| Fiscal Year End | R&D | Prototype Reactor Funding 1 | Pickering Payback 2 | CANDU-3 | Slowpoke District Heating | Decom- miss- ioning 3, 4 | Loans Forgiven 5 | HWP Loans Payment 6, 7 | HWP Support 8 | LaPrade Main- tenance 3 | HWP Closures 3 | Dividends, Guarantees 9, 10 | Subsidiaries Divested | Nominal Total | 1997 Equivalent Total 11 | Nominal Opportunity Cost 12 | Fiscal Year End |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1952 | 12.1 | 12.1 | 72.0 | 6,519.1 | 1952 | ||||||||||||
| 1953 | 21.4 | 21.4 | 128.0 | 10,025.8 | 1953 | ||||||||||||
| 1954 | 19.6 | 19.6 | 115.7 | 7,984.8 | 1954 | ||||||||||||
| 1955 | 29.5 | 29.5 | 174.1 | 10,450.4 | 1955 | ||||||||||||
| 1956 | 30.3 | 30.3 | 175.8 | 9,333.7 | 1956 | ||||||||||||
| 1957 | 30.5 | 0.5 | 31.0 | 174.6 | 8,303.8 | 1957 | |||||||||||
| 1958 | 23.8 | 0.8 | 24.6 | 134.7 | 5,730.0 | 1958 | |||||||||||
| 1959 | 26.6 | 2.1 | 28.7 | 155.3 | 5,813.0 | 1959 | |||||||||||
| Fiscal Year End | R&D | Prototype Reactor Funding 1 | Pickering Payback 2 | CANDU-3 | Slowpoke District Heating | Decom- miss- ioning 3, 4 | Loans Forgiven 5 | HWP Loans Payment 6, 7 | HWP Support 8 | LaPrade Main- tenance 3 | HWP Closures 3 | Dividends, Guarantees 9, 10 | Subsidiaries Divested | Nominal Total | 1997 Equivalent Total 11 | Nominal Opportunity Cost 12 | Fiscal Year End |
| 1960 | 24.7 | 5.8 | 30.5 | 163.7 | 5,371.8 | 1960 | |||||||||||
| 1961 | 26.5 | 11.7 | 38.2 | 203.4 | 5,850.4 | 1961 | |||||||||||
| 1962 | 29.1 | 4.8 | 33.9 | 178.5 | 4,514.7 | 1962 | |||||||||||
| 1963 | 37.1 | 37.1 | 190.9 | 4,296.4 | 1963 | ||||||||||||
| 1964 | 44.9 | 44.9 | 227.6 | 4,521.4 | 1964 | ||||||||||||
| 1965 | 45.2 | 45.2 | 224.1 | 3,957.9 | 1965 | ||||||||||||
| 1966 | 52.7 | 52.7 | 252.1 | 4,012.8 | 1966 | ||||||||||||
| 1967 | 58.0 | 58.0 | 266.3 | 3,840.3 | 1967 | ||||||||||||
| 1968 | 66.5 | 66.5 | 292.5 | 3,828.8 | 1968 | ||||||||||||
| 1969 | 68.6 | 68.6 | 289.6 | 3,434.5 | 1969 | ||||||||||||
| Fiscal Year End | R&D | Prototype Reactor Funding 1 | Pickering Payback 2 | CANDU-3 | Slowpoke District Heating | Decom- miss- ioning 3, 4 | Loans Forgiven 5 | HWP Loans Payment 6, 7 | HWP Support 8 | LaPrade Main- tenance 3 | HWP Closures 3 | Dividends, Guarantees 9, 10 | Subsidiaries Divested | Nominal Total | 1997 Equivalent Total 11 | Nominal Opportunity Cost 12 | Fiscal Year End |
| 1970 | 69.0 | 69.0 | 281.7 | 3,003.9 | 1970 | ||||||||||||
| 1971 | 68.9 | 68.9 | 274.7 | 2,608.3 | 1971 | ||||||||||||
| 1972 | 77.0 | 77.0 | 294.1 | 2,534.8 | 1972 | ||||||||||||
| 1973 | 78.2 | 78.2 | 280.6 | 2,238.5 | 1973 | ||||||||||||
| 1974 | 87.9 | 87.9 | 286.0 | 2,188.0 | 1974 | ||||||||||||
| 1975 | 85.9 | 85.9 | 252.4 | 1,859.3 | 1975 | ||||||||||||
