Skip to main content

Lieberman-Warner Climate Bill and Nuclear Energy

Sen. Barbara Boxer's (D-CA) much-anticipated "Boxer substitute" to the Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act has just been released (sub. req'd). To no one's surprise, the nuclear industry does not get much play. However, according to Congress Daily's Darren Goode, Senator Boxer "may be amenable to provisions regarding training of workers, keeping production in America and nuclear safety."

In the coming days, Sen. Joe Lieberman (Independent Democrat-CT) and Sen. John Warner (R-VA) are expected to unveil an amendment that "would aim to increase nuclear engineers and other workers and improve the financing and purchasing of [nuclear power plant] equipment." From CongressDaily,
Warner said the nuclear section “will be the focal point of a lot of attention.” He said their plan will serve as a “building block” for others to work on during the floor debate. Lieberman said he and Warner are not addressing the speeding up of nuclear facility permits through amendments, and added that providing loan guarantees for nuclear production is possible. Furthermore, he said, their initial amendment does not address the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository or the broader issue of cleaning up and storing nuclear waste.

Boxer said Lieberman and Warner should have the votes to attach a nuclear title to the bill and said she may be amenable to provisions regarding training of workers, keeping production in America and nuclear safety. “They have the votes, so at the end of the day we will see what passes,” she said.
To be continued...

Comments

Anonymous said…
As Jeb Babbin noted in Human Events:

"Reid has scheduled the Lieberman-Warner global warming “cap and trade” bill for a cloture vote. Republicans are going to have a lot of fun with a bill that would raise the price of a gallon of gasoline by another 50 cents to a dollar."

I do wish NEI would spend less of its precious and limited political capital on support for global climate change issues - it just looks like naked rent-seeking. Plus, the science behind GHG is shakey and has a definite chance of being debunked to the embarassment of all.
Anonymous said…
There's nothing "shaky" about the science at all. The long term trend is global warming. Ignoring it is going to lead to more than just embarassment for those that don't want to see the writing on the wall.
Anonymous said…
People need to wake up! Our leaders (Dems and Republicans alike) are leading us straight into socialism! The control that the environmental lobby has on our congress is scary! Something needs to be done or we will no longer have the "right" to post comments like these that speak against the Party
Anonymous said…
To: first anonymous post: You are just like the media all wrapped up in Global Warming claiming it is human caused. Wake up--the science is wrong. I agree we should seek ways to be more efficient, however government doesn't need to tell us how. We need to be a God fearing people who does right to our neighbors and treats our world as we would our home.

Stop worrying about things that are out of your control. God created this world and he'll be the one to take us to the next phase of this world. The world was created for man to use and God gives man intelligence to improve.
c.f. in AZ

Popular posts from this blog

Fluor Invests in NuScale

You know, it’s kind of sad that no one is willing to invest in nuclear energy anymore. Wait, what? NuScale Power celebrated the news of its company-saving $30 million investment from Fluor Corp. Thursday morning with a press conference in Washington, D.C. Fluor is a design, engineering and construction company involved with some 20 plants in the 70s and 80s, but it has not held interest in a nuclear energy company until now. Fluor, which has deep roots in the nuclear industry, is betting big on small-scale nuclear energy with its NuScale investment. "It's become a serious contender in the last decade or so," John Hopkins, [Fluor’s group president in charge of new ventures], said. And that brings us to NuScale, which had run into some dark days – maybe not as dark as, say, Solyndra, but dire enough : Earlier this year, the Securities Exchange Commission filed an action against NuScale's lead investor, The Michael Kenwood Group. The firm "misap

An Ohio School Board Is Working to Save Nuclear Plants

Ohio faces a decision soon about its two nuclear reactors, Davis-Besse and Perry, and on Wednesday, neighbors of one of those plants issued a cry for help. The reactors’ problem is that the price of electricity they sell on the high-voltage grid is depressed, mostly because of a surplus of natural gas. And the reactors do not get any revenue for the other benefits they provide. Some of those benefits are regional – emissions-free electricity, reliability with months of fuel on-site, and diversity in case of problems or price spikes with gas or coal, state and federal payroll taxes, and national economic stimulus as the plants buy fuel, supplies and services. Some of the benefits are highly localized, including employment and property taxes. One locality is already feeling the pinch: Oak Harbor on Lake Erie, home to Davis-Besse. The town has a middle school in a building that is 106 years old, and an elementary school from the 1950s, and on May 2 was scheduled to have a referendu

Wednesday Update

From NEI’s Japan micro-site: NRC, Industry Concur on Many Post-Fukushima Actions Industry/Regulatory/Political Issues • There is a “great deal of alignment” between the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the industry on initial steps to take at America’s nuclear energy facilities in response to the nuclear accident in Japan, Charles Pardee, the chief operating officer of Exelon Generation Co., said at an agency briefing today. The briefing gave stakeholders an opportunity to discuss staff recommendations for near-term actions the agency may take at U.S. facilities. PowerPoint slides from the meeting are on the NRC website. • The International Atomic Energy Agency board has approved a plan that calls for inspectors to evaluate reactor safety at nuclear energy facilities every three years. Governments may opt out of having their country’s facilities inspected. Also approved were plans to maintain a rapid response team of experts ready to assist facility operators recoverin