Texas nuclear industry heats up ~ Exelon's hot pursuit of NRG

• Exelon raises the stakes for its hostile takeover of NRG
• NRG raises the costs of STP units 3 & 4, but CPS Energy stays in at 40%
• Exelon pulls out of Victoria, TX, NRC license process for two ABWRs

The nuclear industry in Texas more closely resembles the West of oil wildcatting days than corporate, button down corner offices. That's because Exelon, which is based on Chicago, is not going to accept "no" for an answer from NRG. Exelon has been trying to force an all stock hostile takeover of NRG since last October, but without so much as a hat tip from the object of its desire.

Instead, NRG has dug in its spurs, so to speak, and advised its shareholders not to accept a modest premium for the stock from Exelon. The firm has said repeatedly that Exelon’s previous all stock offer was “inadequate and uncertain.” However, NRG also said it was open to a deal at a fair price, and, undoubtedly, for cash.

Some of NRG's investors agreed, especially several with more than 5% of NRG's shares, and said the only way they'd participate in the deal is if Exelon sweetened it to their liking.

That's exactly what happened this week when Exelon Corp (NYSE:EXC) announced on July 2 an increase in its offer to acquire all of the outstanding NRG common stock in an all-stock transaction with a fixed exchange ratio of 0.545 of a share of Exelon common stock for each NRG (NYSE:NRG) share, a 12.4% increase over the initial exchange offer of 0.485. Exelon said its increased offer represents value of over $3 billion to NRG shareholders.

Exelon’s stock closed July 2 at $49.37/share. A swap of 0.545 shares for each share of NRG stock, which closed July 2 at $24.80/ share, would come in at $26.91. The difference of would be a 6.1% premium at the market close prices of 7/2.

The CFO class math gets a bit complex here. The size of the premium is not based on stock prices at market close, but on stock valuations offered by Exelon. For instance, the New York Times Dealbook Blog reported that Exelon addressed this difference by pricing NRG’s stock at $28.10/share which is a hypothetical price that exists only in the pages of Exelon’s corporate presentation.

So while Exelon has increased the amount of stock it is willing to offer for NRG’s hypothetically more valuable shares, the premium still remains quite modest and may not prod NRG’s investors to buy in to the deal. As these NRG stockholders have stated in the past, they see more of an upside associated with NRG’s expected growth in the future than they do with Exelon’s “bird-in-hand” all stock deal today.

The premium may not be very attractive to NRG stockholders given the performance of Exelon’s stock. It has been volatile dropping from a Feb 6 price of $57.81 to a March 11 price of $40.15 and then rising slowly since then to its close 7/2 of $49.37 down from a mid-day high of $51.00.

Exelon has another rabbit in its hat

Exelon also filed the SEC an investor presentation that will be used as part of the company’s proxy solicitation for the election of nine new, independent directors to the NRG board of directors. In the presentation, Exelon cited approximately $1.5 billion of additional newly identified synergies as the primary reason for the increase. The new offer also reflects the value of NRG’s recent acquisition of the Reliant Energy retail business.

“We listened to NRG investors and balanced their views with the best interests of Exelon shareholders. An exhaustive analysis by our internal team, informed by the best third-party experts, resulted in additional synergies, allowing us to increase our offer to NRG shareholders,” said John Rowe, chairman and chief executive officer of Exelon.

“This is our best and final offer, and we will use the time leading up to the NRG annual meeting on July 21 to communicate the value of our new offer to NRG shareholders, encouraging them to vote for nine new independent directors who can unlock that value.”

In the presentation, Exelon also shared details on its financing plan to maintain its investment grade credit ratings while optimizing long-term shareholder value. Exelon says it is confident, based on discussions with its outside advisors, that the company will be able to meet all financing needs associated with the transaction, including the re-financing of $4.7 billion of NRG’s senior notes and other NRG debt, if necessary, while maintaining investment grade credit ratings.

The Wall Street Journal reported July 3 that if the deal does go through, Exelon would issue $1.1 billion in new stock and sell $1.6 billion in assets. Exelon already had planned to sell several power plants as part of the deal but added NRG's Louisiana and international assets to its divestiture list.

