was an imaginary device from the get-go. In actuality, funds were being requested to pay USEC corporate expenses and keep the company out of bankruptcy court, where court-appointed accountants might reveal the full odoriferous history of under-the-table federal funding for USEC.
No "train of centrifuges" ever would materialize, for the very same reason that USEC never completed the Lead Cascade on its own. In the words of Piketon workers, the USEC forty-foot centrifuges based on forty-year-old technology are big "hunks o' junk." There's nothing worth testing, if the machines could survive operational performance at all. The number of phantom centrifuges that Congress would be buying is therefore like the number of proverbial angels on the head of a pin. So Secretary of Energy Chu did not labor over the nonsensical number he included in his official request to Congress.
These kinds of smelly considerations certainly came into play when congressional leaders axed USEC bailout money from the Omnibus appropriations bill passed in December. Strike 1.
Before Christmas, Congresswoman Jean Schmidt, representing the Ohio district that includes Piketon, submitted a stand-alone bill that would have permitted DOE to transfer $150 million to USEC in 2012 without specific congressional oversight or accounting controls. This was considered "too stupid" for committee consideration, in the words of a congressional staffer, so the planned January hearing on the measure was canceled without ceremony. Just as unceremoniously, Ms. Schmidt was then dumped by the voters in the Ohio Republican primary. Strike 2.
Kentucky congressman Ed Whitfield attempted a different kind of USEC bailout by mandating that DOE should "re-enrich" depleted uranium from government stockpiles at USEC's decrepit gaseous diffusion plant at Paducah, Kentucky. USEC itself put a stop to that one, declaring that extended operation of the plant is just too expensive, and so it intends to shut Paducah down. Announcement of the closure date as soon as this May is expected shortly. Strike 3.
USEC then should have been called out. But the two U.S. Senators from Ohio—Rob Portman and Sherrod Wannabe-Portman Brown, both recipients of large amounts of campaign contributions from USEC and other Piketon contractors—collaborated on a Schmidt-like USEC bailout amendment, snuck into the Senate Transportation bill that appeared to be headed to passage. But then House Republicans revolted as has become their fashion, opting instead for another 90-day extension, minus any USEC provision. That extension, which runs until July 1, is far too long to suit USEC, which has been operating on extended financing deadlines of its own since June 30, 2011.
Chu's Alternative Universe
By July 1, there won't be enough of USEC left to bail out. The total market valuation of the company now is only $130 million, meaning that USEC could not afford its 50-50 cost-share for a proposed RD&D program for which the government kicks in $300 million. USEC has about $500 million in debt due to bondholders coming due in 2014, long before any new commercial plant could be completed. And USEC is operating at a loss, which has been running at an average of $135 million per quarter. By July 1, two more loss quarters in 2012 will have elapsed. At current valuation, USEC's net worth is less than half of the proposed federal bailout of $300 million. That doesn't cut the mustard, much less atoms, in the Age of Solyndra where Tea Party rules apply.
Plus there are timing problems. In 2011, Chu proposed a two-year RD&D program, which on paper could have been completed before USEC goes to the hock shop in 2014. If the start of the RD&D program is now delayed, as it must be, until the third quarter of 2012, at the earliest, then there isn't enough time to complete the program, even in theory. That's assuming the proposed project were real, in some alternative universe within Steven Chu's brain.
And the administration has requested $150 million for the second year of USEC RD&D in 2013, bizarrely taken, without explanation, from the "nuclear nonproliferation" budget. That request is premised on completion of the first year in 2012, which now cannot happen. Congress will be asked to consider funding the second year of a two-year program before the first year is funded.
Simply put, the PR logic of the RD&D program proposed slap-dash last October has defeated itself by virtue of the congressional delay. Republican Portman and his Democratic sidekick Brown could yet preempt their own amendment by introducing the measure as a stand-alone, or by trying yet another slip-in circumvention. The former strategy, however, would necessitate committee hearings, which would do to a USEC bailout what sunlight does to vampires. And further slushing around in the USEC stock swindle pits might do unsavory things to Brown's 2012 reelection campaign, ranked as one of the most competitive Senate contests this year. November is approaching and Schmidt's primary loss forewarns.
