There has been much discussion lately about the financial situation of Taiwan Power Co (Taipower) and the construction of the Fourth Nuclear Power Plant in Gongliao District (貢寮), New Taipei City (新北市). As director of Taipower’s legal affairs office, I would like to share some facts.
First of all, international fuel prices have surged over the past 10 years. In an effort to support the government’s carbon reduction policy, there has been an increase in natural gas purchases and power generation which has resulted in Taipower suffering continued financial losses since 2006.
Today, the accumulated losses stand at NT$197.4 billion (US$6.6 billion), a debt ratio as high as 89.7 percent, with additional financial losses of NT$59 billion expected this year.
Then there is the issue of the construction of the Fourth Nuclear Power Plant. Taipower was established in accordance with the Company Act (公司法), and it holds full responsibility for its profits and losses. That means that Taipower must raise money for the construction project by itself, by issuing corporate bonds, commercial paper and even loans. To this day, the government and taxpayers have not contributed financially.
By the end of last year, the book value of the power plant’s fixed assets had reached NT$263.9 billion. If a referendum to halt construction is passed and the project is terminated, commercial operation would of course become impossible. If that were to happen, Taipower would have no choice but to list it as a loss according to International Financial Reporting Standards.
Along with the accumulated book losses, the total loss would reach NT$460 billion, a figure that is much higher than the company’s paid-in capital of NT$330 billion. As a result, the company would have no choice but to file for bankruptcy in accordance with the Company Act.
Finally, let us discuss the decommissioning of the nation’s other three nuclear power plants. If the three existing plants are decommissioned as planned after each has been operating for 40 years, the six units at the three plants would all be decommissioned between 2018 and 2025. The equipment depreciation and amortization of the three plants have already been completed. Including the NT$0.17 that is allocated for the Nuclear Backend Fund (核能發電後端營運基金) — which currently holds NT$200 billion — the cost for power generated is NT$0.72/kWh, and this is crucial to improving Taipower’s finances.
Provided that the safety of these three plants is assured, the most ideal solution for Taipower would be to follow the example set by the US and defer the decommissioning of these power plants for 20 years.
If we do not do that, the question of how to compensate for the 40,000 GWh of power produced by these plants every year would be extremely difficult to answer.
Hu Ta-ming is director of Taiwan Power Co’s legal affairs office.
Translated by Eddy Chang
In their recent op-ed “Trump Should Rein In Taiwan” in Foreign Policy magazine, Christopher Chivvis and Stephen Wertheim argued that the US should pressure President William Lai (賴清德) to “tone it down” to de-escalate tensions in the Taiwan Strait — as if Taiwan’s words are more of a threat to peace than Beijing’s actions. It is an old argument dressed up in new concern: that Washington must rein in Taipei to avoid war. However, this narrative gets it backward. Taiwan is not the problem; China is. Calls for a so-called “grand bargain” with Beijing — where the US pressures Taiwan into concessions
The term “assassin’s mace” originates from Chinese folklore, describing a concealed weapon used by a weaker hero to defeat a stronger adversary with an unexpected strike. In more general military parlance, the concept refers to an asymmetric capability that targets a critical vulnerability of an adversary. China has found its modern equivalent of the assassin’s mace with its high-altitude electromagnetic pulse (HEMP) weapons, which are nuclear warheads detonated at a high altitude, emitting intense electromagnetic radiation capable of disabling and destroying electronics. An assassin’s mace weapon possesses two essential characteristics: strategic surprise and the ability to neutralize a core dependency.
Chinese President and Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Chairman Xi Jinping (習近平) said in a politburo speech late last month that his party must protect the “bottom line” to prevent systemic threats. The tone of his address was grave, revealing deep anxieties about China’s current state of affairs. Essentially, what he worries most about is systemic threats to China’s normal development as a country. The US-China trade war has turned white hot: China’s export orders have plummeted, Chinese firms and enterprises are shutting up shop, and local debt risks are mounting daily, causing China’s economy to flag externally and hemorrhage internally. China’s
During the “426 rally” organized by the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party under the slogan “fight green communism, resist dictatorship,” leaders from the two opposition parties framed it as a battle against an allegedly authoritarian administration led by President William Lai (賴清德). While criticism of the government can be a healthy expression of a vibrant, pluralistic society, and protests are quite common in Taiwan, the discourse of the 426 rally nonetheless betrayed troubling signs of collective amnesia. Specifically, the KMT, which imposed 38 years of martial law in Taiwan from 1949 to 1987, has never fully faced its
RSS