The moves is designed to help Exelon protect its credit rating if the deal closes, credit analysts told the WSJ. Exelon told the newspaper it is confident it will retain its investment-grade ratings after the transaction, under which Exelon could have to refinance $4.7 billion of NRG's senior notes and other debt. Last month Exelon laid off 500 people for a cost savings of $350 million. More layoffs would likely occur at both companies if the deal closes July 21.

STP Units 3 & 4 may run $13 billion

When NRG filed its license application with the NRC in September 2007, it priced the cost of twin GE-Hitachi 1,350 MW reactors at $2,000/Kw. That price has gone up quite a bit since then. This week new estimates by CPS Energy of San Antonio, one of NRG’s investors, put the price at $13 billion, including interest, or $4,800/Kw more than two times the original estimates.

It’s a daunting set of numbers, but what’s interesting is that CPS Energy, which will own 40% of the new plant, feels nuclear energy is the most cost effective solution for its customers. CPS Energy must take its numbers to the city council in October.

This new estimate produced predictable cries of “foul” from green groups who claim renewables will cost less. However, Steve Bartley CPS general manager told the San Antonio Express, “We believe the long-term lowest price option is nuclear.”

The San Antonio utility will keep rates down by selling half of the capacity it will own, or 20%, on the wholesale electricity market. Construction of the two new plants will begin in 2012 and they will enter revenue service in 2015 and 2016.

Exelon mulls future of Victoria new build

While Exelon continued its hot pursuit of NRG and its current and future reactor operations, the Chicago utility was cooling off its activities in Victoria, TX, where it planned to build two GE-Hitachi ABWRs. The new plants would have sent electricity to San Antonio and Houston. However, Exelon clearly sees a faster time to market with its hostile takeover of NRG which will service the same markets.

Exelon has postponed work on its NRC COL application and instead will pursue an early site permit (ESP). This move will preserve Exelon’s options to develop the site for the next two decades. The Victoria site was one of two “greenfield” sites among COL applications submitted to the NRC last year.

Exelon Corp. said it has called off plans for now to build a new nuclear plant in Texas because of worries over the economy and the limits on federal loan guarantees.

Earlier this year it bid goodbye to GE-Hitachi’s new ESBWR reactor design when it learned the Department of Energy ranked its applications out of competitive range for loan guarantees. Switching to ABWRs didn’t improve Exelon’s chances. The result is the company is not going forward with the project absent the loan insurance.

"We just aren't in a place to pursue the nuclear project," John Rowe, Exelon's chairman and CEO, told The Associated Press.

Exelon said some activity may continue at its site in Victoria, but major preconstruction work such as road upgrades and site preparations will be deferred.

Under the ESP process, the NRC evaluates site safety, environmental impact and emergency planning regarding a proposed nuclear plant. By issuing an ESP for a specific site, the NRC is certifying that the site satisfies the criteria in these areas. If the company later chooses to pursue construction, the ESP becomes part of the COL application, which requires a separate review and approval by the NRC.

Exelon has informed the NRC that the company will not submit a revision to the COL application submitted in September 2008, which referenced the ESBWR. This move saves Exelon a boat load of money since the firm will not have to update the license application with new information about the ABWR reactor. That’s money it could probably use if it is successful in its hostile takeover of NRG.

Update 07/11/09

The New York Times reports a proxy firm has advised NRG shareholders not to accept Exelon's offer saying it is too low.

# # #

GE-Hitachi files with NRC for laser enrichment plant

If licensed it will be the 4th uranium enrichment plant slated for start-up by 2014

The clock is ticking on the U.S. Russian “Megatons-to-Megawatts” program which ends in 2013. Once it wraps up there could be as many as four uranium enrichment plants slated for start-up in 2014.

There could not be a clearer signal that investors see the U.S. nuclear industry expanding than the commitments to these four plants which come in at a minimum of $2 billion each. This is not just about replacing the supply of commercial fuel coming from blending down of Russian HEU. It is a series of multi-billion dollar bets that by 2020 the US will have four-to-eight new nuclear plants, or 5-10 GWe, coming into revenue service with as many as another 10-12 (12-15 GWe) in new reactors coming behind in a second wave of construction.

The first fuel loads for new reactors are always the largest buys that a reactor makes so U.S. demand for nuclear fuel will spike significantly during the next two decades. The demand profile in this country will be mirrored in other nations like China, India, and the UK, which also have plans for massive new builds for nuclear reactors.

