[ RadSafe ] [Nuclear News] Constellation Energy and EDF Form Joint Venture for Developing Next-Generation Nuclear Facilities in the United

[Sandy Perle]

Index:

Constellation Energy and EDF Form Joint Venture for next NPP in USA
Firm Applies To Expand Nuclear Plant In Maryland
Senate bill could help finance U.S. nuclear plants
The high cost of going nuclear
The trouble with nuclear waste
Entergy Nuclear, GE-Hitachi in Pact
Tokyo Electric Cuts Profit Forecast 79% After Quake
---------------------------------------------------------------

Constellation Energy and EDF Form Joint Venture for Developing Next-
Generation Nuclear Facilities in the United States and Canada

BALTIMORE, July 20 -- Constellation Energy (NYSE:CEG) and EDF today 
announced a strategic joint venture focused on the potential 
development and deployment of the first fleet of new nuclear power 
plants in the United States and Canada in nearly three decades.

Constellation Energy and EDF will form a new nuclear holding company, 
known as UniStar Nuclear Energy, LLC, designed to develop, own and 
operate new U.S. and Canadian nuclear projects. Constellation Energy 
and EDF will each own a 50 percent interest in UniStar Nuclear 
Energy. EDF will invest up to $625 million into UniStar Nuclear 
Energy, while Constellation Energy will contribute the subsidiary 
companies and interests that it has independently created and owns as 
part of its pre-existing UniStar Nuclear line of business.

Constellation Energy's contribution to the venture also includes the 
right to develop possible nuclear projects at its Calvert Cliffs 
Nuclear Power Plant in southern Maryland, and Nine Mile Point Nuclear 
Station and R.E. Ginna Nuclear Plant in upstate New York. The next-
generation U.S. Evolutionary Power Reactor (USEPR), based on AREVA, 
Inc.'s advanced nuclear power plant design, will be the joint 
venture's prime reactor technology. In September 2005, Constellation 
Energy and AREVA, Inc. formed a joint enterprise which has now 
assumed a leadership position in the U.S. nuclear renaissance.

This agreement to form the joint venture between Constellation Energy 
and EDF follows a Memorandum of Understanding announced on June 1, 
2006, under which both companies agreed to work together on the 
development of advanced EPR-type nuclear power plants in the United 
States.

"We are extremely optimistic about the future of this joint venture. 
This alliance, which is based on the strength of the business model 
developed by AREVA and Constellation Energy during the past two 
years, is in the enviable position of establishing and achieving 
meaningful milestones as we progress toward the goal of constructing 
the first fleet of new nuclear power plants in the United States and 
Canada in nearly three decades," said Mayo A. Shattuck III, chairman, 
president and chief executive officer of Constellation Energy. 
"Constellation Energy strongly believes nuclear power must play a 
prominent role in our nation's energy future, which will be vitally 
important in helping America achieve its goals of reducing greenhouse 
gas emissions and moving toward greater energy independence. The 
combination of Constellation Energy's extensive nuclear ownership and 
operating experience in the U.S. and EDF's unmatched global 
leadership in the nuclear arena positions UniStar Nuclear Energy at 
the forefront of America's nuclear power renaissance. Many milestones 
lie ahead since we've yet to make a commitment to build. But this 
alliance represents a major accomplishment. It allows us to move 
forward confidently, leveraging the considerable value of our 
complementary strengths and operational capabilities, while also 
maintaining our highly disciplined, risk-managed and value-driven 
approach to new nuclear."

Pierre Gadonneix, chairman and chief executive officer of EDF Group, 
declared: "We are extremely pleased to partner with Constellation 
Energy -- one of America's pre-eminent nuclear operators. This 
agreement confirms EDF's interest in the U.S. nuclear power 
renaissance and participation in increasing the availability of safe 
and secure nuclear power which produces no greenhouse gas emissions. 
EDF will contribute to the joint venture its unparalleled expertise 
and experience as the operator of 58 nuclear reactors for more than 
20 years in France and the investment in the new EPR under way in 
Flamanville. EDF Group will thus participate in the promotion of the 
EPR technology developed by AREVA and its deployment in the United 
States. This alliance builds on the cooperation between AREVA and 
Constellation Energy of the past two years within UniStar, which 
enabled the EPR to be recognised as an innovative and competitive 
solution."

