[WPRT 107-3]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]



107th Congress                                                    WMCP:
 1st Session                COMMITTEE PRINT                       107-3
_______________________________________________________________________

                                     


                      COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS

                     U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                               __________

                            WRITTEN COMMENTS

                                   on
 
    TEMPORARILY SUSPENDING THE DUTY ON CERTAIN STEAM OR OTHER VAPOR 
             GENERATING BOILERS USED IN NUCLEAR FACILITIES

                                     

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TONGRESS.#13


                              MAY 14, 2001


         Printed for the use of the Committee on Ways and Means

            For sale by the U.S. Government Printing Office
Superintendent of Documents, Congressional Sales Office, Washington, DC 
                                 20402




                      COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS

                   BILL THOMAS, California, Chairman

PHILIP M. CRANE, Illinois            CHARLES B. RANGEL, New York
E. CLAY SHAW, Jr., Florida           FORTNEY PETE STARK, California
NANCY L. JOHNSON, Connecticut        ROBERT T. MATSUI, California
AMO HOUGHTON, New York               WILLIAM J. COYNE, Pennsylvania
WALLY HERGER, California             SANDER M. LEVIN, Michigan
JIM McCRERY, Louisiana               BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland
DAVE CAMP, Michigan                  JIM McDERMOTT, Washington
JIM RAMSTAD, Minnesota               GERALD D. KLECZKA, Wisconsin
JIM NUSSLE, Iowa                     JOHN LEWIS, Georgia
SAM JOHNSON, Texas                   RICHARD E. NEAL, Massachusetts
JENNIFER DUNN, Washington            MICHAEL R. McNULTY, New York
MAC COLLINS, Georgia                 WILLIAM J. JEFFERSON, Louisiana
ROB PORTMAN, Ohio                    JOHN S. TANNER, Tennessee
PHILIP S. ENGLISH, Pennsylvania      XAVIER BECERRA, California
WES WATKINS, Oklahoma                KAREN L. THURMAN, Florida
J.D. HAYWORTH, Arizona               LLOYD DOGGETT, Texas
JERRY WELLER, Illinois               EARL POMEROY, North Dakota
KENNY HULSHOF, Missouri
SCOTT McINNIS, Colorado
RON LEWIS, Kentucky
MARK FOLEY, Florida
KEVIN BRADY, Texas
PAUL RYAN, Wisconsin
                     Allison Giles, Chief of Staff
                  Janice Mays, Minority Chief Counsel

                                     
                                      
                                       
                                       
  
  

Pursuant to clause 2(e)(4) of Rule XI of the Rules of the House, public 
hearing records of the Committee on Ways and Means are also published 
in electronic form. The printed hearing record remains the official 
version. Because electronic submissions are used to prepare both 
printed and electronic versions of the hearing record, the process of 
converting between various electronic formats may introduce 
unintentional errors or omissions. Such occurrences are inherent in the 
current publication process and should diminish as the process is 
further refined.




                            C O N T E N T S

                              ----------                              
                                                                   Page
Advisory of May 4, 2001, announcing request for written comments 
  on temporarily suspending the duty on certain steam or other 
  vapor generating boilers used in nuclear facilities............     1

                                 ______

McDermott International Incorporated, Bruce N. Hatton, letter and 
  attachments....................................................     2
Nuclear Energy Institute, Marvin S. Fertel, letter...............     4
Pinnacle West Capital Corporation, Robert S. Aiken, letter and 
  attachments....................................................     7
      

ADVISORY

FROM THE COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS

                                                CONTACT: (202) 225-1721
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

May 4, 2001

No. FC-7

                      Thomas Announces Request for

                    Written Comments on Temporarily

                Suspending the Duty on Certain Steam or

                 Other Vapor Generating Boilers Used in

                           Nuclear Facilities

    Congressman Bill Thomas (R-CA), Chairman, Committee on Ways and 
Means, today announced that the Committee is requesting written public 
comments for the record from all parties with an interest in the 
possible amendment of the HTSUS by altering subheading 9902.84.02 
(permanent listing at 8402.11.00), Watertube boilers with a steam 
production exceeding 45 t per hour, for use in nuclear facilities, to 
become temporarily duty-free. The Committee is not asking for public 
comment on other duty suspensions at this time.
      

