Public Policy

Senator Prettner-Solon, Senator Doll, members of the Committee: Thank you very much for the opportunity to speak to you today and I wish to thank Senator Koch for the invitation to do so as well.

The Nuclear Energy Institute is the policy organization for the commercial nuclear industry in the United States. We have over 350 members representing every aspect of the nuclear industry, including those who operate the fleet of 104 nuclear 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.

Senators, let me start with the following statement: “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”

Those are not my words, nor the words of anyone at my organization. Those are the words of the President of the United States, Barack Obama, two weeks ago, announcing a federal loan guarantee for what will be the first new nuclear reactors built in the United States in 30 years. These reactors will be built in Georgia, they will bring over 3000 construction jobs and 800 permanent, high-paying jobs, to that state and that community. They will significantly contribute to Georgia’s ability to meet their clean air goals and baseload electricity demand in the coming decades as well.

These are exciting and yet challenging times for the nuclear industry in the United States, and I commend Senator Koch and her colleagues for presenting this legislation to you 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 Senate bill 355. Because if you vote for S. 355 all you are doing is allowing Minnesota citizens, regulators and policymakers the option of considering new nuclear to be part of how you address your future energy, clean air and economic challenges and needs. Today you will no doubt hear all the usual pro and con nuclear issues, the 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 come right in and plop it down in Minnesota should this bill pass. It doesn’t work that way.

But there is now a convergence 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 being seen, as the President, his Secretary of Energy Dr. Stephen Chu, and his top White House energy adviser, Carol Browner have all said, as an essential part of the answer. In Minnesota, however, right now you are unable to even have a conversation about that because you have a wall up, this 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’ve had those, and you’ll likely have it again today—but a practical one: what might be the specifics of a new proposed reactor for Minnesota? What energy demands, base load power needs for example, might it help meet in future years and decades; how exactly will the used fuel be managed and handled?; how many jobs will it produce, how much local and state tax revenue, what other economic impact will it have?; what impact on electricity rates will it have compared to other possible sources of new electricity to meet your needs?; and of course, what impact will have on your needs, desire, and requirements to meet clean air and carbon goals for now and for future generations?

The only way you really have those conversations is in the context of a company that may be interested in building a nuclear facility coming into Minnesota to have them with you.

As long as you have this moratorium, this will not, really cannot, happen.

But you should recognize that incredibly strong, bi-partisan 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 evidenced right here by the joint statements by 2 Members of the Minnesota Congressional Delegation, Democrat and Republican, through newspaper editorials that range from the New York Times and the Washington Post through the Bimidjii, Minnesota Pioneer—on Feb. 18 of this year-and the St. Paul Pioneer Press last year, to papers all across the country, through to both labor and business being on the same side of this as will be demonstrated to you this afternoon. 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. Over 60% of the public support developing new nuclear plants, 73% support building new nuclear plants at the existing plant sites.

I believe this all means there will be new nuclear plants sited and built in the United States. They are moving dirt at the Georgia project. 13 US companies have applications before the Nuclear Regulatory Commission for licenses to build 22 new reactors. The President has asked Congress to triple the amount of loan guarantee volume available to support new nuclear plants. (And let me say right here that this is not a subsidy—the recipients of these guarantees, the borrower if you will, pay all costs, including a credit subsidy fee—the only loan guarantee in the entire US government where this is the case.) This will provide support for probably another 6-8 reactors.

So back to the conversation Minnesota might want to have about nuclear: Between the processes used by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the processes used here in Minnesota, there is ample opportunity for not only state regulatory involvement but 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 fuel. Used fuel, at Prairie Island and every other site where it is maintained and stored in this country, is safely managed and stored. The industry is opposed to the withdrawal of the license application for the Yucca Mountain project, but that is a political reality. The industry has a three-part strategy we are pursuing and will recommend to the Secretary of Energy’s new Blue Ribbon Commission on Used Fuel:

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 less, would enable the used fuel safely stored now 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 volume and toxicity of the waste by-product that requires ultimate disposal and, eventually,

3. A permanent disposal facility.

We do not need a permanent disposal facility in the near term. Current storage-whether on site or at new, centralized facilities, is safe, secure and presents no technical challenge for an extended period.

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 a fund-the Nuclear Waste Fund—that 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 intelligence, experience and common sense and reasonable perspective to the used fuel issues. We look forward to their work and their 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 a great deal of information in the packets I distributed that hopefully 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 citizens and public policy makers.

Thank you again for the opportunity to talk with you today. I hope I have helped contribute a little to your decision making process. I hope you will give favorable consideration to S. 355.