As part of its $625 million commitment, EDF will make an initial cash 
investment of $350 million into UniStar Nuclear Energy. Subsequent 
EDF investment under the agreement will be based on pre-established 
milestones, including $175 million related to the filing of 
construction and operating license applications at existing 
Constellation Energy nuclear sites. Constellation Energy and EDF also 
have signed a cooperation agreement to review potential joint 
development in the United States.

Additionally, an eight-member board will be established with equal 
representation from both companies and chaired by a representative 
from Constellation Energy. An independent advisory board that will 
provide transparency to the U.S. government also will be established 
for additional governance purposes.

In connection with this strategic alliance, EDF may purchase up to 
9.9 percent of Constellation Energy's outstanding common shares in 
the open market during the next five years, with a limit of 5 percent 
ownership during the first 12 months of the agreement. As part of 
this investor agreement, EDF will have the right to have an observer 
at meetings of the Committee on Nuclear Power of the Constellation 
Energy Board of Directors.

The boards of directors of the companies have approved the terms of 
the joint venture. The transaction is also subject to review by 
certain U.S. regulatory agencies.
-----------------

Firm Applies To Expand Nuclear Plant In Maryland

(Washington Post) Jul 31 - The first application to build a new U.S. 
nuclear power plant in three decades has been filed with the Nuclear 
Regulatory Commission, bumping a proposed third unit at a Calvert 
County site to the front of a list of reactors being considered by 
the nuclear power industry.

Constellation Energy Group of Baltimore has filed a partial 
application with the NRC, asking the commission to review 
environmental plans for a 1,600-megawatt reactor at the Calvert 
Cliffs site in Lusby, Md., that could cost $4 billion.

The filing marked another small step toward a resurgence of the 
nuclear power industry, bolstered by generous federal tax incentives 
and growing concern about the greenhouse gases emitted by coal-fired 
plants, which supply half the country's electricity. There has not 
been an application to build a nuclear power plant in the United 
States since before the partial meltdown at one of the Three Mile 
Island units in Pennsylvania in 1979.

"It's partial, but it's the first application to operate and build a 
new reactor that the NRC has received in about 30 years," NRC 
spokesman Scott Burnell said yesterday.

The existing pair of Calvert Cliffs reactors -- which went into 
service in 1975 and 1977 -- are the closest ones to the nation's 
capital, 50 miles southeast of the District.

Companies seeking to build nuclear plants can qualify for energy 
production tax credits and certain loan guarantees under the 2005 
Energy Policy Act only if they get the NRC to accept construction 
permits before the end of 2008. Burnell said the NRC expects as many 
as 18 other nuclear power plant applications by then, though many 
critics of nuclear power say high costs and continuing problems with 
nuclear waste disposal will likely prevent most of them from being 
built.

So far, four other companies have asked for early site permits from 
the NRC, and two have been approved. But Constellation's 
environmental application -- filed July 13 and reported yesterday by 
Bloomberg News -- skips that step and represents a greater financial 
commitment. Once the NRC starts considering the application, the 
clock starts running on review costs, which could reach $46 million 
for the company, Burnell said. Constellation said application costs 
could eventually reach $100 million, part of which would be covered 
by the Energy Department to encourage development.

Construction of the plant would not be imminent, however. 
Constellation is expected to file the safety part of its application, 
with details about the reactor's design, early next year. The NRC 
technical review could last 2 1/2 years, followed by another year for 
hearings.

