    [House Hearing, 116 Congress]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                       HOW THE DOMESTIC NUCLEAR INDUSTRY
                    BOOSTS LOCAL ECONOMIES, CURBS EMISSIONS,
                       AND STRENGTHENS NATIONAL SECURITY

    =======================================================================

                                 FIELD HEARING

                                   BEFORE THE

                             SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY

                  COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY
                            HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                         ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS

                                 FIRST SESSION

                                   __________

                                  MAY 3, 2019

                                   __________

                               Serial No. 116-14

                                   __________

     Printed for the use of the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

           Available via the World Wide Web: http://science.house.gov

                                 _________

                    U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

    36-253 PDF                WASHINGTON : 2019

                  COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY

                 HON. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas, Chairwoman
    ZOE LOFGREN, California              FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma,
    DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois                Ranking Member
    SUZANNE BONAMICI, Oregon             MO BROOKS, Alabama
    AMI BERA, California,                BILL POSEY, Florida
        Vice Chair                       RANDY WEBER, Texas
    CONOR LAMB, Pennsylvania             BRIAN BABIN, Texas
    LIZZIE FLETCHER, Texas               ANDY BIGGS, Arizona
    HALEY STEVENS, Michigan              ROGER MARSHALL, Kansas
    KENDRA HORN, Oklahoma                RALPH NORMAN, South Carolina
    MIKIE SHERRILL, New Jersey           MICHAEL CLOUD, Texas
    BRAD SHERMAN, California             TROY BALDERSON, Ohio
    STEVE COHEN, Tennessee               PETE OLSON, Texas
    JERRY McNERNEY, California           ANTHONY GONZALEZ, Ohio
    ED PERLMUTTER, Colorado              MICHAEL WALTZ, Florida
    PAUL TONKO, New York                 JIM BAIRD, Indiana
    BILL FOSTER, Illinois                JAIME HERRERA BEUTLER, Washington
    DON BEYER, Virginia                  JENNIFFER GONZALEZ-COLON,
    CHARLIE CRIST, Florida                   Puerto Rico
    SEAN CASTEN, Illinois                VACANCY
    KATIE HILL, California
    BEN McADAMS, Utah
    JENNIFER WEXTON, Virginia
                                     ------

                             Subcommittee on Energy

                    HON. CONOR LAMB, Pennsylvania, Chairman
    DANIEL LIPINKSI, Illinois            RANDY WEBER, Texas, Ranking Member
    LIZZIE FLETCHER, Texas               ANDY BIGGS, Arizona
    HALEY STEVENS, Michigan              RALPH NORMAN, South Carolina
    KENDRA HORN, Oklahoma                MICHAEL CLOUD, Texas
    JERRY McNERNEY, California           VACANCY
    BILL FOSTER, Illinois
    SEAN CASTEN, Illinois

                             C  O  N  T  E  N  T  S

                                  May 3, 2019

                                                                       Page
    Hearing Charter..................................................     2

                               Opening Statements

    Statement by Representative Conor Lamb, Chairman, Subcommittee on
      Energy, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House
      of Representatives.............................................     6
        Written Statement............................................     9

    Written statement by Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson,
      Chairwoman, Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S.
      House of Representatives.......................................    12

                                   Witnesses:

    Dr. Peter Lyons, Retired, DOE Assistant Secretary for Nuclear
      Energy, and former NRC Commissioner
        Oral Statement...............................................    14
        Written Statement............................................    16

    Admiral William Fallon, Retired, United States Navy
        Oral Statement...............................................    23
        Written Statement............................................    26

    Tina M. Taylor, Deputy Chief Nuclear Officer and Senior Director
      of Research and Development, Electric Power Research Institute
        Oral Statement...............................................    31
        Written Statement............................................    33

    Dr. Jay Apt, Professor, Carnegie Mellon University's Tepper
      School of Business, and the Department of Engineering and
      Public Policy
        Oral Statement...............................................    39
        Written Statement............................................    41

    Discussion.......................................................    49

                       HOW THE DOMESTIC NUCLEAR INDUSTRY

                            BOOSTS LOCAL ECONOMIES,

                              CURBS EMISSIONS, AND

                         STRENGTHENS NATIONAL SECURITY

                                  ----------

                              FRIDAY, MAY 3, 2019

                      House of Representatives,
                                Subcommittee on Energy,
                   Committee on Science, Space, and Technology,
                                                       Washington, D.C.

        The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:07 a.m., in
    the Shippingport Borough Municipal Building, 163 State Route
    3016, Shippingport, Pennsylvania 15077, Hon. Conor Lamb
    [Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
        Present: Representatives Lamb, Stevens, Foster, and Casten.

