Nuclear Plant Journal, September-October 2014 NuclearPlantJournal.com
29
generation is really going to be available
when needed. If they think the answer is
no, then they have to do something with
the capacity price to ensure that they have
enough generation there. So, look for
capacity prices to go up.
Another option that is available is
for states to execute power purchase
agreements for electricity production from
nuclear power plants. That’s what has kept
NextEra Energy’s DuaneArnold operating.
Duane Arnold in Iowa was at risk of
shutting down due in part to the increase of
wind in that region. The governor’s office
and others in the state saw the potential loss
of hundreds of jobs if the facility were to
close, so state leaders took steps to ensure
that the reactor is continuing to operate and
stimulate the state’s economy.
Similarly, the Illinois House of
Representatives has passed a resolution
this year on the importance of keeping
nuclear plants in Illinois operating. That’s
nice and is helping to underscore the
importance of those facilities, but it’s not
good enough. There’s going to have to
be a policy change in Illinois that either
is going to mandate some similar power
purchase agreement or is going to change
the valuation of nuclear in that the market,
by recognizing a higher price for capacity
or some other way to value the carbon-
free aspect or the grid stability aspects of
nuclear energy. There are a lot of benefits
of nuclear energy that aren’t recognized in
those markets today.
These steps are going to have to be
done on a plant by plant basis. There’s no
one fix that is going to lift all these plants
up in every single market. That’s the
challenge because we can do a lot of work
from the industry perspective to bolster the
awareness of these plants that are at risk
and present some of the policy options that
states can consider, but the companies are
going to have to work with those states
one-on-one to determine what can happen
to keep these plants viable.
2.
What is Nuclear Matters?
Nuclear Matters is a campaign to
educate opinion leaders about the benefits
of nuclear energy and to raise the issue that
some of the reactors in certain states are in
jeopardy of closing due to market forces.
Evan Bayh and Judd Gregg, former U.S.
senators and governors, are leading this
effort. There’s also a leadership council
that includes former Commerce Secretary
Bill Daley, former Energy Secretary
Spence Abraham, former White House
Energy Czar Carol Browner, Senator
Blanche Lincoln, two former public
service commissioners, Vicky Bailey
and David Wright, and Edwin Hill and
Sean McGarvey, two leaders among the
labor organizations that work at nuclear
energy facilities. So, we have those 10
people right now as the face of a campaign
that’s designed to raise awareness of the
challenge of nuclear energy in competitive
markets. We are taking the issue to the
state level and starting the dialogue about
possible solutions to keep existing reactors
online.
The U.S. public’s energy awareness
is low. As long as they have power to
turn the lights on, to charge their mobile
devices, that’s all most really care about.
What we’re trying to do is to enrich that
conversation at the state level to include
the challenges that we have with nuclear
energy, which has a unique set of benefits
in the electric sector that should be
preserved. There is no other electric source
that has large-scale power production, the
reliability that we have at 90% capacity
factor and is carbon free. You can’t find
that set of attributes anywhere else. We are
trying to drive an understanding that some
of this power is at risk at the same time that
EPA is developing climate change rules, at
the same time we’re trying to jumpstart our
economy in this country and create jobs.
So, if you take nuclear out of the mix while
you’re trying to do those two things on the
state level, you’re not going to succeed.
3.
What is the status of small modular
reactor budget and certification?
We are pleased with the budget
allocation for the DOE cost-share
program for small reactors with NuScale
and B&W ($217 million in the House
of Representatives). We see that as
a good budget number to move those
programs forward and develop two
designs. The industry has been resolving
some of the generic regulatory policy
and technical issues with the NRC on
small reactor development. The NRC
staff now is preparing a memo to send
to the commissioners that will finalize
all the regulatory issues in advance of
the licensing process starting for SMR
designs. By the next year, we should start
to see design certification applications
going to the NRC for review of the first
small reactor designs.
4.
What is the status of used fuel
management legislation?
Used fuel management proposals have
significant differences between the Senate
and the House approaches-. In the Senate,
Harry Reid does not want to move forward
with Yucca Mountain, but in the House,
John Shimkus from Illinois and Fred
Upton from Michigan are driving toward
progress on theYucca Mountain repository.
And so, the House appropriations bill
provided $150 million for DOE and $55
million for NRC’s license review of Yucca
Mountain. This year, there were real
strong votes supportingYucca Mountain as
the appropriations process moved forward.
The funding is important from an
industry standpoint because we’re moving
forward with a continued NRC review of
the Yucca Mountain license application.
We believe it’s important to finish the
review of the license application, so that
if at some point the administration policy
changes, in terms of pursuing Yucca
Mountain, all that technical review is
completed and there is a decision from the
NRC on whether that’s a good site. So,
if the policy changes, you’ve got all that
work completed, and you may be able to go
forward with managing Yucca Mountain.
From our perspective, one of the
things we’d like to see is a different
management concept for moving forward
with a nuclear fuel management program.
The industry doesn’t believe that the DOE
has demonstrated effectiveness in that
area. One of the industry’s principles
is having Congress look at a different
management process for the used fuel
management program, so that you have
this quasi-government board of directors
management structure that would be much
more efficient, have access to the nuclear
waste fund so they have the budget to do
the job they need to do, but take a lot of the
bureaucracy out of the process. We want
to change the DOE management model
where you have a different director of
the Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste
Management. So every two years or so.
There’s no program continuity there. So,
what we want is efficiency and continuity
in the management program so we can
actually move to a solution.
Contact: Scott Peterson, Nuclear
Energy Institute, telephone: (202) 739-
8044, email:
