Skip to main content

Move Over Waxman-Markey, Here Comes Boxer-Kerry

clip_image001Or, The Senate Moves on Climate Change. Senators Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) and John Kerry (D-Mass.) have presented the Senate’s version of the climate change bill that will start off in the Environment and Public Works committee chaired by Boxer. As we’ve seen with the health bill, legislation in the Senate moves through several committees in tandem and this one will, too. (House committees tend to control bills under their purview much more stringently.)


So what about the bill? And nuclear energy? Well, it runs 800+ pages, but seems something of a skeletal framework onto which provisions will be attached as it moves forward. But the message about nuclear energy (start at page 107) is pretty clear:

(1) in 2008, 104 nuclear power plants produced 19.6 percent of the electricity generated in the United States, slightly less than the electricity generated by natural gas;

(2) nuclear energy is the largest provider of clean, carbon-free, electricity, almost 8 times larger than all renewable power production combined, excluding hydroelectric power;

(3) unlike other renewable sources, nuclear energy supplies consistent, base-load electricity, independent of environmental conditions;

(4) by displacing fossil fuels that would otherwise be used for electricity production, nuclear power plants virtually eliminate emissions of greenhouse gases and criteria pollutants associated with acid rain, smog, or ozone;

(5) nuclear power generation continues to require robust efforts to address issues of safety, waste, and proliferation;

(6) even if every nuclear plant is granted a 20-year extension, all currently operating nuclear plants will be retired by 2055;

(7) long lead times for nuclear power plant construction indicate that action to stimulate the nuclear power industry should not be delayed;

(8) the high upfront capital costs of nuclear plant construction remain a substantial obstacle, despite theoretical potential for significant cost reduc1tion;

(9) translating theoretical cost reduction potential into actual reduced construction costs remains a significant industry challenge that can be overcome only through demonstrated performance;

We’ve cut a few of these out – Congress people can write at length, can’t they? – but we like this one:

(14) those new reactors will launch a new era for the nuclear industry, and translate into tens of thousands of jobs.

Sure enough.


Currently, the bill defines the government’s role in the nuclear energy industry as reducing the “financial and technical barriers to construction and operation”; and providing “incentives for the development of a well trained workforce.” However, it provides scant information on how to go about the first while offering a few ideas for the second.

Instead, the bill focuses its provisions on a couple of commission-like divisions to be formed by the DOE. Here’s what we could find:

  • Establish a research and development program in DOE charged with both assessing the current state of the industry and consequently, to build a “fundamental scientific basis” of the elements that would “impact decisions to extend the lifespan of nuclear power plants.”
  • Establish “a research and development program to improve the understanding of nuclear spent fuel management and the entire nuclear fuel cycle life” with the goal of “producing dramatic improvements in a range of nuclear spent fuel management options including short-term and long-term disposal, and proliferation-resistant nuclear spent fuel recycling.”
  • Establish the ‘‘Nuclear Worker Training Fund’’.

These seem perfectly fine and responsive to President Obama’s statements about nuclear energy but so far not too responsive to the language in the preamble. We expect issues regarding loan guarantees and regulatory issues will enter via amendments later on. The Senate meetings on this will no doubt be fascinating, as nuclear energy is sure to take a large role.


You can see NEI’s response here. Positive and measured sums it up.


In other words, early days. But assuming the health bill clears out before Christmas, a lot of excitement (and exciting fireworks) to come.

Sen. Barbara Boxer. Politics aside, she’s terrific at running her committee – sharp, crisp and always keeping things moving at a clip journalists appreciate.


Ioannes said…
As long as Jackzo is head the NRC, this is going to be a problem.

chris said…
It sounds like something we need right now, jobs and clean energy.

Popular posts from this blog

How Nanomaterials Can Make Nuclear Reactors Safer and More Efficient

The following is a guest post from Matt Wald, senior communications advisor at NEI. Follow Matt on Twitter at @MattLWald.

From the batteries in our cell phones to the clothes on our backs, "nanomaterials" that are designed molecule by molecule are working their way into our economy and our lives. Now there’s some promising work on new materials for nuclear reactors.

Reactors are a tough environment. The sub atomic particles that sustain the chain reaction, neutrons, are great for splitting additional uranium atoms, but not all of them hit a uranium atom; some of them end up in various metal components of the reactor. The metal is usually a crystalline structure, meaning it is as orderly as a ladder or a sheet of graph paper, but the neutrons rearrange the atoms, leaving some infinitesimal voids in the structure and some areas of extra density. The components literally grow, getting longer and thicker. The phenomenon is well understood and designers compensate for it with a …

Why America Needs the MOX Facility

If Isaiah had been a nuclear engineer, he’d have loved this project. And the Trump Administration should too, despite the proposal to eliminate it in the FY 2018 budget.

The project is a massive factory near Aiken, S.C., that will take plutonium from the government’s arsenal and turn it into fuel for civilian power reactors. The plutonium, made by the United States during the Cold War in a competition with the Soviet Union, is now surplus, and the United States and the Russian Federation jointly agreed to reduce their stocks, to reduce the chance of its use in weapons. Over two thousand construction workers, technicians and engineers are at work to enable the transformation.

Carrying Isaiah’s “swords into plowshares” vision into the nuclear field did not originate with plutonium. In 1993, the United States and Russia began a 20-year program to take weapons-grade uranium out of the Russian inventory, dilute it to levels appropriate for civilian power plants, and then use it to produce…

Nuclear Is a Long-Term Investment for Ohio that Will Pay Big

With 50 different state legislative calendars, more than half of them adjourn by June, and those still in session throughout the year usually take a recess in the summer. So springtime is prime time for state legislative activity. In the next few weeks, legislatures are hosting hearings and calling for votes on bills that have been battered back and forth in the capital halls.

On Tuesday, The Ohio Public Utilities Committee hosted its third round of hearings on the Zero Emissions Nuclear Resources Program, House Bill 178, and NEI’s Maria Korsnick testified before a jam-packed room of legislators.

Washingtonians parachuting into state debates can be a tricky platform, but in this case, Maria’s remarks provided national perspective that put the Ohio conundrum into context. At the heart of this debate is the impact nuclear plants have on local jobs and the local economy, and that nuclear assets should be viewed as “long-term investments” for the state. Of course, clean air and electrons …