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Chairman Lamb. All right. This hearing will come to order.
    Without objection, the Chair is authorized to declare recess at
    any time.
        Good morning to everybody, and welcome to today's hearing,
    which is called, ``How the Domestic Nuclear Industry Boosts
    Local Economies, Curbs Emissions, and Strengthens National
    Security.''
        I am Representative Conor Lamb of Pennsylvania's 17th
    District covering Beaver County, where we are now. And I'd like
    to begin first by welcoming all of the guests who have traveled
    here from outside of western Pennsylvania to visit us today. We
    are lucky to have several of my colleagues from the Committee
    on Science, Space, and Technology, who will introduce
    themselves and talk a little bit about their districts as you
    go on, but they come from the great States of Illinois and
    Michigan. I want to thank you for taking the time to visit us
    here and learn about our local nuclear power issues.
        I also really want to thank our witnesses, who we are going
    to introduce individually as well, and you'll be hearing a lot
    from them today. But they have devoted their immense
    intellectual resources and energies to this problem that
    affects us and hits us really close to home here. So on behalf
    of all the people that I represent, especially here in Beaver
    County but really all over western Pennsylvania, I just want to
    thank all of you for taking an interest in us and spending some
    time here today.
        I also want to recognize we have two of our local
    government officials with us here, Commissioners Dan Camp and
    Tony Amadio from Beaver County, who have done a lot to fight
    for the people working at this plant and all over Beaver
    County, and we're happy that you were able to take time to be
    with us today.
        We have represented as well some of our State
    officeholders. I know State Representative Rob Matzie, who's an
    active member of the Nuclear Caucus in Harrisburg, would love
    to be here, and he has done a lot to carry the fight for you in
    Harrisburg, so I just want to recognize his work. And we have a
    representative from--State Senator Elder Vogel as well, who is
    in the trenches with us on this one. And we really appreciate
    their efforts and their ability to follow us here today.
        We also have several of our tradesmen and women from IBEW's
    (International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers) Local 712 and
    29, and I really want to thank them for taking some time. We
    have a representative of the painters' union, and it's very
    good of you to come here and remind us all that at the heart of
    all this are the jobs that are providing for families here in
    Beaver County and outside of it. Really all over the region,
    tradesmen and women come and they operate and maintain and
    upgrade this plant, and we have to always remember that.
        Where we are right now today--we're holding this hearing
    here because we're in the shadow of the first-ever civilian
    nuclear power plant in the United States. That started right
    here in western Pennsylvania. And I think it's very important
    for us to remember that there was a time in World War II and
    shortly after where we were bold and adventurous enough to do
    something that, at that time, people actually thought was
    impossible.
        No one would have believed just a few years before this
    place was built that it was possible to take a weapon of war,
    which is how people thought of nuclear energy, and turn it into
    an instrument of peace. But President Eisenhower knew that that
    could be done. He knew that it had to be done. And I think we
    should all feel an immense pride as western Pennsylvanians that
    when it came time to do this, President Eisenhower chose
    Shippingport here in Beaver County for that project.
        A lot of people know that Pittsburgh was already famous for
    contributing to the war effort through the steel industry, but
    not a lot of people know that we are the leaders in nuclear
    power as well. And it's amazing. I think in some ways we can
    feel even more pride about our nuclear heritage because, you
    know, steel came in large ways because we had things in the
    ground in western Pennsylvania that nobody else had, and we had
    a river system and all that kind of thing. The nuclear
    industry, it wasn't because of something specific that we only
    had here.
        But I think President Eisenhower knew about the power of
    our scientific and research community, as represented by the
    Bettis Atomic Power Lab, and our incredible businesses Duquesne
    Light and Westinghouse, and most importantly, the abilities and
    courage of our people. They knew that they could get the job
    done. So that's why I think many of us are so proud.
        When this first started in the 1950s, people were very
    uneasy about the idea of civilian nuclear power in their
    backyard, and I read that they actually--people were asking
    whether their lightbulbs would burn twice as bright in their
    homes once the power started coming from nuclear energy because
    they just thought it was that scary and powerful. But people
    took the risk here anyway. And what is incredible is since
    then, since construction began, I believe, in 1954, generations
    of members of the same families of hardworking tradesmen and
    woman, of engineers, of scientists, of nuclear officers have
    worked to not only maintain these plants but to upgrade them,
    rebuild them.
        And now, the Beaver Valley Nuclear Station that has
    replaced Shippingport, it's one of the safest and most reliable
    power plants of anywhere in the world. It regular score--
    regularly scores among the tops in Pennsylvania and in the
    country, and that is solely due to the dedication and
    professionalism of the men and women that work there. And we
    got a chance to see that on our way here today. I want to thank
    the FirstEnergy folks for taking us on such a great tour and
    for doing such an amazing job running that plant.
        Unfortunately, today, times have changed a little bit
    compared to the 1950s and 1960s when this all got underway, and
    the Beaver Valley Station, many of you know, is scheduled to
    close in 2021 if we don't do something. And I want to repeat
    that. It's not just at risk of closing; it is scheduled to
    close.
        There are many reasons for that, but the fact remains that
    those thousands and thousands of people that worked so hard to
    build this industry here in our backyard, who worked so hard to
    provide power for all of us, provide for their own families,
    and contribute to the national security of this country, they
    deserve a lot better than to see their life's work go under in
    just a couple short years when that's avoidable. That does not
    have to be the outcome.
        And I think right now that their work has never been more
    important. See, the electricity that is produced at Beaver
    Valley is completely carbon-free. And because of the nuclear
    industry in Pennsylvania, we actually get 40 percent of our
    power across the State from nuclear energy, carbon-free power,
    40 percent. It makes us a leader in the United States. I'm
    always struck by the fact that many of our friends and
    neighbors don't know that, that we--that this nuclear industry
    is such a huge part of our economy and that we're already
    getting 40 percent of our power carbon-free because of its
    contribution.
        If we allow these plants to go under, a lot of that power,
    if not all of it, will be replaced by fossil fuels. We will
    never reach our goals when it comes to the climate and the
    environment if we allow nuclear energy to collapse.
        The reason I talked about President Eisenhower today--and
    if you look over to the right here, you're going to see a
    picture of him waving this magic wand when they started
    construction of the power plant. He was so proud that this was
    his baby, this was his darling, that he supervised the
    construction of it from beginning to end. He is remembered for
    that level of focus and attention to detail in winning the war
    in World War II and then preserving the peace and building our
    national infrastructure like this plant.
        And back then, people knew that all those things were
    related, and that's what we're going to talk about here today,
    how it's not just about the local economy and local power, but
    it's about the national security of the entire United States
    why we have to preserve this industry.
        And I think if we could bring President Eisenhower back
    today and ask him how he would address the challenges of the
    21st century after he was so successful meeting the challenges
    of the 20th, I think he would recognize them and he would say
    you've got to build and preserve this infrastructure again.
    You've got to renew it for a new century and new challenges
    like climate change and that we cannot afford to let these
    things go under.
        So that's why we're really here today. We're here to talk
    about how we protect these jobs for our tradesmen and women,
    for our veterans. So many of the employees in the nuclear
    industry are veterans of the U.S. Navy's nuclear program, for
    our scientists.
        And finally, the issue that we'll touch on in a little more
    detail is how there are going to be many nuclear power plants
    built overseas in the decades to come. There's about a billion
    people in the world today that still don't have electricity.
    And when our competitor nations like Russia and China look at
    that fact, they see a market. They see a market where hundreds
    of billions if not trillions of dollars to build these plants,
    to make all the parts that supply them, to send their
    scientists and people overseas to build them, the United States
    used think that way.
        We used to go overseas and share our technology. In fact,
    there were people from the Shippingport plant here that went to
    Japan in the 1960s to help them build their nuclear power. That
    is world leadership, and that's making sure that this
    technology is done right. We can get back to that way of
    thinking again. There's no way that we can't. But there's a lot
    that we need to do. So that's what we're here to talk about
    today.
        [The prepared statement of Chairman Lamb follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Chairman Lamb. If there are any Members who wish to add
    their own additional opening statements to the record, you can
    do so at this point.
        [The prepared statement of Chairwoman Johnson follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Chairman Lamb. Not seeing any, I would like to introduce
    our witnesses so everyone knows who we have with us today. And
    we are extremely lucky to have this panel with us.
        So I'll start with Dr. Pete Lyons, who is a former
    Department of Energy (DOE) Assistant Secretary for Nuclear
    Energy and also a former Commissioner at the Nuclear Regulatory
    Commission (NRC). He was nominated by President Obama and
    confirmed by the Senate as Assistant Secretary for Nuclear
    Energy in 2011. Before being at the Department of Energy, Dr.
    Lyons was appointed by President Bush as a Commissioner at the
    Nuclear Regulatory Commission in 2005, so he's served under
    multiple Administrations. He now consults on several corporate
    and laboratory boards, and he assists several international
    groups. We're very thankful to him for traveling all the way
    from Colorado to be with us here today.
        Next to Dr. Lyons we had Admiral William Fallon, who is
    retired from the United States Navy after a 40-year career of
    military and strategic leadership. He has previously held the
    positions of the Commander of U.S. Central Command and U.S.
    Pacific Command, Presidential Envoy to Japan, and Vice Chief of
    the Navy. I believe he was Vice Chief of the Navy on September
    11th, 2001, and personally led some of the response that our
    Nation had on that day and afterward. He currently serves on
    many defense boards and consults in Washington, D.C., and we're
    incredibly thankful to have him with us today as well.
        Next to Admiral Fallon is Ms. Tina Taylor, who is the
    Deputy Chief Nuclear Officer and Senior Director of Research
    and Development at the Electric Power Research Institute. She
    is responsible for a wide array of research addressing the most
    technically challenging issues facing nuclear power, and her
    team is responsible for work in the areas of maintenance,
    engineering, equipment reliability, instrumentation and
    control, risk and safety management. All the things that make
    these nuclear power plants actually work and be safe, Ms.
    Taylor can talk to us about today, including what it takes to
    decommission some of these plants.
        Next to Ms. Taylor is a hometown boy, Dr. Jay Apt, who's a
    Professor at the Tepper School of Business and Department of
    Engineering and Public Policy at Carnegie Mellon University. He
    is also the Co-Director of the Carnegie Mellon Electricity
    Industry Center, which is actually one of the world's largest
    engineering business centers focused on the electric industry.
    He's a fellow of the American Association for the Advancement
    of Science. He received the National--the NASA (National
    Aeronautics and Space Administration) Distinguished Service
    Medal and the Metcalf Lifetime Achievement Award for
    significant contributions to engineering. He's also an
    astronaut by trade and will be talking about a wide array of
    things as they relate to nuclear power for us today.
        So, as our witnesses should know, you will each have 5
    minutes for your spoken testimony. Your written testimony has
    already been included in the record of this hearing, and when
    you have completed your spoken testimony, we will begin with
    questions from the Members. We will probably do multiple 5-
    minute rounds of questions, so you'll have a chance to share
    everything that you have to share with us today. Again, I'm
    just incredibly thankful to have you here with us, and we will
    start now with Dr. Pete Lyons.

