iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

Internal Memo: Nuclear Power Company Could Make A Billion A Year From Climate Change Law

First Posted: 07/24/09 06:12 AM ET Updated: 05/25/11 02:30 PM ET

Exelon

Exelon, the nation's largest nuclear power company, stands to rake in roughly an extra $1 billion to $1.5 billion a year if the House climate change bill passes, according to the company's own estimates. The House is expected to vote on the bill on Friday.

A memo produced for Exelon by Bernstein Research, and obtained by the Huffington Post, reports that Exelon CEO John Rowe recently told a gathering of investors and senior executives that the energy bill "will add $700 to $750 million to Exelon's annual revenues for every $10 per metric ton (MT) increase in the price of CO2 allowances." Prices will range between $15 and $18 per metric ton, the report estimates, "implying a positive earnings impact of $1 to $1.30 per share."

Read the full memo.

Exelon, with a major presence in Illinois, was an early backer of President Barack Obama's. "Barack has one of his biggest supporters in terms of funding, the Exelon Corporation, which has spent millions of dollars trying to make Yucca Mountain the waste depository," then-rival Sen. Hillary Clinton noted in a debate in January 2008 in Nevada, a charge PolitiFact deemed "mostly true," noting that in fact Obama, like Clinton, did not in fact support the Yucca Mountain project.

Last week, the company announced it was shedding 500 jobs, blaming the sagging economy and saying it hoped to trim $350 million in operating costs.

"While we do stand to make money when carbon legislation goes into effect, we've been advocating hard for allocation of free allowances to local utilities," Exelon spokeswoman Kathleen Cantillon said in an interview. Allocating free allowances to utilities wouldn't directly benefit Exelon, said Cantillon, but the company backs them out of concern that prices would rise too quickly otherwise, undermine support for the law and perhaps facilitate a repeal.

Nuclear power is among the lowest carbon-emitting sources of energy, which helps to explain Exelon's enthusiastic embrace of a carbon cap.

The company officials think that the bill is likely to become law. "Exelon's Executive Vice President for Government and Environmental Affairs, the former FERC Commissioner Betsy Moler, is guardedly optimistic that the Waxman-Markey climate change bill (H.R.
2454) will be passed into law by the current Congress, estimating its chances at 60%," reads the memo. Moler's 60 percent estimate is attributed to Rep. Rick Boucher (D-Va.), a subcommittee chairman pushing for power company subsidies.

Rowe, however, gives the bill a two-in-three chance of passing the House, but only a 50-50 chance of getting out of the Senate.

The company's leaders, at the recent meeting, declared their admiration for the skill with which Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) moved the bill. "Both John Rowe and Betsy Moler were pleased by the structure of the Waxman-Markey climate change bill (entitled the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009, or H.R. 2454), and impressed by the skill with which Chairman Waxman (D-CA) had forged the compromises necessary to pass the bill out of the House Energy and Commerce Committee."

The timing is right, according to Moler, in the memo. "Moler believes that there is a sense among Republican Senators that greenhouse gas regulation is inevitable, and that the current weak economic environment provides an opportunity to turn the proposed legislation in a more moderate direction," reads the memo.

With that kind of opportunity knocking, Exelon is doing all it can to make sure the door is opened. It's a major player in the Climate Action Partnership, a coalition of business and environmental groups pushing for climate change legislation.

Rowe even produced an ad with the aggressive environmental group Environmental Defense. After suggesting viewers check out the plan that Exelon and Environmental Defense have agreed on, Rowe notes to the camera: "You'll be surprised."

Get HuffPost Politics On Facebook and Twitter!

FOLLOW HUFFPOST POLITICS

Exelon, the nation's largest nuclear power company, stands to rake in roughly an extra $1 billion to $1.5 billion a year if the House climate change bill passes, according to the company's own estimat...
Exelon, the nation's largest nuclear power company, stands to rake in roughly an extra $1 billion to $1.5 billion a year if the House climate change bill passes, according to the company's own estimat...
 
