Act Now

Support Green Climate Legislation

To: Sustainable Energy Advocates

From: Ken Bossong, Sustainable Energy Network (301-588-4741)

Below is a proposed group letter (including the signers to date) to the Members of the U.S. Senate regarding pending climate legislation.

It urges that energy efficiency and renewable energy coupled with an aggressive cap on greenhouse gas emissions be made the cornerstones of any climate legislation approved by the U.S. Senate. It also states that climate legislation should not become a vehicle for supporting or expanding the use of nuclear power and fossil fuels nor should it be used as an opportunity for rolling-back existing environmental protections.

If you would like to sign on, the deadline is:

MONDAY - MARCH 15 (6:00 p.m. - eastern time)

If you would like to sign on, please provide:

Your Name
Your Organization **
Your City & State

** If you wish to sign on only as an INDIVIDUAL, please specify that clearly (you may include an organizational affiliation as well if you wish - but it will be listed "for identification purposes only").

The letter will be faxed on Tuesday (March 16) to all Senate offices as well as e-mailed to all Senate staff contacts we have. In addition, a pro-forma news release will sent along with the letter to key members of the media.

Thank you.

P.S. Please excuse us if you receive this letter more than once - we are using several mailing lists that partially overlap.


8606 Greenwood Avenue, #2
Takoma Park, MD 20912
[email protected]


March 16, 2010

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell
U.S. Senate
Washington, D.C. 20510

Attn: Energy and Climate Staff

Dear Senator:

We, the undersigned XX sustainable energy, environmental, business, and other organizations (and XX individual advocates), are writing to urge that energy efficiency and renewable energy coupled with an aggressive cap on greenhouse gas emissions be made the cornerstones of any climate legislation approved by the U.S. Senate. Likewise, climate legislation should not become a vehicle for supporting or expanding the use of nuclear power and fossil fuels nor should it be used as an opportunity for rolling-back existing environmental protections.

We believe the three primary components of any climate bill should be the following:

CAP ON EMISSIONS: The United States should establish a mandatory cap on allowable greenhouse gas emissions as well as both a near-term and a longer-term schedule for reducing overall emissions to levels consistent with the best science now available (e.g., 30% or more by 2020 and 50% or more by 2030). The target of a 17% reduction from 2005 levels by 2020 included in the recently-passed House bill is almost certainly inadequate and needs to be strengthened significantly in Senate legislation if the worst consequences of climate change are to be avoided.

ENERGY EFFICIENCY: The cornerstone of near-term U.S. climate policy should be quickly reducing energy waste and fossil fuel consumption. The experience of other industrialized nations coupled with dozens of governmental, business, academic, and private analyses over the past three decades consistently document that the potential exists for sharply reducing U.S. energy use while simultaneously creating jobs, protecting the environment and low-income consumers, and sustaining a good quality of life. Rapidly curbing energy consumption by 30% or more is well within reach. Consequently, a Senate climate bill should greatly strengthen energy efficiency goals including the creation of mandatory national standards for residential and commercial buildings, greatly-expanded use of co-generation and combined heat & power in the utility sector, and much more aggressive efficiency standards for lighting, appliances, industrial equipment, and motor vehicles.

RENEWABLE ENERGY: While both the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives have informally embraced the goal of 25% renewable energy by 2025, this target - or an even stronger one - should be formally incorporated in Senate climate or energy legislation. However, the measure's current renewable energy provisions are far too weak. For example, in the electricity sector, the Senate bill only envisions a Renewable Electricity Standard of 3% by 2013 - even though non-hydro renewables are already producing almost 4% of the nation's electricity and will likely reach 6% (or more) by 2013 under a business-as-usual scenario. The Senate's RES target for the near-term should be at least doubled if not tripled or quadrupled and made significantly more aggressive for the longer-term as well as coupled with other measures to drive renewable energy development.

By focusing on this three-pronged strategy (i.e., carbon cap + efficiency + renewables), it may prove unnecessary - for the moment at least - to tackle either of the two most controversial options for addressing climate change: creating a "trading system" for emissions credits or imposing carbon taxes.

On the other hand, climate legislation should not support any of the following:

FOSSIL FUELS: There should not be an expansion of federal support for fossil fuels. Rather, U.S. climate policy should include the aggressive phase-out of coal-fired plants (beginning with the dirtiest) and oil use in the transportation sector. Likewise, federal subsidies for the fossil fuel industries should be ramped down considerably, if not completely eliminated. If there appear to be promising and near-term technologies that can burn coal with vastly-reduced CO2 and other emissions as well as minimal environmental impacts, the investment burden should be borne primarily by the coal and utility industries, not the American taxpayer.

NUCLEAR POWER: There should be no financial or regulatory incentives for new nuclear construction or relicensing of existing plants. Fifty years of experience coupled with ever-escalating price estimates for a new generation of reactors should provide sufficient evidence that nuclear power cannot be seen as a cost-effective alternative to fossil fuels or solution to climate change. Additional nuclear reactors would pose safety, proliferation, and terrorist threats as well as generate highly-radioactive waste. Furthermore, while investments in the nuclear sector could not bring new reactors on-line within the timeframe and on a scale needed to address global warming, they would drain financial resources from far more-promising efficiency and renewable energy alternatives.

ENVIRONMENTAL ROLL-BACKS: Climate legislation should not be employed as a vehicle for rolling back existing environmental or human-health safeguards. In particular, the Senate climate bill should leave intact the authority of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to regulate CO2 emissions if legislation approved by the Congress or other regulations issued by the Administration prove to be insufficient. Similarly, current provisions of the Clean Air Act requiring upgrades of coal-burning electricity plants should also be left intact - if not strengthened.

In conclusion, we believe it is imperative that Congress act now and act aggressively to address the threats posed by climate change. In addition, we believe that greenhouse gas emissions can be cut swiftly and in an economically and environmentally sound way by means of a national emissions cap that is realized through a combination of aggressive energy efficiency and renewable energy standards. However, we also believe that climate legislation that promotes continued or expanded use of fossil fuels and/or nuclear power, or which rolls back existing environmental safeguards, could result in a bill that might actually be worse than no bill at all.