BACKGROUND:

      
    Energy costs have risen to alarming levels resulting in hardship 
and blackouts in parts of the country. Perhaps hardest hit have been 
people and businesses in California, who are looking for ways to 
increase immediately the capacity to generate electricity. Suspending 
the duty on boilers used in nuclear power plants will directly help the 
operators of nuclear power plants and increase their efficiency and 
generating capacity. In particular, nuclear plants that provide 
electricity to California are intended to benefit from the proposal, as 
well as other states purchasing boilers. The provision could be 
included at a later date in ``The Electricity Emergency Act of 2001,'' 
introduced by Rep. Joe Barton (R-TX), for the purpose of providing 
relief to electricity users this year. The current rate of 4.9 percent 
was enacted in last year's Public Law 106-476, ``Tariff Suspension and 
Trade Act of 2000.'' Last year's duty reduction of 4.9 percent is due 
to expire on December 31, 2003, at which time the rate will return to 
5.2 percent. The language follows:
      
        (a) IN GENERAL.--Heading 9902.84.02 of the Harmonized Tariff 
        Schedule of the United States is amended----
      
                (1) by striking ``4.9%'' and inserting ``Free''; and
                (2) by striking ``12/31/2003'' and inserting ``12/31/
                2006''.
      

DETAILS FOR SUBMISSION OF WRITTEN COMMENTS:

      
    Any person or organization wishing to submit a written statement 
for the printed record should submit six (6) single-spaced copies of 
their statement, along with an IBM compatible 3.5-inch diskette in 
WordPerfect or MS Word format, with their name, address, and comments 
date noted on label, by the close of business, Monday, May 14, 2001, to 
Allison Giles, Chief of Staff, Committee on Ways and Means, U.S. House 
of Representatives, 1102 Longworth House Office Building, Washington, 
D.C. 20515.
      

FORMATTING REQUIREMENTS:

      
    Each statement presented for printing to the Committee by a 
witness, any written statement or exhibit submitted for the printed 
record or any written comments in response to a request for written 
comments must conform to the guidelines listed below. Any statement or 
exhibit not in compliance with these guidelines will not be printed, 
but will be maintained in the Committee files for review and use by the 
Committee.
      
    1. All statements and any accompanying exhibits for printing must 
be submitted on an IBM compatible 3.5-inch diskette in WordPerfect or 
MS Word format, typed in single space and may not exceed a total of 10 
pages including attachments. Witnesses are advised that the Committee 
will rely on electronic submissions for printing the official hearing 
record.
      
    2. Copies of whole documents submitted as exhibit material will not 
be accepted for printing. Instead, exhibit material should be 
referenced and quoted or paraphrased. All exhibit material not meeting 
these specifications will be maintained in the Committee files for 
review and use by the Committee.
      
    3. A witness appearing at a public hearing, or submitting a 
statement for the record of a public hearing, or submitting written 
comments in response to a published request for comments by the 
Committee, must include on his statement or submission a list of all 
clients, persons, or organizations on whose behalf the witness appears.
      
    4. A supplemental sheet must accompany each statement listing the 
name, company, address, telephone and fax numbers where the witness or 
the designated representative may be reached. This supplemental sheet 
will not be included in the printed record.
      
    The above restrictions and limitations apply only to material being 
submitted for printing. Statements and exhibits or supplementary 
material submitted solely for distribution to the Members, the press, 
and the public during the course of a public hearing may be submitted 
in other forms.
      
    Note: All Committee advisories and news releases are available on 
the World Wide Web at `http://www.house.gov/ways__means/'.

                                


      

                   McDermott International Incorporated    
                                  Arlington, Virginia 22209
                                                       May 14, 2001

Allison Giles
Chief of Staff
Committee on Ways and Means
U.S. House of Representatives
1102 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515

Re: Request for comments on temporary suspension of duty on nuclear 
    facility boilers

Subheading 9902.84.02/Permanent subheading 8402.11.00

    Dear Ms. Giles:

    McDermott International is strongly opposed to the proposed 
temporary suspension of tariffs on certain steam or other vapor 
generating boilers used in nuclear facilities as referenced in the 
above subheadings. Such action would appear to be contrary to the 
guidelines for tariff reductions which are established within the 
committee.
    McDermott is a leading energy services and manufacturing company 
providing engineering, procurement, and manufacturing of equipment and 
project management for customers involved in the production of energy 
and in other industries. Babcock & Wilcox is a subsidiary of McDermott 
that manufactures power generation systems, including steam or other 
vapor generating boilers used in nuclear facilities. McDermott's North 
American facilities, inclusive of those of Babcock & Wilcox are located 
in Alliance, Ohio; Barberton, Ohio; Cambridge, Ontario, Canada; 
Ebensburg, Pennsylvania; Harbour Island, Texas; Lancaster, Ohio; 
Melville, Saskatchewan, Canada; Morgan City, Louisiana; Mt. Vernon, 
Indiana; West Palm Beach, Florida; and West Point, Mississippi.
    Suspension of the 4.9% duty to 2003 and the 5.2% duty from January 
1, 2004 through the end of 2006 on certain steam or other vapor 
generating boilers used in nuclear facilities would result in 
substantial loss of revenue to the U.S. Treasury. Enclosure 1 is an 
excerpt from the U.S. International Trade Commission report last year 
to the House Ways and Means Committee. The potential amount of customs 
duty loss stated in this report for the period 2000-2005 exceeds $30 
million. This is far in excess of the revenue neutral criteria utilized 
by the Committee in judging the merits of a tariff suspension.
    To further support the ITC Report, in calendar year 2000, dutiable 
imports into the U.S. were $96,208,070. At the applied rate of 5.2%, 
revenue to the U.S. Treasury was $5,002,819. This would have been lost 
had the duty suspension been in effect. Again, this amount cannot be 
considered revenue neutral. Through February 2001, there has been a 
further dutiable import from Italy amounting to $23,415,000. At the 
applied duty rate of 4.9% in effect in 2001 this translates to a duty 
of $1,147,000. This also would be lost if the duty suspension being 
considered in the Ways and Means Committee was enacted into law, and 
the duty loss in 2001 for this import alone exceeds the revenue neutral 
criteria.
    Enclosure 2 details dutiable and potentially dutiable imports into 
the U.S. of vapor generating boilers used in nuclear facilities that 
are expected to be imported into the U.S. during the 2001-2005 
timeframe. Per the enclosure, a number of these projects have already 
been awarded to overseas manufacturers. Excluding the Italian import 
earlier this year, there are already-contracted imports on nuclear 
boiler contracts for six units that are expected to enter the U.S. 
between 2001 and 2005. They aggregate $256 million in imports with a 
duty totaling $12.7 million. In addition, and also noted on Enclosure 
2, are as-yet-unawarded but potentially dutiable imports of $400 
million which are expected to enter into the U.S. by 2005. Total duty 
on these is expected to be an additional $20.7 million. This revenue to 
the U.S. Treasury of $33.4 million would be lost if the duty suspension 
being considered by the House Ways and Means Committee is enacted.
    Nuclear boiler contracts are often awarded on a supply, remove and 
install basis. The company awards the overall contract and then 
contracts with a nuclear boiler manufacturer for the supply of the 
equipment. The contract price for the overall contract, including 
removal and installation, is often public knowledge. However, the price 
just for the equipment is often not made public. But, there are only a 
few major models of nuclear boilers in the U.S. and by knowing the 
pricing of nuclear boilers at another plant with the same basic model 
of boilers, one can closely approximate the pricing of nuclear boilers 
at a plant where the pricing of the boilers is not publicly known. We 
have used our extensive knowledge of nuclear boiler models at specific 
plants to complete the pricing shown on Enclosure 2.
    A second criteria of the House Ways and Means Committee in 
reviewing possible tariff suspensions deals with U.S. production. 
Babcock & Wilcox maintains the capability to manufacture steam or other 
vapor generating boilers for use in nuclear facilities at our plants in 
Cambridge, Ontario, Canada; Mt. Vernon, Indiana and Barberton, Ohio. We 
have performed significant nuclear boiler manufacturing work in our 
U.S. facilities (component fabrication, component installation, heavy 
assembly, final inspection and testing). There are a number of upcoming 
nuclear plants requiring replacement nuclear boilers, for which the 
U.S. facilities are the only ones capable of performing the work. This 
is principally a size issue. We conduct virtually all of our research 
and development in the United States. Our North American manufacturing 
requires significant procurement of U.S. sourced materials and 
services--14 suppliers in 12 states. We also undertake extensive 
manufacturing of boilers for non-nuclear use in the United States. Our 
ability to manufacture boilers for nuclear use in the United States 
will depend on how future orders develop and the duty of HTSUS 
Subheading 8402.11 remaining at current levels only through 2003.
    A temporary duty suspension would have an adverse economic impact 
on U.S. suppliers to Babcock & Wilcox. Over the past 3 years, Babcock & 
Wilcox's operations in Cambridge, Ontario have issued purchase orders 
to U.S. suppliers exceeding $8 million. These purchase orders were 
strictly issued against Babcock & Wilcox's nuclear boiler contracts. 
These vital suppliers are located in California, Connecticut, Maine, 
Michigan, Missouri, Nevada, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Texas, 
Virginia and West Virginia. As the duty suspension being considered by 
the Ways and Means Committee would make Babcock & Wilcox less 
competitive, then this could have a direct adverse impact on our U.S. 
suppliers.
    While the House Ways and Means Committee considers the suspension 
of the U.S. duty under HTSUS Subheading 8402.11, U.S. competitors, such 
as the European Union and Korea (a significant supplier), both maintain 
duties on this product--2.7 percent and 8.0 percent, respectively. The 
continued existence of duties in the EU and Korea coupled with the 
concomitant suspension of duties on U.S. imports would undermine the 
intent of NAFTA and encourage the migration of production from North 
America to overseas.
    As a final point, suspension of the duty on these boilers would 
have absolutely no impact on the energy crisis in California or any 
other state. It is the reliable supply of electricity that is crucial. 
A tariff suspension, if it would have any impact at all, would be so 
extremely minimal as to be invisible to the ratepayer.
    In conclusion, the suspension of the duty on certain boilers 
classified under HTSUS Subheading 8402.11 would adversely impact 
McDermott International and its subsidiary Babcock & Wilcox and would 
affect its production of such boilers in the United States. For the 
reasons stated above, McDermott International and Babcock & Wilcox 
oppose the suspension of the duty and request that these comments be 
given formal consideration.

