Why Ex-Im Bank Board Nominations Will Turn the Page on a Dysfunctional Chapter in Washington

In our present era of political discord, could Washington agree to support an agency that creates thousands of American jobs by enabling U.S. companies of all sizes to compete in foreign markets? What if that agency generated nearly billions of dollars more in revenue than the cost of its operations and returned that money – $7 billion over the past two decades – to U.S. taxpayers?

In fact, that agency, the Export-Import Bank of the United States (Ex-Im Bank), was reauthorized by a large majority of Congress in 2015. To be sure, the matter was not without controversy. A bipartisan House coalition resorted to a rarely-used parliamentary maneuver in order to force a vote. But when Congress voted, Ex-Im Bank won a supermajority in the House and a large majority in the Senate.

For almost two years, however, Ex-Im Bank has been unable to function fully because a single Senate committee chairman prevented the confirmation of nominees to its Board of Directors. Without a quorum on its Board, Ex-Im Bank cannot approve transactions valued at over $10 million. About 40 transactions, worth $30 billion in U.S. products and supporting thousands of American jobs, have been stuck in the pipeline.

Now it appears that President Trump is stepping in to get things moving again, which is good news for exports, especially commercial nuclear exports. The following comes from The Wall Street Journal within the hour:

The president said he planned to fill two vacancies on the bank's board. ‘It's a very good thing. And it actually makes money, it could make a lot of money,’ he said.

Because most nuclear energy transactions exceed $10 million, the absence of a quorum on the Ex-Im Board has effectively shut the Bank down for nuclear energy exports. Nuclear energy tenders commonly exceed the $10 million threshold and almost always require export credit agency backing in order to bid. Not just large suppliers are suffering the absence of Ex-Im Bank. Small nuclear energy suppliers can have contracts in excess of $10 million and also lose smaller contracts as sub-suppliers for larger projects.

The lack of a quorum is causing other unintended harms. It has prevented Ex-Im Bank from implementing four key reforms approved by Congress in the 2015 reauthorization legislation. And the loss of revenue from its large transactions is beginning to undermine the Bank’s self-sufficiency.

Today’s announcement by the President is great news for U.S. exporters of all sizes, especially in the nuclear energy industry, for which Ex-Im Bank support is vital.

Though the nominations have yet to be announced, this is also great news for U.S. national interests beyond the economic. By enabling U.S. nuclear energy exports, Ex-Im Bank strengthens the energy security of U.S. partners that are over-reliant on imports of natural gas from unreliable countries. And it advances U.S. global influence on such critical issues as global nuclear safety, security and nonproliferation.

The above is a guest post from Ted Jones, director of supplier programs at NEI.

Activists' Claims Distort Facts about Advanced Reactor Design

Below is from our rapid response team . Yesterday, regional anti-nuclear organizations asked federal nuclear energy regulators to launch an investigation into what it claims are “newly identified flaws” in Westinghouse’s advanced reactor design, the AP1000. During a teleconference releasing a report on the subject, participants urged the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to suspend license reviews of proposed AP1000 reactors. In its news release, even the groups making these allegations provide conflicting information on its findings. In one instance, the groups cite “dozens of corrosion holes” at reactor vessels and in another says that eight holes have been documented. In all cases, there is another containment mechanism that would provide a barrier to radiation release. Below, we examine why these claims are unwarranted and why the AP1000 design certification process should continue as designated by the NRC. Myth: In the AP1000 reactor design, the gap between the shield bu...

How many nuclear plants does it take to meet the world's energy needs?

Several weeks ago Joshua Pearce at Clarion University in Pennsylvania released a study titled “ Thermodynamic limitations to nuclear energy deployment as a greenhouse gas mitigation technology .” In the study he stated... nuclear energy production would have to increase by 10.5% per year from 2010 to 2050 to both replace fossil-fuel-energy use and meet the future energy demands. This line, of course, made the headlines and has been picked up by several outlets and blogs . When looking into his calculations for this statement, he made one assumption error that overstated the above sentence by nearly a factor of three. Page 121, Section 4.1 of the study states: Richard Smalley pointed out that in 2004, the global economy consumed the equivalent of 220 million barrels of oil per day, which converted into electricity terms is the equivalent of 14.5 TeraWatts (TW), or 14,500,000 MegaWatts (MW) (2005). … With a nuclear plant having about 1000 MW (1 GW) of capacity, we would need 14,500...

What Happens During a Refueling Outage?

You may have noticed over the past few weeks that a number of nuclear plants are shut down for refueling outages or are resuming operations after just returning from one. This type of routine outage usually occurs in the spring or fall when electricity demand is low so that nuclear reactors can replace about one-third of the spent fuel rods with new fuel and conduct other routine maintenance and repairs at the plant. To get a better sense of how refueling works at a nuclear energy facility, I spoke with Marcus Nichol, NEI’s senior project manager for used fuel storage and transportation, and asked him to explain the basics. Why does a nuclear plant need to replace one-third of its fuel? Nichol: The main purpose of a refueling outage is to replace older fuel that is depleted—meaning it can no longer efficiently produce energy from nuclear fission reactions—with new fuel. This “used fuel” has typically been used in the reactor for four-and-a-half to six years before it is pe...

NEI Nuclear Notes

Search This Blog