Constellation Senior Vice President George Vanderheyden said 
yesterday that the company had not made a final decision to go ahead 
with the plant. "No entity, including Constellation, has yet made a 
decision to build a nuclear power plant, but we're moving as 
aggressively as we can down the first phase, which is the licensing 
phase," Vanderheyden said.

However, he said, Constellation has been positioning itself to build 
a new fleet of standardized nuclear power plants for which the 
Calvert Cliffs unit would be a model.

"Perhaps the most significant contribution Constellation Energy can 
make would be to deploy the first standardized fleet of new nuclear 
power plants in almost three decades," Constellation chief executive 
Mayo A. Shattuck III said last week in an earnings release.

Electric utilities across the country have been inching ahead with 
plans for new nuclear plants. Thanks to concerns about emissions of 
global-warming gases, opposition has been mounting against coal-fired 
power plants. If Congress adopts legislation that would tax or limit 
carbon dioxide emissions, that would put another burden on coal 
plants and give an additional advantage to nuclear plants, which do 
not emit any greenhouse gases.

"It is another commitment by a utility to . . . nuclear in the 
context of constraints on fossil fuels and the increasing importance 
of reducing greenhouse-gas emissions," said John O'Neill, a lawyer 
with Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman who represents several companies 
in the nuclear-power business. "They have limited options, and 
they're making both an economic and a national-interest judgment."

Others disagree. "We're still in the phase where the utilities are 
testing the waters," said Edwin Lyman, a nuclear power expert at the 
Union of Concerned Scientists. "Until we see investors put money down 
toward the multibillion-dollar cost of building new plants, one 
should remain skeptical that there's any major shift underway."

Lyman added that the UCS opposes nuclear subsidies and maintains 
"that nuclear is not likely to be the lowest-cost way of mitigating 
greenhouse-gas emissions."

While many energy experts have criticized the size of federal 
incentives for nuclear power, Vanderheyden said more loan guarantees 
would be needed. He said the current ceiling on guarantees would be 
enough to cover the cost of no more than two plants. The nuclear 
power industry has been lobbying Congress to sharply increase the 
size of the loan-guarantee program as part of this year's energy 
bill.

To help deal with the financial burden of building the nuclear 
plants, Constellation has made an agreement with Electricite de 
France, which will make an initial investment of $350 million in a 
joint venture and invest up to $275 million later to develop nuclear 
plants in the United States and Canada. EDF could also acquire up to 
9.9 percent of Constellation stock in the open market.

EDF is the largest electricity producer in Europe. It has operated 58 
nuclear plants for more than 20 years.
---------------

Senate bill could help finance U.S. nuclear plants

WASHINGTON (International Herald Tribune) Jul 31: A one-sentence 
provision buried in the U.S. Senate's recently passed energy bill, 
inserted without debate at the urging of the nuclear power industry, 
could make builders of new nuclear plants eligible for tens of 
billions of dollars in government loan guarantees.

Lobbyists have told lawmakers and administration officials in recent 
weeks that the nuclear industry needs as much as $50 billion in loan 
guarantees over the next two years to finance a major expansion.

The biggest champion of the loan guarantees is Senator Pete Domenici 
of New Mexico, the ranking Republican on the Senate Energy Committee 
and one of the nuclear industry's strongest supporters in Congress.

Senator Jeff Bingaman, Democrat of New Mexico, the energy bill's 
author, has long argued that nuclear power plants do not need federal 
loan guarantees.

Bingaman said that the industry was overinterpreting the provision 
and that it would provide loan guarantees for only the most 
innovative power plants.

But the provision has the potential to dramatically expand the 
nuclear industry, which plans to build 19 new power plants at an 
estimated cost of about $4 billion to $5 billion apiece. And while 
the nuclear industry would be the biggest beneficiary, the provision 
could also set the stage for billions of dollars in loan guarantees 
for power plants that use "clean coal" technology and renewable 
fuels.

The nuclear industry is enjoying growing political support after 
decades of opposition from environmental groups and others concerned 
about the risks. An increasing number of lawmakers in both parties, 
worried about global warming and dependence on foreign oil, supports 
at least some expansion of nuclear power.