| 1976 | 93.6 | 93.6 | 256.3 | 1,761.7 | 1976 | ||||||||||||
| 1977 | 96.8 | 85.5 | 13.3 | 195.6 | 499.4 | 3,201.3 | 1977 | ||||||||||
| 1978 | 101.7 | 275.4 1 | 0.0 2 | 26.8 | 403.9 | 957.7 | 5,748.2 | 1978 | |||||||||
| 1979 | 110.3 | 8.9 | 0.0 2 | 119.2 | 260.4 | 1,475.2 | 1979 | ||||||||||
| Fiscal Year End | R&D | Prototype Reactor Funding 1 | Pickering Payback 2 | CANDU-3 | Slowpoke District Heating | Decom- miss- ioning 3, 4 | Loans Forgiven 5 | HWP Loans Payment 6, 7 | HWP Support 8 | LaPrade Main- tenance 3 | HWP Closures 3 | Dividends, Guarantees 9, 10 | Subsidiaries Divested | Nominal Total | 1997 Equivalent Total 11 | Nominal Opportunity Cost 12 | Fiscal Year End |
| 1980 | 114.7 | 8.8 | 0.0 2 | 123.5 | 245.4 | 1,329.0 | 1980 | ||||||||||
| 1981 | 123.1 | 10.2 | 0.0 2 | 816.9 5 | 9.3 6 | 65.0 | 8.6 | 1,033.1 | 1,846.0 | 9,667.6 | 1981 | ||||||
| 1982 | 145.7 | 11.4 | 0.0 2 | 9.3 | 112.9 | 4.5 | 283.8 | 460.1 | 2,309.6 | 1982 | |||||||
| 1983 | 169.9 | 12.7 | 0.0 2 | 11.3 | 118.3 | 3.1 | 315.3 | 480.8 | 2,230.7 | 1983 | |||||||
| 1984 | 184.5 | 12.4 | 0.0 2 | 12.3 | 124.7 | 2.5 | 336.4 | 493.6 | 2,069.5 | 1984 | |||||||
| 1985 | 192.4 | 10.1 | 2.6 | 12.3 | 104.6 | 2.5 | 325.5 | 460.9 | 1,741.7 | 1985 | |||||||
| 1986 | 172.7 | 3.9 | 18.3 | 13.3 | 29.2 | 2.3 | 35.4 | 275.1 | 375.1 | 1,279.9 | 1986 | ||||||
| 1987 | 176.8 | 4.9 | 11.9 | 3.3 7 | 1.9 | 18.8 | 217.6 | 285.2 | 880.1 | 1987 | |||||||
| 1988 | 143.3 | 10.4 | 20.3 | 3.3 7 | 0.0 8 | 0.5 | 2.6 | 0.0 9 | 180.4 | 228.0 | 634.8 | 1988 | |||||
| 1989 | 135.9 | 44.4 | 11.1 | 10.3 4 | 4.5 7 | 0.0 8 | 206.7 | 248.8 | 630.8 | 1989 | |||||||
| Fiscal Year End | R&D | Prototype Reactor Funding 1 | Pickering Payback 2 | CANDU-3 | Slowpoke District Heating | Decom- miss- ioning 3, 4 | Loans Forgiven 5 | HWP Loans Payment 6, 7 | HWP Support 8 | LaPrade Main- tenance 3 | HWP Closures 3 | Dividends, Guarantees 9, 10 | Subsidiaries Divested | Nominal Total | 1997 Equivalent Total 11 | Nominal Opportunity Cost 12 | Fiscal Year End |
| 1990 | 141.5 | 29.2 | 12.2 | 12.0 4 | 1.6 7 | 0.0 8 | 9.1 | 205.6 | 237.8 | 546.9 | 1990 | ||||||
| 1991 | 154.3 | 11.4 4 | 1.8 7 | 0.0 8 | 167.5 | 184.9 | 387.4 | 1991 | |||||||||
| 1992 | 162.1 | 11.9 4 | 1.9 7 | 0.0 8 | 0.0 9 | 175.9 | 191.7 | 353.8 | 1992 | ||||||||
| 1993 | 167.3 | 10.9 | 2.1 7 | 0.0 8 | 180.3 | 193.3 | 315.3 | 1993 | |||||||||
| 1994 | 161.5 | 9.8 | 2.3 7 | 0.0 8 | 173.6 | 182.4 | 264.0 | 1994 | |||||||||
| 1995 | 169.5 | 10.5 | 180.0 | 186.2 | 238.0 | 1995 | |||||||||||
| 1996 | 164.1 | 10.3 | 174.6 | 178.1 | 200.8 | 1996 | |||||||||||
| 1997 | 163.9 | 10.2 | 1,500.0 10 | 1,674.1 | 1,674.1 | 1,674.1 | 1997 | ||||||||||