                      TESTIMONY OF DR. PETER LYONS,

               RETIRED DOE ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR NUCLEAR

                   ENERGY, AND FORMER NRC COMMISSIONER

        Dr. Lyons. Thank you, Chairman Lamb, and also
    Representatives Stevens, Foster, and Casten. It's really an
    honor to testify in today's hearing.
        As you just heard, I retired as the Assistant Secretary for
    Nuclear Energy after prior service as Commissioner of the
    Nuclear Regulatory Commission and also many years as a Science
    Advisor on U.S. Senate staff. I also held many positions at Los
    Alamos National Laboratory in many decades there. In
    retirement, I've co-chaired the American Nuclear Society's
    Committee on Nuclear in the States, which published a toolkit
    to provide States with options to protect their nuclear plants.
    We also published the ``U.S. without Nuclear Energy, a Report
    on the Public Impact of Plant Closures.''
        I now serve as the Subcommittee Co-Chairman for the Energy
    Department's Nuclear Energy Advisory Committee. Their recent
    recommendation from that subcommittee was that policy changes
    are essential to ensure survival of the existing fleet of the
    U.S. commercial nuclear plants.
        Our nuclear power plants, the most resilient component of
    our Nation's electrical grid, represent a vital national
    resource. Former Governor Ridge has said that the goal of grid
    reliance cannot be met without nuclear power. When the 18-month
    fuel supply at a typical nuclear plant is contrasted with needs
    for constant coal shipments or operating gas pipelines, the
    role of nuclear power is simply beyond question. They provide
    confidence that power will be available as needed. They also
    contribute nationally about $2 billion in State taxes, $10
    billion in Federal taxes, and add about $60 billion to the
    Nation's GDP.
        In 2018, the national average for nuclear generation cost
    was 3.2 cents per kilowatt hour, very low. But even that low
    price isn't always sufficient for profitability when nuclear
    energy's attributes are not compensated by electricity market
    structures. Low gas prices are impacting economic
    sustainability of nuclear power plants, and State mandates for
    intermittent renewable energy plus Federal and State tax
    credits for renewables have further undermined the economics of
    nuclear power.
        These factors are leading some nuclear plants to close.
    More early closures could force closure of all--I say all our
    nuclear power plants. Closure of nuclear plants, as you said,
    increases fossil fuel use and emissions. Nuclear plants provide
    more than half of our Nation's emission-free electricity,
    enabling clean air and addressing climate change. Energy
    Secretary Perry has said, ``I don't know how anybody who cares
    about the climate can't speak for nuclear energy.''
        In Pennsylvania, your nuclear plants provide 42 percent of
    your electricity and about 94 percent of your clean energy.
    There are 5,000 workers in your nuclear plants with over 500
    companies in Pennsylvania supporting the nuclear industry. Your
    Governor issued an order to slash emissions. If your plants
    close, that won't happen, and Pennsylvania would be transformed
    from a power exporter to a power importer. Your Nuclear Energy
    Caucus reported that your nuclear plants reduced annual
    electric bills in Pennsylvania by about $800 million.
        Unfortunately, whenever preservation of nuclear power
    assets is discussed, it's fought by natural gas and sometimes
    by renewable companies, despite the fact that a diverse energy
    supply is absolutely vital to consumers. When these groups
    argue against nuclear power, in my mind, they are certainly not
    arguing in the best interest of the public.
        Fuel diversity is an essential, necessary requirement for a
    stable grid. Former Governor Ridge noted, ``Only an electric
    grid built on diverse and stable sources of energy can
    withstand evolving threats and make sure the lights stay on.''
        Our nuclear power plants also provide vital national
    security benefits. Our nuclear navy and weapons programs are
    supported by the infrastructure of nuclear power. In addition,
    when U.S. companies export their designs and expertise, they
    also export U.S. safety and nonproliferation standards. But
    now, international construction is being dominated by Russia
    and China, so they will be setting future international safety
    and nonproliferation norms, and the U.S. loses influence and
    jobs.
        Pennsylvania legislators are considering two important
    bills to preserve your nuclear power. As one deeply concerned
    about the energy future we leave for our children and
    grandchildren, it's my sincere hope that the ideas in these
    bills enable a future for nuclear energy in Pennsylvania.
        Thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Dr. Lyons follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Chairman Lamb. Thank you, Dr. Lyons.
        Admiral Fallon.

