Skip to main content

The Kerry-Boxer Hearings: Day 2

whitehouse As you might expect, the second of three days of the hearings on the climate change bill saw some themes emerge. First, the tenor more-or-less avoids talking about specific energy generators even when representatives of relevant companies are present. Natural gas probably picked up the most traction and even that was fairly muted.

Second, many of the participants worry that Congress will not act and carbon reduction will be mandated instead via Environmental Protection Agency regulations. Some say waiting for either a legislative or regulatory remedy causes enough uncertainly to forestall investment. Here’s Ralph Izzo, Chairman, CEO and President of the Public Service Enterprise Group  (PSEG), on this issue (our transcipt):

Some companies are now making low-carbon investment choices, particularly those like PSEG that are already subject to carbon regulation. But uncertainty about a national program slows our transition to a green economy, complicating investment decisions about whether to retrofit coal plants to reduce emissions, pursue development of new nuclear or invest in offshore wind.”

And here he makes the case explicitly:

“Congress can avoid this costly and cumbersome path by enacting strong cap-and-trade legislation that obviates the need for EPA to regulate greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act.”

Third, the expansion of nuclear energy, when it does enter the conversation, seems a foregone conclusion. We noted in the comments on Day 1 that some of our readers think the Obama administration will stifle the development of new nuclear energy facilities. We don’t agree, but would add that Congress has a hand here, too.

Here’s David Crane, CEO of NRG Energy, making the case most forcefully in opening testimony:

Three new nuclear power plants by 2020, while an important first step in the right direction, does not a nuclear renaissance make. If you assume that all 104 nuclear reactors currently operating in the United States have been retired by 2050, that means we need approximately 75 new nuclear units over the next 41 years simply to keep nuclear power’s share of electricity production near 20%. If we want to double the nuclear share of power production to 40% in order to accommodate demand growth and realize a greater carbon benefit, we are going to need to build about 150 new nuclear units.

There is a big gap between the three to four new plants currently working their way through the system to construction now and 150. In my view, we have no hope of getting anywhere near 150 new units over the next 41 years unless we have an effective nuclear title as part of comprehensive climate change legislation in 2009.

That title must embrace new nuclear as a fundamental building block of our 21st century national energy policy, and provide the pragmatic, essential policy tools that are needed to realize the laudable intentions laid out for new nuclear power in the Kerry- Boxer bill -- tools that are needed in addition to a price on carbon for nuclear to succeed. Those tools must address the key commercial constraints to a nuclear renaissance, and include worker training, expanded domestic manufacturing capability, transitional loan guarantees for project financing for a second wave of new plants, and efficient and safe regulatory approval processes capable of handling a much larger volume of projects.

And consider this exchange between Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) and Dustin Johnson of the South Dakota Public Utilities Commission (our transcript):

Whitehouse: I think you’ll be happy with what comes out on nuclear. There’s a new nuclear era coming and we just need to be sure we do it right and that we work as hard as we can to make nuclear byproducts be manageable and there is technology that allows used nuclear fuel and we need to be sure that we develop that because that’s the hazard.

Johnson: Well, Senator, thank you and you do give me reason for optimism that it’s going to be better, as right now I think the nuclear title is rather weak. But I’ll take your word for it that it will get better.

We choose the theme behind door three.

Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse.


Joseph Somsel said…
The RIGHT thing for Congress to do is to explicitly prohibit EPA from regulating carbon dioxide.

The only reason the EPA threat is on the table is because of a vague section in the original Clean Air Act and a sloppy call by the Supreme Court.

Strong Congressional support for nuclear power is much to be desired but NOT at the cost of a bill that destroys the rest of the economy via CO2 taxation and regulation.

Remember, nuclear power plants will still need customers.
Phil said…
Nice highlights! Thanks for posting on the blog! I wouldn't have gone through the whole testimony looking for nuclear power references.

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…

Missing the Point about Pennsylvania’s Nuclear Plants

A group that includes oil and gas companies in Pennsylvania released a study on Monday that argues that twenty years ago, planners underestimated the value of nuclear plants in the electricity market. According to the group, that means the state should now let the plants close.


The question confronting the state now isn’t what the companies that owned the reactors at the time of de-regulation got or didn’t get. It’s not a question of whether they were profitable in the '80s, '90s and '00s. It’s about now. Business works by looking at the present and making projections about the future.

Is losing the nuclear plants what’s best for the state going forward?

Pennsylvania needs clean air. It needs jobs. And it needs protection against over-reliance on a single fuel source.

What the reactors need is recognition of all the value they provide. The electricity market is depressed, and if electricity is treated as a simple commodity, with no regard for its benefit to clean air o…