            Sincerely,
                                            Bruce N. Hatton
                                 Vice President and General Manager

                          Enclosure 2--Expected Imports of Nuclear Boilers (2001-2005)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              Expected Import                            Approx Import
                Nuclear Plant                       Date                Origin               Value         Duty
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kewaunee, Wis.                                       Feb 2001                  Italy              $30m    $1.5m
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
South Texas 2, Tex                                       2002                  Spain              $80m    $3.9m
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sequoyah 1, Tenn                                         2002                  Korea              $40m    $2.0m
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Palo Verde 2, Ariz                                       2002                  Italy              $80m    $3.9m
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Prairie Island 1, Minn                                   2004                 France              $25m    $1.3m
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Potential Contracts for Delivery by End of 2005
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Crystal River 3, Fla                                  By 2005   Potentially dutiable              $70m    $3.6m
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ANO 1, Ark                                            By 2005   Potentially dutiable              $70m    $3.6m
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Callaway, Mo                                          By 2005   Potentially dutiable              $65m    $3.4m
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Salem 2, N.J.                                         By 2005   Potentially dutiable              $55m    $2.9m
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Waterford 3, La                                       By 2005   Potentially dutiable              $70m    $3.6m
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TMI 1, PA                                             By 2005   Potentially dutiable              $70m    $3.6m
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Beaver Valley 1, PA                                   By 2005                  Spain              $31m    $1.6m
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


    [An additional attachment is being retained in the Committee 
files.]

                                


                                   Nuclear Energy Institute
                                          Washington, DC 20006-3708