All of which is highlighted by the emergence of USEC corruption as a major issue in Tennessee's fourth congressional district race. Eric Stewart, the Democratic challenger, is charging that incumbent Republican Scott DesJarlais timed his support for a USEC bailout to a $1,000 contribution to DesJarlais from the USEC PAC, an example of crony capitalism at work, according to Stewart.
That's small potatoes compared to the suspicious timing of federally-subsidized USEC politicking in Ohio, where then-Governor Ted Strickland had to return one USEC contribution (but kept many others) because that contribution was timed too closely to a 2010 meeting at which Strickland and Brown together lobbied Chu to circumvent Congress in giving funds to USEC. In early 2011, Sherrod Brown publicly called on the Department of Energy to forgo further testing of USEC centrifuges and simply award the company a $2 billion loan guarantee. Up to the third quarter of 2011, according to FEC records, Brown received $58,500 from USEC and related corporate PACs including USEC nuclear utility customers and Piketon site contractors.
Republican Rob Portman may also find some aspirations dashed upon the USEC shoals. He has been considered a top contender for Romney’s running-mate. But Portman is nearing the two-decade mark as a USEC shill, and continued allegiance to the Enron of 2012 might see more vocal protest from the slap-happy anti-Solyndra GOP base.
Therefore, we may not see more clandestine Portman-Brown maneuvers. They say that USEC and its "American Centrifuge Plant" have nine lives. Excuse the mixed metaphor, but now it's the bottom of the tenth, USEC is down, and even the fans are weary of the game.
Re-posted on the Southern Ohio Neighbors Group blog.
Geoffrey Sea is a writer and historian who has studied the uranium enrichment industry for thirty years. In the early 1980s, he served as a consultant to the labor unions at both the Piketon, Ohio, and Paducah, Kentucky, plants. He now lives on the southwest fence-line of the Piketon site and is a co-founder of Southern Ohio Neighbors Group.
Many people shop online for everything from clothes to appliances. If they do not like the product, they simply return it. But there's an environmental cost to returns.
- Are We Doomed If We Don't Curb Carbon Emissions by 2030 ... ›
- California Winery Cuts Carbon Emissions With Lighter Bottles ... ›
- Wealthy One Percent Are Producing More Carbon Emissions Than ... ›
EcoWatch Daily Newsletter
By Dolf Gielen and Morgan Bazilian
John Kerry helped bring the world into the Paris climate agreement and expanded America's reputation as a climate leader. That reputation is now in tatters, and President-elect Joe Biden is asking Kerry to rebuild it again – this time as U.S. climate envoy.
Energy Is at the Center of the Climate Challenge<p>The <a href="https://science2017.globalchange.gov/chapter/1/" target="_blank">effects of climate change</a> are already evident across the globe, from <a href="https://theconversation.com/100-degrees-in-siberia-5-ways-the-extreme-arctic-heat-wave-follows-a-disturbing-pattern-141442" target="_blank">extreme heat waves</a> to <a href="https://science2017.globalchange.gov/chapter/12/" target="_blank">sea level rise</a>. But while the challenge is daunting, there is hope. Solar and wind power have become the <a href="https://www.irena.org/publications/2020/Jun/Renewable-Power-Costs-in-2019" target="_blank">cheapest forms of power generation globally</a>, and technology progress and innovation continue apace to support a transition to clean energy.</p><p>In the U.S. under a Biden administration, long-term national climate legislation will depend on who controls the Senate, and that won't be clear until after two run-off elections in Georgia in January.</p><p>But there is no shortage of <a href="https://www.bloomberg.com/features/2020-biden-climate-change-advice/" target="_blank">ideas for ways Biden</a> could still take action even if his proposals are blocked in Congress. For example, he could use executive orders and direct government agencies to tighten regulations on greenhouse gas emissions; increase research and development in clean energy technologies; and empower states to exceed national standards, <a href="https://www.reuters.com/article/us-autos-emissions-california/defying-trump-california-locks-in-vehicle-emission-deals-with-major-automakers-idUSKCN25D2CH" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">as California did in the past with auto emission standards</a>. A focus on a just and equitable transition for communities and people affected by the decline of fossil fuels will also be key to creating a sustainable transition.