But the provision could go much further than many lawmakers had in 
mind by giving the U.S. Department of Energy the power to approve an 
unlimited amount of loan guarantees for "clean" power generation.

Power companies have plans for 28 new nuclear reactors at 19 power 
plants around the country. Industry executives insist that banks and 
Wall Street will not provide the money needed to build new plants 
unless the loans are guaranteed in their entirety by the federal 
government.

While the nuclear industry maintains it will need $25 billion in loan 
guarantees in 2008 and $50 billion over the next two years, President 
George W. Bush had proposed a far smaller amount - $4 billion - in 
new loan guarantees next year for "clean" electric power 
technologies, which include plants that run on so-called clean coal 
technologies and renewable fuels.

Many experts fear that the proposed subsidies for new nuclear plants 
could leave taxpayers responsible for billions of dollars in soured 
loans.

"Such projects, by their nature, pose significant technical and 
market risks," warned the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office in 
an analysis of the provision last month. "Studies of the accuracy of 
cost estimates for pioneering technologies have found that estimates 
are consistently low."

Michael Wallace, the co-chief executive of UniStar Nuclear, which 
seeks to build nuclear reactors, and executive vice president of 
Constellation Energy, said: "Without loan guarantees we will not 
build nuclear power plants."

The little-noticed provision in the Senate bill refines and expands 
the loan guarantee program that Congress passed in the Energy Policy 
Act of 2005.

As before, the Department of Energy would be allowed to guarantee 100 
percent of the loans and up to 80 percent of the total cost to build 
a power plant.

But the bill essentially allows the Department of Energy to approve 
as many loan guarantees as it wants for both new nuclear plants and 
those that use other "clean" technologies.

Under current law, the government is only allowed to guarantee a 
volume of loans authorized annually by Congress.
-------------------

The high cost of going nuclear

Power companies are lining up to build new plants after a decade of 
stagnation. What's standing in the way?

By David Whitford, Fortune editor-at-large

Editor-at-large David Whitford went on a 7,000 mile road trip to 
examine America's nuclear past and the resurgent industry's plans for 
the future. This is the third of five installments from his 
reporter's notebook.

(Fortune) Jul 31 -- If the companies that supply nuclear power plants 
are ready for a revival, the utilities that will operate the plants 
are champing at the bit.

Dale Klein, chairman of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, said he's 
expecting license applications for 27 new nuclear reactors in the 
next two years. The Nuclear Energy Institute, the industry trade 
group, says it could be as many as 31.

This is a huge development, considering it's been more than three 
decades since the last successful attempt to license and build a new 
nuclear power plant in the United States got underway, and more than 
ten years since that plant went online.

I asked MIT professor Andy Kadak how to account for the recent flurry 
of new activity. "One is that nuclear plant performance has 
dramatically improved," he said. "In the early 1980s the capacity 
factor" - how much electricity the average nuclear plant generates, 
expressed as a percentage of capacity - "was in the low 60s. Today 
it's the low 90s. We used to have refueling outages that lasted 90 
days. Now they do it in 27. Good ones are 21.

"Utilities are making a lot of money from nukes today. That's given 
the utility CEOs confidence to say, 'Look, these plants are running 
well, we're making money and if we buy into nuclear, there's no 
reason not to expect similar performance in the future if we run them 
as we know how to run them now.' 

"That's a big plus. The other thing is deregulation. It forced 
utilities to be competitive in terms of how much their power costs. 
That was a factor driving efficiency and lowering operating costs. 
Then came the new designs. Vendors innovated and made reactors 
simpler and safer."

Barney Beasley, Chief Executive of Southern Nuclear, added one more 
key factor: Soaring demand, especially in the fast-growing South, 
where more than half the new plants are planned.