We appreciate your consideration of these views.

cc. Members, U.S. Senate
Senate Committees on Environment & Public Works, Energy & Natural Resources, Finance



Rob Ashmore
Jersey City, NJ

David Swanson
After Downing Street
Charlottesville, VA

John Atkeison, Director - Climate & Clean Energy Programs
Alliance for Affordable Energy
New Orleans, LA

Dr. Lewis Cuthbert
Alliance for a Clean Environment
Pottstown, PA

Rochelle Becker, Executive Director
Alliance for Nuclear Responsibility
San Luis Obispo, CA

Joyce Martin, JD; Director - Environmental Health Policy
American Association on Intellectual & Developmental Disabilities
Washington, DC

Rita Schenck
American Center for Life Cycle Assessment
Institute for Environmental Research & Education
Vashon, WA

Casey Sterr, Executive Director
Appalachia - Science in the Public Interest
Mt. Vernon, KY

Greg Hanson
Aqua Sun International
Minden, NV

Chamomile Nusz, Program & Marketing Director
Artha Sustainable Living Center LLC
Amherst, WI

Dr. Robert A. Bardwell
Bardwell Consulting Ltd
Denver, CO

Kevin Kamps
Beyond Nuclear
Takoma Park, MD

Fernando Ausin
San Francisco, CA

Louis Zeller, Science Director
Blue Ridge Environmental Defense League
Glendale Springs, NC

Jeff Perlman
Bright Power
New York, NY

Bart Sheldrake & Whitney Painter
Buglet Solar Electric Installation
Golden, CO

Sandra Gavutis, Executive Director
C-10 Foundation
Newburyport, MA

James P. Sweeney, President
CCI Energy, LLC & Sustainable New Energy
Plymouth, MA

William Snape
Center for Biological Diversity
Washington, DC and Tucson, AZ

W. Donald Hudson, Jr.; President
Chewonki Foundation
Wiscasset, ME

Chris Fried
Chris Fried Solar (and)
Martha's Vineyard Peace Council
Tisbury, MA

David Hughes, Executive Director
Citizen Power
Pittsburgh, PA

Charlie Higley
Citizens Utility Board of Wisconsin
Madison, WI

James J. Provenzano
Clean Air Now
Los Angeles, CA

Michael J. Keegan
Coalition for a Nuclear Free Great Lakes
Monroe, MI

Patrick J. Griebel
Consolidated Solar Technologies
Albuquerque, NM

Keith Gunter
Citizens' Resistance at Fermi Two
Monroe, MI

Joseph Lancaster
Cogenic, LLC
Rochester, NY

Rabbi Andrea Cohen-Kiener, Director
Interreligious Eco-Justice Network
Connecticut's Interfaith Power & Light
West Hartford, CT

Kimchi Rylander, Outreach Coordinator
Culture's Edge dba Earthaven Ecovillage
Black Mountain, NC

Mark Trechock, Staff Director
Dakota Resource Council
Dickinson, ND

Charmaine White Face, Coordinator
Defenders of the Black Hills
Rapid City, SD

Stephen M. Brittle
Don't Waste Arizona
Phoenix, AZ

Alice Hirt
Don't Waste Michigan
Holland, MI

Al Fritsch
Earth Healing, Inc.
Ravenna, KY

Dan Brook
San Jose, CA

Kathy Tibbits, Volunteer Staff Attorney
ecoLaw Institute, Inc.
Stillwell, OK

Mary Davis, Director
(a project of Earth Island Institute)
Lexington, KY

Gwen Farry, BVM
Eighth Day Center for Justice
Chicago, IL

Judy Braiman, President
Empire State Consumer Project
Rochester, NY

Kat A. Donnelly, President
EMpower Devices
(PhD Student, Massachusetts Institute of Technology)
Cambridge, MA

Stephen Guesman
Energize Alabama
Birmingham, AL

Dave Room
Energy Preparedness
Oakland, CA

Bret Fanshaw, Environmental Associate
Environment Arizona
Phoenix, AZ

Judith Johnsrud
Environmental Coalition on Nuclear Power
State College, PA

Bonnie A. New, MD MPH
Environmental & Occupational Health Consulting
Houston, TX

Lillian Light, President
Environmental Priorities Network
Manhattan Beach, CA

Linda Ochs, Director
Finger Lakes Citizens for the Environment
Waterloo, NY

Bob Darby
Food Not Bombs
Atlanta, GA

Tom Ferguson
Foundation for Global Community
Atlanta, GA

Connie Lemley, Organizer
Frankfort Climate Action Network
Frankfort, KY

John Martin, CEO
Santa Barbara, CA

Patrick O'Leary
Futura Solar, LLC
Jacksonville, FL

Peter Meisen
Global Energy Network Institute
San Diego, CA

Molly Johnson, Area Coordinator
Grandmothers for Peace/San Luis Obispo County Chapter
San Miguel, CA

Christopher LaForge
Great Northern Solar
Port Wing, WI

Alisa Gravitz, Executive Director
Green America
Washington, DC

Keren Schlomy, President
Green Decade/Cambridge
Cambridge, MA

Chris Menges, Climate & Clean Energy Coordinator
High Country Citizens' Alliance
Crested Butte, CO

Jennifer Olaranna Viereck, Executive Director
HOME: Healing Ourselves & Mother Earth
Tecopa, CA

Suzanne Hunt, President
Hunt Green LLC
Washington DC

Nancy Sylvester, Chair
IHM Responsible Investment Committee
The IHM Sisters of Monroe, Michigan
Monroe, MI

Leslie Perrigo
Independent Environmental Conservation & Activism Network
Muncie, IN

Miriam Pemberton
Institute for Policy Studies
Washington, DC

Alan Ewell
Integrated Architecture
Honolulu, HI

Andy McDonald
Kentucky Solar Energy Society
Kentucky Solar Partnership
Frankfort, KY

Peter Lowenthal
MD-DC-VA Solar Energy Industries Association
Maryland, DC, Virginia

Chris Kolb
Michigan Environmental Council
Lansing, MI

Barbara Jennings, CSJ; Coordinator
Midwest Coalition for Responsible Investment
St. Louis, MO

Tehri Parker, Ph.D.; Executive Director
Midwest Renewable Energy Association
Custer, WI

Aim Me Smiley
Mighty Kindness
Louisville, KY

Rev. Séamus P. Finn, OMI; Director
Christina Cobourn Herman
Justice Peace/Integrity of Creation Office
Missionary Oblates of Mary Immaculate
Washington, DC

Jeffrey J. Burke, Executive Director
National Pollution Prevention Roundtable
Washington, DC

Dave Ewoldt
Natural Systems Solutions
Tucson, AZ

Judy Treichel, Executive Director
Nevada Nuclear Waste Task Force
Las Vegas, NV

David Radcliff
New Community Project
Elgin, IL

John Cerveny
New Energy Resources
Schenectady, NY

Carolyn Treadway
No New Nukes
Normal, IL

George Crocker, Executive Director
North American Water Office
Lake Elmo, MN

Larry Bell
North East Arizona Energy Services Company
Concho, AZ

Northern Futures Foundation
Port Wing, WI

Norman T. Baker, PhD
Northstar Nurseries, Inc.
Sequim, WA

Alice Slater
Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, NY
New York, NY