 
  • Comments
  • 75
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2  Next ›  Last »  (2 total)
01:16 PM on 06/26/2009
Also, bear in mind that radioactive materials are NATURAL. Nuclear power was created by NATURE.
03:11 PM on 06/26/2009
And then once through the reactor is transformed into 10,000 times as much radiation in Curies, then when processed multiples that radiation another 100 times. Waste full of isotopes, that you don't find anywhere else on earth.
01:12 PM on 06/26/2009
Research,

The entire nation of France has 100 tons of nuclear waste. 1 ton is the size of a yoga ball. That is 100 yoga balls for decades of powering an entire industrial society. Now imagine a mountain and how many yoga balls you could put into it.

Stop being afraid of something you do not understand.
02:27 PM on 06/26/2009
Why would you state such a huge lie?

Hopefully, it's just ignorance.

http://www.alternet.org/environment/132852/the_french_nuclear_industry_is_bad_enough_in_france%3B_let%27s_not_expand_it_to_the_u.s./

France generates and dumps THOUSANDS of tons of radioactive waste around the world.

Frasnce generates HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF TONS of radioactive mining tailings, they dump in Russia.

http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf40.html

Learn something.
12:34 PM on 06/24/2009
So the world will end with Nuclear war, rather than climate change.

What a disaster.

Nukes are dirty!

1 million years of waste has to be stored at the cost of quadrillions in lost land value, all for 60 years energy at current use levels, 13 years if the world gets all it's electricity from nukes.

Then uranium, which has gone way up in prices and is so scarce we are talking about mining the grand canyon for it, becomes the next oil. Uranium wars.

And Nukes have NEVER paid their own insurance, That's up to Taxpayers.

All for electricity we can get cheaper, safe and faster from rooftop solar at 3 cents per KWH

FOREVER.

See my profile for proof.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
12:31 PM on 06/24/2009
After suggesting viewers check out the plan that Exelon and Environmental Defense have agreed on, Rowe notes to the camera: "You'll be surprised."

Yes, I'll be surprised if we don't get screwed again by our corporate/government alliance. Nuclear may be carbon-free, but that radiation thing is a deal breaker for me. Nuclear is expensive, dangerous, and forever.
No more nukes
11:30 AM on 06/24/2009
Obama and Exelon have a long history.

"Exelon, with a major presence in Illinois, was an early backer of President Barack Obama's. "Barack has one of his biggest supporters in terms of funding, the Exelon Corporation"

Obama and Valerie Jarrett, are very close personally and professionally with Frank M. Clark, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, ComEd and a management executive with the parent company, Exelon.

Perhaps Obama and Jarrett can influence Exelon to clean up their coal-burning power plants operating in the heart of the city of Chicago?

They haven't done anything yet.
11:23 AM on 06/24/2009
Without using a broad range of alternative energy sources, we cannot meet the energy needs of the ever increasing world population. The planet just cannot sustain the demand we have placed in it from a population standpoint with our current energy sources. The best energy solution would be population control, but that aint gonna happen.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
12:43 PM on 06/24/2009
First: NO MORE NUKES.
I respectfully disagree with the nuclear program; conservation and improvements in efficiency yield enormous and immediate benefits, but America is a greedy power hungry giant, consuming 25% of the worlds' energy, with only 2% of the population, so mere population reduction in other parts of the world will hardly change that equation.
Amory Lovins, founder of the Rocky Mountain Institute has a lot to say on this, and I highly suggest reading some of his thoughts. He makes the case that efficiency yields better results faster, than any alternative energy source.
A recent WSJ article confirms this:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203771904574179270925771280.html
A study by New York-based management consulting firm McKinsey & Co. earlier this year compared the cost of eliminating one ton of CO2 emissions using different means: Wind power cost about $38 per ton of CO2 saved; solar cost about $30. But replacing incandescent lights in a home with light-emitting diodes saved about $159 per ton of CO2, and using energy-efficient appliances saved about $108 per ton.

Some say it makes more sense to retrofit buildings for energy efficiency before adding renewable technologies like solar and geothermal power, because buildings account for about half of the CO2 emissions in the U.S. Efficiency improvements, these sources add, are often an easy, cheap fix in the struggle to reduce CO2 emissions.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Overtone
See bio on the Aesop Institute website
10:54 AM on 06/24/2009
FORGET NUCLEAR POWER!