The latest entry into the commercial enriched uranium market for U235 to 3-5% is Global Laser Enrichment (GLE), a business unit of GE-GHitachi and Cameco, who announced June 30 they submitted a license application to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). The application is for a first-of-a-kind laser enrichment plant based on technology acquired by GE-Hitachi from Silex, and Australian firm. [fact sheets]

Cameco took a 24% stake in the Ge-Hitachi project for $125 million in June 2008. It is one of the world’s largest producers of uranium mostly from mines in Canada. Note that GLE will hold the license for the plant assuming the NRC issues one. The NRC has no experience with licensing a commercial plant using a laser enrichment process so it will fall on GLE to take the agency up the learning curve.

For a technical explanation of the differences between laser enrichment and gas centrifuge uranium enrichment processes, see this blog post by Brian Wang at Next Big Future and his graphic below,

Some of the critical technical issues are how much U235 can be produced in how much time, and how efficient the process is, e.g. tails assay at the end. GE-Hitachi has for proprietary reasons not released any of this information.

Before GE-Hitachi can break ground, the NRC must “docket” the application and complete a 30-month review of safety and environmental issues. Docketing means the regulatory agency must determine that the application is complete. Once that happens, the clock starts ticking on the review process which includes several public hearings.

GE-Hitachi said in a press statement the plant will be built in Wilmington, NC, adjacent to an existing commercial nuclear fuel fabrication plant and the GE-Hitachi nuclear energy business unit which makes and markets the firm’s reactors to global markets.

New plant will seek loan guarantees

In a surprise move the GLE said it will seek federal loan guarantees for its new uranium enrichment venture. This move will put it in direct competition with USEC and Areva both of which are also building new uranium enrichment plants in the U.S. and have applied for the same federal insurance.

Bloomberg wire service reported that the firm thinks it can come out on top in what appears to be a “winner take all” outcome for the $2 billion insurance pot.

Tammy Orr, CEO of GLE, said in a telephone interview with Bloomberg . . .

“We are closely working with the government on the next round of loan guarantees and would be very interested in participating,” Orr said. “We believe nuclear energy is a worthwhile energy to invest in from a stimulus perspective.”

She declined to disclose the project’s estimated cost. However, she noted that the plant would employ 300 workers once built. Assuming there is some basis for comparison between number of permanent employees and plant size, this suggests an initial capacity of approximately 3 million SWU/year. A gas centrifuge plant that size would like cost between $2.5-3.0 billion to build. Because the laser enrichment plant is a first-of-a-kind, there isn’t an industry benchmark to estimate its costs.

GLE is currently building a test-loop for the laser enrichment plant at its Wilmington, NC, facility. The test loop will be used to confirm the commercial feasibility of the technology, help design the plant equipment, and layout production processes with the facility. GLE will make a go/no-go decision to proceed with full construction of the laser enrichment plant based on results achieved at the test loop.

The other three plants already slated production in the U.S. are Louisiana Energy Services (LES) in Eunice, NM, Areva’s Eagle Rock Enrichment Facility in Idaho Falls, ID, and USEC’s American Centrifuge Facility for Piketon, OH. The plants range in size from 2.0-3.8 million SWU/year.

Market share among plants

USEC is the most problematic of the three plants as it has experienced difficulty attracting investors. It has issued formal statements that it cannot build the plant without getting the federal loan guarantee. The other two plants do not have financing issues. LES has not applied for a loan guarantee, but Areva has based on its worldwide need for capital.

Taken together they could account for approximately 75% of the market share of expected demand of 13-15 million SWU in 2014 or about 10-12 million SWU. This would leave three-to-five million SWU on the table. If GE-Hitachi succeeds with its new process, that would be the initial target market share for the firm.

Both LES and Areva has announced plans to double the size of their plants by 2018 as a marketing contingency. Actual construction of the additional plant capacity is relatively straight forward and will depend entirely on domestic and international demand.

# # #

AECL future? Who’s really ‘dysfunctional’ in Canada?

