So the argument that we have heard in the Chamber that ratepayers will pay twice is specious, because to the extent that after 1998 nuclear waste would not be taken physically from a site, it cannot be under any scenario, the ratepayers would then be protected because any additional costs that the utilities would incur would be deducted from the payments that the utilities would have to make into the nuclear waste trust fund, so there would be no double payment.
William Bryan: “So the argument that we have heard in the Chamber that ratepayers will pay twice is specious, because to the extent that…”
Editor's note · Context
Addressing concerns about ratepayer costs related to nuclear waste management.
Share
More from William Bryan
If the Senator follows that line of reasoning, would he not agree the same managers will tell you that $220 million is adequate for the timber harvest program, would the Senator agree with that?
It strikes the Senator from Nevada that the argument the Senator is making is a win-win. It is a win for the consumer, for the environment, and in terms of the trade imbalance we currently face in this country. Would the Senator not agree…
Finally, let me conclude by saying that the administration has indicated the President may veto this legislation because of the heavy tilt toward managed care plans, the lack of accountability, and the lack of provisions that would…
I wish to respond to the gracious statement by the chairman of the Energy Committee. Although we have had strong differences on this issue, the differences have been professional, not personal. He has been very professional in the way in…