TOTALS | 4,359.8 | 462.1 1 | 0.0 2 | 73.6 | 45.1 | 147.8 3, 4 | 816.9 5 | 88.6 6, 7 | 594.8 8 | 25.9 3 | 56.8 3 | 1,500.0 9, 10 | 9.1 | 8,180.5 | 15,214.3 11 | 161,162.5 12 | TOTALS |
| R&D | Prototype Reactor Funding | Pickering Payback | CANDU-3 | Slowpoke District Heating | Decom- miss- ioning | Loans Forgiven | HWP Loans Payment | HWP Support | LaPrade Main- tenance | HWP Closures | Dividends, Guarantees | Subsidiaries Divested | Nominal Total | 1997 Equivalent Total | Nominal Opportunity Cost |
NOTES
Since March 27th 1996, there have been over
- The 1978 figure under Prototype Reactor Funding includes a non-cash contribution of $124.1 million respecting accrued interest on loans used to finance the prototype nuclear power reactors.
- The Ernst and Young (E&Y) study assumes an "offset expenditures" principle concerning the Pickering payback agreement from 1977 to 1983 which totals $195.6 million. In other words, E&Y assumes that these payments from Ontario Hydro offset Federal Government funding that would have been available, if not for the Pickering payback agreement. This is not an appropriate assumption. In 1993, Ontario Hydro wrote off $410 million in amounts owed under this agreement from AECL and the Government of Ontario. This negative payback was accrued as a result of the poor performance of Pickering Units 1 and 2, particularly between 1984 and 1987.
- The Ernst and Young (E&Y) study combined LaPrade Heavy Water Plant (HWP) Maintenance with HWP Closures and Reactor Decommissioning under the column "Plant Closure/Safekeeping". E&Y also placed reactor decommissioning figures from 1986 and 1987 under "Nuclear Power Reactor / Funding". This study has listed figures separately for Reactor Decommissioning, LaPrade Maintenance, and Heavy Water Plant Closures -- as they have been reported annually by AECL.
- Lower decommissioning figures were included in Ernst and Young (E&Y) study, although the figures used in this table are clearly identified in AECL annual reports.
- Due to the inadequacy of future sales of heavy water, Parliament forgave Heavy Water Plant loans and interest effective April 1, 1980, for the LaPrade, Glace Bay and Port Hawkesbury Heavy Water Plants, in the amount of $816.948 million. The Ernst and Young (E&Y) study reported costs of $672.2 million directly and non-cash costs of $157.4 million.
- The Nuclear Sunset study's review of AECL annual reports notes that the Ernst and Young (E&Y) study missed a taxpayer contribution of $9.3 million to Heavy Water Plant Loan Payments in fiscal year 1980-81.
- The Ernst and Young (E&Y) study overstates the value of "Loans Payment Support" from fiscal year 1989-90 to fiscal year 1992-93. These values have been lowered to the actual amounts included in AECL annual reports.