David A. Kraft, Director
Nuclear Energy Information Service
Chicago, IL

Michael Mariotte, Executive Director
Nuclear Information & Resource Service
Takoma Park, MD

Mary Olson
Nuclear Information & Resource Service, Southeast
Asheville, NC

Glenn Carroll, Coordinator
Nuclear Watch South
Atlanta, GA

Chris Daum
Oasis Montana Inc.
(Renewable Energy Supply & Design)
Stevensville, MT

Phil Tymon, Administrative Director
Occidental Arts & Ecology Center
Occidental, CA

Chuck Nelson
Ohio Valley Environmental Coalition
Glen Daniel, WV

Judi Friedman, Chair
People's Action for Clean Energy, Inc.
Canton, CT

Conrad Miller M.D.; Founder
Physicians for Life
Watermill, NY

Harry Wang, MD; President
Physicians for Social Responsibility/Sacramento
Sacramento, CA

Robert Schultz, WA State Leader
Pickens Plan
Spokane, WA

Mary Lampert, Director
Pilgrim Watch
Duxbury, MA

Jane Hager
Potomac Region Solar Energy Association
Pasadena, MD

Bruce A. Drew, Steering Committee
Prairie Island Coalition
Minneapolis, MN

Jessica Barry
Prism Solar Technologies, Inc.
Highland, NY

Kevin Zeese, Executive Director
Baltimore, MD

Tyson Slocum, Director
Public Citizen's Energy Program
Washington, DC

Luke Lundemo, CEO
Rainbow Natural Grocery
Jackson, MS

Michael Welch
Redwood Alliance
Arcata, CA

Bill Holmberg
Renew the Earth
Vienna, VA

Gordian Raacke, Executive Director
Renewable Energy Long Island
East Hampton, NY

Margaret Weber
Rosedale Recycles
Detroit, MI

Kathleen Burns, Ph.D.
Lexington, MA

James Kennon, President
Sevier Citizens for Clean Air & Water, Inc.
Richfield, UT

Steven Keyser
SnowberryRidge, Zero Emission Development
Salt Lake City, UT

Jody Solell
Solar Electrics
Fairfax, VA

SolaRichard Thompson
Solar Guru
Tacoma, WA

Chris Stimpson, Executive Campaigner
Solar Nation
Washington, DC

Dr. Robert T. Do
Dennis F. Miller, Vice President & Science Advisor
Solena Group, Inc.
Washington, DC

Orlo Stitt, President
Stitt Energy Systems, Inc.
Rogers, AR

Heidi Speight
Strategic Sustainability Associates
Madison, WI

Ken Bossong, Executive Director
SUN DAY Campaign
Takoma Park, MD

Michael S. Almon, Secretary
Sustainability Action Network
Lawrence, KS

John F Neville, President
Sustainable Arizona
Sedona, AZ

Andrea Faste
Sustainable Ballard
Seattle, WA

Rona Fried, Ph.D.; President
Huntington, NY

Bob Walker
Sustainable Energy Resource Group
Thetford Center, VT

Bernhard O. Voelkelt
Sustainable Energy Solutions
Lake Arrowhead, CA

Carolyn Starrett
Sustainable Winchester
Winchester, MA

Scott Sklar, President
The Stella Group, Ltd.
Arlington, VA

Angela Taylor, President
Taylor Interactive, Inc.
Baltimore, MD

Linda Seeley, President
Terra Foundation
San Luis Obispo, CA

Diane C. Beeny
Union County (NJ) Peace Council
Westfield, NJ

Brian Moench, MD; President
Utah Physicians for a Healthy Environment
Salt Lake City, UT

John Blair, President
Valley Watch, Inc.
Evansville, IN

Blair Hamilton
Vermont Energy Investment Corporation
Burlington, VT

Eric Alexander
Vision Long Island
Northport, NY

Annie Carmichael, Federal Policy Director
Vote Solar
San Francisco, CA

Blair Anundson, Consumer & Democracy Advocate
Washington Public Interest Research Group
Seattle, WA

Michael J. Dietrick MD
Waterplanet Alliance
Mill Valley, CA

Santana Tamarak
Western Nebraska Recourses Council
Scottsbluff, NE

Lewis E. Patrie, MD; Chair
Western N.C. Physicians for Social Responsibility
Asheville, NC

Buffalo Bruce
Western Nebraska Resources Council
Chadron, NE

John Horning, Executive Director
WildEarth Guardians
Santa Fe, NM

Chris Herman, Owner
Winter Sun Design
Edmonds, WA

Deborah Reilly
WISEnergy Vashon
Vashon, WA

Paul Connett, PhD; Executive Director
Canton, NY

Al Sobel, President
Virginia Solar Council
Alexandria, VA


Wanda S. Ballentine
Eagan, MN

Nancy Bernstein
Vermontville, NY

Frieda Berryhill
Wilmington, DE

Joy Blackwood
Landover, MD

Eric Bourgeois, Ph.D.
Cambridge, MA

John D. Calandrelli
Enfield, CT

Geraldine Carter
Climate Ride *
Missoula, MT

Marcella Chiarello
Shelburne, VT

Mary C. Coelho
Cambridge, MA

Marty Dickinson
Washington, DC

Marianne DiMascio
Hanson, MA

Michel Dyer
Wendell, NC

Thomas Gaffney
Sustainable Weymouth *
South Weymouth, MA

Sabodh K. Garg, Ph.D.
Del Mar, CA

Sister Mary Frances Gebhard
St. Bede Monastery *
Eau Claire, WI

Richard Giordano
Boston, MA

Hans Grellmann
Palos Verdes Estates, CA

Marcia Geyer
Sustainable South Shore *
Weymouth, MA

Nancy Givens, Chairperson
BGGreen Partnership for a Sustainable Community *
Bowling Green, KY

Sister Paula Gonzalez, PHD
Cincinnati, OH

Art & Natalie Hanson
Lansing, MI

Gina B. Hardin
Denver, CO

Harry Hochheiser
Baltimore, MD

Marie D. Hoff, PhD
Bismarck, ND

Cynthia E. Hoisington
Barrington, NH

Robert R. Holt, PhD; Vice Chair
Truro Energy Committee *
Truro, MA

Paul Huddy
Solar Institute *
Tucson, AZ

Thayer Jordan
Chapel Hill, NC

Mrs. Leah R. Karpen, Member
Physicians for Social Responsibility *
League of Women Voters *
Asheville, NC