Future cars will need no fuel and can become power plants when parked.

First is the MagGen™. These magnetic generators will initially make it possible to cut the cord on a plug-in hybrid. It will no longer need to plug-in. At a later date, they can replace the batteries in an electric car. Then, the MagGen can run when the car is parked and sell power to the utility. Prototype MagGen units are under development.

Second is a Self Powered Internal Combustion Engine - SPICE™ which can power a hybrid. It will need no fuel and is another path to ending the need to plug-in. The engine can run when parked. Both systems can wirelessly transmit and sell power to the local utility.

The SPICE is powered by hydrinos. One barrel of water can equal several hundred barrels of oil.
It may prove possible to modify the manufacture of existing engines so that they may become a SPICE.

Scientists and engineers will doubt these technologies are possible until they have been validated by Independent Laboratories. That is an important step on the agenda.

Until now, car ownership has been an expense. Payments to car owners driving a hybrid with a SPICE, or powered by MagGen, are likely to be substantial.

The cost of many vehicles might be paid for by utilities, as they purchase power whenever needed. Parked cars each become decentralized power plants - a cost-effective path to ending the need for nuclear plants.
09:04 AM on 06/24/2009
Nuclear energy regarded as so called clean energy. Wow, the inmates are truly running the insane asylum. This willful igorance re:the dangers of boiling water via nucelar energy (anachronistic steam power) beggars belief.
If nuclear energy is so safe then the Obama adm should immediately rescind all welfare payments (subsidies) to the nuclear industry that pays their insurance coverage. Private insurance companies refuse to cover nuclear power plants because the risk is so great.
The $40-$50 billion dollars (per yr?) savings could be applied towards a viable single payer health care program.
But that would require decency and common sense so it's unlikely to happen.
08:59 AM on 06/24/2009
FACTOID : Uranium is in short supply. If nuclear plant expansion around the world increases, we may have only a 10 year supply - worse than oil. Going to breeder reactors is extremely dangerous in regard to nuclear weapon proliferation. In energy we are going in the wrong direction. WE ought to move to creating artificial oil grown by bacteria in underground reservoirs - which could be done if we could work together in a sensible manner with the Saudis, or even the Israelis.

Also, the physics community has only played around with fusion - no real possibility of anything like this coming online.
10:31 AM on 06/24/2009
Hey, come on now............
Commercial Fusion Power is only 30 years away, and it always will be.
photo
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
lazercat2008
10:54 AM on 06/24/2009
I can't wait to have one of those Mr Fusions on my Hummer.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
army193
01:32 AM on 06/24/2009
We spent Billion in Washington State for Clean up and they should be half way done when my grandchildren reach 50 and there 3 and 5 now. Build Nuclear Baby Build.
photo
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
Marcospinelli
an old liberal Democrat, a 'New Deal'-Democrat
01:43 AM on 06/24/2009
I'll bet you didn't know about this:

The recent (2005) heat-related disaster in France, the most heavily nuclear dependent nation on earth, illustrates a serious flaw in expecting nuclear reactors to either “help” reverse Global Warming, or even more immediately, be available when most needed during heat-related emergencies (when demand for electricity is greatest). During the French heat wave, 5,000 died from heat-related causes. The problem was so severe, and France so desperate for electricity to continue its economy and any modicum of cooling that the government allowed reactors to operate past known temperature safety limits, and discharge water into rivers in excess of allowable temperatures. In other words they risked nuclear accident and the thermal death of their rivers to keep electricity on. The reason for the problem was not only the recent record setting temperatures, but also the fact that the accompanying drought had drastically reduced river water volumes and flow-rates. The hot discharge water was not able to dilute either heat or “allowable levels” of radionuclides, as per operating regulations.
photo
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
Marcospinelli
an old liberal Democrat, a 'New Deal'-Democrat
01:44 AM on 06/24/2009
NEIS documented a similar situation in Illinois during the summer of 1988, when over 90 reactor-days of power output at several Illinois reactors were either limited to no more than 30% capacity or entirely eliminated because Illinois’ reactors would have similarly thermally polluted our rivers. Then-ComEd later had to install expensive cooling baffle systems at Dresden and elsewhere to meet EPA limits for thermal discharges. The choice in 1988 was either: cut power output, or kill the rivers with excess heat and higher radionuclide concentrations (a function of water volumes).

