Skip to main content

John Kerry on the Boxer-Kerry Bill

clip_image001In a bit of a surprise, Sen. John Kerry (R-Mass.) has taken the lead on the Senate climate change bill – a surprise because it was widely expected Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) would do so – but regardless, this is a topic Kerry has had an interest in for a long time. The Washington Post has a lengthy interview with Kerry, and do go over and read the whole thing, but let’s see what Kerry thinks about nuclear energy:

[The Post’s LOIS] ROMANO: So you have said yourself, this is a work in progress?

SENATOR KERRY: It is. I think we have a terrific starting point, and I'm proud of the progress that we've made. We have a nuclear title in there that actually embraces the notion that nuclear is going to be part of the solution, and we need to simplify and, in fact, accelerate the ability to get decisions and let that market work or not work on its own.

No complaint from us. The bill as presented had seemed to us like a Christmas tree without ornaments – the nuclear title is almost barren, but so are many of the others – and Kerry confirms what we suspected: that the various committees will start hanging those ornaments as they work through the bill.

Kerry gets even more explicit on this point:

MS. ROMANO: You've mentioned nuclear energy a couple of times, but now we also have a leading Republican Senator, John McCain [R-Ariz.], saying he will not support it because there's not enough new funding for nuclear energy. Where's the…

SENATOR KERRY: Well, on the contrary, we've opened up. I mean, the House bill did not, but we have initiated additional funding in order to try to deal with some of the nuclear issues, and we're open to sitting down with John and with others in order to move this process forward.

You know, there will be a committee process. Subsequent to that, we will meld the six different committee interests into one bill, with a leader, with Harry Reid's leadership, and that is the bill that will come to the floor. And then there's plenty of time on the floor for the White House and Senator McCain and all of us to be involved in the negotiation that tries to come up with a bill.

That sounds like the health bill, doesn’t it? So much focus was on the Finance Committee that a lot of commentators forgot that there were other versions of the bill to be merged into a final package. That’s what will happen here, too, so if somewhere along the way, you get disturbed by this provision getting in, that provision pushed out – just wait. Something reasonable might well result from the full process. (We readily admit that the legislative process can break an advocate’s heart, but one might as well wait so as not to keep reassembling the ventricles before the final outcome is known.)

And even better, the architect of this tree recognizes the value of the nuclear ornament.

The Post offers a transcript and the video of the interview. It’d be great if Sen. Boxer had a turn.

We’ll move on to some other subjects next week, but we wanted to stay with this until we fully understood how the bill was going to be assembled and what nuclear energy’s role in it might be. Well, now we know – Kerry goes a long way here explaining the idea behind the legislation. It’s a different approach from the House – where the details were complete in the original bill, then tweaked – but this approach, a kind of tabula rasa, will certainly lead to some interesting hearings. The outcome? We’ll see.

Sen. John Kerry

Comments

Adam said…
Surely you meant (D-Mass.) with respect to John Kerry.

Unless of course he has joined the ranks of Arlen Specter.
Anonymous said…
Ah... I think Kerry is a Democrat. If memory serves, he tried to slay the dragon in 2004.
Climate change, global sea rise, and independence from fossil fuels cannot be seriously dealt with without nuclear power.

So I'm glad to see both Republicans and Democrats strongly supporting more nuclear power.
Anonymous said…
If only he had come around before leading the charge to shut down the Integral Fast Reactor
DocForesight said…
Independence from fossil fuels for electricity generation makes total sense, particularly so when the "right-sized" nukes are readily available. Re-powering coal-fired power plants should be near the top of the list of priorities.

As to the 6 degrees F increase in global temperatures (worst case scenario) and 17 inch sea level rise predicted by some, not so much.

Atomic power stands on its own merits regardless of climatic conditions.
Anonymous said…
John Kerry... hmmm... I heard somewhere he served in Viet Nam...

Popular posts from this blog

Making Clouds for a Living

Donell Banks works at Southern Nuclear’s Plant Vogtle units 3 and 4 as a shift supervisor in Operations, but is in the process of transitioning to his newly appointed role as the daily work controls manager. He has been in the nuclear energy industry for about 11 years.

I love what I do because I have the unique opportunity to help shape the direction and influence the culture for the future of nuclear power in the United States. Every single day presents a new challenge, but I wouldn't have it any other way. As a shift supervisor, I was primarily responsible for managing the development of procedures and programs to support operation of the first new nuclear units in the United States in more than 30 years. As the daily work controls manager, I will be responsible for oversight of the execution and scheduling of daily work to ensure organizational readiness to operate the new units.

I envision a nuclear energy industry that leverages the technology of today to improve efficiency…

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: Energy for All Political Seasons

The electoral college will soon confirm a surprise election result, Donald Trump. However, in the electricity world, there are fewer surprises – physics and economics will continue to apply, and Republicans and Democrats are going to find a lot to like about nuclear energy over the next four years.

In a Trump administration, the carbon conversation is going to be less prominent. But the nuclear value proposition is still there. We bring steady jobs to rural areas, including in the Rust Belt, which put Donald Trump in office. Nuclear plants keep the surrounding communities vibrant.

We hold down electricity costs for the whole economy. We provide energy diversity, reducing the risk of disruption. We are a critical part of America’s industrial infrastructure, and the importance of infrastructure is something that President-Elect Trump has stressed.

One of our infrastructure challenges is natural gas pipelines, which have gotten more congested as extremely low gas prices have pulled m…