Malcolm M. Kenton
Greensboro, NC

Leslie H. Lowe, Energy & Environment Program Director
Interfaith Center on Corporate Responsibility *
New York, NY

Philip D. Lusk
Port Angeles, WA

Rory McIlmoil
Morgantown, WV

Elizabeth C. Moore
Lakewood, CO

Kathleen Morris RN
Columbus, OH

Albert Nunez, CEM
Takoma Park, MD

David O'Leary
Takoma Park, MD

Denis Oudard, President
Bay Pointe Solar *
Louisville, KY

Micah Parkin
Boulder, CO

Dennis Paull, Renewable Energy Advocate
Half Moon Bay, CA

Upgeya Pew
Costa Mesa, CA

Judi Poulson
Fairmont, MN

Mario G. Rivera
Winter Haven, FL

Ellen Rubinstein
The Cadmus Group *
Portland, OR

Alice Geary Sgroi
St. Louis, MO

Janette D. Sherman, M. D.
Alexandria, VA

Lenny Siegel, Executive Director
Center for Public Environmental Oversight *
Mountain View, CA

Beverly Smith
Sierra Club *
Cottonwood, AZ

Lewis L. Smith
Carolina, PR

Rebecca Sobel
Santa Fe, NM

Benjamin K. Sovacool, PhD
Virginia Polytechnic Institute & State University *
Blacksburg, VA

Darla Reynolds Sparks
Yukon, OK

Grand Rapids, MI

Diane Stanton
Lake Junaluska, NC

Stephen Steinhoff
Madison, WI

Dot Sulock
University of North Carolina at Asheville *
Asheville, NC

Lorry Swain
Southern Ohio Neighbors Group *
South Shore, KY

Jay Sweeney
Green Party of Pennsylvania *
Falls, PA

Ruah Swennerfelt
Quaker Earthcare Witness *
Burlington, VT

Dr. Stephen J. Thompson
Washington, DC

Burt Tribble
Nortonville, KS

Roy C. Treadway, Member
Quaker Earthcare Witness *
Normal, IL

Guy M. Zaczek
Niagara County Community College *
Lockport, NY

*Affiliation listed for identification purposes only

Petition to Stop Obama's Nuke Guarantees



March 4, 2010

Dear Friends,

Since we launched it Tuesday afternoon, more than 2,200 people have signed the new petition against President Obama's proposed $54 billion loan program for new nuclear reactors.

That's great, thank you! But we can--and must--do a lot better than that if we're going to stop this fiasco.

If you haven't signed the petition yet, please do so here. (Note, please do not sign it twice, it will just make more work for us when we remove duplicate signatures....).

Please ask your family members and friends to sign. Organizations: please send to your e-mail lists. Here is the direct link you can use:

We are already making progress. Yesterday, the Brattleboro (VT) Reformer reported that Vermont's entire Congressional Delegation say they will oppose this loan "guarantee" program. We have reason to believe several other members of Congress will be jumping on this bandwagon soon. On March 23, Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio), chair of the House Oversight Domestic Policy Subcommittee, will be holding a hearing to critically examine the program.

We also want to thank everyone who has contributed financially this week. We're now down to needing less than $1,000 to be able to buy an ad to promote this petition! Please consider helping us make that goal so we can continue reaching out to new people who care about this critical issue. Our donation page is here (or, if you don't like giving online, you can write a check to NIRS, and send to 6930 Carroll Avenue, #340, Takoma Park, MD 20912).

Finally, we wanted to bring your attention to a terrific op-ed by former NRC Commissioner Peter Bradford. Although it's aimed at Minnesota, where legislators are considering a bill to repeal that state's ban on new reactor construction, it's an excellent summary of the issues that could affect everyone--especially those of you in states targeted by the nuclear industry for changes in state laws.

Again, please sign the petition, and please help us spread the word.

Thanks for all you do,

Michael Mariotte
Executive Director
Nuclear Information and Resource Service
[email protected]

Click here to unsubscribe from NIRS e-mail list





February 24, 2010

Dear Friends:

A quick reminder that tomorrow, Thursday, February 25, is the National Call-Congress Day to stop the Obama Administration's proposed $54 Billion loan program for new nuclear reactor construction--otherwise known as a giant taxpayer giveaway to wealthy nuclear corporations.

You can reach every member of Congress through the Congressional Switchboard: 202-224-3121.

We ask that your call your House Representative and both of your Senators, if at all possible.

Our asks are these:

*we want them to publicly oppose the President's request for a tripling of the Department of Energy loan "guarantee" program to $54 Billion.

*we want them to vote against this program in committee if possible and on the floor if it comes to the floor.

We are supplementing the Call-Congress Day with your letters.

*If you haven't written to your Representative yet this week, please do so here.

*If you haven't written to your Senators yet this week, please do so here.

Please drop us a quick e-mail (to [email protected]) and let us know that you called, and any response you receive.

This is a National Call-Congress Day, being sponsored by several groups, including NIRS, Public Citizen, Physicians for Social Responsibility, Beyond Nuclear, Southern Alliance for Clean Energy and others.

Let's keep those phones ringing all day long! Help us spread the word! Make sure everyone has the opportunity to participate. Your actions matter!

Thanks for all you do,

Michael Mariotte
Executive Director
Nuclear Information and Resource Service
[email protected]
P.S. if you've never signed the statement on nuclear power and climate ("We do not support construction of new nuclear reactors as a means of addressing the climate crisis. Available renewable energy and energy efficiency technologies are faster, cheaper, safer and cleaner strategies for reducing greenhouse emissions than nuclear power."), please visit our home page, to sign.
Click here to unsubscribe from NIRS e-mail list

National "Call Congress!" Day of Action

An environmental coalition, including Beyond Nuclear, Friends of the Earth, Nuclear Information and Resource Service, Physicians for Social Responsibility, Southern Alliance for Clean Energy, and others, has called for a National "Call Congress!" Day of Action against nuclear power loan guarantees for Wed., Feb. 24th. Please phone your two U.S. Senators and your U.S. Representative via the Capitol Switchboard, (202) 224-3121, and help ring the phones off the hook all day long during business hours next Wednesday in Congress! Urge your Members of Congress to let President Obama and Energy Secretary Chu know that they are displeased that the first $18.5 billion in already-approved nuclear loan guarantees is being rushed out to unworthy applicants, increasing the already high risks that taxpayers will be left holding the bag for defaulted projects. Also urge your Members of Congress to block President Obama's Fiscal Year 2011 budget request to triple the nuclear loan guarantee program from $18.5 billion for new reactors, to $54.5 billion (and don't forgot about the $2 billion in already-approved loan guarantees for new uranium enrichment facilities!). See NIRS's email alert as well as its website announcement of "Call Congress Day." Also see Beyond Nuclear's loan guarantee website for more information.