It's time for the crown corporation to stop being an Ottawa sucker and act like an Ice Road Trucker

Conservative Prime Minister Stephen Harper may come to regret his blunt language reported in the Economist June 18 in which his spokesman called Atomic Energy Canada Limited (AECL) “dysfunctional.” The insulting language, which will undoubtedly affect at least 30,000 votes in Ontario for the next election, came after a series of calamitous events involving AECL’s repeated failures to keep the flow of medical isotopes moving from Chalk River and a pre-emptive vote of no confidence from Ontario’s Energy Minister over AECL’s expensive bid for the $22 billion Darlington project.

Chalk River and Darlington projects

The situation has developed in several parts, but all the pieces come together, but not in a cohesive whole, at AECL’s doorstep. The first, and most visible problem, is that ultimately the failures at Chalk River and with the Maple Reactors, while blamed on AECL, in fact represent a failure of political leadership that hits the Harper government with the same force as Harry Truman’s famous characterization of accountability – “The Buck Stops Here.”

For years the Harper government and previous administrations have ignored AECL's calls for replacement of Chalk River, built in the 1950s, with a modern facility. The fact that the isotope business made money hand-over-fist seemed lost on the government. The failure of the Maple Reactor projects is also in reality a failure of political leadership because the government allowed the future of a critical medical service, with global importance, to be turned into a sandbox for scientists instead of a focused project.

The second, and more damaging development relative to AECL’s long-term future, is the action taken by Ontario’s Energy Minister George Smitherman. He suspended negotiations with AECL over its bid for the $22 billion Darlington new nuclear build claiming the crown corporation had failed to adequately sharpen its pencil on price. He also rejected bids by Areva and Westinghouse as being “noncompliant” with the tender. If AECL cannot close a deal on its home turf of Ontario with its new ACR1000 reactor, it is unlikely it will ever sell any for export.

Who will stand behind costs and why?

Smitherman should be forgiven, at least in part, for assuming that since AECL is a creature of the Canadian federal government, and as crown corporation, that it would stand behind any cost over runs on the Darlington project. PM Harper said nothing doing and warned that Ontario should not expect a subsidy for its energy needs. The fact that the liberals in Ontario and the conservatives in Ottawa hate each others' guts has plenty to do with the dysfunctional nature of the lack of an agreement on costs.

At the same time the Harper government also threw the future of AECL into further turmoil by announcing a plan to split the organization into two parts. The first part, which is the isotope operations, would shut down Chalk River, along with its $7 billion cleanup bill, and perhaps build a smaller, conventional reactor for the lucrative medical isotope business.

In the process, Lisa Raitt, the Harper government’s minister for energy issues, was caught on tape speculating how her career might be advanced by resolving the isotope shortfalls caused by the Chalk River shutdown. She also left sensitive government documents about the Darlington bid at a TV station resulting in the premature release of confidential business information. She offered her resignation, but it was refused and a 20-something aide took the fall. Understandably, Mr. Harper is not going to brand one of his own ministers as being “dysfunctional” even if her behavior clearly merits the label.

The second part of the Harper/Raitt plan is to sell off for whatever it can get for AECL’s nuclear engineering capabilities including services to the global fleet of CANDU reactors. The second step is clearly dysfunctional since it subverts the value proposition of AECL in several ways.

Even a used car salesman would do a better job

Instead of supporting AECL to provide a winning bid at Darlington, Harper harried it by calling its history of cost overruns a fiscal “sinkhole.” This is the equivalent of a used car dealer telling a potential customer the ride in question is a “beater.”

In terms of the conventions of salesmanship, there could not be a more “dysfunctional” approach to the problem. It pre-disposed Smitherman to ratchet up the volume on controlling costs setting up all the bidders for failure. Tens of millions in engineering time has been wasted by all three bidders on a dysfunctional process.

In a press release June 29 Smitherman said the AECL bid was “complaint,” but was too expensive. In order to achieve a workable deal with AECL, he wants the firm to address reactor new build costs as well as the lifetime cost of power. Normally, with nuclear plants, once they have been depreciated, they are venerable cash cows. The key issue is that AECL bid an untried reactor, one that has never been built before, and which is still in the middle of the design process.