</p><p>The U.S. position as the world's largest oil and gas producer and consumer creates political challenges for any administration. U.S. forays into European energy security are often treated with suspicion. Recently, France blocked <a href="https://www.wsj.com/articles/frances-engie-backs-out-of-u-s-lng-deal-11604435609" target="_blank">a multi-billion dollar contract</a> to buy U.S. liquefied natural gas because of concerns about limited emissions regulations in Texas.</p><p>Strengthening cooperation and partnerships with like-minded countries will be critical to bring about a transition to cleaner energy as well as sustainability in agriculture, forestry, water and other sectors of the global economy.</p>
Creating a Global Sustainable Transition<p>How the world recovers from COVID-19's economic damage could help drive a lasting shift in the global energy mix.</p><p>Nearly one-third of Europe's US$2 trillion economic relief package <a href="https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-07-21/eu-approves-biggest-green-stimulus-in-history-with-572-billion-plan" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">involves investments that are also good for the climate</a>. The European Union is also strengthening its 2030 climate targets, though each country's energy and climate plans will be critical for successfully implementing them. The <a href="https://joebiden.com/clean-energy/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Biden plan</a> – including a $2 trillion commitment to developing sustainable energy and infrastructure – is aligned with a global energy transition, but its implementation is also uncertain.</p><p>Once Biden takes office, Kerry will be joining ongoing <a href="https://www.un.org/en/conferences/energy2021/about#:%7E:text=The%20overarching%20goal%20of%20the,2030%20Agenda%20for%20Sustainable%20Development.&text=Accelerate%20delivery%20of%20United%20Nations,related%20issues%20at%20all%20levels." target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">high-level discussions on the energy transition</a> at the U.N. General Assembly and other gatherings of international leaders. With the U.S. no longer obstructing work on climate issues, the G-7 and G-20 have more potential for progress on energy and climate.</p><p>Lots of technical details still need to be worked out, including international trade frameworks and standards that can help countries lower greenhouse gas emissions enough to keep global warming in check. <a href="https://www.carbonpricingleadership.org/what" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Carbon pricing</a> and <a href="https://www.csis.org/analysis/how-can-europe-get-carbon-border-adjustment-right" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">carbon border adjustment taxes</a>, which create incentive for companies to reduce emissions, may be part of it. A consistent and comprehensive set of national energy transition plans will also be needed.</p><p>The global shift to <a href="https://www.irena.org/publications/2019/Jan/A-New-World-The-Geopolitics-of-the-Energy-Transformation" target="_blank">clean energy will also have geopolitical implications for countries and regions</a>, and this will have a profound impact on wider international relations. Kerry, with his experience as secretary of state in the Obama administration, and Biden's plan to make the climate envoy position part of the National Security Council, may help mend these relations. In doing so, the U.S. may again join the wider community of countries willing to lead.</p>
- 14 States On Track to Meet Paris Targets - EcoWatch ›
- Biden Vows to Ax Keystone XL if Elected - EcoWatch ›
- Biden Names John Kerry as First-Ever Climate Envoy - EcoWatch ›
By Maria Caffrey
As we approach the holidays I, like most people, have been reflecting on everything 2020 has given us (or taken away) while starting to look ahead to 2021.