                  TESTIMONY OF ADMIRAL WILLIAM FALLON,

                       RETIRED, UNITED STATES NAVY

        Adm. Fallon. Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee, it's a
    great pleasure and honor to be here, and I would appreciate my
    written testimony being entered into the record.
        If I could, I'd just like to take a few minutes to share a
    couple of ideas with you. First, I'm here as a private citizen.
    I'm not in any way representing any of the industry folks
    whatsoever, but I do have 4 decades-plus of experience in the
    United States Navy, and much of that operating from an aviator
    in my distant past flying from aircraft carriers that were
    nuclear-powered for the last 30 or so years.
        And I think it would be good for us to recall some things
    that went on back in those early days. You mentioned President
    Eisenhower, Mr. Chairman. You've got a mugshot of the President
    over here on the display board. When I was a young second-
    grader, I met him when he was running for office in 1952. I
    know that's why they call me the craggy Admiral. But I want to
    just give a perspective of those days.
        And in the early 1950s when you talked about atomic
    anything, it was weapons. And this increasing threat of atomic
    war we had already used these weapons-- remember the Russians
    had them, the Chinese had just acquired them--it was pervasive.
    Eisenhower had the vision and the drive to want to do something
    else, and he saw the potential of technology. The U.S. was
    developing options to actually use this what we call nuclear
    power, this atomic power, for other things, peaceful things
    because he knew the world needed help.
        And one of the things every place in the world needed, this
    country and others, was electric power, and the potential to
    have nuclear energy turn into power was very appealing but
    needed a lot of development work. The United States Navy at the
    same time was thinking seriously about this.
        So from my experience in the Navy I can tell you that the
    advent of nuclear power has given the U.S. Navy a phenomenal
    ability to operate in ways that it could only have dreamed
    about in the early days. It provides a tremendous opportunity
    to provide a deterrent, a strategic deterrent for this country
    in the form of our ballistic missile submarines that's just
    unequaled in the world. And our aircraft carriers, all of which
    are nuclear powered now, not only help in that deterrent but
    have a phenomenal striking capability should they be needed.
        So just a little sea story, in 1980, I was on the aircraft
    carrier USS Dwight D. Eisenhower. We were deployed to the
    Indian Ocean, and we, for many reasons, ended up remaining at
    sea for 152 straight days, 5 months operating continuously,
    this feat has never been approached in terms of records back to
    World War II, and in fact it's only been broken once by another
    former flagship of mine. USS Theodore Roosevelt actually went
    to 160 days. But it's a lot of time at sea.
        So tying things together, President Eisenhower came here
    and formally opened this plant. He had the vision. And since
    that time in the early days--by the way, did you know that the
    person that was in charge of design and construction of this
    facility here at Shippingport was the same person that was the
    father of the nuclear navy, Admiral Hyman Rickover. And
    Rickover was intentionally put in charge of this operation
    because he was the kind of guy that got stuff done. We could
    use him today I think to help us along.
        But since those days, the Navy and the commercial nuclear
    industry have been intertwined in innumerable ways. And in fact
    that's the crux of the problem that I see today. The decline of
    the commercial side is severely affecting the U.S. Navy, and
    it's affecting our national security. The network of
    infrastructure that supports both the commercial and Navy side
    are difficult to distinguish. The supply chain that enables the
    operation of these plants--by the way, there are only about 200
    nuclear reactors in our entire country. Half of those are on
    Navy ships and the other half, declining numbers, are in our
    commercial plants.
        As someone already mentioned, the people that enable this
    industry to keep going and the people that enable our Navy to
    operate are often one and the same. And if you took a poll of
    people that are working in the commercial industry, you'd find
    an awful lot of Navy people. But we get people in the Navy,
    interestingly enough, because when people are young, they look
    down the road and they say, hey, what am I going to do, you
    know? I'm in the Navy 20, 25 years, and then what? The Navy and
    commercial nuclear share the people.
        The situation today is not good. We are strategically
    ceding the initiative to--increasingly to Russia and China, as
    Congressman Lamb already mentioned. These two countries alone
    have under construction or in planning more than 200 nuclear
    power plants today. The United States, zero. The Russians have
    $130 billion of signed orders to build plants. We have not a
    penny, nothing. There's something wrong with this picture.
        So let's go back to Eisenhower's idea. He had a vision. He
    thought that he could promote peace and stability, and the
    objectives of that program that he started and announced in a
    speech in front of the U.N., was known as the Atoms for Peace
    initiative, had three cornerstone ideas. One was to prevent the
    spread of nuclear weapons. How did that happen? Because
    Eisenhower--and, by the way, there was a lot of staff
    disagreement, a tremendous amount of angst in Washington, you
    better not do this, oh, it's dangerous, you're going to spread
    this technology, really bad, but he prevailed. He wanted to
    limit the spread of nuclear weapons because when the countries
    agreed to take that technology, they also had agreed to non
    proliferate.
        Second thing, it enshrined the U.S. as the leader in--as
    Dr. Lyons already indicated, U.S. safety standards, U.S.
    procedures, U.S. technology in an agreed, regulated format that
    is certainly not the case with our adversaries in the world
    today.
        And the third thing is it enabled this country to develop
    relationships with other countries that are longstanding, so
    these nuclear plants are built to last 50 to 100 years. For the
    duration of these arrangements in other countries you need
    people working together, trusting one another, technology
    exchange. That's all disappearing now as we've just kind of
    walked away from this thing. So for these key reasons, I think
    that this country needs to really step back and do some serious
    thinking.
        It isn't just about local clean energy, which ought to be
    very important to everybody. Solar, wind, nuclear are not the
    same. The sun doesn't shine 24 hours a day. The wind doesn't
    blow. But the 95 percent or better availability which nuclear
    power delivers, and I think it's something we need to consider.
    We need to use our heads. We need a balance. And this balance
    at the domestic local level is really important, but in the
    strategic international level for national security, it's
    really important, and we need to get back in the program in my
    opinion.
        Thank you very much for the opportunity.
        Chairman Lamb. Thank you, Admiral.
        Adm. Fallon. I look forward to your questions.
        [The prepared statement of Adm. Fallon follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Chairman Lamb. Thank you very much.
        Ms. Taylor.

