JBIC、NEXIに米国の原発新設に融資／保証しない様求める署名

原発にまで「思いやり」！？
ＪＢＩＣ／ＮＥＸＩが米国の原発新設に融資・保証を検討？

米国の反核団体、ＰＳＲとBeyond Nuclearが

（Physicians for Social Responsibility＝社会的責任を果たす医師同盟
http://www.psr.org/）
（Beyond Nuclear
http://www.beyondnuclear.org/

米国の原発新設に融資や保証を検討していると噂されているＪＢＩＣやＮＥＸＩに対し、「そんな見返りの見込めない危険な融資はおやめなさい」というレターを提出しようとしています。

ＪＢＩＣやＮＥＸＩは途上国へのＯＤＡという名前で行われた途上国への融資や保証は、Ｇ７（８）で債務帳消しが国際的に認められるまで「なにがあっても返せ！」エイエイ、ギリギリ（←締め付ける音）という態度をとりつつ、

一方で、”ミャンマー”軍事政権とかには「いいですよ、返せるときで」みたいな態度もとるので、米国だったら「返せなくても貸します。いいですよ、返せなくても」になりかねない気がする・・。

このブログの趣旨にぴったりじゃん！・・じゃなくて、そーゆー理不尽なカネなら返さんは許さん、というか、最初から貸すな、というのがこのブログの趣旨なのだ。

大分で日米（だけじゃなく世界も！）つないで平和活動に邁進されてるＳさんが要請書の翻訳を手伝って（とゆーかほぼやって！）くださいました。
どうもありがとうございます！

申し入れ書原文
ダウンロード(doc)

いつもどおり転載の場合は原文と照らし合わせて各自の責任で
よろしくー。

－－－－－－－－－－－－－
http://www.tmia.com/node/651
Three Mile Island Alert

賛同募集：日本の金融機関が米国の原子炉建設に投資するのをやめさせるよう力を貸してください
2010年8月2日

みなさま
下記はPSR（注１）とBeyond Nuclear（注２）の友人たちが起草した賛同署名つき要請書です。数日中に日本政府に手渡されます。

この要請書は、なぜ日本の輸出信用機関（JBIC-国際協力銀行ならびにNEXI-日本貿易保険）が米国の新規原子炉事業に融資・付保すべきではないかを指摘しています

（たとえばNRG（注３）が申請中のテキサス南部での事業資金は、米国の納税者が納めた税金からの融資に加え、日本のこれらの金融機関からの追加融資で賄われると見られています）。

あなたの氏名、所属団体、都市名、州名を書いて
PSRの mpinnell「＠」psr.orgに送ってください。


ご協力ありがとうございます。

Michael Mariotte
NIRS（注４）
――――――――――――
注１）　PSR =　Physicians for Social Responsibility＝社会的責任を果たす医師同盟
http://www.psr.org/

注２）　Beyond Nuclear　＝　Beyond Nuclear　「核の時代を超えて」　http://www.beyondnuclear.org/

注３）　NRG　＝　NRG Energy, Inc http://maps.nrgenergy.com/

注４）　NIRS　＝　Nuclear Information and Resource Service　 http://www.nirs.org/home.htm

――――――――――――――――
2010年8月4日

国際協力銀行ならびに日本貿易保険様

私たちは、米国で提案されている新たな原子炉事業に関与することがいかに金融上リスクが高いか皆さんにお知らせするため、この書面をしたためています。

米国での原子力発電所建設をめぐる状況は非常に不確かであり、世界の他の地域に比しても著しく不安定です。

米国は世界でも並ぶところがないほど莫大な再生可能エネルギー源を持ち、また、効率化推進によって生じる利益においても他の産業化国より大きな可能性を有しています。

この市場と技術という根本的問題ゆえに、米国における新たな原子炉建設への投資は、たとえ化石燃料の価格を押し上げる気候変動対策法が施行されたとしても非常にリスクの高いものであり続けるでしょう。

電力需要は2年に渡る景気後退のために急落しました。

ほんの数年前に大幅に電力需要が増大するとの予測が行われ、それが多くの新規原子炉建設計画の根拠となりましたが、目下のところこの予測数値には、今後10年かそれ以上たっても到達しそうにありません。

また一方、二酸化炭素放出が制限される状況下においても、米国には電力需要をまかなうための低コストの選択肢がたくさんあります。

米国には新原子炉建設よりもはるかに廉価な再生可能エネルギー源が豊かにあります。米国での新原子炉建設コストの見積もりは2001年時の4倍になっており、他方で再生可能エネルギー技術のコストは下がり続けています。
　
現在、エネルギ効率化（省電力）実現に要するコストはキロワット時当り3セントとされています。

それに引き換え、新たな原子炉一基から生じる電力のコストはキロワット時12～20セントと見積もられています。一方、風力やバイオマスなど豊かにある再生可能エネルギー源の数種については、コストは5～10セントの範囲内に収まります。

さらに、代替エネルギーの利用可能性に対する信頼は高まっています。

天然ガス資源生産見込みはここ最近劇的に増大しています。一方、価格は大幅に下落しており、ここまま上がらないだろうと見られています。米国の産業界にはコジェネレーションのチャンスも豊富にあります。

他方で、米国は他の工業国よりも1人あたりの電力使用量が遙かに大きく、電力需要を引き下げるための効率化の余地が多大に残されています。　

気候変動対応政策によって二酸化炭素排出にさらにコストがかかる可能性があり、これによっても更なるエネルギー効率化技術と再生可能エネルギーへの大きな需要が作り出されるでしょう。これらは再生できない、巨大ベースロード*　発電能力の新規開発の必要性を劇的に縮小させます。

再生可能エネルギーやエネルギー効率化だけでなく、建築規制の変更や省エネ型電化製品の開発、さらに熱遮断効果を高め冷暖房の必要性を減らした建物への補助金などもこれらの状況を加速させるでしょう。

米国でのこのような需要と供給、両面でのリスクに加え、新しい原子炉建設はその設計に関する重要な諸問題により、これまでどれ1つ、米国原子力規制委員会（NRC）から最終的な認証を受けていません。

それらの原子炉の設計が認証されるまで、新規建築予定の原子炉はどれも、NRCの「建設と条件付運転の一括許認可（COL）」を受けることができません。設計の問題が操業ライセンスを遅らせ、さらに経費を増大させることになりそうです。

ムーディーズ・インベスターズ・サービス〈米格付け会社〉はこれまで新しい原子炉を「全財産を賭ける」投資と呼んできました。

信用格付け機関は、新規の原子炉建設を予定している米国の電力事業のいくつかを格下げにしました。2003年には、連邦議会予算事務局（CBO）は、原子炉開発業者による返済不履行の見込みが非常に高い―50%を優に超える―と評価しました。CBOはそれ以降の評価を行っていませんが、この評価以後も、新規原子炉建設に必要な諸条件はさらに悪化する一方です。

日本の企業が米国の新規原子炉事業の多くに関与するため、それらの事業が有意義な投資先であるように見えるかもしれません。

しかしながら現実は、日本の会社が関与する事業も他の原子力事業と同様、遅延、設計上の諸問題、財政上の困難を抱えています。電力需要が減少し、より安価な代替エネルギーが存在する一方で、原子炉の設計上の問題が解決できないという状況では、米国の新規原子炉への投資は米国人にとっても、日本人にとっても、ただ単に悪い取り引きに過ぎません。

我々は米国の納税者と選挙で選ばれた代議士にこれらの大変深刻な金融上のリスクについて警告してきましたが、同様にみなさまにも、米国の新規原子炉への投資を決定する前にこれらのリスクを十分注意深く考慮されるよう強く要請します。

敬具

（*　ベースロード： http://kotobank.jp/word/%E3%83%99%E3%83%BC%E3%82%B9%E3%83%AD%E3%83%BC%E3%83%89

ある期間内における発電所の最低負荷。わが国の発電方式は、火力や原子力の発電コストの低下に伴い、現在はおもに火力、原子力でベース負荷を負担し、水力でピーク部分を負担する、いわゆる火主水従方式に転換をしている－訳注）

－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－
手紙ここまで
－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－
Backgrounder on Financial Risks of Proposed New Reactors in the United States

(This backgrounder relied on analyses and media releases by Taxpayers for Common Sense, Friends of the Earth, and Southern Alliance for Clean Energy, referenced at the bottom)





Two AP1000s proposed at Vogtle nuclear power plant, Georgia



The first conditional U.S. federal nuclear loan guarantee was awarded to Southern Company, its subsidiary Georgia Power, and additional partners for two new reactors proposed at the Vogtle nuclear power plant in Georgia. This $8.33 billion federal loan guarantee will cover only around 70% of the currently estimated project cost. Tellingly, the conditional loan guarantee was not enough for private investors to engage with the financially risky project. Instead, Southern intends to borrow the money from the Federal Financing Bank, a U.S. government funded lending institution, is being looked to, to provide the actual loan. The loan guarantee cannot be finalized, however, until the COL application has been approved by NRC. This will also require NRC to issue a final design certification for the AP1000, currently in its 17th revision. But complications have already arisen.

In October, 2009 NRC announced a flaw in the design of the AP1000’s shield building, a concrete structure around the reactor’s steel radiological containment. Vulnerability to earthquakes, as well as severe weather such as tornadoes and hurricanes, was cited. In addition, NRC staff even questioned the structural ability of the AP1000 shield building to support a tank of emergency cooling water. The NRC has not issued a date certain for completing its design review, while Toshiba-Westinghouse attempts to address these serious concerns.

In April, 2010 yet another serious AP1000 design flaw was revealed, this one previously missed by NRC. A coalition of a dozen environmental organizations, and their expert witnesses, nuclear engineer Arnold Gundersen of Fairewinds Associates, Inc., and corrosion expert Dr. Rudolph Hausler, showed how convection currents intended to dissipate heat during a reactor emergency could actually facilitate the “chimney effect” release of large amounts of radioactivity to the environment, if the inner metallic containment shell is breached by corrosion. Such breaches of containment have occurred at operating U.S. atomic reactors, with dozens of corrosion holes and cracks documented. The coalition has called upon NRC and its Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards (ACRS) to address this latest design flaw, as well as the Department of Energy and White House Office of Management and Budget to stop subsidizing the dangerously flawed AP1000 design with federal loan guarantees.

Besides technical problems with the reactor design, a recent Georgia state court decision could delay the new reactors even further, by calling into question a key aspect of the project’s financing.

Last year, the State of Georgia enacted a controversial new law, which allows Georgia Power to charge financing costs to ratepayers during construction of the new reactors, rather than over the life of the project and only after it has started to generate electricity. The pre-operations charges could occur even if the reactors are never completed, and ratepayers receive no electricity in return for their payments. The “construction work in progress” (CWIP) law also exempts large industrial and commercial ratepayers, who have access to different rate options than smaller customers, such as residential households and small businesses. In response to such exploitative policies, consumer and environmental organizations, including Southern Alliance for Clean Energy, have challenged the legislation in state court.

On April 30, 2010, Fulton County Superior Court ruled against the Georgia Public Service Commission (PSC), finding that it failed to explain its reasoning in approving Georgia Power’s plan to expand the Vogtle nuclear plant and have ratepayers pre-pay for CWIP.

Hearings at the PSC are underway this summer to evaluate Georgia Power’s expenditures thus far on the estimated $14 billion project. Georgia Power still claims that the project is under budget and on schedule. However, Southern Company’s public disclosure versions of the Company’s testimony are more heavily redacted than other utilities pursuing new reactors. For instance, the current costs sunk into the Vogtle project and any scheduling changes are marked trade secret in the docket currently before the PSC. The PSC will make a final decision by August 17 on whether to approve the incurred costs and will decide on a Georgia Power rate case later this year that will address these initial costs among other costs.



Although it is rumored that the next nuclear loan guarantee will be awarded to UniStar Nuclear Energy (a partnership between Constellation Energy of Baltimore and Electricite de France, owned by the French government) for a French Areva EPR at Calvert Cliffs nuclear power plant in Maryland, the next two nuclear loan guarantee recipients after that are reported to be NRG (in partnership with Toshiba, TEPCO, and CPS Energy, for two ABWRs at South Texas Project nuclear power plant near Bay City, Texas) and SCANA Energy/South Carolina Electric and Gas (SCE&G, for two AP1000s at V.C. Summer nuclear power plant in Jenksville, South Carolina). But as with the AP1000s proposed at Vogtle, these latter two proposals, also involving Japanese reactor design vendors -- and even Japanese partners, Toshiba and TEPCO, in the nuclear utility ordering the reactors at South Texas Project -- are also plagued with problems.



Two ABWRs proposed at South Texas Project nuclear power plant

NRG Energy proposes to construct two GE-Hitachi ABWRs at its South Texas Project site near Bay City, Texas. The project was a partnership between NRG and CPS Energy (the City of San Antonio’s municipal utility). The original cost estimate for each reactor was $5.4 billion, but in October 2009, it was revealed that costs were now estimated to be nearly $18 billion for the overall project. The $4 billion per reactor cost increase created a firestorm of controversy, for it was hidden from the San Antonio City Council. Disagreements over the cost increase led to a lawsuit between CPS and NRG. The scandal led to the resignation of the CPS General Manager and Board Chairman.

In February 2010, CPS and NRG reached a settlement agreement, reducing CPS’s share of the project from 50% to just 7.6%. The remaining 92.4% belongs to Nuclear Innovation North America (NINA), a partnership between NRG and Japanese-owned Toshiba. The agreement between NINA and CPS stipulated that NINA will cover future development costs, and will pay CPS $80 million, but only if the proposal is awarded a federal loan guarantee.

In May, 2010, Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCO) purchased an 18% stake in the South Texas Project nuclear power plant expansion, amounting to a $155 million investment.

NRG still needs additional partners and customers for its electrical output. The reactors will have to compete in a deregulated electricity market. This troubles investors, as electricity demand and sales prices are depressed due to the recession.



Two AP1000s proposed at V.C. Summer nuclear power plant, South Carolina

The two proposed AP1000s that would expand the Summer nuclear power plant in South Carolina share the design defect concerns described above for the Vogtle nuclear power plant expansion.

In addition, the national environmental group Friends of the Earth (FOE), as well as South Carolina Energy Users Committee, an association of large electricity users in the state, have appealed to the South Carolina State Supreme Court, challenging the legality of the South Carolina Public Service Commission’s (PSC) February 2009 approval of the atomic project. This legal challenges extends to the PSC’s approval of “construction work in progress” charges to ratepayers for the new reactors, even if the construction is never completed. FOE alleges that SCANA/SCE&G’s refusal to provide a price per kilowatt hour for the new reactors means that the PSC’s approval represents a “blank check” for the company, at the expense of ratepayers. The lawsuit also challenges the failure by the company, as well as state regulatory agencies, to adequately consider alternatives to the new reactors, for instance efficiency and conservation, as well as the proposal’s ultimate costs. FOE’s appeal was heard in March, 2010, but no ruling has yet been made on this challenge to a key aspect of the new reactors’ financing scheme.

In the space of single year, SCE&G increased its cost estimates for the two new reactors from $9.8 billion to $11.5 billion. However, Southern/Georgia Power’s cost estimates for the two new AP1000s at Vogtle, Georgia is $14 billion, raising doubts about the reliability of SCE&G’s cost prediction figures.

SCE&G has failed to secure private financing to support its proposal. In June 2009, Fitch Ratings lowered the rating status of SCANA, the parent company of SCE&G, due to the risks associated with this AP1000 construction project. In July, 2009, Moody’s Investor Services also lowered the bond rating of SCANA, citing risk associated with this twin reactor project for a company of SCANA’s size. In addition, in June 2009, Moody’s reported that the potential federal loan guarantees would “only modestly mitigate increasing business and operating risk profile.”



With a market capitalization value of only about $5 billion, SCE&G is playing a dangerous

“bet the company” hand, as the cost of its share of the project exceeds the value of the

company.

A January 2010 South Carolina PSC weakening of its enforcement rules concerning project delays should serve as a warning that substantial construction schedule slippages are to be expected, likely resulting in further cost increases.

In a quarterly earnings report teleconference of February 11, 2010, SCANA reported a drop in income of about 9% due to a sharp decrease in electricity consumption. The drop in electricity usage of 4.3% in the quarter and 5% for the year, with industrial use declining 13%, could not be offset by cost-cutting steps (such as deferred maintenance) due to the higher rates for the nuclear project.



SCE&G has admitted that the delayed NRC review of the AP1000 reactor design is causing a delay in the receipt of a combined construction and operating license (COL), delaying by at least several months the schedule that SCE&G has presented to the Public Service Commission. NRC’s lack of a date certain for certifying the AP1000 reactor design could significantly prolong SCE&G’s COL application proceeding.



A Nuclear Regulatory Commission Atomic Safety Licensing Board (ASLB) had rejected

contentions raised in interventions in the Construction and Operating License Application

(COLA) by the South Carolina Sierra Club and Friends of the Earth. But in December 2009,

the NRC Commission itself reinstated contentions related to cost and consideration of

alternatives and sent the intervention back to the licensing board. A successful intervention could further delay the project by prolong the COL proceeding.



Additional nuclear loan guarantee applicants

Additional new reactor proposals involving Japanese owned reactor design vendors reported to have applied for federal nuclear loan guarantees include:

Duke Energy applied for a loan guarantee to fund the William States Lee III Nuclear Station (two Toshiba-Westinghouse AP1000s on a green field site) in South Carolina. The price tag on these two reactors, excluding financing costs, is estimated at $11 billion, which is twice the amount of Duke Energy’s original estimate. Including financing costs, the price tag could mount to $14 billion. In fall 2009, Duke announced a three-year delay in the process, moving expected start-up back from 2018 to 2021.

Exelon Nuclear requested a loan guarantee to build two new ESBWR reactors at Victoria County Station in Texas. In late 2008, Exelon announced it was abandoning the ESBWR, in search of another reactor design. When Exelon decided to suspend the project in summer 2009, the two reactors were expected to cost $16 billion. On July 26, 2010 NRC officially accepted Exelon’s motion to withdraw its COL application, effectively cancelling the proposal.

