Saudi government sources have said that they plan to spend more in excess of US$100bn on 16 nuclear reactors that they hope to have operational by 2030. The aim is that the reactors would meet growing domestic energy needs. China will certainly be hoping that its newly developed reactor, the Chinese version of the Westinghouse Electric AP1000, the CAP1400, will appeal to the Saudis. Some analysts, such as Bill Dodson at China-based energy consultancy Strategic Analysis, sees Saudi Arabia as a unlikely location for the re-engineered Chinese AP1000. The reactor is still in a testing phase, a process some consider rushed even with the delays caused by the Fukushima issue in Japan last year. It was assumed that the CAP1400 and Chinese nuclear technology would be more suited to either countries with less financial clout, but nuclear ambitions (such as perhaps Vietnam or Malaysia) or those with political issues that would make it more problematic for European or American firms to deal with - primarily Pakistan, where China is active in Islamabad's nuclear programme.
Exelon Corp.'s proposed takeover of Constellation Energy Group Inc. crossed another hurdle Thursday when the Nuclear Regulatory Commission approved the $7.9 billion deal.
Constellation's nuclear division, the Constellation Energy Nuclear Group, is licensed to operate five reactors and two spent fuel installations. The staffs at the plants, including management, will remain essentially unchanged when Exelon takes over, the NRC said. The agency also said public health and safety would not be adversely affected.
Constellation's nuclear division operates two reactors at Calvert Cliffs in southern Maryland, two at the Nine Mile Point plant in New York and one at the R.E. Ginna plant, also in New York. The NRC said its staff determined that Exelon, which already operates its own fleet of nuclear power plants, meets the agency's financial and technical requirements.
Maryland regulators are expected to announce on Friday whether they have approved the deal, which also must be approved by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. The deal has already been approved by the Justice Department, shareholders of both companies, and New York and Texas regulators. Regulatory approval was needed in Texas because both companies own plants in the state, and Constellation markets power and gas there.
If the deal goes through, Exelon would indirectly own 50.01 percent of CENG, which is jointly owned by Constellation Energy Group and EDF, Inc., a subsidiary of Electricité de France SA. EDF had initially opposed the deal, but dropped its opposition in January, saying it had reached agreement with Exelon over the independence of CENG.
Maryland Gov. Martin O'Malley's administration had also opposed the deal initially, saying it was not in the public's interest, but O'Malley relented after the companies increased commitments to renewable energy and assistance to low-income residents.
However, Maryland's consumer advocate said in a filing earlier this month that it still opposed to the merger despite that settlement. The Maryland Office of People's Counsel said in a filing with the Maryland Public Service Commission that the two companies have not demonstrated the merger will not harm customers of Baltimore Gas and Electric, a Constellation subsidiary that is regulated by the commission.
Maryland regulators approved Exelon Corp.’s proposed $7.9 billion takeover of Constellation Energy Group on Friday, saying they had determined the deal would be in the public interest if the companies stick to commitments including renewable energy construction, customer credits and assistance to low-income residents.
The decision follows months of wrangling between state officials and executives for the companies. Gov. Martin O’Malley initially opposed the merger and relented after the Constellation and Exelon increased commitments that also include construction of a new headquarters in downtown Baltimore. However, the Maryland Office of People’s Counsel, which represents utility customers, continued to oppose the takeover, saying the companies have not demonstrated the takeover will not harm customers of Baltimore Gas and Electric, a Constellation subsidiary regulated by the commission.
U.S. plans funding for small reactors The White House announced plans to share the cost with the private sector to develop and license small modular nuclear reactors.
The Obama administration said it was offering $450 million in a cost-sharing plan meant to support engineering, design, certification and licensing for small modular reactors.
U.S. Energy Secretary Steven Chu said the funding would help strengthen his country's competitive edge in the clean energy sector.
"Through the funding for small modular nuclear reactors announced today, the Energy Department and private industry are working to position America as the leader in advanced nuclear energy technology and manufacturing," he said in a statement.
Small modular reactors are about 30 percent the size of conventional nuclear plants and Chu's department said they're expected to offer "a host" of safety benefits.
SMRs under the proposal would be 50 percent funded by the private sector. The budget for the program is subject to congressional appropriations.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) Chairman Gregory Jaczko announced his resignation on Monday after three tumultuous years as head of the agency.
Jaczko oversaw the approval of the first new nuclear power reactors in decades but faced intense criticism over his management style.
The White House said President Obama plans to nominate a new chairman soon, and that Jaczko plans to continue leading the agency until his successor is named.
The resignation sets up what could be a tough election-year fight over the next NRC chief at a time when the agency’s politics have been in the limelight.
A physicist and former staffer for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), Jaczko, a Democrat, clashed with his colleagues on the commission and became a top target of Republicans in Congress.
The four other NRC commissioners, two Democrats and two Republicans, wrote a letter to the White House last year alleging that Jaczko was causing “serious damage” to the agency that could harm the body’s ability to protect health and safety.
The letter was released publicly shortly after an NRC inspector general report exposed major tensions within the agency. The report quoted anonymous NRC staffers who alleged that Jaczko created a tense atmosphere at the agency and, in some instances, berated employees.
The NRC’s inspector general is set to soon release a second report examining the allegations against Jaczko. A spokesman for the NRC said the chairman’s resignation had nothing to do with the pending report.
Jaczko has been a divisive figure in Washington. Democrats have praised his tenure, casting him as a strong proponent of nuclear safety who refuses to bend to the will of industry. Republicans, furious over the administration’s decision to abandon the long-delayed Yucca Mountain nuclear waste depository, have pounced on criticism of Jaczko’s leadership.
Earlier this year, the NRC green-lighted the construction and operation of the first new U.S. nuclear reactors in decades, a major victory for the nuclear power industry, which has struggled to secure regulatory approvals since the 1979 Three Mile Island disaster.
But Jaczko, breaking with the NRC’s other commissioners, opposed the license approvals, arguing that the plant operators should commit to implementing the regulatory reforms imposed in the aftermath of the disaster at Japan’s Fukushima Daiichi power plant.
Jaczko helmed the agency in the months after the March 2011 disaster, an event that caused U.S. regulators to rethink existing safety regulations. The chairman outlined an aggressive five-year timeline for implementing a slew of new nuclear safety regulations recommended by a federal task force formed by Obama.
Jaczko’s resignation comes amid a partisan battle over the re-nomination of Commissioner Kristine Svinicki, a Republican, to a second term at the agency. Obama officially re-nominated Svinicki earlier this month.
While Republicans strongly support the nomination, Democrats, including Reid and Senate Environment and Public Works Committee Chairwoman Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), have criticized Svinicki.
Jaczko and Svinicki have clashed publicly in recent years. She joined her colleagues in raising concerns about Jaczko’s management style to the White House, and initially voiced skepticism about Jaczko’s timeline for implementing new post-Fukushima safety rules.
Svinicki has also alleged that Jaczko berated female employees at the agency, claims that were initially revealed in last year’s inspector general report.
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) accused Jaczko of creating a “hostile work environment for women” at the NRC in a statement Monday, and urged the Senate to quickly reconfirm Svinicki as a commissioner.
Jaczko has stood behind his record at the commission and strongly denied allegations that he targeted women at the agency.
“After an incredibly productive three years as chairman, I have decided this is the appropriate time to continue my efforts to ensure public safety in a different forum,” Jaczko said in a statement Monday. “This is the right time to pass along the public-safety torch to a new chairman who will keep a strong focus on carrying out the vital mission of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.”
The White House praised Jaczko’s “service and efforts to further the mission of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission — to license and regulate the nation’s use of nuclear materials.”
“A strong and effective NRC is crucial to protecting public health and safety, promoting defense and security, and protecting the environment, and we intend to nominate a new chairman soon,” White House spokesman Clark Stevens said in a statement.
Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.), a critic of Jaczko, cheered his decision to step aside.
“With his resignation today, the NRC can focus on its mission of safety without the distractions of Jaczko's inappropriate behavior,” said Inhofe, the top Republican on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee.
But Reid praised the work of the outgoing NRC chief.
“He dedicated his tenure to improving the safety of nuclear energy, and his leadership during the Fukushima nuclear crisis protected millions of Americans. His work toward a safe and effective nuclear energy policy has left Nevada and the nation more secure,” he said in a statement.
Rank. Reactor, nearby city, state: Chance each year of core damage from an earthquake, showing NRC estimates based on 2008 USGS data. Old estimate from 1989 data. Change in risk. . . . . . . . . . . . . 1. Indian Point 3, Buchanan, N.Y.: 1 in 10,000 chance each year. Old estimate: 1 in 17,241. Change in risk: 72 percent.
2. Pilgrim 1, Plymouth, Mass.: 1 in 14,493 chance each year. Old estimate: 1 in 125,000. Change in risk: 763 percent.
3. Limerick 1, Limerick, Pa.: 1 in 18,868 chance each year. Old estimate: 1 in 45,455. Change in risk: 141 percent.
3. Limerick 2, Limerick, Pa.: 1 in 18,868 chance each year. Old estimate: 1 in 45,455. Change in risk: 141 percent.
5. Sequoyah 1, Soddy-Daisy, Tenn.: 1 in 19,608 chance each year. Old estimate: 1 in 102,041. Change in risk: 420 percent.
5. Sequoyah 2, Soddy-Daisy, Tenn.: 1 in 19,608 chance each year. Old estimate: 1 in 102,041. Change in risk: 420 percent.
7. Beaver Valley 1, Shippingport, Pa.: 1 in 20,833 chance each year. Old estimate: 1 in 76,923. Change in risk: 269 percent.
8. Saint Lucie 1, Jensen Beach, Fla.: 1 in 21,739 chance each year. Old estimate: N/A. Change in risk: N/A.
8. Saint Lucie 2, Jensen Beach, Fla.: 1 in 21,739 chance each year. Old estimate: N/A. Change in risk: N/A.
10. North Anna 1, Louisa, Va.: 1 in 22,727 chance each year. Old estimate: 1 in 31,250. Change in risk: 38 percent.
10. North Anna 2, Louisa, Va.: 1 in 22,727 chance each year. Old estimate: 1 in 31,250. Change in risk: 38 percent.
12. Oconee 1, Seneca, S.C.: 1 in 23,256 chance each year. Old estimate: 1 in 100,000. Change in risk: 330 percent.
12. Oconee 2, Seneca, S.C.: 1 in 23,256 chance each year. Old estimate: 1 in 100,000. Change in risk: 330 percent.
12. Oconee 3, Seneca, S.C.: 1 in 23,256 chance each year. Old estimate: 1 in 100,000. Change in risk: 330 percent.
15. Diablo Canyon 1, Avila Beach, Calif.: 1 in 23,810 chance each year. Old estimate: N/A. Change in risk: N/A.
15. Diablo Canyon 2, Avila Beach, Calif.: 1 in 23,810 chance each year. Old estimate: N/A. Change in risk: N/A.
17. Three Mile Island 1, Middletown, Pa.: 1 in 25,000 chance each year. Old estimate: 1 in 45,455. Change in risk: 82 percent.
18. Palo Verde 1, Wintersburg, Ariz.: 1 in 26,316 chance each year. Old estimate: N/A. Change in risk: N/A.
18. Palo Verde 2, Wintersburg, Ariz.: 1 in 26,316 chance each year. Old estimate: N/A. Change in risk: N/A.
18. Palo Verde 3, Wintersburg, Ariz.: 1 in 26,316 chance each year. Old estimate: N/A. Change in risk: N/A.
18. Summer, Jenkensville, S.C.: 1 in 26,316 chance each year. Old estimate: 1 in 138,889. Change in risk: 428 percent.
22. Catawba 1, York, S.C.: 1 in 27,027 chance each year. Old estimate: 1 in 33,333. Change in risk: 23 percent.
22. Catawba 2, York, S.C.: 1 in 27,027 chance each year. Old estimate: 1 in 33,333. Change in risk: 23 percent.
24. Watts Bar 1, Spring City, Tenn.: 1 in 27,778 chance each year. Old estimate: 1 in 178,571. Change in risk: 543 percent.
25. Indian Point 2, Buchanan, N.Y.: 1 in 30,303 chance each year. Old estimate: 1 in 71,429. Change in risk: 136 percent.
26. Duane Arnold, Palo, Iowa: 1 in 31,250 chance each year. Old estimate: N/A. Change in risk: N/A.
27. McGuire 1, Huntersville, N.C.: 1 in 32,258 chance each year. Old estimate: 1 in 35,714. Change in risk: 11 percent.
27. McGuire 2, Huntersville, N.C.: 1 in 32,258 chance each year. Old estimate: 1 in 35,714. Change in risk: 11 percent.
29. Farley 1, Columbia, Ala.: 1 in 35,714 chance each year. Old estimate: 1 in 263,158. Change in risk: 637 percent.
29. Farley 2, Columbia, Ala.: 1 in 35,714 chance each year. Old estimate: 1 in 263,158. Change in risk: 637 percent.
31. Quad Cities 1, Cordova, Ill.: 1 in 37,037 chance each year. Old estimate: 1 in 71,429. Change in risk: 93 percent.
31. Quad Cities 2, Cordova, Ill.: 1 in 37,037 chance each year. Old estimate: 1 in 71,429. Change in risk: 93 percent.
33. River Bend 1, St. Francisville, La.: 1 in 40,000 chance each year. Old estimate: 1 in 370,370. Change in risk: 826 percent.
34. Peach Bottom 2, Delta, Pa.: 1 in 41,667 chance each year. Old estimate: 1 in 120,482. Change in risk: 189 percent.
34. Peach Bottom 3, Delta, Pa.: 1 in 41,667 chance each year. Old estimate: 1 in 120,482. Change in risk: 189 percent.
36. Crystal River 3, Crystal River, Fla.: 1 in 45,455 chance each year. Old estimate: 1 in 192,308. Change in risk: 323 percent.
36. Seabrook 1, Seabrook, N.H.: 1 in 45,455 chance each year. Old estimate: 1 in 114,943. Change in risk: 153 percent.
36. Beaver Valley 2, Shippingport, Pa.: 1 in 45,455 chance each year. Old estimate: 1 in 188,679. Change in risk: 315 percent.
39. Perry 1, Perry, Ohio: 1 in 47,619 chance each year. Old estimate: 1 in 1,176,471. Change in risk: 2371 percent.
39. Columbia 1, Richland, Wash.: 1 in 47,619 chance each year. Old estimate: N/A. Change in risk: N/A.
41. Waterford 3, Killona, La.: 1 in 50,000 chance each year. Old estimate: 1 in 833,333. Change in risk: 1567 percent.
42. Dresden 2, Morris, Ill.: 1 in 52,632 chance each year. Old estimate: 1 in 434,783. Change in risk: 726 percent.
42. Dresden 3, Morris, Ill.: 1 in 52,632 chance each year. Old estimate: 1 in 434,783. Change in risk: 726 percent.
42. Monticello, Monticello, Minn.: 1 in 52,632 chance each year. Old estimate: 1 in 38,462. Change in risk: -27 percent.
45. Wolf Creek 1, Burlington, Kansas: 1 in 55,556 chance each year. Old estimate: 1 in 400,000. Change in risk: 620 percent.
46. San Onofre 2, San Clemente, Calif.: 1 in 58,824 chance each year. Old estimate: N/A. Change in risk: N/A.
46. San Onofre 3, San Clemente, Calif.: 1 in 58,824 chance each year. Old estimate: N/A. Change in risk: N/A.
48. Millstone 3, Waterford, Conn.: 1 in 66,667 chance each year. Old estimate: 1 in 100,000. Change in risk: 50 percent.
48. Brunswick 1, Southport, N.C.: 1 in 66,667 chance each year. Old estimate: 1 in 263,158. Change in risk: 295 percent.
48. Brunswick 2, Southport, N.C.: 1 in 66,667 chance each year. Old estimate: 1 in 263,158. Change in risk: 295 percent.
48. Robinson 2, Hartsville, S.C.: 1 in 66,667 chance each year. Old estimate: 1 in 370,370. Change in risk: 456 percent.
52. Oyster Creek, Forked River, N.J.: 1 in 71,429 chance each year. Old estimate: 1 in 126,582. Change in risk: 77 percent.
53. Fort Calhoun, Fort Calhoun, Neb.: 1 in 76,923 chance each year. Old estimate: N/A. Change in risk: N/A.
53. Ginna, Ontario, N.Y.: 1 in 76,923 chance each year. Old estimate: 1 in 238,095. Change in risk: 210 percent.
53. Susquehanna 1, Salem Township, Pa.: 1 in 76,923 chance each year. Old estimate: 1 in 416,667. Change in risk: 442 percent.
53. Susquehanna 2, Salem Township, Pa.: 1 in 76,923 chance each year. Old estimate: 1 in 416,667. Change in risk: 442 percent.
57. Calvert Cliffs 2, Lusby, Md.: 1 in 83,333 chance each year. Old estimate: 1 in 116,279. Change in risk: 40 percent.
57. D.C. Cook 1, Bridgman, Mich.: 1 in 83,333 chance each year. Old estimate: N/A. Change in risk: N/A.
57. D.C. Cook 2, Bridgman, Mich.: 1 in 83,333 chance each year. Old estimate: N/A. Change in risk: N/A.
57. Grand Gulf 1, Port Gibson, Miss.: 1 in 83,333 chance each year. Old estimate: 1 in 106,383. Change in risk: 28 percent.
57. Kewaunee, Kewaunee, Wis.: 1 in 83,333 chance each year. Old estimate: 1 in 71,429. Change in risk: -14 percent.
62. Millstone 2, Waterford, Conn.: 1 in 90,909 chance each year. Old estimate: 1 in 156,250. Change in risk: 72 percent.
62. Salem 1, Hancocks Bridge, N.J.: 1 in 90,909 chance each year. Old estimate: 1 in 172,414. Change in risk: 90 percent.
62. Salem 2, Hancocks Bridge, N.J.: 1 in 90,909 chance each year. Old estimate: 1 in 172,414. Change in risk: 90 percent.
62. Point Beach 1, Two Rivers, Wis.: 1 in 90,909 chance each year. Old estimate: 1 in 76,923. Change in risk: -15 percent.
62. Point Beach 2, Two Rivers, Wis.: 1 in 90,909 chance each year. Old estimate: 1 in 76,923. Change in risk: -15 percent.
67. Turkey Point 3, Homestead, Fla.: 1 in 100,000 chance each year. Old estimate: N/A. Change in risk: N/A.
67. Turkey Point 4, Homestead, Fla.: 1 in 100,000 chance each year. Old estimate: N/A. Change in risk: N/A.
67. Calvert Cliffs 1, Lusby, Md.: 1 in 100,000 chance each year. Old estimate: 1 in 142,857. Change in risk: 43 percent.
70. Vermont Yankee, Vernon, Vt.: 1 in 123,457 chance each year. Old estimate: 1 in 434,783. Change in risk: 252 percent.
71. Braidwood 1, Braceville, Ill.: 1 in 136,986 chance each year. Old estimate: 1 in 1,785,714. Change in risk: 1204 percent.
71. Braidwood 2, Braceville, Ill.: 1 in 136,986 chance each year. Old estimate: 1 in 1,785,714. Change in risk: 1204 percent.
73. Vogtle 1, Waynesboro, Ga.: 1 in 140,845 chance each year. Old estimate: 1 in 384,615. Change in risk: 173 percent.
73. Vogtle 2, Waynesboro, Ga.: 1 in 140,845 chance each year. Old estimate: 1 in 384,615. Change in risk: 173 percent.
75. Cooper, Brownville, Neb.: 1 in 142,857 chance each year. Old estimate: N/A. Change in risk: N/A.
76. Davis-Besse, Oak Harbor, Ohio: 1 in 149,254 chance each year. Old estimate: 1 in 625,000. Change in risk: 319 percent.
77. Palisades, Covert, Mich.: 1 in 156,250 chance each year. Old estimate: N/A. Change in risk: N/A.
78. South Texas 1, Bay City, Texas: 1 in 158,730 chance each year. Old estimate: 1 in 1,298,701. Change in risk: 718 percent.
78. South Texas 2, Bay City, Texas: 1 in 158,730 chance each year. Old estimate: 1 in 1,298,701. Change in risk: 718 percent.
80. FitzPatrick, Scriba, N.Y.: 1 in 163,934 chance each year. Old estimate: 1 in 833,333. Change in risk: 408 percent.
81. Byron 1, Byron, Ill.: 1 in 172,414 chance each year. Old estimate: 1 in 1,470,588. Change in risk: 753 percent.
81. Byron 2, Byron, Ill.: 1 in 172,414 chance each year. Old estimate: 1 in 1,470,588. Change in risk: 753 percent.
83. Surry 1, Surry, Va.: 1 in 175,439 chance each year. Old estimate: 1 in 123,457. Change in risk: -30 percent.
83. Surry 2, Surry, Va.: 1 in 175,439 chance each year. Old estimate: 1 in 123,457. Change in risk: -30 percent.
85. Nine Mile Point 2, Scriba, N.Y.: 1 in 178,571 chance each year. Old estimate: 1 in 1,000,000. Change in risk: 460 percent.
86. Browns Ferry 2, Athens, Ala.: 1 in 185,185 chance each year. Old estimate: 1 in 625,000. Change in risk: 238 percent.
86. Browns Ferry 3, Athens, Ala.: 1 in 185,185 chance each year. Old estimate: 1 in 625,000. Change in risk: 238 percent.
88. Nine Mile Point 1, Scriba, N.Y.: 1 in 238,095 chance each year. Old estimate: 1 in 1,724,138. Change in risk: 624 percent.
88. Fermi 2, Monroe, Mich.: 1 in 238,095 chance each year. Old estimate: 1 in 625,000. Change in risk: 163 percent.
90. Arkansas Nuclear 1, London, Ark.: 1 in 243,902 chance each year. Old estimate: 1 in 1,063,830. Change in risk: 336 percent.
90. Arkansas Nuclear 2, London, Ark.: 1 in 243,902 chance each year. Old estimate: 1 in 1,063,830. Change in risk: 336 percent.
92. Comanche Peak 1, Glen Rose, Texas: 1 in 250,000 chance each year. Old estimate: 1 in 833,333. Change in risk: 233 percent.
92. Comanche Peak 2, Glen Rose, Texas: 1 in 250,000 chance each year. Old estimate: 1 in 833,333. Change in risk: 233 percent.
94. Browns Ferry 1, Athens, Ala.: 1 in 270,270 chance each year. Old estimate: 1 in 1,000,000. Change in risk: 270 percent.
95. Prairie Island 1, Welch, Minn.: 1 in 333,333 chance each year. Old estimate: 1 in 714,286. Change in risk: 114 percent.
95. Prairie Island 2, Welch, Minn.: 1 in 333,333 chance each year. Old estimate: 1 in 714,286. Change in risk: 114 percent.
97. La Salle 1, Marseilles, Ill.: 1 in 357,143 chance each year. Old estimate: 1 in 1,851,852. Change in risk: 419 percent.
97. La Salle 2, Marseilles, Ill.: 1 in 357,143 chance each year. Old estimate: 1 in 1,851,852. Change in risk: 419 percent.
97. Hope Creek 1, Hancocks Bridge, N.J.: 1 in 357,143 chance each year. Old estimate: 1 in 909,091. Change in risk: 155 percent.
100. Clinton, Clinton, Ill.: 1 in 400,000 chance each year. Old estimate: 1 in 370,370. Change in risk: -7 percent.
101. Shearon Harris 1, New Hill, N.C.: 1 in 434,783 chance each year. Old estimate: 1 in 277,778. Change in risk: -36 percent.
102. Hatch 1, Baxley, Ga.: 1 in 454,545 chance each year. Old estimate: 1 in 1,351,351. Change in risk: 197 percent.
102. Hatch 2, Baxley, Ga.: 1 in 454,545 chance each year. Old estimate: 1 in 1,351,351. Change in risk: 197 percent.
104. Callaway, Fulton, Mo.: 1 in 500,000 chance each year. Old estimate: N/A. Change in risk: N/A.
Exelon Corp. (EXC), the largest U.S. nuclear operator, agreed to buy Pepco Holdings Inc. for $6.8 billion in cash in this year’s biggest utility acquisition in North America.
The deal values Pepco, operator of the utility that serves the Washington metro area, at $27.25 a share, according to a joint statement today. That represents a 20 percent premium over Pepco’s closing price yesterday.
French engineering firm Alstom SA said Wednesday it was ready to accept General Electric Co.'s (GE) bid to buy its energy business, but bent to its government's order to put any deal on hold for review.
Alstom has tasked a committee of independent board members with examining a deal that CEO Patrick Kron negotiated over the last month with GE, which has offered 12.35 billion euros ($17 billion) for Alstom's power turbines business.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
