An LDP committee responsible for studying ways to accelerate
the Tohoku recovery from the March 11, 2011 tsunami and nuclear disasters is recommending that TEPCO be separated into two separate
companies, one of which would deal with the "bad" Fukushima clean-up and
decommissioning problems, and the other of which would take over the remaining
“good” businesses.
Of course, like a “good bank” and “bad bank” strategy for
resolving a financial institution, this would allow “good” TEPCO to go forward,
raise capital, provide service and function as an electric utility.
But unlike a bank resolution, the bad TEPCO
contains not just an uncertain recovery on existing assets, but a huge and
uncertain future liability for Japan’s taxpayers. The government and taxpayers will bear the
cost of the cleanup and decommissioning, cost of securing and preparing sites
for medium-term storage of waste from the massive Fukushima clean-up. TEPCO's bondholders and banks get a free pass. Of course, the report does not mention this, and the LDP committee argues that a "good utility, bad utility" structure is all part of making sure that the Fukushima clean-up goes forward properly, with the government assuming a bigger role after TEPCO's failures.
The same committee is apparently considering a relaxation of
the Fukushima accident compensation rules, to allow additional nuclear accident compensation payment if residents are
prevented from returning home for more than 6 years.
Splitting up TEPCO is not such a bad idea, but this division
does nothing to help with the reform of the industry structure, it merely frees
TEPCO from a problem that even TEPCO lacks the financial and organizational
resources to deal with. Why not also
consider a broader division – splitting off generation, transmission and
distribution into 3 companies and paving the way to a new energy future?
No comments:
Post a Comment