Hon. Bill Thomas
Chairman
House Committee on Ways and Means
Washington, DC 20515

    We are writing in response to the Committee's May 4 request for 
written public comments for the record from all parties with an 
interest in the possible amendment of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of 
the United States by altering subheading 9902.84.02 (permanent listing 
at 8402.11.00), Watertube boilers with a steam production exceeding 45 
tons per hour, for use in nuclear facilities, to become temporarily 
duty-free.
    The Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) submits the following statement 
for consideration by the Committee and for inclusion in the printed 
record. The statement briefly comments on the Miscellaneous Tariff and 
Duty Suspension Act (P.L. 106-467). The statement also addresses a more 
fundamental issue: the steam generator tariff is a detriment for the 
U.S. electricity supply system at a time when electricity shortages are 
limiting economic growth and impairing consumers' quality of life.
    NEI coordinates public policy for the nuclear energy and 
technologies industry, and participates in both the national and global 
policy-making process. NEI's objective is to ensure the formation of 
policies that promote the beneficial uses of nuclear energy and 
technologies in the United States and around the world.
    NEI members that operate pressurized water reactors (PWR) to 
produce electricity must import steam generators because there has been 
no U.S. manufacturer since 1999. Of the 103 nuclear power reactors that 
generate 20 percent of U.S. electricity, 69 are pressurized water 
reactors. These companies seek the elimination of the steam generator 
tariff to produce electricity more economically and more reliably.
    NEI encourages the Committee to suspend the tariff on steam 
generators because there is no U.S. supplier, thus it does not injure 
U.S. industry, and because it is in the best interest of U.S. 
consumers.
    Several regions of our nation have encountered significant power 
shortages, which have led to brownouts or rolling blackouts in recent 
weeks. Projections are for these trends to continue throughout the 
summer. There is no short-term solution to increase electricity 
production, however it would be illogical to preserve a tariff on an 
imported manufactured good that enhances reliability, reduces power 
generation costs and increases the production of electricity.
    There is no current capability to produce steam generators in the 
United States, nor does there appear to be any plans to develop a 
domestic capability in the near future. Westinghouse, the last U.S. 
manufacturer of steam generators, ceased production at its Pensacola, 
Fla., facility in 1999. With no domestic alternative to importing steam 
generators, U.S. electric companies are subject to a tariff that is 
unnecessary.
    Our country's electricity shortages will become even worse if U.S. 
electric companies face delays in the acquisition of new steam 
generators. Additionally, electricity prices will unnecessarily rise if 
the industry doesn't have access to an open competitive market for 
steam generators.
    Steam generator replacement is a normal part of maintaining a well-
run nuclear power plant. Thirteen nuclear power reactors are planning 
to replace 34 steam generators during the next five years. Steam 
generator replacements are scheduled for nuclear power plants in 
Arizona, Georgia, Maryland, Minnesota, Missouri, North Carolina, South 
Carolina, Tennessee, Texas and Wisconsin. As demand for power 
increases, it is imperative that the steam generator replacement 
process be made more efficient, cost-effective and free of impediments.
    With no domestic capability to produce steam generators, U.S. 
electric companies are forced to import them. Steam generator prices 
from abroad range from between $10 million and $25 million for each one 
of these important components. At that cost, the 4.9 percent tariff for 
each steam generator is $500,000 to $1.25 million--and some companies 
must replace up to four steam generators. Therefore, replacement could 
cost as much as $100 million, and the tariff would be an additional $2 
million to $5 million.
    Last year, Congress adjusted the tariff on steam generators from 
5.2 percent to 4.9 percent in the Miscellaneous Tariff and Duty 
Suspension Act (P.L. 106-476). This change did little to ease the 
burden U.S. nuclear reactor owners must bear for importing these 
components.
    Congress was unable to remove the tariff because of restrictions 
that prohibit such action if the industry-wide tariff exceeds $500,000 
and if there is opposition to the removal of the tariff. However, 
because there is no U.S. capability to manufacture steam generators for 
nuclear power plants, it is unreasonable to burden our domestic nuclear 
energy industry and electricity consumers with any tariff on these 
components. Because no domestic steam generator manufacturer has 
existed since 1999, it is also reasonable for this Committee to apply 
the elimination of this tariff to steam generators delivered on or 
after January 1, 2000.
    BWX-Canada, a subsidiary of New Orleans-based McDermott 
International, is the only North American producer of steam generators. 
Although this facility is an important supply source for U.S. industry, 
BWX-Canada has not met all of U.S. demand, so U.S. electric companies 
must import steam generators. Furthermore, BWX-Canada does not have 
agreements with previous U.S. steam generator manufacturers to produce 
all types of steam generators used in our nation's nuclear power 
plants.
    McDermott International has stated that removal of the tariff would 
be contrary to provisions of the North American Free Trade Agreement 
(NAFTA). Congress and the committees of jurisdiction (Finance and Ways 
and Means) on this issue last year rejected concern about NAFTA by 
approving a tariff reduction, albeit limited because of congressional 
budget concerns regarding the Miscellaneous Tariff and Duty Suspension 
Act as a whole. In fact, NAFTA was never intended to be a trade 
protection agreement, and certainly was not intended to harm U.S. 
industry and electricity customers. Congressional budget concerns have 
been alleviated so Congress should eliminate the tariff.
    National energy policy initiatives are encouraging improved 
efficiency and production of domestic electricity sources. Steam 
generator replacement dramatically improves efficiency, increasing 
production by as much as 50 megawatts at large reactors. Eliminating 
the tariff on steam generators should be among the policy initiatives 
this Committee undertakes to promote affordable, reliable consumer 
electricity, U.S. energy security and diversity of energy supply.
    In these times of uncertainty in some sectors of the energy market, 
we need to do all we can to remove any impediments toward securing 
much-needed electricity. It is incumbent on us to remove unnecessary 
obstructions to increased electricity production. The just solution to 
such an outcome is legislation eliminating the steam generator tariff.