                      TESTIMONY OF TINA M. TAYLOR,

               SENIOR DIRECTOR, RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT,

                    ELECTRIC POWER RESEARCH INSTITUTE

        Ms. Taylor. Good morning, Chairman Lamb and Members of the
    Subcommittee. I appreciate the opportunity to participate in
    today's hearing.
        EPRI (Electric Power Research Institute) conducts research
    relating to the generation delivery and use of electricity for
    the benefit of the public. An independent nonprofit
    organization, we bring together experts to help address
    challenges in electricity, including reliability, efficiency,
    affordability, health, safety, and the environment. EPRI sees a
    plausible future where deep carbon reductions will require
    continued focus on energy efficiency, cleaner energy,
    electrification, and advanced fuels. Nuclear power plays an
    important role to achieve carbon reductions while providing
    affordable energy and a strong GDP.
        As was mentioned, it's fitting that we're here next to the
    Shippingport station today, the first demonstration of large-
    scale commercial power--nuclear power in the U.S. After 25
    years of operation, Shippingport has been decommissioned
    successfully and the land released for unrestricted use.
    Currently operating at the site are the two units at Beaver
    Valley that you toured this morning. While both of these units
    have received license extensions from the NRC, FirstEnergy has
    announced potential premature closure due to market challenges
    and, today, Beaver Valley's future remains uncertain.
        Nuclear plants have long been valued for their reliable
    operation and contribution to baseload generation, and now
    they're being reappraised as a foundation for sustained
    decarbonization, economic contributions, environmental
    footprint, and other societal benefits. The 98 operating
    reactors today provide nearly 20 percent of the electricity in
    the United States, and even with rapid deployment of wind and
    solar, nuclear plants still comprise about 60 percent of our
    carbon-free electricity.
        While a number of units in the U.S. are currently under
    financial stress, that picture can change dramatically if the
    U.S. places even a modest value on carbon reductions. The
    current nuclear fleet operates safely and has achieved very
    high reliability. The extended operation could provide an
    important foundation for the future of nuclear.
        Plants were initially licensed for 40 years from the NRC
    with the potential for extended license periods of 20 years.
    Currently, 90 of the operating reactors have received license
    extensions to operate out to 60 years. The focus now is on
    renewal of these licenses to allow operation out to 80 years.
    So far, three companies have applied to the NRC for these
    second license extensions, and other companies are evaluating
    this option. Based on extensive research, evaluation of
    inspection results, and development of aging management
    programs, we have found no technical barriers to safely and
    reliably extending the life of these plants out to 80 years and
    potentially beyond.
        New technologies and process improvements can also enable
    extended operations, providing improved economics while
    maintaining reliability and safety. Two examples of this are
    accident-tolerant fuel and plant modernization. Acceleration of
    these technologies can increase efficiencies, and EPRI is
    engaged with the Department of Energy and others to evaluate
    these options.
        The longer and more efficient operation of today's fleet
    provides a bridge to the next wave of nuclear technologies.
    This is important to provide additional time for development
    and deployment of new plant types and to help maintain the
    national nuclear expertise, as Admiral discussed, and the
    supply chain.
        SMRs (small modular reactors) are a likely near-term
    option. EPRI has worked with stakeholders to accelerate
    adoption of these technologies, leverage the improvements in
    design, and is demonstrating advanced manufacturing
    technologies. Increasing industry and government interest in
    advanced reactors has coincided with an unprecedented influx of
    private investment. We're working on advanced reactor owner-
    operator requirements, developing methods for integrating
    safety assessments during the design phase, and performing
    economic modeling to explore where these plants may fit in the
    future.
        Opportunities for nuclear power increase substantially if
    decarbonization of transportation, building, and industrial
    sectors is seriously pursued via economy-wide electrification
    or through low-carbon energy carriers such as hydrogen.
        In conclusion, research and development (R&D) to optimize
    and extend the life of existing plants and demonstrations of
    advanced nuclear technologies offer utilities and other
    stakeholders several options for reliable, efficient carbon-
    free energy.
        Thank you again, and I look forward to any questions you
    may have.
        [The prepared statement of Ms. Taylor follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Chairman Lamb. Thank you very much, Ms. Taylor.
        And, Dr. Apt.