How to really handle ‘first-of-a kind’ nuclear new builds

Since no one knows what it will really cost to build one of the ACR1000s, Smitherman turned to the Harper government to share the risk of getting at least one unit into revenue service. His assumption was that whatever cost over runs the Harper government might incur at Ontario, they would make it up in volume with export earnings. The idea is build the first-of-a-kind reactor in Ontario, make it a show piece, and then sell it globally. It was an eminently useful idea and the Harper government turned it down flat.

The fact that the Harper government didn’t buy it illustrates an incredible fit of narrow mindedness. It is a classic formula for the wheels coming off any deal between the provincial Ontario government and AECL. Ms. Raitt, the government’s energy minister, told AECL is must build the new reactors at Darlington at a commercially attractive price that would cover all costs. Once that happened, the Harper government said would be happy to reap the export earnings that would follow.

This is also a case of wanting the cake and frosting and both for free. Anyone who knows anything about the nuclear industry also knows that construction of first-of-a-kind reactors always has risks of cost over runs. Developing workable means of sharing these risks can produce success for all parties. Zero sum political posturing, which is what has happened in Canada, has left all parties concerned with giant headaches and bad feelings about their ability to get along.

AECL must manage upwards

What it will take for AECL to succeed is to manage upwards convincing the opportunistic Ms. Raitt and the parsimonious Mr. Harper that it has a plan to put the organization on the right track. It must re-capture its global leadership position for medical isotopes and win the Ontario new reactor bid with the full political support of the federal government.

To do this AECL must mount a national campaign to convince Canada’s voters that it is in the nation’s national interest to revitalize the crown corporation as a technology leader in the global nuclear industry.

It will take business horse sense, technology vision, and real determination to achieve these results. A nation that can convince ice road truckers to brave the winter driving season in the Northwest Territories ought to be able to tackle a few politicians in Ottawa. ACEL has heard the ice cracking underneath its wheels. It should take a lesson from the fact that these truckers wouldn’t be able to do the job if they weren’t some of the toughest guys out there. It’s time for AECL to get tough.

# # #

Short week news stack for 7/03/09

Ameren calls it quits

Ameren switched gears this week asking the NRC to stop its review of the utility’s license application for a new nuclear power plant at Callaway, MO. The action by Ameren probably means the Callaway II new nuclear build is dead. It is an exasperating defeat for pro-nuclear business groups in Missouri. The experience had all the grace and finesse of a state fair demolition derby.

Ameren spokesman Mike Cleary told the St. Louis Post Dispatch on July 2, “We decided it was not prudent to have the NRC continue its review.”

The firm says it is giving up because the Missouri General Assembly refused to overturn a 1976 law that banned “Construction While in Progress” or CWIP. Had the legislature acted in Ameren’s favor, the utility would have been able to recover construction costs while the new reactor was being built avoiding costly interest charges.

The cost of the new reactor was pegged at $6 billion or $3,750/KW. Had it gone forward the utility would have broken ground in 2011 with revenue service available in 2016.

The legislative initiative failed in large part because Ameren failed to understand and respond to rate payer concerns about how it would control costs for the new build. It’s largest customer, the Noranda aluminum mill, actively lobbied against the change to the CWIP ban as did a coalition of anti-nuclear and consumer groups.

Ameren entered the front end of the legislative session with political leaders in both houses championing its cause, but by the end of the session, these same politicians, who took Ameren’s $300,000 in campaign contributions in the last election, were running for cover. The reason was the utility’s initial positions on a broad range of rate payer rights issues. Even the Public Utilities Commission, which is nominally neutral in such matters, came out against the measure as drafted by the utility.

In July 2008 Ameren filed electronically 8,000 pages with the NRC in a license application on which it says it spent $75 million. It is now seeking to recover those costs from the rate base. Ameren will likely sell off its place in line with Japan Steel Works for large forgings for an Areva 1,600 MW EPR. Those contractual obligations, the utility says, are liabilities worth $85 million.

Ameren still has to figure out what it will do about its next base load electric generation plant. While the current recession may put a crimp on growth in demand for electricity, by 2018-2020 the utility is going to need those 1,600 MW in one form or another. A federal carbon tax and cap-and-trade program, if implemented in 2010, will by 20178 surely make coal a very expensive choice.

Japanese utilities fade on MOX use

Japanese utilities confirmed to NucNet that their program to spin up the use of MOX fuel at 18 nuclear power plants has been delayed by at least five years. The Japan Atomic Industrial Forum (JAIF) announced that the Federation of Electric Power Companies made the decision on June 12.