            Sincerely,
                                           Marvin S. Fertel
                     NEI Senior Vice President, Business Operations

                                


                      Pinnacle West Capital Corporation    
                                       Washington, DC 20006
                                                        May 4, 2001

To: David Kavanaugh
    Office of Congressman Bill Thomas
From: Robert S. Aiken
Subject: Babcock & Wilcox Steam Generator Backlog

    The attached letter from Carl Churchman, Director, Palo Verde Steam 
Generator Replacement Project, dated April 27, 2001 provides specific 
details to support the contention that the B&W Canada SG manufacturing 
facility was backlogged and unable to meet the replacement schedule for 
Palo Verde. And, therefore, it has been necessary for Palo Verde and 
other nuclear plants to order SGs from manufacturing facilities in 
other countries.
    To summarize the key facts I offer the following as outlined in the 
letter:

    1. LPalo Verde management selected Ansaldo in Milan, Italy because 
of two important factors--price and schedule.
    2. LIn 1996, Palo Verde management after reviewing B&W Canada's 
shop capability believed there to be a significant risk for a delay due 
to the possible backlog in the manufacturing facility.
    3. LThis proved to be correct when B&W Canada announced two years 
later in 1998 that ``This contract . . . maintains a backlog of work 
through the year 2002,'' after a new steam generator order was signed. 
(See attached)
    4. LThis backlog, as self-described by the B&W press release, is 
buttressed by the announcement of the six replacement steam generators 
for Duke Oconee Nuclear Station in 1999. (See attached)
    5. LThe backlog is further supported by the phone call placed by 
Jim Smith (General Manager of the steam generator fabrication shop at 
B&W Canada) to Carl Churchman in June of 2000 when unbelievably he 
attempted to drum up new business for the Canadian firm by offering to 
contract with Palo Verde to manufacture the four replacement SGs for 
units one and three for delivery in the 2006-2008 range. Remarkably, he 
told Carl Churchman that the SGs would have to be fabricated in Korea 
through a joint venture because the Canadian shop was at capacity and 
B&W had ``no plans to pour millions of dollars into their Mt. Vernon 
shop in Ohio.''
    6. LThe attached documentation further demonstrates that the 
Canadian plant is backlogged because B&W Canada is touting the fact 
that they are ``exporting a billion dollars in business over the next 
10 years and has 50% of the world market.''
    7. LNuclear plants (such as Palo Verde), who have ordered 
replacement SGs directly from fabrication plants in those countries for 
price and schedule considerations shouldn't be penalized by having to 
pay the 4.9% duty to have them delivered into the U.S.

    I'll be pleased to answer any further questions you may have. Thank 
you for your support.

            Attachment

                      Pinnacle West Capital Corporation    
                                       Washington, DC 20006
                                                      April 6, 2001

