Skip to main content

How U.S. Nuclear Energy Export Regulations Are Hindering American Business and Costing Jobs

Construction at the Sanmen Nuclear Power Station in China.
Earlier this week, the law firm of Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw LLP issued a report concerning the legal and regulatory obstacles that stand in the way of U.S. companies fully capitalizing on the international growth of the nuclear energy industry.

From the NEI press release:
To the detriment of U.S. national security interests and the economy, U.S. energy companies and manufacturers face impediments in capitalizing on the enormous market opportunities presented by the global growth of nuclear energy, business and industry leaders said today in unveiling a new report on nuclear export challenges.

The report comparing nuclear energy trade regimes in five leading supplier nations concludes that “the U.S. export control regime places (U.S. companies) at a serious disadvantage next to their competitors in the international export market.”
Following the release of the report, representatives from Pillsbury, NEI, Exelon Generation and the National Association of Manufacturers held a press conference to discuss the findings of the report in more detail (click here for the presentation slides). In the wake of the press conference, here's what BloombergBusiness Week had to report:
Regulations unchanged since the end of the Cold War impede U.S. companies in gaining export licenses, putting suppliers at a global disadvantage, according to a report released today by the Nuclear Energy Institute, a Washington-based group whose members include Exelon Corp. (EXC) and Southern Co. (SO)

U.S. rules are “more complex, restrictive and time- consuming to fulfill” than in France, Japan, Russia and South Korea, where competing suppliers are based, according to the report. The global market may be worth a quarter of a trillion dollars within a decade.
Given that we're in the midst of a Presidential election where job creation is the most pressing concern, these aren't exactly idle questions. Here's some coverage from E2 Wire at The Hill:
Specifically, the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) says DOE should change a rule, known as Part 810, to enhance exports to a list of restricted nations for products — such as consulting services and software — that it says do not pose a nuclear proliferation threat.

The rule change would allow U.S. commercial nuclear firms to discuss operations with foreign partners more freely, according to NEI.

The group said the rule change would remove a competitive disadvantage for U.S. firms in the global market.

Currently, the rule requires U.S. companies to obtain advance authorization to speak about nuclear plans with a list of restricted countries, out of concern for nuclear proliferation. On average in 2011, that clearance took a little less than one year, according to a NEI-commissioned report discussed Monday.

DOE issued a proposed update to the rule in September 2011, but that significantly increased the amount of technology subjected to agency authorization. The nuclear industry criticized the rule, and DOE decided to revise it once again — a process that is still ongoing.
So how much is at stake for American business? Here's Platts:
The US Department of Commerce estimates the world market for nuclear power technology, fuel and related services and equipment at "upwards of" $750 billion over the next 10 years, Richard Myers, vice president for policy development, planning and supplier programs at NEI, said at a press conference Monday in Washington to release a report the US nuclear power industry commissioned on the topic.

"It is a myth that the US nuclear supply chain has disappeared," Myers said. Most manufacturing of large "heavy metal" components for nuclear power plants, such as reactor vessels, is now done in Asia, but many US firms manufacture "precision components" for the nuclear industry and would stand to benefit from increased ability to compete with other countries, Myers said.
For additional coverage see Fuel Fix, Energy Biz, Nuclear Engineering International and NAM Shopfloor.

Comments

donb said…
I seems like there are still too many people in regulatory positions in the Federal Government who think that the United States can control who in the world can get access to nuclear technology. The truth is there are now multiple sources of such technology outside of the United States. Hanging on to regulations from the old control mindset only hinders the access of US-based manufacturers to international nuclear energy equipment markets without making any significant impact in the area of proliferation.

Popular posts from this blog

Knowing What You’ve Got Before It’s Gone in Nuclear Energy

The following is a guest post from Matt Wald, senior director of policy analysis and strategic planning at NEI. Follow Matt on Twitter at @MattLWald.

Nuclear energy is by far the largest source of carbon prevention in the United States, but this is a rough time to be in the business of selling electricity due to cheap natural gas and a flood of subsidized renewable energy. Some nuclear plants have closed prematurely, and others likely will follow.
In recent weeks, Exelon and the Omaha Public Power District said that they might close the Clinton, Quad Cities and Fort Calhoun nuclear reactors. As Joni Mitchell’s famous song says, “Don’t it always seem to go that you don’t what you’ve got ‘til it’s gone.”
More than 100 energy and policy experts will gather in a U.S. Senate meeting room on May 19 to talk about how to improve the viability of existing nuclear plants. The event will be webcast, and a link will be available here.
Unlike other energy sources, nuclear power plants get no specia…

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…

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…