In a real Global Warming world, river volumes and flow rates may even be less than what they are today, or than what we have experienced in France this year and in Illinois in 1988. To depend on nuclear power reactors which need copious amounts of water for BOTH intake and discharge will either kill the rivers and threaten public health and safety; or will add prohibitive costs to reactors. Better solutions exist to meet legitimate energy needs.

http://neis.org/literature/Reports&Testimonies/vulnerabilities.htm
photo
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
Marcospinelli
an old liberal Democrat, a 'New Deal'-Democrat
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
ewoman
01:27 AM on 06/24/2009
"Nuclear power is among the lowest carbon-emitting sources of energy, which helps to explain Exelon's enthusiastic embrace of a carbon cap."

Wow - you've been snowed! When people quit divorcing uranium mining from nuclear power, perhaps you can say that sentence and be correct. Uranium mining is to nuclear power as coal mining is to power generated by coal. And, it takes a vast amount of energy to mine and mill uranium.

That line was taken straight from the big nuclear power play book. Shame on you.
12:53 AM on 06/24/2009
The carbon allowances is the stupidest bureaucratic creation. It should be a simple policy decision to switch to nuclear without an backhanded complicated expensive way creating the whole chain of "carbon credit parasites".
12:44 AM on 06/24/2009
I think that the nature of Nuclear Power, the infrastructure involved, and the complexity of a nuclear power plant, mean that only big business can handle it. And with that come the lobbyists, the lies. That's why company's like GE and Westinghouse make reactors.

I'd be interested to know how Japan deals with it's nuclear waste. Anybody out there know?
photo
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
Marcospinelli
an old liberal Democrat, a 'New Deal'-Democrat
02:54 AM on 06/24/2009
Like everybody else: Badly. "In development". They have a reprocessing plant that's been closed down because of fire and explosion, have had nuclear power plant accidents (the Japanese people aren't very happy about nuclear), and I understand that France and Great Britain reprocess or recover plutonium from Japan's nuclear waste. Japan is building another reprocessing plant, planning "deep geological burial", but that could mean they'll continue to dump it in the ocean (everybody's doing it) or hopes on some crevice or Yucca. Treaties like NAFTA allow for other nations to dump in the US, and given how we're being driven into bankruptcy, it won't be long before we're a third world nation and the 'Bikini Island' for our creditors.

http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/japan/nuke/

http://www.greenaction-japan.org/modules/english0/index.php?id=8

http://www.ocrwm.doe.gov/factsheets/doeymp0413.shtml

Reprocessed nuclear waste shipment to pass by Philippine waters next month:
http://japan.indymedia.org/newswire/display/5396/index.php
photo
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
Marcospinelli
an old liberal Democrat, a 'New Deal'-Democrat
12:37 AM on 06/24/2009
New Nuclear Reactors Will Produce More Radiation Along With More Electricity

A new generation of nuclear reactors designed to generate more electricity more safely than previous technology may actually produce radioactive waste that is more toxic and would be released more quickly in case of a nuclear accident.

http://environment.about.com/b/2009/03/09/new-nuclear-reactors-will-produce-more-radiation-along-with-more-electricity.htm

Obama's on the wrong side of nuclear.
01:07 AM on 06/29/2009
I appreciate and enjoyed your contributions on here...but what is it exactly that makes you feel that Obama is in bed with nuclear? I'd agree if you said coal, but I don't see nuclear returning on his watch. They're talking about building one in Cincinnati, OH but with a price tag of $10B it's not likely to happen...and I've not heard on word from Obama about seriously entertaining nuclear.

"I love nuclear energy. I just want to keep in 93 million miles away, in the sun, right where it belongs" ~Bill McDonough

Fusion, not Fission!