"Obviously in Georgia we're experiencing a lot of economic growth, a 
lot of population growth," Beasley said, while showing me around 
Southern's Vogtle generating station in the piney woods outside 
Waynesboro, Ga.

Already Vogtle has two huge Westinghouse reactors generating more 
than 1000 megawatts each; Southern wants to build two more, doubling 
capacity. "Our projection over the next 20 years in terms of 
population is we're going to add another entire Atlanta in the state 
of Georgia," Beasley continues. "We are going to have to provide 
large base-load units to provide the power."

The largest remaining obstacle to such plans? Cost. Consider a 
typical scenario in which a utility with a $9 billion market cap 
wants to build a nuke plant with a $5 billion price tag. "You put 
that on your balance sheet," as one former utility executive 
explained to me, "and you know what Wall Street would do with your 
bond ratings."

The cost factor is the background to the generous set of nuclear 
subsidies contained in the Energy Policy Act of 2005. Among them: a 
tax credit of 1.8 cents per kilowatt hour for early movers, capped at 
$6 billion; regulatory risk insurance to cover licensing delays, 
potentially worth $2 billion; and federal loan guarantees that could 
pay up to 80 percent in the event of default. (Only the risk 
insurance applies specifically to nukes; the others cover wind, solar 
and biofuels as well.)

But at least one utility executive - CEO David Crane of NRG Energy, 
which plans to add two new reactors to its existing South Texas 
Project, near Bay City, Texas - thinks the industry may be asking for 
too much help from taxpayers.

"People in nuclear industry complain that everyone remembers Three 
Mile Island and Chernobyl," he said. "On the other hand, the nuclear 
plants remember that, too. They're cautious. They want everybody else 
to take all the risks.

"Guys, get over it," he said. "Sure, nuclear plants are expensive. 
And power companies are not as big as oil companies. But one of the 
things about being in business is you get a reward for taking a risk. 
I just get the sense that while the industry likes to say, 'The 
government is not doing enough, the government is not doing enough,' 
it's time for the industry to step up."

Email: dwhitford at fortunemail.com
-----------------

The trouble with nuclear waste

It's not easy building a home for spent radioactive material. The 
proposed site at Yucca Mountain has been underway for over 30 years.

David Whitford, Fortune editor-at-large

Editor-at-large David Whitford went on a 7,000 mile road trip to 
examine America's nuclear past and the resurgent industry's plans for 
the future. This is the fourth of five installments from his 
reporter's notebook.


(Fortune) Jul 31 -- The drive to the proposed Yucca Mountain nuclear 
waste repository from the Energy Department's office in Las Vegas 
takes about two hours. It's a freaky ride, through fast-growing 
Pahrump, Nevada, now a bedroom community for Las Vegas; past Nellis 
Air Force base, where unmanned spy drones -- Predators and Raptors -- 
fly test flights; past the gunnery range and the old atom bomb test 
site. 

Next I'm within spyglass range of Area 51 (you know, where the 
government stores aliens in giant freezers), then headed through 
Lathrop Wells, the last inhabited outpost on the way to Yucca, with 
two gas stations and a brothel; to the perimeter guard house, and 
we're in.

Mike Voegele, former chief scientist at Yucca Mountain, now retired, 
points out landmarks on the barren, toasted landscape -- remnants of 
the other uses this desolate patch of desert has endured in years 
past. The surplus missile silos left over from the Cold War, for 
instance, are unearthed now and lying on their sides and converted 
into offices. 

And Little Skull Mountain, away on the northern horizon, is the site 
of what Voegele describes as "my personal favorite test done in the 
whole United States." It was there that the Air Force once stood a 
tunnel boring machine on its end and buried it under 50 feet of 
broken rock, simulating conditions that would result if the Russians 
bombed us before we could bomb them. 

"The ballistic missile office wanted to know, even if we were all 
dead, if the machines could wake up and fire back a retaliatory 
strike," says Voegele. "They demonstrated that you could excavate a 
vertical hole inside of a mountain and get [a missile] out through 
the broken rock. The boring machine is still sitting up there, with 
an Air Force flag painted on it."

