Public Policy

Chairwoman Rosen, Vice Chairman Jungbauer, Ranking Member Anderson and members of the committee, thank you very much for the opportunity to speak to you today.

I am Marshall Cohen of the Nuclear Energy Institute, which is the policy organization for the commercial nuclear industry in the United States. NEI has 343 members representing every aspect of the nuclear industry, including those who operate 104 commercial reactors, those who supply fuel, services and equipment to these reactors, those who educate the nuclear engineers, technicians, health physicists and others who work in our industry, and a host of related other entities who participate in our work.

Madam Chair and members of the committee, I would like to start by mentioning a passage from my testimony before the Senate Energy, Utilities, Technology and Communications Committee a year ago, on an earlier nuclear moratorium repeal effort here in Minnesota. Last March, I cited the following quotation: “Nuclear energy remains our largest source of fuel that produces no carbon emissions. To meet our growing energy needs and prevent the worst consequences of climate change, we'll need to increase our supply of nuclear power. It's that simple”

The quote was from President Barack Obama during his announcement awarding a federal loan guarantee for two nuclear reactors to be built in Georgia. Those reactors represent the single largest construction project in the history of the state. They will bring more than 3,500 construction jobs, and 800 permanent, high-paying jobs, to that state and that community. They will contribute significantly to Georgia’s ability to meet its clean air goals and baseload electricity demand in the coming decades as well.

Much has changed in St. Paul, in Washington and around the country since the President announced the loan guarantee award for the Georgia project. However, in the immediate aftermath of the November elections, President Obama and congressional Republicans have named expansion of nuclear energy as one issue that unites the two parties in the pursuit of clean energy and economic growth. This reflects the growing, bipartisan national consensus on the fundamental importance of clean, safe, nuclear energy to our Nation’s environmental and economic well-being.

I think it’s useful to note at the outset Minnesota’s obvious long-standing commitment to and leadership on public health and the environment, and the considerable contributions to clean air and carbon emissions reductions that the state’s three existing nuclear reactors have been making in their communities and throughout the region since they came on-line in the mid-1970s and early 1980s. There is material in your packets that documents the carbon emissions avoided by the Prairie Island and Monticello facilities in 2009—with similar reductions every year over the past four decades.

These are exciting and yet challenging times for the nuclear industry in the United States, and I commend Senator Koch and her colleagues for introducing this legislation and for offering to the citizens of Minnesota a decision on allowing the option of new nuclear reactors in your state to become just that, an option.

And that, I believe, is the most critical consideration you are faced with in the nuclear moratorium repeal. Because if you vote for this legislation, all you are doing is allowing Minnesotans, regulators and policymakers the option of considering new nuclear to be part of how you address your future energy, clean air and economic needs. Today you will no doubt hear all the usual pro and con nuclear issues, the familiar ideological battle that too often gets in the way of what repealing this moratorium really means, and what it does not mean.

There isn’t a nuclear reactor sitting on a barge in Lake Superior, or on a flatbed truck in Fargo, waiting to be brought in to power Minnesota should this bill pass. It doesn’t work that way.

But there is now a convergence of opinion in the United States recognizing that our requirements to meet clean air goals, our future demands for electricity, and the demands of our economy to create new clean technology jobs lead us to nuclear energy – both the existing 104 reactors and the new nuclear plants that are planned. Republicans, Democrats and Independents agree on this in ever-growing numbers. However, right now, Minnesota is unable to have a serious, far-ranging conversation about its energy future because of the moratorium.

Some will likely argue that you could have those conversations. But, consider: The conversation you want to have, in my humble judgment, is not an ideological one—you have had those, and you’ll likely have another one again today—but a practical one. What might be the specifics of a new proposed reactor for Minnesota? What energy demands and baseload power needs might a new reactor help meet in future years and decades? How many jobs will it produce, how much local and state tax revenue, and what other economic impacts will it have? What impact on electricity rates will it have compared with other possible sources of new electricity to meet your needs? How exactly will the used fuel be managed and handled? And, of course, what impacts will it have on your needs, desire and requirements to meet clean air and carbon goals for this and future generations?

The only way you really have those conversations is if a company is interested in building a reactor in Minnesota and comes to you to discuss the possibilities.

As long as you have this moratorium, this will not—really cannot—happen. No company will take the time or effort to discuss a new reactor when there is a law prohibiting construction.

You should recognize that incredibly strong, diverse, bipartisan public and political support for bringing on a new generation of nuclear plants now exists in the United States. It starts with the President; it goes through both parties in Congress, as evidenced here by the joint statements by two Members – one Democrat and one Republican – of the Minnesota congressional delegation; through newspaper editorials that range from The New York Times and The Washington Post to the Bemidji Pioneer in 2010 and the St. Paul Pioneer Press in 2009, to papers all across the country; to, finally, the labor and business communities, who are on the same side of this issue. A number of states have enacted laws to encourage the development of new nuclear reactors. And, last but certainly not least, there is strong, consistent public support for developing new nuclear across the United States. More than 60 percent of the public supports developing new nuclear plants and 73 percent supports building new reactors at existing nuclear plant sites.