                        TESTIMONY OF DR. JAY APT,

                 PROFESSOR, CARNEGIE MELLON UNIVERSITY'S

                   TEPPER SCHOOL OF BUSINESS, AND THE

               DEPARTMENT OF ENGINEERING AND PUBLIC POLICY

        Dr. Apt. Thanks very much, Chairman Lamb, other Members of
    the Committee, for giving me the opportunity to testify.
        I'm going to talk about something that we haven't talked
    about directly here, and that is non-carbon pollution. We're
    still killing prematurely 10,000 people a year from
    conventional pollutants from the power industry. We used to be
    killing 40,000 when I was growing up, and that's down, but the
    levels of pollution that we have from conventional power plants
    are still responsible for shortening your life expectancy by 6
    months. Federal and State policies have made a pretty big
    difference in making that a lot better. I think that we need to
    keep doing that at both the Federal and the State levels.
        Much of the discourse about low-pollution power has focused
    on renewables, but renewable and low pollution are not
    synonyms. As folks have said, nuclear provides about 19 percent
    of the low-pollution power in this country. Renewables provide
    about 17 percent.
        Renewable energy resources are what I've spent a long
    period of my research career studying. They are a key part of
    the Nation's future. If demand for electric power stays where
    it's been since 2007, all of the renewable sources taken
    together--wind, solar, hydroelectric, geothermal--would account
    for about 35 percent of U.S. electric generation by 2030.
    That's good, but if the nuclear plants close by 2030, then that
    effect would be that low-pollution generation would be right
    where we are now. If the nuclear plants stay open, we'd be at
    about 55 percent low-pollution power. If the nuclear plants
    close, we'd be back down to 35 percent, right where we are
    today.
        So I'd like to make the following points. As other folks
    have said, nuclear generation provides a bit over half of the
    low-pollution power that we have in the country. The remaining
    half is provided by hydroelectric, wind, solar, and geothermal.
    Wind and solar are growing, but if the USA's nuclear plants
    close, say, by 2030, then that effect would be no increase at
    all in our low-pollution power.
        States have a big role to play. The U.S. Supreme Court's
    decision on April 15 to allow low-pollution programs to go
    forward in Illinois and New York are a clear indication that
    States can treat low-pollution power the same way that they
    treat renewable power.
        Let me move to the Federal role. Spent fuel storage for
    civilian and military reactors is a Federal responsibility.
    Funds have been collected from each kilowatt hour produced by
    our Nation's nuclear power generators to pay for a long-term
    spent fuel solution. The Federal Government must shoulder its
    responsibility.
        The Department of Energy has a bunch of great national
    labs. They have excellent expertise in the materials science
    that's relevant to the continued operation of a fleet of
    nuclear generators. Continuing DOE research into the ways that
    nuclear fuel elements, for example, can become more tolerant of
    transient temperature excursions is one appropriate area for
    Federal action.
        Finally, if we're going to have safe and affordable
    advanced reactor designs that can be deployed at scale by
    midcentury, the United States is going to need to dramatically
    increase and refocus the budget of DOE's Office of Nuclear
    Energy toward advanced reactor development.
        The DOE's nuclear energy efforts have been scattered. They
    need to be centralized, and that may mean some difficult
    choices like the ones that we made in the base realignment and
    closings for our military services to refocus those
    appropriately. Part of that increased budget would be dedicated
    to building new infrastructure such as Fast Flux Test
    Facilities and other system testbeds. Even with a higher
    budget, surge funding may be needed to get reactor development
    and programs to commercialization. We're going to have to down-
    select to two or three real designs and commercialize those.
        Thank you for the opportunity to testify on this important
    matter, and I'd be pleased to answer any questions when the
    time comes.
        [The prepared statement of Dr. Apt follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Chairman Lamb. Thank you, Dr. Apt.
        OK. So just to explain for a second what we're going to do
    now, in case this wasn't already clear, this is a real
    legislative hearing the same way that we would conduct one on
    Capitol Hill in Washington, D.C. We just happened to bring it
    out here so that more folks could find out what we were
    thinking and we could learn from all of you. So when we hold
    these hearings in Washington, we will take testimony from the
    witnesses like we just did, and then the Members get the chance
    to ask questions. And it's all designed to lead to a bill that
    we might draft or a law that we could try to pass on this
    subject. We're trying to gather the information from the
    experts themselves. So that's what we'll start to do now.
        I will recognize myself as the Chairman of the for about 5
    minutes of questioning, and then we'll go through each Member
    for 5 minutes, and we might do that a couple times to make sure
    all the questions get out.
        So I will start on the end with Dr. Lyons. Dr. Lyons, we
    have here today four Members of Congress from this Committee,
    all of whom happen to be Democrats. That's really mainly driven
    by just the logistics of traveling here and who was available
    and that kind of thing. I know from working on the Committee
    that Democrats and Republicans are both very interested in
    nuclear power.
        And I thought you might be able to weigh in on that, as
    someone who's served in both President Bush's Administration
    and President Obama's Administration. And you actually quoted--
    in case anyone didn't catch who you were talking about, you
    quoted Department of Energy Secretary Rick Perry, the former
    Republican Governor of Texas and Presidential candidate, who
    himself has made very supportive comments about nuclear energy.
        So I was wondering if you could just weigh in. In your
    experience, has this been a bipartisan issue?
        Dr. Lyons. Chairman Lamb, I would very much agree with you
    that this is a bipartisan issue. I think it's well-recognized
    in both houses and both parties that nuclear energy is a vital
    resource for the country. So, yes, I strongly agree with you.
        Chairman Lamb. Great. Thank you very much.
        Now, Admiral Fallon, I'd like to follow up on a few of the
    important things you discussed. One thing is you talked a lot
    about aircraft carriers. Just very quickly, can we think of the
    aircraft carriers--they're almost sort of like floating nuclear
    power plants in a way, right? I mean, they're--people think of
    nuclear energy and nuclear power as being very dangerous and
    risky, but actually, the Navy has been doing this for a really
    long time, carrying them all over the ocean for long periods of
    time like you talked about. And there's a whole culture of
    safety and expertise that's built up. Could you talk about that
    a little bit?
        Adm. Fallon. Sure, I'm happy to. So the Navy's got more
    than 6 decades of operating experience under often extreme
    conditions, and it's been able to do it safely and efficiently
    and effectively. And a lot of that's the legacy of the same
    Hyman Rickover that was the instigator of this plan here. He
    had a well-appreciated, fearsome reputation in the Navy when he
    served as Chief Torturer, but his standards were at the highest
    level, and he insisted on these standards being enforced. And
    the legacy of that is what pervades the U.S. nuclear industry
    to this day and in my opinion needs to be expanded out in the
    world rather than having Chernobyl and like situations
    perpetrated. So I think it's really important.
        Another comment about the floating powerplant. So today's
    aircraft carriers have two reactors on them. The original
    carrier Enterprise had eight. We learned a lot and moved the
    technology forward. But these plants operate for very long
    periods of time. The lifetime--the planned lifetime of our
    aircraft carriers since inception, the nuclear carriers, is 50
    years, so Enterprise served 53 years, and the expectation is
    that we're going to continue that.
        So these are actually very versatile vessels. They're
    large, and you can use them for many things. And the idea is we
    expect technology is going to change, the nature of conflict
    will change, but you have a platform that offers you immense,
    varied capabilities, and I think it's really terrific.
        Submarines, a little more focused, smaller, but they're our
    primary strategic deterrent lest anyone get an idea that they
    might do something stupid against this country, they're out
    there 24 hours a day under the seas, very difficult to find,
    and they're enabled to do that by nuclear power, which keeps
    them going. So----
        Chairman Lamb. And it's that culture of professionalism and
    safety in the Navy.
        Adm. Fallon. So basically----
        Chairman Lamb. Yes.
        Adm. Fallon [continuing]. The standards are very high, and
    there's not a lot of tolerance for error. And if you make a
    mistake, you're gone, but there's a very, very tightly
    interwoven series of events and activities and procedures in
    place to check and double check and make sure these things are
    done correctly and efficiently and safely.
        Chairman Lamb. Thank you. Do we happen to have any Navy
    veterans in the room with us today? I see a bunch of hands.
    Thank you for serving in the Navy. It's a shame you couldn't be
    in the Marine Corps, but the Navy is certainly a good option.
        But, no, when you walk through the power plant here, I was