February 18, 2010

Dear Friends,

By now you probably know that on Tuesday President Obama personally announced conditional approval of an $8.3 billion loan guarantee for the construction of two new reactors at the Vogtle site in Georgia.

And you also probably know that Obama has proposed tripling the loan guarantee program for new reactors in his FY 2011 budget, to $54 billion.

What you may not know about the Vogtle deal is that we taxpayers are not just providing loan guarantees, we're providing the actual loans, through the Federal Financing Bank. And you also may not know that the Southern Company has not yet accepted the conditions of the loan--and for various reasons, it may not. In other words, it's not a done deal.

And neither is a $54 billion loan guarantee program a done deal. Congress has to approve this proposal. Twice last year, with your help, we beat back efforts to increase the loan guarantee program. We can do it again!

*The first step is to send a letter to your Representative now.

*The second step is to spread the word and encourage as many people as possible to send in letters. We need to speak very LOUDLY on this one!

*The third step is to get ready for National Call-Congress Day on Wednesday, February 24. We've done this before and thousands of you have called. This time it will be even bigger, because this is a coordinated effort with many groups: NIRS, Physicians for Social Responsibility, Southern Alliance for Clean Energy, Beyond Nuclear, Friends of the Earth, and you!

So prepare yourself (and we'll send some new talking points early next week), activate your e-mail lists and phone trees, tell your friends and family members. Let's keep the phones ringing in both the House and Senate all day long next Wednesday.

Reaction to the Vogtle loan guarantee, and to the proposed tripling of the program, already has been strong. You can see NIRS' press releases, and statements by Ralph Nader, Sierra Club, PSR, etc. on the front page of our website:

Here is a link to a story in today's New York Times titled Environmental Advocates Are Cooling on Obama. Here is a link to a story on the Facing South site. And here is a very good piece from Time Magazine. These are typical of the kinds of stories we've been seeing.

Now we need to follow up the strong reaction to Obama's nuclear plans with strong action:

Please write your representatives here.

Plan to be part of National Call-Congress Day Wednesday, February 24.

And if there is anything we can do to help you, let us know.

Thanks for all you do,

Michael Mariotte
Executive Director
Nuclear Information and Resource Service
[email protected]

P.S. Some big THANK YOUs! Thanks to everyone who contributed for my 25th anniversary outreach fund. We're using those funds to supplement and support this Alert and Call-Congress Day with Google adwords and an action ad on (where coincidentally I've also started a new blog called Energy Progress) to bring more people to this effort. You can still contribute to this fund here, and we'll thank you just as profusely. We'll use your donations to continue expanding our outreach efforts.

And thank you to everyone who filled out our questionnaire on our Alerts. As soon as things slow down just a little, we'll post a summary of your responses (without your names of course!). Winners of The Critical Question (10 of you chosen at random) will receive your books soon.

In the meantime, several people said they don't forward our Alerts to others. Most said this was due to privacy reasons and/or not wanting to be perceived as a spammer. We can respect that, and we do want to make clear that we do NOT ask anyone to forward any of our materials to anyone you don't know.

But we also know that the only way to build an effective movement is with outreach. Thus, we ask grassroots groups with mailing lists to please forward our Alerts to your lists. And we encourage people to forward our materials to people you do know who might be interested and to post our Alerts on Facebook and other social networking sites (after all, what is a social networking site but a form of outreach?). If you don't feel like forwarding our entire Alert, we'd suggest just sending your friends/family/colleagues a link to our action page, with a sentence saying something like, "Here is an issue I really care about. If you do too, I hope you'll take action." For this action, the action page link is:
Click here to unsubscribe from NIRS e-mail list



Talking Points to Shut Vermont Yankee

Dear Friends,

Yesterday Senate President Peter Shumlin announce that the Senate will vote next week to close Vermont Yankee as scheduled in 2012. We need your help to contact senators and go to the Statehouse on Wednesday, February 25 when we expect the vote.

Let senators know that:

1. You want them to vote to close Vermont Yankee because it is old, not safe and not reliable. Entergy has lied continuously and this is not the legacy we want to leave to our children.

2. No stalling. Vermont has known for 40 years that the plant is scheduled to be retired. The Legislature has studied all aspects of the situation. Now is the time to vote so that Vermont can plan for its future.

Talking Points are below. Here is a link to the Legislative Council Page with senate contact information.

Please help this week. The time has finally come to close this old and unsafe plant!

As you may know, many Vermont towns will be voting at town meetings on March 2nd on a resolution urging the legislature to shut down VY in 2012. If your town has the resolution on the warning, please be sure to be there for the vote.
If your town does not have the resolution, and you want to bring it up as "other business to come before the town", please contact me and we can strategize how to accomplish that.

Dan DeWalt


Retiring Vermont Yankee as Scheduled


Closing Vermont Yankee As Scheduled Is the Safe and Responsible Thing to Do.

The plant is too old to be safe or reliable
The owner's are out-of-state corporate executives that have repeatedly lied about leaks and contamination.
Plus, relicensing the plant means huge profits for the corporation, but Vermonters could be stuck with the clean-up bill.
For the sake of our families' safety and our legacy to future generations, we should close Vermont Yankee as scheduled in 2012.


Vermont Yankee is too old.
Built in the 1970's and designed to operate for 40 yrs, it's now 38 years old.
It's the only Yankee plant still in operation; all of its sister plants on closed on schedule.
The design is so outdated that it could never be built today.
The plant is worn out, the towers are collapsing, and the pipes are leaking radiation. The plant is running at 120% of its planned capacity, and would be asked to do so throughout the relicensed period.
Vermont Yankee is neither safe nor reliable. Just look at their record.
History of failures, collapses, and leaks
Contaminating soil and groundwater with dangerous radiation
Missing fuel rods and contaminated shipments
Vermont Yankee is run by Entergy, whose out-of-state corporate executives have lied repeatedly under oath and cannot be trusted.
Long history of deceit and lies to state regulators about safety concerns.
No contribution to the clean-up fund as they had promised.
Are planning to create a spin-off shell corporation-Enexus-which will pay Entergy $3.5 billion but leave Vermont taxpayers stuck with the billion dollar clean-up bill.
Same corporate irresponsibility we saw on Wall Street where taxpayers bankroll huge salaries and bonuses for corporate CEOs and we all pay the price.