We peek inside the five-mile tunnel they finished drilling 10 years 
ago. But it's just a tunnel; not much to see. Yucca Mountain has been 
under development for more than three decades. If it ever opens -- 
and that won't be until 2017, at the earliest -- 77,000 tons of 
nuclear waste will one day travel through this tunnel to their final 
resting places 1,000 feet below the ridgeline of the Mountain. But 
that's a big if. Construction has been stalled since 1997, pending 
regulatory approval. The outlook is bleak.

The highlight of the trip is the visit to the top of Yucca Mountain. 
Up a steep and winding gravel road, really just a shaving on the 
crust of the mountain. The driver struggling to stay on course. Some 
slippage in the steepest parts. No guard rails, of course. Help me 
remember: Did the safety officer cover situations in which the tour 
bus goes tumbling into the abyss?

Finally, we arrive. Very windy at the top. Desolate and strange. Big 
views west across the desert floor to California and Death Valley. We 
all stand around for a few minutes, contemplating eternity, or at 
least the next 10,000 years. This place was chosen as our nation's 
nuclear waste repository in large part because no one lives anywhere 
near here, and likely no one ever will; this place will never change. 
Freaky thought. Then it's time to go.

The conversation among the engineers on the long ride back to town 
turns to water, of all things. There's not nearly enough of it in Las 
Vegas. But there are all kinds of crazy of schemes floating around. 
Schemes that to their ears have even less chance of ever being 
realized than Yucca Mountain does.

"There's a group of people saying you could build a pipeline from 
rural Nevada north of Las Vegas to the California coast, about 230 
miles," says Richard Rosetti. "Pump in the saltwater, build a nuclear 
plant, desalinate the water while you cool it at the plant and then 
pump that fresh water to Vegas. There's a group out there putting 
together a plan!"

Rosetti's laughing hard now, and so is Voegele. These two, jaded from 
long experience, know what its like to confront horrendous 
engineering and regulatory obstacles for decades; they have a pretty 
good idea what the proponents of this crazy water project are up 
against. "I'll tell you," says Rosetti, once he finally stops 
laughing. "I'll take my chances on this job."

Email: dwhitford at fortunemail.com
-------------------

Entergy Nuclear, GE-Hitachi in Pact

WILMINGTON, N.C. (AP) Jul 31 -- Nuclear operating company Entergy 
Nuclear said Tuesday it has signed a project development agreement 
with GE-Hitachi Nuclear Energy.

The agreement includes a major, advanced reactor components order, 
which will ensure delivery of critical parts should Entergy decide to 
build a new nuclear unit.

Terms of the project development agreement between Entergy and GE-
Hitachi Nuclear Energy, a joint venture between GE and Hitachi Ltd., 
were not disclosed.

While Entergy has not yet made the decision to build a nuclear unit, 
the growing number of utilities deciding to build new reactors is 
expected to tighten the supply of important plant components in 
coming years. By ordering the components from GE-Hitachi now, the 
company said it is positioning itself so that the option for a new 
unit is available.
-----------------

Tokyo Electric Cuts Profit Forecast 79% After Quake
 
July 31 (Bloomberg) -- Tokyo Electric Power Co. said the earthquake 
that forced it to shut the world's largest nuclear plant will reduce 
profit by 79 percent because the company will have to burn costlier 
oil and gas to make up the shortfall. 

The company predicts net income of 65 billion yen ($547 million) in 
the year ending March 31, compared with 310 billion yen estimated in 
April, Asia's biggest utility said in a statement to the stock 
exchange today. Tokyo Electric posted a 298 billion yen profit in the 
previous year. 

President Tsunehisa Katsumata today said the utility may double 
planned purchases of crude and fuel oils, and buy additional 
liquefied natural gas, after a magnitude 6.8 earthquake sparked a 
fire and caused radioactive leaks at the Kashiwazaki Kariwa station. 
The stock has dropped 16 percent since the July 16 quake and closed 
unchanged at 3,170 yen. 

