Skip to main content

Framework for Climate Change and Energy Independence Legislation

6a00d83451586c69e201053590aa09970c-800wi A bipartisan trio of Senators presented a framework on climate change. The framework is focused on energy security and job creation and is admirably broad based in its energy approach. Sens. John Kerry (D-Mass.), Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) and Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) aim to create legislation that can find a broad coalition for support. Time will tell how that works, but the start can only be considered successful.

So what’s it all about? Here’s the bullet point our eyes zeroed in on:

Additional nuclear power is an essential component of our strategy to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. We strongly support incentives for renewable energy sources such as wind and solar, but successful legislation must also recognize the important role for clean nuclear power in our low-emissions future. America has lost its nuclear technology manufacturing base, and we must rebuild it in order to compete in the global marketplace. Our legislation will encourage the construction of new nuclear power plants and provide funding to train the next generation of nuclear workers. We will make it easier to finance the construction of new nuclear power plants and improve the efficiency of the licensing process for traditional as well as small modular reactors, while fully respecting safety and environmental concerns. In addition, we support the research and development of new, safe ways to minimize nuclear waste. We are working with our colleagues to create incentives for low-carbon power sources, including nuclear, that will complement the Energy and Natural Resource Committee's work to incentivize renewable electricity.

And here are the other bullet points, with notes here and there:

Better jobs, cleaner air; Securing energy independence; Creating regulatory predictability – Given the news of the last week, consider the framework’s response:

“By failing to legislate, Congress is ceding the policy reins to the EPA and ignoring our responsibility to our constituents. We are working with our colleagues, the Administration and outside stakeholders to strike a sensible balance and determine the appropriate way to provide regulatory predictability.”

The Senators really do not want to cede this effort to the EPA.

Here’s the rest of the bullet points: Protecting consumers; Ensuring a future for coal; Reviving American manufacturing by creating jobs (listen to this: “In addition to employing thousands in the building trades, our envisioned development of nuclear and wind power will also mean jobs and growth for our steel industry. It is time to regain our leadership and create the jobs of the future here in America.” This is the first time we remember wind and nuclear being so explicitly linked as partners. We like it); Creating wealth for domestic agriculture and forestry; Regulating the carbon market; Climate change is a global problem that requires a global solution; Building consensus.

We present all this to you – and encourage you to read the whole thing (it’s only four pages) – to show how much ambition can be generated by serious legislators. While they are quite explicit in positing this, in part, as a response to the EPA’s endangerment finding, they say they’ve been working on this for weeks. (But they also knew the EPA would act sooner or later.) But it’s a lot more than a simple response.

The Senators introduced this as a letter to President Obama. Let’s see how he responds.

We’ll have a lot more on this in the coming weeks.

Sen. Joe Lieberman. He looks such the picture of gloom in so many snaps, we were happy to find something sunnier.

Comments

Anonymous said…
The Senators introduced this as a letter to President Obama. Let’s see how he responds.

Obama will most likely use this letter to clean up after the first dog.
Bryan Kelly said…
The White House actually hit this page once, but doesn't seem to have passed it too far along. {sigh}

American Energy Act H.R. 2828 [111th] - Contact Congress - Support Nuclear Energy
Phil said…
The only future for coal should be retirement.

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 …