    struck, both times I've been there, by how many Navy veterans
    you meet who got their start in the Navy's nuclear program. And
    then they knew that they could move back home at the end of
    their service when they were ready--many of them are from here
    originally--and continue to work in the same field, and that's
    one of the great benefits of this industry.
        So with that, I will turn now to my colleague from
    Michigan, Representative Haley Stevens, for 5 minutes of
    questions.
        Ms. Stevens. Thank you. Well, allow me to say what a
    delight it is to be in Beaver County and Shippingport in
    particular with my incredible colleague and our Chairman Conor
    Lamb. We've got to give him some credit for his leadership in
    bringing this field hearing together and allowing us to have
    this discussion.
        We often talk about the Science Committee as the Committee
    of the future and how we determine our future and come together
    to win it. And I represent communities not too different than
    this, this industrial Midwestern heartland. And the questions
    before us around our future, around a clean and sustainable
    economy that is creating jobs at scale for all of us, this is
    what Beaver County represents. And you have my commitment and
    partnership that we'll be damned if we let this plant close.
    And we will continue to work to share the success story about
    what the industrial might, what the workforce talent here
    represents and, frankly, how American leadership can be
    represented in new economies of scale because of what nuclear
    energy represents.
        My first question is for you, Dr. Lyons. In your testimony
    you described the Nation's nuclear power plants as a vital
    resource. And in my home State of Michigan, we generate nearly
    90 percent of our emissions-free electricity from nuclear
    power. These are companies, DTE Energy and consumers. We
    frankly are leaders in this space, and we're thrilled to be
    connected to all of you here in Beaver County because of that.
    This is also well over the national average of 55 percent.
        Can we just hone in here a little bit more specifically,
    though, because if plants like this--which, by the way, I had a
    blast on the tour and I can't wait to come back. But if plants
    like this were to close, what would the national energy mix
    look like? What would this do to our energy economy?
        Dr. Lyons. Thank you for the question, Representative
    Stevens. As I indicated in my testimony, I'm concerned that, as
    we continue to lose plants, we may, if you will, reach a cliff
    where we lose all of our nuclear power plants. The implications
    are tremendous. We would be losing over half of our clean
    energy in the country. There would be a dramatic reduction in
    the resilience and reliability of the grid. These are factors
    that are of immense importance to the American public. So I
    certainly agree with the thrust of your question. I use the
    word that they're a vital national resource. I absolutely
    believe that and appreciate your question.
        Ms. Stevens. And so could you just explain a little bit
    more, too, about how this would impact our greenhouse gas
    emissions?
        Dr. Lyons. There have been a number of test cases around
    the country and around the world where nuclear plants have
    closed. They've always been primarily replaced with fossil
    energy with their resulting emissions. It's very hard to argue
    any other way. The emissions will increase dramatically, and
    the concerns that Dr. Apt raised in his testimony will be
    intensified with the impact of greater fossil emissions.
        Ms. Stevens. And we talked a little bit about the
    perception of nuclear energy and kind of going into a rich
    history of which we celebrate and recognizing some of the
    present-day frustrations with how the public perceives nuclear
    energy. I almost want to save this for the second round, but
    I'll just say that one of my favorite thinkers of all time, Dr.
    Steven Pinker, in partnership with Dr. Josh Goldstein at the
    top of April published an opinion editorial piece titled, ``How
    Nuclear Energy Can Save the World,'' how we can do this from
    places like here in Beaver County.
        So, Dr. Apt, just quickly here for us, are there public
    health impacts both nationally and locally of domestic nuclear
    power plants that you could share or shed light on for us.
        Dr. Apt. Yes, they're all positive. The 20 percent or so of
    our power that is produced by nuclear plants is pollution-free.
    That's huge, right? We've got about one-third of our power
    produced by coal plants that have clear and present human
    health dangers. If we shifted from nuclear power to fossil
    fuel, that number of 10,000 premature deaths would go up by
    6,000. That's a lot, and so it's pretty clear to me that--and I
    teach in a business school, so I believe in looking at the
    economics of things. It's really less expensive to keep
    something going that you have than it is to build anything new.
        And I'm a big proponent of building new wind, new solar.
    That's great. And I'd love if we kept building wind--it's going
    up linearly--and if we keep building solar, it's going up
    exponentially. By the year 2030, if we do that and keep our
    nuclear plants, we'll go from one-third of our power pollution-
    free to little over half pollution-free. That's great. If we
    lose our nuclear, we're in deep trouble.
        Ms. Stevens. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I yield back the
    remainder of my time.
        Chairman Lamb. Thank you very much, and now we'll turn to
    my colleague Bill Foster from the great State of Illinois,
    which has had a lot of success in supporting and maintaining
    its fleet of domestic nuclear reactors. And, Representative
    Foster, you're recognized for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Foster. Well, thank you Chairman Lamb, and thank you to
    our witnesses.
        You know, this--I'd also like to mention there were
    supposed to be two more of our colleagues here, the Chair of
    the Full Committee Eddie Bernice Johnson and a Representative
    from California. And when the thunderstorms came through, they
    just couldn't make their schedules work. But the three of us
    drove in the middle of the night last night because of the
    importance of this hearing.
        You know, we've gone through this, as you've mentioned, in
    Illinois where we've been struggling with the survival of our
    nuclear fleet. And we've resolved that favorably in terms of
    preserving the nuclear things. And to make that happen we had
    the Republican Governor and the Democratic legislature come
    together and recognize the importance of that, you know, to the
    environment and to the workforce of the State.
        And you certainly have a mirror-image situation here in the
    politics, but the logic is the same. And one of the reasons I
    know that I came is to show support for what I hope, you know,
    all of the elected officials of Pennsylvania will come through
    on this.
        I also wanted to echo something that Chairman Lamb said
    about Shippingport. You know, they're--I'm a Ph.D. physicist. I
    spent most of my career designing and building giant particle
    accelerators. And there are a handful of legendary places in
    the history of physics. One of them is Stagg Field on the
    campus of the University of Chicago where the first nuclear
    chain reaction took place in--during World War II. Another one
    is the Trinity Site in Alamogordo where the first nuclear
    weapon was tested. And a third place on the list is
    Shippingport where the power of the atom was shown that to me--
    able to be turned for good at commercial scale with tremendous
    benefits for humanity and for the environment. And so you
    should be proud forever that that is going to be in the science
    textbooks forever what was accomplished here more than 50 years
    ago.
        And, as I said, we've been struggling in Illinois with
    preserving our nuclear fleet. And so I guess my question to
    actually all the Members of the Committee, what do you see is
    similar and different to the situation that Illinois faced when
    it decided that it had to take action and successfully took
    action to extend the life of its nuclear reactor fleet?
        Yes, Dr. Lyons?
        Dr. Lyons. If I may start, Representative Foster, certainly
    thank you for your question, and thank you for the leadership
    that your State has shown in this issue. I mentioned that I was
    Co-Chairman of the American Nuclear Society's Nuclear in the
    State's Special Committee. There were members from our
    committee who testified in Illinois at the time of the
    considerations for preserving your plants. To my knowledge, the
    situations are virtually identical. Maybe I'm missing a nuance,
    but I see the situations between Pennsylvania today and where
    Illinois was a few years ago as virtually the same. Maybe I'm
    missing a nuance, but I don't see it.
        Mr. Foster. OK. And any other comments? Yes.
        Ms. Taylor. Yes, I'll comment to bring in a point that
    hasn't really been discussed here, which is what the plants are
    doing. So at the same time as there's challenges from the
    market and maybe a changing price that can be obtained for
    electricity, another side of that equation is what it costs to
    generate that electricity. And the plants that operate in
    Illinois and in Pennsylvania have been working with the
    industry across the U.S. to look for opportunities to reduce
    the cost of producing electricity. There was an industrywide
    effort over the last several years called Delivering the
    Nuclear Promise aimed at that, and EPRI has been engaged in
    that from the perspective of where technology can be applied to
    reduce those costs. So the staff at the plants is committed to
    finding a way to make it sustainable as well.
        Mr. Foster. I guess I'd like to--also to touch on the
    economics. You know, it seems like the big dog in here is
    competition from low-priced natural gas, and that's really what