There are new nuclear plants being licensed and built in the United States. Companies have already spent more than $2 billion on projects in Georgia and South Carolina. Both projects are on schedule and on budget. I have a few pages from the companies’ most recent regulatory filings with their public utilities commissions included in your information packets so you can see the details for yourselves. Thirteen U.S. companies have applications before the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) for licenses to build 22 new reactors. Another four companies are pursuing early site permits from the NRC to ensure they can build as quickly as possible when the market conditions are right.

The nuclear energy industry is confident that the new nuclear power plants being developed in the U.S. can be built and commissioned to cost and to schedule. Recent construction and operational experience demonstrates that experienced project management teams—with effective quality assurance and corrective action programs, with a detailed design completed before the start of major construction, with integrated engineering and construction schedules—can complete projects on budget and on schedule. The global nuclear industry, including the U.S. industry, has performed projects ranging from new plant construction to major upgrades to plant restarts to refueling outages, efficiently, on time and on budget.

If Minnesota chooses to approve a new nuclear reactor project in the future, you likely will be using technology that has been proven elsewhere. Many questions associated with the first new build projects will have been answered. Experience in Japan and Korea has shown that building standardized designs yields significant cost and schedule benefits as the construction practices are refined through repetition. I have provided a graph showing the Korean success story in your packets. The Koreans reduced initial costs by more than 35 percent and construction times by 11 months.

So, returning to the conversation Minnesota might want to have about nuclear energy: Between the processes used by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the processes used here in Minnesota, there is ample opportunity for state regulatory involvement and citizen participation in the decisions that will determine whether a new nuclear reactor can be built here. Repealing the moratorium in no way guarantees that a new reactor will ever be built. Continuing the moratorium does guarantee that your citizens never have the opportunity to participate in that decision. The state has ample mechanisms to block any power plant construction should it so choose. A new nuclear reactor will never be built in Minnesota unless Minnesota wants one to be built.

Let me quickly discuss several other items you may be wondering about with respect to nuclear energy:

• Used nuclear fuel management. Used reactor fuel, at Prairie Island and every other site where it is maintained and stored in this country, is safely and securely managed. The industry is opposed to the withdrawal of the license application for the Yucca Mountain project, but it is an unfortunate political reality that the administration has shut down the project. The industry has a three-part strategy we are pursuing and have recommended to the Blue Ribbon Commission on America’s Nuclear Future:

1. Interim storage at reactor sites and at centralized storage facilities, which we are in the process of discussing with volunteer host communities (none in Minnesota). Development of such a facility, which could be done within 10 years or fewer, would enable the used fuel now safely and securely stored at sites in Minnesota to be moved out of state to these facilities.
2. Research and technology development focused on closing the nuclear fuel cycle by obtaining additional energy from the used fuel and reducing the heat, toxicity and volume of the waste by-products that require ultimate disposal; and, eventually.
3. A permanent disposal facility. Geologic disposal will be necessary in any used fuel management scenario and the Nation’s policy must establish a clear and achievable path to disposal. The industry supports continuing the Yucca Mountain project and has opposed the withdrawal of DOE’s license application. The licensing process for Yucca Mountain should be completed, even if the facility is not ultimately used, to demonstrate the regulatory process and provide lessons learned for future repository programs.

Please keep in mind that it is the federal government’s responsibility to develop a credible, sustainable program to manage used nuclear fuel. These issues, therefore, are not a legal or regulatory challenge to our operating plants, nor an impediment to new nuclear plant construction.
We do believe that electricity customers should no longer have to contribute more than $750 million a year into the Nuclear Waste Fund, which has a balance of $22 billion and earns annual interest of more than $1 billion. We have called on the Secretary of Energy to suspend that fee and will continue to press that issue in all appropriate forums.

We also have confidence that the Blue Ribbon Commission is an excellent mix of individuals able to bring experience, common sense and reasonable perspective to the used fuel issues. We look forward to commission’s reports.

• New reactor designs. The NRC has certified two new reactor designs and is considering three more designs for certification. Every application for a construction and operating license will have to be based upon an NRC certified design.

I have included information in the packets I distributed, which I hope can answer many other questions for you. There is, as you can imagine, a great deal of data, information and statistics on every aspect of nuclear energy and our industry. We believe in openness and transparency and in fully responding to any questions or issues raised by your citizens and public policymakers.

Thank you again for the opportunity to talk with you today. As a non-Minnesotan, I am most impressed by the levels of knowledge and engagement on this and other issues demonstrated by you and your colleagues on behalf of your constituents. I hope I have helped contribute to your decision making process. I hope you will give favorable consideration to repealing Minnesota’s nuclear moratorium.