To: David Kavanaugh
    Office of Congressman Bill Thomas
From: Robert S. Aiken

    Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station is essential to the energy 
security and day-to-day lives of citizens in the American Southwest, 
including California. When the plant began operation in 1986, Energy 
Secretary John Herrington called it the ``energy cornerstone of the 
Southwest'' and a vital asset for generations to come. That was true 
then, as it is today, with the added relevance underscored by the 
ongoing energy crisis in California.
    Palo Verde provides hope that the lights can stay on and that the 
economy can remain strong and return to the levels we continue to 
strive to achieve.
    Every year for the last six years, Palo Verde has set successive 
records for total generation. Last year, Palo Verde produced more than 
30 billion kilowatt hours of electricity. The next largest producer--
the Grand Coulee Dam in the state of Washington--has topped out at 26.8 
billion kilowatt hours (in 1997). And it is important to point out that 
Palo Verde's production is not simply the result of its impressive 
size--three identical units of nearly 1,300 megawatts (MW) apiece. It 
is a testament of Palo Verde's sustained excellence since 1994. In the 
past seven years, Palo Verde has attained three ratings of ``INPO 1.'' 
The Institute of Nuclear Power Operations (INPO) is the industry 
organization formed after the accident at Three-Mile Island to define 
and help bring about excellence in the operation of America's fleet of 
more than 100 nuclear plants. INPO's top rating--``1''--is elusive and 
much coveted.
    Palo Verde has come to the forefront. And I must point out that 
Palo Verde--located in the Arizona desert--is not for Arizona alone. 
Its owners are based additionally in Texas, New Mexico and California. 
In fact, more than a quarter of the interest in Palo Verde is owned by 
California entities--Southern California Edison, the Los Angeles 
Department of Water and Power and Southern California Public Power 
Authority. Fully 27.3 percent of the electricity Palo Verde produces, 
goes to California homes and businesses. That's nearly 8 billion 
kilowatt hours a year, or enough for more than a million citizens.
    It is clear that Palo Verde is an essential resource--especially 
today--that must be kept strong and at the current level of excellence 
and production. But that won't happen by itself. Ongoing maintenance 
and upgrades are required.
    The staff at Palo Verde has done an outstanding job in that regard, 
at least according to standards set by INPO as well as the U.S. Nuclear 
Regulatory Commission. But they need our help.
    Like every other nuclear plant of its design and vintage, Palo 
Verde needs new steam generators. They are required in Unit 2 simply to 
maintain operation through the current license, which expires in 2026. 
Units 1 and 3 will need new steam generators in the coming years as 
well, if those licenses are to be extended.
    Work is proceeding aggressively on the steam generator replacement 
at Unit 2. The project will improve plant efficiency and increase 
output by 55 MW. Without replacement of these components, the units 
would soon lose output at the very substantial rate of 4.7 percent per 
year and face a forced shutdown by 2010. As we complete the replacement 
project and avoid the negative effects and accrue the benefits, the 27% 
of the generation owned by California will be protected and increased.
    But Palo Verde faces an unfair penalty. Steam generators are 
produced in Canada, Spain, Italy and Korea. Ansaldo of Italy is now 
building the steam generators for the Unit 2 replacement project, a 
more than $40 million undertaking. No U.S. companies manufacture steam 
generators on American soil. So you can see, Palo Verde has no other 
choice.
    Nonetheless, Palo Verde faces a `penalty' of approximately $2 
million for this required, strategic and forward-looking undertaking. A 
half-million dollars of this cost would go directly to California rate 
payers. Today, a tariff of 4.9 percent is in place on the import of 
steam generators into the United States.
    The evidence clearly shows that this project is critical to the 
energy future of California and the economy of the West and beyond. We 
ought to be providing incentives for solutions to this crisis, not 
hurdles that serve only to lengthen and exacerbate the situation.
    What I propose, therefore, is a permanent repeal of the tariff 
through 2012. This will allow relief to the Palo Verde Unit 2 steam 
generator replacement project and provide the flexibility for the 
owners of Palo Verde to move forward without penalty on steam generator 
replacement for Units 1 and 3, if and when they decide over the next 
few years.
    The logic and priority is clear. I urge you to do all you can to 
enact this tariff relief.
    Thank you.

        Graph 1--Owners of Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station
------------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pinnacle West (Arizona Public Service)                          29.1%
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Salt River Project                                              17.5%
------------------------------------------------------------------------
El Paso Electric                                                15.8%
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Public Service of New Mexico                                    10.2%
------------------------------------------------------------------------
California Owners:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Southern California Edison                                      15.8%
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Southern California Public Power Authority                       5.9%
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Los Angeles Department of Water & Power                          5.7%
------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total California: 27.4%
------------------------------------------------------------------------



                                                     Graph 2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                         Plant Name                                     Year                Total Production
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Palo Verde                                                                       1999                30,438,939
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Palo Verde                                                                       2000                30,383,570
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Palo Verde                                                                       1998                30,097,419
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Palo Verde                                                                       1997                29,209,066
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Palo Verde                                                                       1996                28,590,965
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Grand Coulee Dam                                                                 1996                27,358,179
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
** Totals are in megawatt hours.


    [Additional attachments are being retained in the Committee files.]