We can't trust Entergy to run Vermont Yankee safely.
In 2007, a cooling tower collapsed, and then broke a second time in 2008, even though it was supposed to have been fixed.
In 2009, Vermont Yankee suffered from three separate radioactive leaks.
Recently, radioactive water has contaminated groundwater at the reactor.
The leaking radiation exposed a pattern of lies by numerous Entergy corporate executives.


Vermont's legislature should do the responsible thing and close Vermont Yankee on schedule.
Vermonters have a responsibility to pass on a safe and positive legacy to future generations.


People may bring up the following issues or questions, and we can be ready to give a factual concise answer before returning to the main message. Whenever possible, pivot back to the powerful messages that Vermonters already believe: the plant is old, dangerous, and unreliable and it is run by out-of-state corporate executives who are irresponsible and cannot be trusted with protecting Vermonters.


Why not delay the vote as the Governor has asked, until more studies are done?

We know the plant is too old to be reliable or safe. Delaying a vote doesn't change that fact.
We know we can't trust the out-of-state corporate executives to tell us the truth about it. Delaying a vote doesn't change their track record.
We know that delaying a vote on whether to close the plant as scheduled won't fix the many problems with the plant. It just makes them worse.
No more obstructionist delays, we should move forward with the vote to close Vermont Yankee on schedule.

The Aging Plant is Unsafe

What are the safety problems with Vermont Yankee?
The Aging Plant is Unsafe. The out-of-state corporate owners of this aging plant have cut back on maintenance so much that the plant is literally falling apart. It has the nation's last remaining wooden cooling towers which Entergy assured were safe, until one collapsed requiring a reduction in reactor output . There was a raging fire at the plant. An operator was arrested for drinking on duty. And now it's leaking radiation into Vermont's soil and groundwater. The aging plant is at the end of its designed lifespan and is too old to be safe.

Isn't the design of the plant safe?
The Aging Plant is Unsafe. Vermont Yankee was designed in the 1960s using slide rules because computers hadn't been invented, and without the benefits of the lessons learned in the intervening 40 years from the operation of other reactors. All four of its sister Yankee plants in New England have been retired as scheduled. This plant's first generation design would not be permitted anywhere in the world today. Even Uzbekistan wouldn't have it. Energy planners back then factored in the effects of aging and the likelihood of advances in technology when they wrote the license to expire in 2012. It's time to close the plant as scheduled.

What is tritium?
The Aging Plant is Unsafe. Tritium is an isotope of hydrogen that is extremely rare in nature but is a toxic byproduct of nuclear power production that must be contained. It acts like water, travelling easily in surface and groundwater, and is extremely difficult to treat. Once in the body, the particles emitted bombard adjoining cells and can mutate them, causing cancer. Tritium leaks at other aging nuclear plants required extensive excavation of soil and removal to radiation dumps in distant states-costing hundreds of millions of dollars.

State officials say that the radioactivity leaks are small and no threat to human health, so what's the problem?
The Aging Plant is Unsafe. Tritium, like any radioactive particle ingested in the human body, increases the risk of cancer- according to the National Academy of Sciences. Stringent California public health standards limit drinking water levels to 400 parts per trillion, although Vermont relies on a looser standard 50 times higher or 20,000 picocuries. Even with that lax standard, test wells at Vermont Yankee have exceeded 700,000 picocuries.
Tritium, even in low levels, has been linked to developmental problems, reproductive problems, genetic abnormalities, and other health problems in laboratory animals. Additionally, there is evidence of adverse health effects on populations near facilities which utilize tritium.

What happens to nuclear waste now?
The Aging Plant is Unsafe. Because of safety concerns, plans to create a federal high-level radioactive waste facility have fallen through. So, nuclear power plants across the country must store their waste on site. Most of the million pounds of Vermont Yankee high-level waste sits in a pool of water suspended 7 stories in the air above the plant, a few hundred feet from the banks of the Connecticut River. This material is highly radioactive and requires constant cooling and close monitoring. Some of the highly radioactive fuel has cooled somewhat and was transferred into concrete casks set near the river. With no federal repository in sight, that radioactive waste will need to be safeguarded in Vermont for at least 50 to 60 years. Extending Vermont Yankee's license for 20 years past its scheduled retirement would add another 750,000 pounds of highly-radioactive waste to Vermont's burden, further increasing the cost to taxpayers for the cleanup.

Entergy's Out-Of-State Executives Cannot Be Trusted

Why is Energy unsuited to run this plant?
Entergy's Out-Of-State Executives Cannot Be Trusted. Entergy's out-of-state corporate executives run Vermont Yankee with a Wall Street short-term profit approach that has wrecked our economy. The latest reports of radioactive water leaking into our soil and groundwateris the most recent example of them blatantly lying to Vermonters, our Legislature, our regulators and our Governor-who says he's fed up. Their corporate character cannot be trusted to operate this dilapidated nuclear power plant another 20 years past its scheduled retirement.

What is Enexus?
Entergy's Out-Of-State Executives Cannot Be Trusted.
Straight out of the Enron playbook, Entergy hopes to create a spin-off company called Enexus which would issue $3.5 billion in junk bonds and pay Entergy for 6 aging reactors including Vermont Yankee. Enexus would be saddled with massive debt and would lack the capital needed to run a fleet of aging and failing nuclear reactors. Meanwhile Entergy Louisiana would make a handsome profit by unloading its toxic assets, and shield itself from liability for accidents, shortfalls and clean up. Vermonters could be left holding the bag.

What are the decommissioning issues with Vermont Yankee?
Entergy's Out-Of-State Executives Cannot Be Trusted. Cleaning up nuclear plants after they retire is a big job. Entergy estimated the cost to clean up Vermont Yankee's mess would be a billion dollars and that was before it admitted leaking radiation into the soil and groundwater, which will add hundreds of millions more. All the other New England Yankee nuclear sites have been closed as scheduled, and a few of those sites have been totally cleaned up and returned to green pasture land. But Vermont Yankee's clean-up fund is half a billion dollars short, because Entergy has siphoned off all the profits and refused to put anything into the fund since it bought the plant in 2002. Instead, it played the stock market with the fund and lost money. Because of this risky, Wall-Street type scheme, Vermonters could end up holding the bag on clean up costs when the bill comes due.


We Don't Need this Old, Dangerous Plant

Don't we need Vermont Yankee power?
We Don't Need this Old, Dangerous Plant. The aging reactor counts for 2% of New England's electricity production. There is plentiful power available for purchase on the market at attractive rates. The CEO of Green Mountain Power says "It's a good environment to have to be making power purchases," so she and other utilities are actively lining up power to meet Vermont's needs when the plant closes as scheduled. At least three Vermont utilities: Burlington Electric, Vermont Electric Coop, and Washington Electric, have all locked in power sources that do not include Vermont Yankee, and are increasingly depending upon efficiency and renewables.

