Today I would like to cover two topics: the first is the proposed revisions to the government's "Long- Term Program for Development and Utilization of Nuclear Energy," and the second is electricity demand and how it reflects business activity.
Yesterday, a meeting of the Atomic Energy Commission was held to begin the task of revising the "Long-Term Program for Development and Utilization of Nuclear Energy."
The program, which was established in 1956, to is designed to promote the systematic development and use of nuclear power in Japan. Since that time, it has been reviewed every five years in response to changes both inside and outside Japan. As seen in Ref. Document No. 1, the current Long-Term Program, revised in 1994, puts emphasis on the nuclear fuel cycle, particularly as it relates to the thermal utilization of plutonium at home and abroad.
However, 4 years have passed since the last revision, and the situation surrounding nuclear power has changed dramatically. The leakage of sodium at Monju in 1995, and the explosion and fire at the Power Reactor and Nuclear Fuel Development Tokai Plant bitumen solidification facility in 1997, brought great discredit to nuclear power operations. Nuclear power development in developed countries such as Germany, for example, have not moved forward. In the meantime, new signs of change can be seen. For instance, CO2 emission targets defined at the COP 3 meeting have focused attention on the role that nuclear power can play in reducing global warming. In addition, the Law Concerning the Promotion of Measures to Address Global Warming, which was approved in April of this year, clearly states that the promotion of nuclear power is vital to our efforts to address global warming. There is therefore a greater need than ever for discussions on the interim storage of spent fuel and back-end fuel cycle management issues such as the final processing of high-level radioactive waste. In addition to progress in thermal recycling plans, we have seen new plants come on-line, including Tohoku Electric Power Company's Higashidouri No. 1 plant, and Chubu Electric Power Company's Hamaoka No. 5 plant. Furthermore, as was stated at the April press conference concerning the Fifth EEI-FEPC-UNIPEDE International Electric Power Summit, the situation in the U.S. and Europe has changed somewhat, and summit meeting participants from those regions noted that renewed attention is being focused on the effectiveness of nuclear power in dealing with the issue of global warming. In light of these changes, a new long-term plan extending into the 21st century needs to be thoroughly discussed.
The Atomic Energy Commission has already conducted preliminary studies for such a long-term plan, and summarized them in a report issued in March of this year. Concerning this report, I would like to comment on two points which I think should be taken into consideration in future discussions.
First, I believe that the revised long-term plan should clarify the nation's overall energy policy, and achieve a national consensus on the promotion of nuclear power. Although Japan is poor in energy resources, it is a major energy consumer. And to our regret, we currently have no "Basic Energy Law" on which to base our overall energy policies. Although we do have the MITI Energy Advisory Committee's "Supply and Demand Energy Forecast," and the "Law for Development and Promotion of Oil-Alternative Energy Sources" and the Atomic Energy Commission's "Long- Term Program for Development and Utilization of Nuclear Energy" to work with, these are insufficient to the task of defining national energy policy, and are not inter-related. In order to proceed with nuclear power generation, in particular the nuclear fuel cycle, it is essential that we obtain the public's understanding, and achieve a consensus on the safety and necessity of nuclear power. I therefore strongly hope that the government will clarify its long-term energy policies, and express a firm commitment to nuclear power policy in the process. For this purpose, it is essential that the Diet's policy-making process be transparent, and that discussions on future energy policy be open to a wide range of opinions from the public.
Second, I hope that concrete plans will be flexible enough to respond to changes in the energy situation. Until now, the "Long- Term Program for Development and Utilization of Nuclear Energy" has served primarily to define our goals. In an age when the primary objective was to achieve parity with other developed nations, and pursue nuclear power development through joint private and public sector efforts, this goal-oriented approach made sense. However, now that we have grown to become a front-runner in nuclear power development, and are facing increased uncertainty and an unforeseen future, the rigidity of the current plan has become unrealistic. As a result, it has caused society to discredit the value of such plans. Under these circumstances, I believe that the revised plan should define only the concept and basic course of future nuclear power development, and be clearly distinct from any concrete action plan. Then, in developing a concrete action plan, we can incorporate the flexibility needed to accommodate changes in the surrounding environment. In particular, I think it is important to carefully consider the role of the private sector in regard to alternative energy sources and technological development.
In addition, I would like those concerned to carefully review the government's role in action plan development. Regarding projects such as fast breeder reactors and high-level waste disposal facilities that require long development times, as well as technologies that are in the early stages of development, it is difficult for the private sector to obtain public support without the government's assistance. I am also concerned because the high cost of such large-scale projects, and the long time required for their finalization, conflicts with the need to pursue short-term profits that deregulation has brought. As a result, government involvement and support is now more important than ever.
Next, I would like to comment on business activity from the standpoint of electricity demand. I have often referred to this theme, which I hope is of interest to you all. I will use TEPCO's April electricity demand statistics as an example, because as of today, totals for the 10 FEPC member companies are not yet available. Electricity demand for residential (up 3.1%) and commercial (up 1.2%) use is on the increase, but as is shown in Table (2), large industrial user demand, which is closely tied with business activity, was down 4.2% on last year. This is the 15th consecutive month of decline, outpacing the second-longest slump of 14 months that occurred after the collapse of the bubble economy. For your reference, the longest slump of 21 months occurred when the first "oil shock" hit.
Demand fell in almost all industrial sectors, with a notable decline of 15.3% in the steel industry. The paper and pulp sector marked its 18th month of consecutive decline, renewing its past record, and the chemical and glass industries are close to overtaking their past records for continuous decline.
The actual situation in each industry is reflected in the aggregate of contracted and privately generated and purchased electricity. Looking now at Table (3), you can see that the aggregate of contracted and privately generated and purchased electricity has declined for 12 months in a row, the longest period of decline since the 17-month slump that followed the first "oil shock."
In assessing trends, we general use the Large Industrial User Power Curve as a measure of the current economic situation. This method yields graphs of large industrial electricity use, including privately generated electricity and contracted electricity use. The curve shows an 18-month period of consecutive decline that began in November 1997. The effects of the current economic downturn are reflected by the fact that growth rates for privately generated and purchased electricity are below those for contracted electricity.
Considering the current electricity demand, and the fact that
relatively moderate temperatures in April traditionally depress
demand for air conditioning, I can not help but recognize that the
economic situation continues to be severe.