Public Policy

Mr. Chairman, today I would like to thank you for convening this hearing on the future of nuclear energy, as a critical energy source in our country today and for the foreseeable future.

The Congress must recognize the important role that nuclear energy plays in our nation’s economy, our nation’s energy independence and security, and our nation’s environmental goals. And, we need to acknowledge that like nearly every other source of energy, nuclear power needs our help to continue playing its important role in our nation’s energy policy.

One in every five homes and businesses today is powered by nuclear energy. It is important not only in Louisiana, where two nuclear plants produce nearly 17 percent of my state’s electricity, but also in states such as Connecticut, Illinois, New Hampshire, New Jersey, South Carolina and Vermont where nuclear power generates more electricity than any other source. Nationwide, 103 reactors provide 20 percent of our electricitythe largest source of U.S. emission-free power provided around the clock.

Nuclear energy played an important role in the sustained economic growth during the 1990s. By operating more and more efficiently, our nation’s nuclear power plants have added the equivalent of twenty-five 1,000-megawatt power plants to our nation’s electricity grid. Without that improvement in performance by our nuclear plants, we would have needed at least 25 new power plants; and those plants most likely would not have the clean-air benefits provided by nuclear energy.
  
While I strongly support the use of natural gas for our energy needs, we cannot rely — as we have in recent years — on only one source of energy to meet our nation’s increasing electricity demand. The CEO of Dow Chemical recently wrote that the chemical industry — the nation’s largest industrial user of natural gas and one of the largest employers in my state - is particularly vulnerable to high natural gas prices.  He advised that the solution is to promote “a diversified and robust energy mix...including the full range of traditional and alternative energy sources.” If we are going to maintain our world economic leadership, we surely need to follow that advice.

Nuclear energy is also vitally important for our environment and our nation’s clean air goals. Nuclear power is the nation’s largest clean air source of electricity, generating three-fourths of all emission-free electricity. For future generations of Americans, whose reliance on electricity will increase and who rightfully want a cleaner environment and the health benefits that cleaner air will provide,  nuclear energy will be an essential partner. 

According to the Department of Energy, the demand for electricity is expected to grow by 50 percent by 2020. In order to continue producing at least one-third of our total electricity generation from emission-free sources, we must build 50,000 megawatts of new nuclear energy production. If we do that, we are just preserving our current levels of emission-free generation, not improving them. 

And finally, we need to recognize that nuclear power, by providing a stable and dependable source of electricity, is vital to our nation’s energy security and independence. Nuclear power is essentially an American invention. We generate nearly a fourth of the world’s total nuclear power and we can do so with domestic energy sources. I agree that hydrogen holds the promise of helping us lessen our dependence on imported oil. Nuclear power is one of the most promising ways that we can produce hydrogen economically and efficiently.
 
Mr. Chairman, we are at a critical juncture in deciding the future of our energy security and as a result bold steps must be embarked upon to preserve our international competitiveness. We could start by first doing the following:

• Restart Browns Ferry Unit 1which will provide 1254 Megawatts of power
• Reinstate the 1.7 cents per kilowatt-hour production tax credit for the constriction of the first 6 “first mover” plants over an 8 year period.
• Promote the construction of these 6 plants in a series so as to reduce cost to a competitive rate of about $1,300 to $1,500 per kilowatt to match gas-fired and coal-fired plants.
• The government should share the cost for site banking for a number of plants, certification of new plant designs by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and the combined construction and operation licenses for plants built immediately
• The government should recognize nuclear as a carbon-free source of energy
• We need to continue to fund the Department of Energy’s Generation IV program for the next generation reactors.

Today, Mr. Chairman, I am pleased that we have Jim Bernhard as one of our witnesses today. Jim is Chairman and CEO, and founder of The Shaw Group, one of two Fortune 500 companies in my home state of Louisiana. Founded in 1987, Shaw has expanded rapidly, through internal growth, and through a series of strategic acquisitions. In fact, it was the acquisition of Stone & Webster three and a half years ago that expanded Shaw’s capabilities in the commercial nuclear industry.   
 
Stone & Webster’s long history in the nuclear industry dates back to the Manhattan Project, when it built an electromagnetic separation plant that would produce the materials needed for atomic weapons, and also built the City of Oak Ridge, which housed 75,000 workers. 

To date, Stone & Webster - now part of The Shaw Group — has designed and/or built 17 nuclear plants and has provided technical services to 95 percent of all U.S. nuclear plants.

With that said, I think it’s appropriate that we have The Shaw Group testifying today and I welcome Jim to this hearing. I see that he’s brought his lovely wife, Dana, and their two children. Welcome to you also. Thank you Mr. Chairman.