``Additional costs from the nuclear shutdown weigh on earnings,'' 
Hirofumi Kawachi, an energy analyst at Mizuho Investors Securities 
Co., said. 

Tokyo Electric estimates the atomic plant shutdown will cost the 
company 282 billion yen. The utility expects fuel costs to increase 
by 320 billion yen and it may save about 38 billion yen on 
maintenance fee for the Kashiwazaki Kariwa, it said in the statement. 


``We are in very hard times,'' Katsumata told reporters in Tokyo 
today. ``With more fuel needed for thermal power plants and higher 
oil prices, surging cost are reducing profit.'' 

Fuel Costs 

Fuel costs are rising because of gains in crude oil prices. Oil in 
New York yesterday rose to a one-year high of $77.33 a barrel, and 
has gained about 20 percent in the past two months. 

The consumption of crude and heavy fuel oils may double from the 
utility's earlier estimate of a little over 5 million tons, Katsumata 
said. Tokyo Electric also needs about 1 million ton of LNG, in 
addition to 17.5 million tons of LNG it had planned to use before the 
quake, he said. 

The utility expects the operating rate at its nuclear plants to drop 
to 44 percent this year from 72 percent forecast in April, and is 
struggling to secure power needed in the summer season when demand 
typically peaks as consumers turn on air conditioners. The utility 
may be unable to meet demand if the weather is hotter than usual, it 
said July 20. 

The forecast for pretax profit was cut to 130 billion yen from 400 
billion yen, and the sales estimate raised to 5.45 trillion yen from 
5.4 trillion yen, according to the statement. 

Dividend 

``We want to keep the dividend'' at 70 yen a share, Katsumata said. 
``We are currently evaluating how much we need to repair the 
Kashiwazaki Kariwa plant.'' 

The utility is still checking damage from the earthquake, which shook 
the plant more than it was designed to withstand, and may give a cost 
estimate for repairing the plant when it reports the first-half 
earnings, Katsumata said. 

For the year ended March 2007, Tokyo Electric raised its annual 
dividend to 70 yen per share from 60 yen, the first increase in seven 
years. The dividend payout may stay unchanged at 70 yen this year, 
analysts including Tatsuya Tsunoda of Mizuho Securities Co. have 
said. 

Tokyo Electric plans to run its thermal and hydro power plants at 
about 3 percent more than their design capacity, and purchase power 
from Kansai Electric Power Co. and five other regional utilities, to 
meet peak demand, Katsumata said July 20. 

Restarting Plants 

``We need to think about next year,'' Katsumata said today. If the 
nuclear plant shutdown ``is extended to next summer, we need to think 
about restarting thermal power stations that have been 
decommissioned.'' 

The utility is assessing whether to restart the Goi and Yokosuka 
thermal power plants and may bring forward the start of new gas fired 
units, with a combined capacity of 1,000 megawatts, in Kawasaki, near 
Tokyo, Katsumata said. The two gas-fired Kawasaki units are due to 
start in July 2008 and July 2009. 

For the three months ended June 30, profit fell to 31.1 billion yen 
from 48.1 billion yen a year ago, the company said in today's 
statement. Sales gained to 1.25 trillion yen from 1.22 trillion yen a 
year earlier. 

Tokyo Electric reduced its net income estimate for the six months 
ending Sept. 30 to 130 billion yen from the 205 billion yen it 
predicted in April.

-----------------------------------------
Sander C. Perle
President
Global Dosimetry Solutions, Inc.
2652 McGaw Avenue
Irvine, CA 92614 

Tel: (949) 296-2306 / (888) 437-1714  Extension 2306
Fax:(949) 296-1144

E-Mail: sperle at dosimetry.com
E-Mail: sandyfl at cox.net 

Global Dosimetry Website: http://www.dosimetry.com/