Continuous checks necessary on TEPCO power rates
Higher electricity charges will be a heavy burden on users. The government looked into rate hikes sought by Tokyo Electric Power Co. and reduced their proposed size. We find this quite appropriate.
Electricity rate hikes for households have been reined in to an average 8.47 percent from the 10.28 percent TEPCO initially proposed.
The reduction came as councils of experts at the Economy, Trade and Industry Ministry and the Consumer Affairs Agency demanded TEPCO further cut personnel and other costs that were included in its power rate calculations.
The rate hikes will apply from Sept. 1, two months later than initially planned. Scaled-back rate increases will also apply to companies and other large-lot users, which faced rate increases from April.
In the wake of the crisis at its Fukushima No. 1 nuclear power plant, TEPCO is unable to restart its other nuclear reactors, which were shut down for regular inspections that they have now completed. This resulted in ballooning fuel costs for thermal power generation. Even with a 300 billion yen cut in costs, the company's balance sheet is expected to see a 700 billion yen loss.
===
Rate hikes inevitable
The coming power rate hikes are a precondition for the government to inject 1 trillion yen in public funds and virtually put TEPCO under state control. To maintain a stable power supply system, we consider it inevitable to have rate hikes to a certain degree.
What is important is that the government and TEPCO continue to check whether rate calculations are based on proper costs--and disclose what they find.
During the government screening of TEPCO's rate hike plans, the reduction in managerial salaries at TEPCO was increased from the initial 25 percent to 30 percent or more. We consider this adequate as it is about the same as rates that were applied to other businesses put under state control in the past, including a major bank.
However, if the government forces TEPCO to accept more severe restructuring measures than necessary due to negative public sentiment against the company, it would lower the morale of TEPCO employees and lead them to leave the company. This could shake the power supply system and adversely affect consumers' interests. Such a scenario must be avoided.
===
Restart safe reactors
It is estimated that TEPCO's balance would improve about 80 billion yen each time one of the reactors at the Kashiwazaki-Kariwa nuclear power plant in Niigata Prefecture is restarted. Reactors whose safety has been confirmed should be restarted one after another.
Regarding the screening of rate hike calculations, the Consumer Affairs Agency sought to exclude expenses for stabilizing the Fukushima plant and compensation payments to victims of the nuclear crisis from consideration.
But this might have exacerbated TEPCO's financial troubles and had a serious negative impact on damage relief efforts and power supplies. Allowing the inclusion of those costs in rate calculations was a reasonable judgment made during talks among concerned Cabinet ministers.
Ultimately, the only choices will be to let beneficiaries of power supplies shoulder the costs incurred due to the nuclear crisis through power rate hikes or to use taxpayer money to make up for the costs. What balance should be struck in imposing the burdens? The government needs to have fresh discussions on this point.
The extent to which costs for reactor decommissioning and radiation decontamination will ultimately rise remains unknown. But it would be impossible to make up all of those costs through electricity charges. The government must consider establishing a new system of public assistance for decommissioning and other tasks.
(From The Yomiuri Shimbun, July 20, 2012)
(Jul. 21, 2012)
Nuclear safety confirmation must be prompt, careful
There should never be any negligence in efforts to ensure safety measures at nuclear power stations.
The Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency--the nuclear safety watchdog of the Economy, Trade and Industry Ministry--has instructed Hokuriku Electric Power Co. to reexamine whether there is an active fault beneath or near the utility's Shika nuclear power plant in Ishikawa Prefecture.
This is because new safety inspections by NISA of the Shika plant, construction permission for which was issued in 1988, have revealed geological data indicating the possibility of an active fault just below the plant's No. 1 reactor.
In a meeting held Tuesday to hear opinions from experts, numerous people said the geographical structure in question should be considered a "typical active fault."
Thorough studies must be made of the matter.
Nuclear safety regulatory authorities should evaluate the results of Hokuriku Electric's reexaminations promptly and carefully, placing top priority on ensuring safety.
===
Basics of safety overlooked
According to the latest data obtained by NISA, there is a vertical fissure in the layer of earth just beneath the No. 1 reactor and both edges have undoubtedly been forced up and down.
Hokuriku Electric argues the fissure should not be considered an active fault but a "scar in the geological layer," but few experts support the utility's argument.
An active fault is one that may move again in the future. Should an active fault move right below a reactor, its core could tilt or turn over. If such an incident occurred while the reactor was operating, a grave situation could develop.
In the past, many large dams and bridges have been destroyed or collapsed because of the movement of active faults below them.
In screening applications for permission to build nuclear power plants, the government has prohibited building important facilities like reactors just above active faults.
If an active fault is confirmed in the reexaminations, the No. 1 reactor of the Shika plant would have to be decommissioned. If the reactor is deemed unable to meet the key requirement of safety, it would be only natural to shut it down.
A major factor behind the crisis at Tokyo Electric Power Co.'s Fukushima No. 1 nuclear power plant was the fact that the possibility of the plant being struck by a gigantic tsunami was underestimated. This kind of failure must never be repeated.
For all that, we are aghast that problems involving the very basis of nuclear plant safety are being pointed out at this late date.
In addition to deficiencies in the utility's safety assessment, the reliability of the government's screening of nuclear safety must be questioned.
===
Inspections of all plants needed
NISA has also instructed Kansai Electric Power Co. to make new safety examinations of its Oi nuclear plant in Fukui Prefecture, as some have asserted there may be an active fault below the plant. However, a majority of experts disagree and NISA says its instruction to KEPCO was to "make doubly sure."
Regarding whether other nuclear plants are free from active fault problems, NISA must swiftly make thorough inspections across the country about the adequacy of the screening that was done when the government approved their construction.
Nuclear power generation is indispensable for ensuring stable supplies of electricity.
However, except for the Oi nuclear complex, which has managed to resume operations, all the other plants remain idled after regular checkups in the wake of the crisis at the Fukushima No. 1 plant accident.
Taking every possible measure to ensure the safety of nuclear plants is key to the resumption of their operations.
Regarding the problems relating to active faults, NISA must quickly make public the findings of the examinations and explain them in an understandable way, since doing so is critical to securing the understanding of residents of areas with nuclear plants.
(From The Yomiuri Shimbun, July 20, 2012)
(Jul. 21, 2012)
0 comments:
Post a Comment