We Need More Than Listening<p>By now we have all become sadly accustomed to the current administration sidelining scientists, most prominently Dr. Anthony Fauci, because the facts they provide do not fit with the political rhetoric of the moment.</p><p>I have <a href="https://www.csldf.org/2019/08/22/csldf-helps-climate-scientist-maria-caffrey-fight-for-scientific-integrity/" target="_blank">my own history</a> of filing a scientific integrity complaint with the National Park Service (which falls under the Department of the Interior) after senior ranking employees attempted to censor one of my scientific reports. I know all too well the damage and pain that these actions cause, not just for the individual scientist, but also because these <a href="https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/attacks-on-science" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">attacks on science</a> over the last few years have undermined sound, evidence-based decision making.</p><p>President-elect Biden has repeatedly said that he will <a href="https://thehill.com/homenews/521638-trump-biden-will-listen-to-the-scientists-if-elected" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">listen to the scientists</a>. While this is certainly a welcome change, listening can only take us so far. This past week Lauren Kurtz from the <a href="https://www.csldf.org/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Climate Science Legal Defense Fund</a> and my colleague <a href="https://www.ucsusa.org/about/people/gretchen-goldman" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Gretchen Goldman</a> published <a href="https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/ten-steps-that-can-restore-scientific-integrity-in-government/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">an article</a> listing 10 actions the new administration should implement to show their commitment to strengthening government science:</p><ol><li>Clearly prohibit political interference and censorship.</li><li>Protect scientists' communication rights.</li><li>Acknowledge that attempts to violate scientific integrity, even if ultimately not fruitful, are still violations.</li><li>Protect federal scientists' right to provide information to Congress and other lawmakers.</li><li>Commit to incorporating the best science as part of agency decisions.</li><li>Elevate agency scientific integrity policies to have the full force of law.</li><li>Publicly release anonymized information about scientific integrity complaints and their resolutions at every agency.</li><li>Institute an intra-agency workforce, potentially under the White House <a href="https://www.ucsusa.org/sites/default/files/2020-09/strengthening-science-and-si-at-ostp.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Office of Science and Technology Policy</a>, to coordinate scientific integrity efforts across agencies, foster discussion of policy improvements, and standardize criteria for policies across agencies.</li><li>Strengthen whistleblower protections.</li><li>Ensure that policies cover all actors who will be dealing with science.</li></ol>
Time for Action<p>I have spoken to many scientists, particularly federal scientists, who are eager to turn the page so they can hurry back to the work they had been doing before this administration, but I urge caution in assuming that things can be "normal" again.</p><p>Before Trump, I naively thought the scientific integrity policies established during the <a href="https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/blog/2016/12/19/scientific-integrity-policies-update" target="_blank">Obama administration</a> would be sufficient. I never imagined that any administration could so willfully ignore and attack expert advice and evidence that is intended to protect us and our public lands.</p><p>I have personally witnessed how hard our federal scientists work. They put in long hours with minimal pay (far less that what they could get if they worked in private industry) to pursue one simple goal: to make things better for the nation.</p><p>We need stronger scientific integrity policies to protect these people and their work. But more than that, we need stronger scientific integrity laws because they also benefit society.</p>
By Andrea Germanos
Environmental campaigners stressed the need for the incoming Biden White House to put in place permanent protections for Alaska's Bristol Bay after the Trump administration on Wednesday denied a permit for the proposed Pebble Mine that threatened "lasting harm to this phenomenally productive ecosystem" and death to the area's Indigenous culture.
<div id="da98c" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="478a197b7c59c92787c92bec92f1ac39"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet twitter-custom-tweet" data-twitter-tweet-id="1331662923710693376" data-partner="rebelmouse"><div style="margin:1em 0">Bristol Bay forever, Pebble mine never. #NoPebbleMine #SaveBristolBay https://t.co/CBQ9zuy8A5</div> — Save Bristol Bay (@Save Bristol Bay)<a href="https://twitter.com/SaveBristolBay/statuses/1331662923710693376">1606328156.0</a></blockquote></div>
- Pebble Mine Threatens One of the Last Great Salmon Rivers ... ›
- The Pebble Mine Is Too Toxic Even for the Trump Administration ... ›
- Trump Admin Reverses Obama-Era Restrictions on Pebble Mine ... ›
OlgaMiltsova / iStock / Getty Images Plus
By Gwen Ranniger
In the midst of a pandemic, sales of cleaning products have skyrocketed, and many feel a need to clean more often. Knowing what to look for when purchasing cleaning supplies can help prevent unwanted and dangerous toxics from entering your home.