Summary

• Objects (1 modified, 1 added, 0 removed)
  • Caselist.CitesClass[5]
  • Caselist.CitesClass[6]

Details

Caselist.CitesClass[5]

EntryDate

...	...	@@ -1,1 +1,1 @@
1		-2016-09-11 01:21:49.166
	1	+2016-09-11 01:21:49.0

Caselist.CitesClass[6]

Cites

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,14 @@
	1	+Rapid shutdown of nuclear plants requires huge resources – trades off with funding for waste management –
	2	+IEA 16 International Energy Association, "Energy Policies of IEA Countries: 2016 Review Belgium," 2016 AZ
	3	+According to the current schedule of nuclear phase-out provided in Table 10.1, the shutdown of all Belgian NPPs is expected to occur in a very short time frame, between 2022 and 2025. A rapid phase-out of the nuclear units, which currently represent around half the electricity generation, would be extremely challenging and would have a significant impact on energy supply, on the level of electricity prices and on the country’s ability to meet its long-term GHG emission targets. It could also have an adverse impact on the financing of regulatory bodies, which is currently ensured by a levy on nuclear installations. It would also have an effect on the funding of the provisions for waste management and decommissioning. A recent OECD study has shown that the LTO of nuclear plants is the lowest-cost option available for power generation (OECD, 2012). Several utilities in OECD member countries have already obtained the licence to operate their nuclear plants beyond 40 years or are in the process of submitting applications to the safety authorities. The nuclear operator has estimated that investments of EUR 600 million are needed for the LTO of Tihange 1, and EUR 700 million for the long-term operation (LTO) of both units 1 and 2 at Doel.
	4	+Nuclear power key to revenue generation – taxes
	5	+IEA 16 International Energy Association, "Energy Policies of IEA Countries: 2016 Review Belgium," 2016 AZ
	6	+In 2008, the government introduced a substantial levy on nuclear power generation. The contribution level has been revised several times; on average, the contribution volume has been more than EUR 200 million per year. Nuclear power generation is subject to several kinds of taxes and levies in more countries, probably because it is a relatively easy source of revenue: the plant operator cannot just shut down operations or move to a more favourable jurisdiction. The absolute level of contribution needs to be carefully considered, however. In general, limiting the utilities’ profits reduces their options for investing capacities in the LTO and/or other much-needed low-carbon capacity, and leads to a greater need for governments to encourage such investments, also financially.
	7	+Turns case – increases likelihood of dirty bomb
	8	+Rubin and Schreuer 16 ALISSA J. RUBIN and MILAN SCHREUER, Belgium Fears Nuclear Plants Are Vulnerable," NY Times, 3/25/2016 AZ
	9	+Asked on Thursday at a London think tank whether there was a danger of the Islamic State’s obtaining a nuclear weapon, the British defense secretary, Michael Fallon, said that “was a new and emerging threat.”
	10	+While the prospect that terrorists can obtain enough highly enriched uranium and then turn it into a nuclear fission bomb seems far-fetched to many experts, they say the fabrication of some kind of dirty bomb from radioactive waste or byproducts is more conceivable. There are a variety of other risks involving Belgium’s facilities, including that terrorists somehow shut down the privately operated plants, which provide nearly half of Belgium’s power.
	11	+
	12	+Revenues are used to fund renewables – no wind or solar without government subsidies
	13	+WNA 16 World Nuclear Association, "Nuclear Power in Belgium," March 2016 AZ
	14	+In May 2010, CREG estimated the cost of producing electricity from Belgian nuclear power plants as 1.7-2.1 € cents/kWh, including fuel cycle, operating, depreciation, and provisions for decommissioning and waste management. This compared with the forward market price of 6 ¢/kWh and the market price for green energy certificates at 8.8-10.7 ¢/kWh.In June 2013 Electrabel filed an appeal to Belgium's Constitutional Court against the €550 million ($734 million) annual federal tax on nuclear power generation. In 2012 the government passed laws doubling the size of the tax. As the dominant power generator and supplier, Electrabel bears the brunt of the tax – €479 million – while EDF-Luminus, Belgium's second-largest generator, has nuclear offtake rights and pays the remainder. GDF Suez said that raising the tax bill goes against the protocol signed by the company and the federal government in 2009, which set out a special tax of €215-245 million for 2010-14. Since 2010 the tax has doubled and market conditions for utilities have deteriorated.In April 2014 the Court of First Instance in Brussels rejected Electrabel's claim it was entitled to an exceptional tax refund of about one billion euros over profits from its Belgian nuclear plants, which it has been paying 2008 to 2012 as a tax increment. The company appealed, saying the €479 million for 2012 corresponded to its entire nuclear profits, but that appeal was rejected in July 2014, with the court saying that the appeal was “unfounded”. Electrabel’s contribution of €422 million for 2013 was higher than its entire operational activities in Belgium. "This confiscatory fiscal pressure on Electrabel at a time when the company's economic situation has deteriorated resulted in losses for Electrabel in 2013 for the second year in succession." The company lodged an appeal against the 2013 contribution, but in September 2015 the Constitutional Court rejected this and said the tax was "legitimate". In April 2015 CREG updated its 2010 calculations and said that the profit from all of Belgium's nuclear operators – Electrabel, EDF Luminus and EDF Belgium – totalled some €435 million in 2014. CREG reported that "the profits derived from nuclear activities are the difference between revenues and costs. The 'nuclear rent' can then be calculated by subtracting a fair remuneration of the invested capital." Electrabel noted that the nuclear contribution amounted to €479 million in 2014 – some €44 million more than CREG’s calculation of profits. "The nuclear operators are thus paying to the state more than they earn from this nuclear activity," and CREG's latest calculation clearly shows that the 'nuclear contribution' imposed by the government on nuclear operators since 2008 is confiscatory, it said.In July 2015 Electrabel agreed to pay €130 million in 2016 as the federal nuclear power ‘contribution’ or tax, substantially less than previously intended (and less than €479 million in 2014). This is alongside a fee for life extension of Doel 1and2 – see section below. From 2017 a formula will apply, with a minimum of €150 million per year to 2019. In mid-2013 the government approved an energy plan which would subsidise gas-fired generation and offshore wind capacity with taxes from nuclear power. Investors had been deterred from investing in planned 800 MWe of gas-fired plant by the relatively low cost of nuclear power and the grid priority of renewables input.

EntryDate

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+2016-09-11 01:21:49.593

Judge

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+Joseph Barquin

Opponent

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+Lynbrook NS

ParentRound

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+3

Round

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+4

Team

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+La Canada Zhao Neg

Title

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+SEPOCT - Belgium Taxes DA

Tournament

...	...	@@ -1,0 +1,1 @@
	1	+Loyola