Análisis de los ítems de las variables visual merchandising y la decisión de compra

Nuclear Projects

Much as the U.S. government moved in to help finance the U.S. nuclear industry, credit subsidies to nuclear projects are increasing internationally. This is happening in two areas: foreign-govern- ment credit subsidies to nuclear exports, includ- ing to the United States; and subsidized credit instruments within the U.S. export credit agencies (Eximbank and OPIC) for sending U.S.-sourced nuclear goods and services abroad.

There has been a concerted effort to expand international financing generally for exports of reactor components throughout the world. A U.S. Department of State memo (DOS 2008) on financing nuclear power projects in developing countries noted that, “The private sector is not ready to be ‘partners’ but will look to the public sector to mitigate virtually all risks associated with the first nuclear power plants placed in developing

countries by providing sovereign guarantees of 100 percent of total NPP cost.”

Although most of the multilateral development banks (MDBs) have implicit or explicit restrictions on nuclear-related loans, the United States, France, and Japan have funded research within the World Bank to reevaluate the competitiveness of nuclear power (Horner and MacLachlan 2008). In June 2009, many large OECD member governments agreed to extend enhanced financial support to the nuclear power sector, including the allowance of an 18-year repayment period and other favorable terms (OECD 2009). While the agreement does stipulate minimum interest rates, the minimums for nuclear reactor projects are identical to those for a standard project for terms up to 15 years. In year 16, there is a small 0.05 percent premium, rising to 0.1 percent in years 17 and 18 (OECD 2009). Given the higher risk of nuclear projects, the minimum rates are expected to provide a substantial subsidy to nuclear projects. Meanwhile, the process used to implement modifications to conventional loan terms has been criticized by public-interest organizations for a lack of transpar- ency, including no public disclosure of proposals and virtually no opportunity for input or challenge (Norlen 2009).

Trade issues have also been on the table because subsidized financing for reactor projects can offer sizeable benefits to national firms, and for this reason it is prohibited under the World Trade Organization’s (WTO’s) Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures. An exemption to the agreement is granted if a WTO member coun- try is a party to an international undertaking on official export credits that involves at least 12 original WTO members. The recent agreement on enhanced financing terms for nuclear power plants falls under the Arrangement on Officially Supported Export Credits, making the supports exempt subsidies under the WTO (OECD 2009). It is important to note, however, that even with a sanctioned exemption from the WTO agreement, the credits are still subsidies to nuclear power and will create distortions in energy markets.

4.1.2.1. Foreign Credit Support to U.S. Projects

Government financing for nuclear projects is increasingly common around the world. COFACE, the French export-credit agency, guaranteed

€575 million in debt to Finnish utility TVO for purchasing an Areva reactor.35 _{The Japan Finance} Corporation, founded only in 2008, will serve a similar role for Japanese vendors selling abroad. Export financing can take a variety of forms, depending on the sponsoring country. In addition to loans and loan guarantees, export credits, direct investment, and political-risk insurance may be used.

Reactor projects in the United States involve many foreign partners. This linkage may explain why foreign export credit agencies (ECAs) are considering financial incentives to U.S. reac- tor projects. UniStar’s plan for a new reactor at Calvert Cliffs is a useful example. The project already includes substantial direct investment by the French government through Areva. The project

will also likely use Japanese reactor-vessel forgings, suggesting that there may be a Japanese interest as well. In fact, Joe Turnage of Constellation has noted that, “COFACE, the French Eximbank equivalent, and JBIC, the Japanese equivalent, [are] absolutely prepared to loan into these proj- ects at attractive rates” (Turnage 2007b). George Vanderheyden, UniStar’s president, noted as well that his firm hoped to bring down U.S. federal loan guarantees to 50 percent of the project cost, rather than 80 percent, through the participation of COFACE (Behr 2009). The firm was expected to receive a share of the $18.5 billion in U.S. fed- eral loan guarantees and was also actively pursuing additional support—as much as $10 billion—from the French government (Smith 2009). In 2010, however, Constellation withdrew from the project, even though the DOE was prepared to award the project a $7.5 billion loan guarantee (Mufson 2010).

4.1.2.2. ECA Support of U.S. Nuclear Exports

Although it is uncommon for U.S. export-credit agencies to support nuclear projects abroad, such financing has occurred. For example, the U.S. Eximbank made a $5 billion commitment in 2005 to a U.S.-built reactor in China (Cogan 2005). Eximbank had also committed another $120 mil- lion in nuclear-related financing to Bulgaria, Lithuania, and Romania between 1999 and 2002 (Eximbank 2002, 2000, 1999).

The financial-subsidy value of these activities remains to be seen. It is likely that foreign lenders will expand the pool of subsidized capital available to nuclear projects beyond whatever caps are ulti- mately set by the U.S. government, and terms may also be more favorable. Direct ownership of U.S. nuclear interests by the French government, combined with the fact that nuclear power is one of France’s strategic industries, suggests that highly favorable credit terms may be forthcoming.

35 Surprisingly, when a lawsuit was brought before the European Union for illegal state aid, the case was dismissed on the grounds that the utility had similar debt costs on other projects (EU 2007). This is not a particularly sound ruling, as nuclear is widely perceived to be more risky than other projects in TVO’s portfolio and should have carried a risk premium.

4.1.3. Ratebasing of Construction Work