Progress Energy applied for funds to build two Toshiba-Westinghouse AP1000s at a green field site in Levy County, Florida. Project costs could exceed $17 billion and would require the largest transmission project in Florida’s history. This project is now delayed.

Luminant Power proposed adding two Mitsubishi Heavy Industries USAPWRs (Units 3 and 4) in order to expand the Comanche Peak nuclear power plant in Texas. Luminant has estimated the cost for both reactors will total $15 billion. This project is pending.

Entergy requested a loan guarantee to expand the Grand Gulf nuclear power plant in Mississippi by adding a GE-Hitachi ESBWR (Unit 3). The reactor was expected to cost between $5-8 billion. However, in late 2008-early 2009, Entergy announced it was abandoning the ESBWR design, in search of another. This project is currently suspended.

Entergy also proposed expanding River Bend nuclear power plant in Louisiana by adding a GE-Hitachi ESBWR (Unit 3). The cost for building one reactor was estimated to range from $5-8 billion. Like at Grand Gulf, Mississippi, Entergy decided to abandon the ESBWR design, in search of another. This project is currently suspended.

Dominion Virginia Power and Old Dominion Electric Cooperative asked for funds to build a new ESBWR (Unit 3) at the North Anna nuclear power plant in Virginia. It had originally proposed two reactors at the site earlier this decade. When the project was suspended, the GE Hitachi ESBWR reactor was expected to cost upwards of $10 billion. Dominion has now also abandoned the ESBWR design, recently replacing it with the USAPWR.

Other COL Applicants

Yet more new reactor proposals involving Japanese owned reactor design vendors, which have applied for NRC combined construction and operating licenses (COL):

NuStart Energy consortium, two AP1000s at Bellefonte nuclear power plant, Alabama.

Progress Energy, two AP1000s at Shearon Harris nuclear power plant, North Carolina.

Detroit Edison, one ESBWR at Fermi nuclear power plant in Monroe, Michigan. Five contentions submitted by a coalition of environmental groups have thus far been admitted by the NRC licensing board, including one challenging the quality assurance on the COL application.

Florida Power and Light, two AP1000s at Turkey Point nuclear power plant in Florida. The Florida Public Service Commission, in January 2010, rejected a billion dollar rate increase under “Construction Work in Progress” laws, putting new reactors in Florida under the regulated rate base in doubt.



References:

Beyond Nuclear, “Quality assurance contention against Fermi 3 new reactor admitted for hearing by NRC licensing board,” June 16, 2010, http://www.beyondnuclear.org/nuclear-reactors-whatsnew/2010/6/16/quality-assurance-contention-against-fermi-3-new-reactor-adm.html

Friends of the Earth press release, February 22, 2010, “On Heels of Obama Nuclear Bailout, Challenge to Controversial South Carolina Nuclear Project to be Heard by State’s Supreme Court on March 4: Friends of the Earth’s Nuclear Appeal First in Nation at State Supreme Court Level,” http://www.foe.org/friends-earth-challenge-south-carolina-reactors-state-supreme-court

Friends of the Earth, “South Carolina Electric & Gas’s Nuclear Reactor Proposal: The View from the Ground of a Troubled Project,” February 16, 2010, http://www.foe.org/sites/default/files/TroubledReactorProjectinSouthCarolina.pdf

Southern Alliance for Clean Energy press release, April 30, 2010, “Southern Alliance for Clean Energy Wins Lawsuit: Georgia Public Service Commission Acted Illegally in Approving Georgia Power’s Plan to Build New Nuclear Reactors at Plant Vogtle,” http://www.cleanenergy.org/index.php?/Press-Update.html?form_id=8&item_id=172

State of Florida Public Service Commission news release, January 14, 2010, “Florida Public Service Commission Reduces Florida Power & Light Company's Revenue Request,” http://www.psc.state.fl.us/home/news/index.aspx?id=625

Taxpayers for Common Sense, “Federal Loan Guarantees for Nuclear Reactors: Details of the Current Applicants,” Updated June 22, 2010, http://www.taxpayer.net/search_by_category.php?action=view&proj_id=3578&category=Energy&type=Project

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, “Expected New Nuclear Power Plant Applications, Updated June 21, 2010,” http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-reactors/new-licensing-files/expected-new-rx-applications.pdf

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, “New Reactor Licensing Applications: Schedules by Calendar Year,” June 16, 2010, http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-reactors/new-licensing-files/new-rx-licensing-app-legend.pdf