Where will the power come from if we close Vermont Yankee?
We Don't Need this Old, Dangerous Plant. Closing Vermont Yankee as scheduled gives us a lot of choices to replace the power. There is plenty of power available from natural gas and regional renewable sources to meet Vermont's needs, including power from Hydro Quebec, upstate New York and the New England region.Mary Powel, CEO of Green Mountain Power stated that, "Our plan is to ramp down our use of nuclear power and ramp up our use of cost-effective renewable energy".
The Public Service Board has determined that efficiency efforts alone could yield 215 MW/year by 2015. That is nearly twice the amount of power that VY proposes to sell in Vermont over the next 20 years comes at a much lower price.

If that replacement power comes from coal or fossil fuels, won't the impact on climate change be greater?
We Don't Need this Old, Dangerous Plant. The biggest threat to our environment is failing to close the old and unsafe plant as scheduled. Once that has happened, Vermont will grow its clean energy economy-local, renewable, sustainable power that creates jobs, keeps our electricity payments here in Vermont, and reduces climate change. A combination of hydro power from Hydro Quebec and some short-term contracts for traditional power will help bridge the gap while transitioning to our in-state green economy. Efficiency measures which can replace VY have a smaller carbon footprint, and no radioactive footprint when compared to other sources of power.

Renewables, really, when Vermont won't allow wind power?
We Don't Need this Old, Dangerous Plant. Efficiency is the lowest hanging fruit, already underway but we can do a lot more and right away. Many renewable sources of power are being permitted now in Vermont: photovoltaic, solar water heaters, cow power, geothermal and yes, we will join the rest of the world soon to figure out a way to site wind turbines in a sustainable and environmentally sensitivity manner.

Won't the replacement power be more expensive?
We Don't Need this Old, Dangerous Plant. Vermont has a chance to replace Vermont Yankee with safe and reliable regional power contracts at prices that are competitive with those offered by the aging reactor, but come without the risks and long term costs of clean up and decommissioning. Replacing the power after Vermont Yankee closes as scheduled will come from conventional power available on the open market now, which is priced at about the same rate Vermont Yankee offered going forward. For example, power available today on the spot market is selling at a fraction of VY's current price. VY plans to raise their rates significantly if they get their license extension.

The Old and Dangerous Plant Should be Retired as Scheduled, without Changing the Rules of the Game

Why can't we keep Vermont Yankee for 5 years, and conduct an orderly transition to what's next?
The Old and Dangerous Plant Should be Retired as Scheduled, Without Changing the Rules of the Game. Entergy's application under consideration is to keep the aging plant going for another 20 years, and that is what the various regulatory agencies and our Legislature are considering. The plant is far too old, unsafe and unreliable to last another 20 years. It needs to be closed and cleaned up as scheduled.

Some Labor unions support Vermont Yankee. Why should we end those good-paying jobs?
The Old and Dangerous Plant Should be Retired as Scheduled, Without Changing the Rules of the Game. This plant is old and unsafe. It was designed to last 40 years and is falling apart as it closes in on its scheduled retirement. The million pounds of highly radioactive waste on the banks of the Connecticut River will require hundreds of engineers to maintain. More hundreds of engineers will need to design the clean-up, which will cost a billion dollars and employ many hundreds more. There will be many jobs for many years, cleaning up the mess and restoring safety to Southern Vermont. Besides there are trade unions that do not support the license extension, and there are officials within the supporting union who do not agree with their unions position.

How can Vermont muck around in licensing decisions that are the NRC's? Won't Entergy just sue and get the Legislature's action thrown out?
The Old and Dangerous Plant Should be Retired as Scheduled, Without Changing the Rules of the Game. The NRC has jurisdiction over reactor safety, but the states have the right to decide their energy policy. The NRC specifically says it "has no role in the energy planning decisions of State regulators and utility officials as to whether a particular nuclear power plant should continue to operate." It is left to state regulatory agencies to determine whether it is in the best interest of ratepayers and cost effective to continue operation of their state's nuclear plants. The U.S. Supreme Court specifically ruled that states have authority to determine the state's best economic interest when ruling on re-licensing aging reactors.

This does mean that the Legislature's decision must be based on factors other than safety-including reliability, power pricing, decommissioning costs, effects to human health and the environment, the desired mix of energy sources and the like. Based on Vermont Yankee's record, the old plant and its out-of-state corporate executives can't be trusted to deliver the kind of reliable power that is good for Vermonters' health and our environment.

Leas, J. M. (2008, November 17). Yankee containment won't contain. Rutland Herald.; Snow, K. H. (December 2003). Vermont Yankee: A second lease on half-life? Montague Reporter.
Institute for Energy and Environmental Research. (1996). Tritium: The environmental, health, budgetary, and strategic effects of the Department of Energy's decision to produce tritium. Takoma Park, MD: Hisham Zerriffi.
California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, HYPERLINK ""
Institute for Energy and Environmental Research. (1996). Tritium: The environmental, health, budgetary, and strategic effects of the Department of Energy's decision to produce tritium. Takoma Park, MD: Hisham Zerriffi.
Institute for Energy and Environmental Research. (2006). Science for the Vulnerable: Setting radiation and multiple exposure environmental health standards to protect those most at risk. Takoma Park, MD: Arjun Makhijani, Brice Smith & Michael C. Thorne.
Lacy Consulting Group, LLC. (2009). Spent Nuclear Fuel, Low Level Radioactive Waste and Decommissioning. Montpelier, VT: Bruce Lacy.
Lacy Consulting Group, LLC. (2009). Spent Nuclear Fuel & Low Level Radioactive Waste: Current and future storage options. Montpelier, VT: Bruce Lacy.; Nuclear Regulatory Commission. (2008). Consideration of Environmental Impacts of Temporary Storage of Spent Fuel after Cessation of Reactor Operation. ADM ML082600597. Retrieve from
Nuclear Regulatory Commission. (2009). Safety Evaluation by the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation related to Spent Fuel Management Program and the Preliminary Decommissioning Cost Estimate (Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station Docket No. 50-271). Washington, DC
Bloomberg News, "Entergy CEO Says Financing Won't Hinder a Spinoff," by Tina Seeley, June 22, 2009. Also Memorandum to Joint Fiscal Committee by Richard H. Saudek, October 19, 2009.
Williams, R. (2009, December 10). A Note from Rob Williams at Vermont Yankee.
Vermont Public Interest Research Group. (2009). Repowering Vermont: Replacing Vermont Yankee for a clean energy future (pp. 17-29). Montpelier, VT: James Moore.
Barlow, D. (2010, January 29). Former Yankee co-owner says shut it down. Vermont Press Bureau.
Vermont Public Interest Research Group. (2009). Repowering Vermont: Replacing Vermont Yankee for a clean energy future (pp. 22-23). Montpelier, VT: James Moore.