The key reason is that the start of operations of a MOX fuel fabrication plant by Japan Nuclear Fuels has been pushed back from October 2012 to June 2015. The plant is is still scheduled to break ground in 2009, but this date itself is two years behind schedule. Construction of the plant at Rokkasho in Aomori prefecture is also opposed by a broad swath of local government groups. In Japan these political entities have standing to block such projects.

The original plan was for 11 Japanese utilities operating 18 nuclear plants to start using MOX fuel by April 2010. The delay will likely increase costs to Japanese ratepayers as the country is in a world wide race to secure uranium for nuclear fuel.

Paradoxically, Japan developed its plans for a plutonium fueled electric utility industry in order to get out of competition with China for Middle Eastern fossil fuels. Now with the focus on global warming, and China’s massive commitment to building new nuclear power plants, MOX fuel seems to like a plausible competitive advantage. The strategy will only work if the Japanese can extricate themselves from endless bureaucratic delays.

MHI to get Comanche Peak order?

One bright note for Japan’s nuclear industry is the Bloomberg wire service reported on June 28 that Mitsubishi Heavy Industries (MHI) is said to be on the verge of receiving an order for two of its new 1,700 MW Advanced Pressurized Water Reactors (APWR) from Luminant, a Texas based private equity owned nuclear utility. The order, expected to be worth approximately $6.3 billion, would be for Luminant’s Comanche Peak plant.

Luminant is in an unusual position in the Federal loan guarantee program. It is in the 5th position relative to four firms that are short-listed for the loan guarantees. If one of them drops out, they move up. The APWR reactor is still undergoing design certification review at the NRC.

Meanwhile, Bloomberg also reports that MHI will double the number of its employees in the U.S. to 200 people. Additional employment growth is forecast if the order to Luminant goes through. Construction could begin sometime in the 2011/2012 timeframe with revenue service set for 2020 at the latest.

China sets new nuclear energy goal at 86 GWe

China is reportedly revising its plans for new nuclear power plants. A new estimate, still be be made official by the government, calls for 86 GWe of nuclear generation capacity. This is a nearly 10 fold increase from its current capacity of 9 GWe.

According to the China Daily for July 2, an English language newspaper, the plan "will call for the government to accelerate nuclear power development in coastal provinces and autonomous regions, namely Liaoning, Guangdong, Zhejiang, Fujian, Guangxi, Jiangsu, Shandong and Hainan," the sources said.

In order to achieve the goal, the government will also set up a "reasonable number of nuclear power plants in inland provinces in Jiangxi, Anhui, Hunan and Hubei", the anonymous sources said.

According to an assessment by World Nuclear News, the plan for 86 GWe would place China’s eventual build at second rank globally behind the U.S. fleet which is now at 100 GWe but ahead of France at 63 GWe and Japan at 46 GWe. These rankings could change over time depending on how the other nations pursue nuclear energy as a response to global warming.

There is some skepticism as to whether China has the internal manufacturing capability to build the equivalent of seven more 1200 MW plants by the end of the next decade. The country will likely have to build its own large forgings plant, which would be a multi-billion dollar endeavor. Also, it will have to train at least 300-500 nuclear engineers a year for at least ten years. The need for skilled crafts people capable of delivering nuclear grade concrete and steel fabrication services will be a serious challenge.

China National Nuclear Corp, the biggest nuclear power operator in the country, China Guangdong Nuclear Power Holding Co Ltd and China Power Investment Corp, the parent company of the Hong Kong-listed China Power International Development Ltd, are currently the only players in the nuclear power sector. How they will meet the demands for people and materials will be interesting to see.

By comparison in the U.S the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) sees only four-to-eight new nuclear power plants being built in this country by 2020. The same capacity issues face the U.S. nuclear industry.

# # #

In Congress July 4, 1776

We hold these truths to be self-evident . . .

John Trumbell's painting "Declaration of Independence" was placed in the Capitol Rotunda in 1826.

The original Declaration of Independence was signed on July 4, 1776. Here are the opening lines of text.

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.

But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

& & &

Blogging on nuclear energy topics will resume next week. Enjoy a safe and happy fourth!