Money Matters in Reactor Project Debate

That year, the federal government rolled out help. Under one program, the first two new nuclear projects to break ground would get insurance for up to $500 million for regulatory- and litigation-linked delays. The next four would get up to $250 million of such coverage. Once operating, the plants would get production tax credits.

It is another program, which involves the complicated world of loan guarantees, that the nuclear industry wants to broaden.

Under this program, if companies wanted to build cutting-edge, "clean" energy projects -- solar, biomass, nuclear or other -- they could seek loan guarantees to protect investors. The Bush administration sought authority this year to back $9 billion in such loans, $4 billion of which could go to nuclear and clean-coal projects, underscoring the administration's concern about a more open-ended program.

A House of Representatives energy appropriations subcommittee then eliminated loan guarantees for nuclear projects for the upcoming year. The panel's chairman, Peter J. Visclosky (D-Ind.), said the Energy Department's new loan guarantee program wasn't in a position to handle the $25 billion worth of coverage the nuclear industry wanted.

The move surprised the nuclear industry and underscored that Democrats might not be as pro-nuclear as the industry thought, said Kevin Book, an energy analyst at FBR Capital Markets Corp., an investment bank in Arlington County. He predicted things likely would move nuclear's way as energy legislation and funding gets hammered out in the House and Senate over the next two months. "This story is not over," Book said.

One notable Democratic supporter of nuclear power in Calvert: House Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer, who represents the county in Congress. He cites a good safety and environmental record at Calvert Cliffs, a spokeswoman said. In a separate House energy bill, Hoyer worked to make loan-guarantee coverage available to nuclear power in the upcoming fiscal year.

In the Senate, legislation asserts the loan guarantee volume should not be subjected to appropriations caps.

As the debate unfolds, Constellation Energy is trying to make its presence felt. Through its political action committee, Constellation donated $314,500 to federal candidates for the 2006 elections, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, a collector and sorter of campaign finance data. Republicans got 55 percent of the money, and Democrats got 43 percent.

Hoyer's campaign received $10,000, the center reported. A spokeswoman for Hoyer said the contributions played "absolutely" no role in his nuclear decisions. (Hoyer's campaign received a total of $1.7 million from political action committees for the 2006 race.)

Constellation reported $500,000 in lobbying expenses last year, a 32 percent increase from the year before, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. The Nuclear Energy Institute, an industry trade group, reported $1.4 million on lobbying, nearly double its 2005 levels, center figures show.

Constellation's totals for PAC contributions are slightly different: $288,000 for the 2006 cycle, with 56 percent going to Republican campaigns and 44 percent going to Democratic campaigns. A company spokeswoman noted the company's growth in lobbying has occurred as the company has grown rapidly over the past five years -- from $3 billion in revenue to $19 billion. The lobbying growth "is commensurate with a need to engage in the national energy policy dialogue," she said.

In seeking the loan guarantees, nuclear energy companies say that they also would take on risk. In Calvert, under current plans, Constellation would put $800 million in equity for the new reactor and borrow the rest. "No company is big enough to take $800 million lightly," Vanderheyden said.