New Mexico Nuclear Action Alert

Tell Your Senators Nuclear Power is
NOT Green!

...they are at it again.

members of
Senate Rules Committee
and urge them to
vote NO on SJM 38.


Nuclear energy is NOT clean, is NOT renewable, and is NOT green!.


New Mexico should instead be promoting legitimate renewable and energy efficiency solutions that actually benefit New Mexicans.

SJM 38, sponsored by Rep. William E. Sharer, is scheduled to be heard by the Senate Rules Committee

Wednesday, Feb. 10 at 8:00 am, Room 321


Please call your Representative and ask him or her to VOTE "NO" on SJM 38


Thank you for your support,

Eric Jantz, Staff Attorney
New Mexico Environmental Law Center
[email protected]

P.S.  Please feel free to share this e-mail with your family and friends.



The New Mexico Environmental Law Center

We work every day to protect New Mexico's water, land and air from toxic pollution and to assist the many and diverse communities of the state protect their environment.

The New Mexico Environmental Law Center is a 501(c)3 not-for-profit law firm. The Law Center has worked for 22 years protecting New Mexico's communities and their environments through public education, legislative initiatives, administrative negotiations and litigation.  Since 1987, the Law Center has been providing free and low-cost legal services to citizens who would otherwise not have a voice in the complex legal proceedings that directly impact their environment.  If you would like not to receive any future email alerts, please contact us at [email protected].   If you would like to financially support our work, please visit our donations page.  All donations are 100% tax-deductible, unless otherwise noted. Thank you.   Questions?  Call us at 505.989.9022.

NRC opens its new Open Gov website service


The NRC Approach to Open Government

As an independent regulatory agency that prides itself on openness, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is pleased to take an active role in President Barack Obama’s Open Government Initiative exit icon, with its focus on open, accountable, and accessible government. The NRC has a long history of, and commitment to, transparency, participation, and collaboration in our regulatory activities.

For details on these and other aspects of the NRC Approach to Open Government, please see the following pages:


Vote NO on HMJ 41

members of
House Energy & Natural Resource Committee
and urge them to
vote NO on HMJ 41.


Nuclear energy is NOT clean and is NOT renewable, and this memorial is pure science fiction.


New Mexico should instead be promoting legitimate renewable and energy efficiency solutions that actually benefit New Mexicans.

HJM 41, sponsored by Rep. John Heaton, is scheduled to be heard by the House Energy and Natural Resources Committee (HENRC)

Friday, Feb. 5 at 8:30 a.m.


Please call your Representative and ask him or her to VOTE "NO" on HMJ 41

HENRC Members:

James Roger Madalena   986-4417

Nick L. Salazar  986-4433

Paul C. Bandy   986-4214
[email protected]

Donald E. Bratton  986-4227
[email protected]

Brian F. Egolf  986-4211
[email protected]

Candy Spence Ezzell   986-4450
[email protected]

Miguel P. Garcia   986-4327
[email protected]

William J. Gray 986-4226
[email protected]

Antonio Lujan  986-4436
[email protected]

Andy Nuñez   986-4423
[email protected]

Benjamin H. Rodefer  986-4211
[email protected]

Jeff Steinborn 986-4248
[email protected]

James R. J. Strickler 986-4227
[email protected]

Thank you for your support,

Eric Jantz, Staff Attorney
New Mexico Environmental Law Center
[email protected]

P.S.  Please feel free to share this e-mail with your family and friends.



The New Mexico Environmental Law Center

We work every day to protect New Mexico's water, land and air from toxic pollution and to assist the many and diverse communities of the state protect their environment.

The New Mexico Environmental Law Center is a 501(c)3 not-for-profit law firm. The Law Center has worked for 22 years protecting New Mexico's communities and their environments through public education, legislative initiatives, administrative negotiations and litigation.  Since 1987, the Law Center has been providing free and low-cost legal services to citizens who would otherwise not have a voice in the complex legal proceedings that directly impact their environment.  If you would like not to receive any future email alerts, please contact us at [email protected].   If you would like to financially support our work, please visit our donations page.  All donations are 100% tax-deductible, unless otherwise noted. Thank you.   Questions?  Call us at 505.989.9022.


... February 3, 2010 News Advisory ...


Even As White House Budget Proposes Tripling of Nuclear Loan Guarantees,
DOE is Struggling to Find Even One Good Deal to OK Under Existing Guarantee Authority;
From Massive Billion Dollar Cost Overruns in Texas to Flawed Reactor Design in Georgia.

WASHINGTON, D.C.//NEWS ADVISORY//With the new White House budget out today calling for a tripling of taxpayer-backed loan guarantee bailouts for new nuclear reactors, four grassroots experts from around the U.S. will caution that none of the four "leading" reactor projects in the running are attractive candidates.

In addition to providing an insight into the problems with the President's budget proposal, the four experts holding the live, phone-based news conference with full Q&A at 1:30 p.m. EST Wednesday (February 3, 2010) will provide an important perspective that will not be heard when the U.S. Senate Energy Committee meets on the DOE's Loan Guarantee Program next week.

News event speakers and the loan guarantee candidate about which they will speak are:

• Tom "Smitty" Smith, director, Public Citizen's Texas office, addressing the embattled NRG reactor project in San Antonio;

• Sara Barczak, director, High Risk Program, Southern Alliance for Clean Energy, addressing the proposed Vogtle reactors in Georgia;

• Tom Clements, Friends of the Earth, addressing the proposed VC Summer reactors in South Carolina; and

• Michael Mariotte, executive director, Nuclear Information and Resource Service, addressing the proposed Calvert Cliffs reactor in Maryland.

For background on the huge risks facing U.S. taxpayers from increased loan-guarantee bailouts for the nuclear power industry, see and

TO PARTICIPATE: You can join this live, phone-based news conference (with full, two-way Q&A) at 1:30 p.m. EST on February 3, 2010 by dialing 1 (800) 860-2442. Ask for the "ugly nuclear loan guarantees" news event.

CAN'T PARTICIPATE?: A streaming audio recording of the news event will be available on the Web as of 5 p.m. EST on February 3, 2010 at

CONTACT: Leslie Anderson, (703) 276-3256 or [email protected].