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
I am now in my last days of serving the people of the State of Nevada as a U.S. Senator. It is a role in which I am proud and privileged to have had an opportunity to serve. I am also very proud of the opportunity I have had to serve as a…
Whether you live in Maine or California or Washington State or Florida or, as I do, the great State of Nevada--and which I am privileged to represent--people are talking about the price of prescription drugs. The reason for that is that…
the quality of education in this country is of enormous concern to the American people, and is a defining issue in Congress this year. I believe that few priorities are more important than the future of our Nation's youth. When Americans…
I rise in support of the Gorton-Feinstein-Bryan amendment that would permit the Department of Transportation to consider whether fuel efficiency for SUVs and light trucks should be improved. The vote on this amendment will be one of the…