- The Ernst and Young (E&Y) study assumes an "offset expenditures" principle concerning Heavy Water Production support. This is not an appropriate assumption. The valuation of the heavy water inventory as having a book value of $522.5 million at the end of the fiscal year 1993 assumes that the federal government could actually realize this value. This assumption is not supportable. A non-cash contribution for the interest accruing on AECL production support should be calculated in order to fully describe taxpayer costs, and would likely exceed $50 million per year, but further information would be required to confirm this figure. In order not to overstate the taxpayer cost, this study assumes that these costs are zero. In fact, the 1996 AECL report suggests that an agreement was reached with the Government to "release the corporation from its obligation to repay parliamentary appropriations". E&Y had earlier assumed that the Government would indeed be repaid, in estimating the extent of Government support for AECL.
- In 1988, AECL sold Nordion International Inc. (formerly the AECL division known as the Radiochemical Company) to the Canada Development Investment Corporation (CDIC) for eventual privatization. In 1991, CDIC sold Nordion to MDS Health Group Ltd. for $165 million, and it was reported that AECL received $150.5 million from CDIC, and that this "together with interest earned thereon between the dates of receipt and disbursement, has been distributed to the shareholder by way of dividends" (AECL 1991-92 Annual Report). The Ernst and Young (E&Y) study notes a $152.5 million dividend in 1992 from the Nordion sale.
The sale resulted in lengthy litigation by MDS and Nordion, with AECL, CDIC and the Attorney General of Canada named as liable parties. An out-of-court settlement was announced in July 1996, involving
- a payment of $5 million by the Government of Canada,
- an interest-free loan of $100 million from the government to MDS/Nordion, and
- an additional payment of $12.5 million to MDS/Nordion by AECL.
However, details concerning the total project cost, loan terms, long-term liability for waste management and decommissioning, and other terms of the settlement have not been disclosed. For these reasons, even if funds were advanced to the Receiver General, the amounts advanced would not offset the liabilities.
- In support of AECL's exporting offers to China, the Federal Government has assumed a guarantee liability for $1,500 million. Since this sale could not be financed through conventional financing sources, it represents the largest single taxpayer-funded obligation ever provided to AECL by the Federal Government. This guarantee appears to be similar in nature to earlier loan guarantees and financing support provided for Heavy Water production, which the Federal Government ultimately forgave (see notes 5 and 8).
- Based on the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) Price Index. This index was chosen because it is an historically consistent set of data available back to 1952, and the Ernst and Young (E&Y) study reports on some matters in price terms, and on other matters in cost terms. Since the GDP Price index is a composite of eceonomic activity and pricing, it generally converts nominal to real values at rates less than the rate of inflation. If the Consumer Price Index (CPI) had been used, the 1997 constant dollar amount calculated here would increase by about 20 percent to a total of $18,257 million.
- Opportunity cost is the value of the foregone eceonomic alternatives. In the case of AECL, it is a measure of the returns that would have been expected if, instead, the Government had made investments in more cost-effective ventures. In addition, opportunity cost is a measure of the foregone economic activity and returns resulting from the market protection and subsidization for CANDU, up against that offered by competitive energy options. Applying an opportunity cost of 12 to 15 percent, the opportunity cost of Federal Government subsidies to AECL range between $73,845 million and $161,163 million. It should be noted that Ontario Hydro now uses a similar discount rate, 15 percent, for its analysis of capital investments.
An
earlier version of this table, "Total Funding to AECL", was originally produced as a part of a study for the Campaign for Nuclear Phaseout, entitled Nuclear Sunset: The Economic Costs of the Canadian Nuclear Industry, February 1995. The table at that time included subsidies for the years 1952 to 1995 inclusive, which then totalled $12,919 million ($12.9 billion) in 1995 $.The Nuclear Sunset study was, in turn, a response to another study produced by the consulting firm of Ernst and Young for Atomic Energy of Canada Limited, entitled The Economic Effects of the Canadian Nuclear Industry, October, 1993. Thus the references in the Notes to the Ernst and Young (E&Y) study.
AECL has never challenged or refuted the findings of the Nuclear Sunset study.
[ TOP OF TABLE ] [ TOP OF NOTES ]
[ Nuclear Sunset Study ] [ Nuclear Industry Sub-Directory ] [ Pictures Sub-Directory ]
100,000 outside visits to the CCNR web site, plus
(counter reset June 3rd 1998 at midnight)