    has made things tough certainly in Illinois and I suspect here
    as well. And there is a--there are serious questions of whether
    we appropriately price the societal cost of methane,
    particularly fugitive methane emissions, that if you actually
    appropriately looked at what Dr. Apt mentioned, the health
    consequences of polluting power of various kinds, as well as
    the ecological damage from fugitive methane emissions, and we
    put a price not only on carbon but on methane and other
    pollution sources, that the economics would be pretty much
    turned on its head and nuclear would look very different in
    that economic--and, Dr. Apt, do you want to----
        Dr. Apt. Sure. Economists like to call these things
    unpriced externalities, their fancy word for it. But it
    basically means if you're not paying the full costs of
    something, then it's not priced appropriately. And for coal-
    fired power plants, for pollutants such as sulfur dioxide,
    particulate matter, nitrous oxide, which applies to both coal
    and gas plants, we had a great Republican idea in 1990, the
    Clean Air Act amendments, of capping those pollutants and
    letting companies trade among them under that cap. That
    resulted in a great market price for those pollutants.
        If we properly priced the fugitive methane emissions, which
    of course not only are very potent greenhouse gases, 30 times
    more potent than CO2 pound for pound, but also cause
    local here-and-now ecological damages, then an economist would
    pat us on the back and say you've done the right thing.
        Mr. Foster. Well, thank you. And I guess my time is up, so
    I'll yield back the balance.
        Chairman Lamb. Admiral, if you want to address that last
    point, go right ahead.
        Adm. Fallon. If I could just pile on a little bit here,
    from my view, the challenge here is that the electric companies
    I don't think properly value nuclear energy. And the reality is
    I believe the same in Illinois, it's the same in Pennsylvania,
    in my original home State of New Jersey which just enacted
    legislation to help the power plants in that State, and that is
    that people see what's close in front of them, and they see the
    availability of abundant quantities of gas and it's very
    inexpensive compared to other sources. That is why it is used
    so much.
        But the big picture here is that the baseload availability
    of nuclear-generated power, not subject to the time of day--
    solar--or the variances of the wind, but it's steady and it's
    available 24 hours a day, it's not polluting, it gives you
    phenomenal resilience. So in the wintertime in these northern
    States I think you may remember that when the temperature
    plunges, electricity demand goes skyrocketing, and the folks
    are scurrying around looking for sources of energy. And they're
    not going to get it the way it's available in the nuclear way.
    You've got to go find a fuel. These nuclear plants have years
    of fuel onsite. They don't have to truck stuff in or pipe it
    in. It's there and available.
        So I think the real issue in each of the States is
    leadership. The leaders have to see beyond the near-term
    things, look at the long-term good and the common good for all
    the people and take appropriate action. So I think it's the
    same in every one of our States.
        Chairman Lamb. Thank you, Admiral.
        Now, I will recognize Representative Sean Casten also from
    Illinois. And I should mention that Representative Casten,
    Representative Stevens, and myself are all in our very first
    full term in Congress, so we are focusing on this issue early
    and hope to stay with it for a very long time. And,
    Representative Casten, you're recognized for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Casten. Thank you, Chairman Lamb. In fairness, as a
    redshirt freshman, the rest of us are true freshmen.
        I really want to thank you for pulling this hearing
    together. I want to thank all the witnesses. Thank you for your
    leadership. I--I'm a 20-year energy executive consultant, spent
    16 years as the CEO of clean energy companies. And I can say
    with a high degree of certainty that we face two existential
    threats as a species. One of them is global warming and the
    other one is Russian nukes. And this panel could not be more
    important because it touches on both of those. And if we don't
    figure out how to deal with those, we're not going to leave the
    kind of planet for our kids that our parents left for us. So
    thank you all for showing up and for dedicating not just your
    day but your careers to those issues.
        I want to focus a little bit away from the operation of
    these plants to how we build more of them because once you--if
    you recognize that those are the two big threats we face, the
    question is, first, how do we keep the assets running, and then
    second, how do we build more? Because the fact that we're
    hitting all these at the end of the life to some degree
    reflects the fact that we've been unable to build them to any
    meaningful degree over the last 4 decades.
        And I want to start, because I'm a chemical engineer by
    training, with the energy-efficiency end of the cycle because
    I--it's where my brain naturally goes. And, Dr. Lyons, if you
    could help me out, of the total energy that comes into the fuel
    in a nuclear power plant, when we take it out afterwards, when
    we remove the campaign, what percent of the total recoverable
    energy in that nuclear fuel have we used to make electric
    power?
        Dr. Lyons. It's an extremely small number on the order of 1
    or 2 percent that has been converted to electric power. But i
    want to be sure I am answering your question----
        Mr. Casten. Yes. Yes.
        Dr. Lyons. So you're asking of the potential energy that
    could be available from the fissionable material coming in
    relative to the electrical output----
        Mr. Casten. Yes.
        Dr. Lyons [continuing]. It is only in the range of a couple
    of percent.
        Mr. Casten. So could you then compare what percent of the
    energy we're recovering in a plant like the Beaver Valley plant
    we just toured to the percent of sort of the best-in-class
    facilities around the world? What's the--how does that 1 to 2
    percent change?
        Dr. Lyons. For all operating nuclear power plants with the
    exception of a couple of fast reactors in Russia, the number
    would be about the same. All the remaining plants are--with a
    few exceptions--plants doing roughly the number I described.
    Now, there are improvements coming in the future that would
    dramatically change that number, but for the current generation
    of light water plants, that would be the correct statement.
        Mr. Casten. OK. So for the new technologies coming down the
    path, what are we talking about, that potential increase?
        Dr. Lyons. You could look at it in two different ways. A
    plant like Beaver Valley is about 30 to 35 percent efficient in
    converting heat energy to electricity. Some of the advanced
    plants under consideration will change that 30 to 35 percent up
    to over 50 percent because they operate at much higher
    temperatures. In addition, there are other classes of reactors
    that can essentially reuse the spent fuel. Right now, we use a
    so-called open cycle, a once-through cycle where fuel is used
    once and, for right now, it only goes into pools and dry casks
    at the reactor because we do not have a repository; I pray we
    get our act together on waste management and have that
    repository. But there are reactor designs that have
    demonstrated this in this country, the so-called fast reactors,
    that can reuse that used fuel. And then you're up to
    extractions that are approaching 100 percent, certainly above
    90.
        Mr. Casten. OK. So if you could help me put this in
    context, we use about 4 trillion kilowatt hours a year of
    electricity in the country, you know, somewhere between, you
    know, a little less than 1 trillion come from nuclear if I'm
    doing my math right. If we could recover the energy in those
    spent fuel, and get down to what is theoretically possible,
    what percent of U.S. electricity could we generate from nuclear
    fuel?
        Dr. Lyons. Well, in principle, you could go to 100 percent,
    sir, but I would come back to my argument on diversity. I don't
    think you want to have 100 percent of any energy source.
        Mr. Casten. Understood. My point is simply that if I'm
    following the math right----
        Dr. Lyons. Your math is correct.
        Mr. Casten [continuing]. We have enough energy that is
    sitting--that is currently, you know, effectively going to
    waste as we reject this heat into the atmosphere that is zero
    carbon, that is clean, that is theoretically base-loaded, and
    if--and I don't want to put words in your mouth, but it sounds
    to me like if we can figure out how to deploy the capital, we
    have largely solved one of the major existential challenges
    that we face as a country.
        Dr. Lyons. And there are certainly companies in the United
    States today--there are estimated to be over 50 companies
    exploring advanced reactors in this country. A number of them
    are focused on reactors of the type about which you're asking.
    One of the most public or well-known is Bill Gates and
    TerraPower, and that is exactly the focus of TerraPower. And I
    believe Mr. Gates has used some of your words on the
    existential threat, which he is trying to address.
        Mr. Casten. Well, I am out of my time, but I want to follow
    up on the economics of this on the next one, but I will yield
    back my negative time.
        Chairman Lamb. Thank you. Thank you very much. And we'll
    start a second round.
        I'm going to start at the other end here with Dr. Apt. And
    actually, Dr. Apt, I wanted to ask you something from your
    personal experience. As I mentioned, you're a former astronaut.
    You did, I believe, four Space Shuttle missions, including some
    missions with allied countries like Japan and Russia. So this
    isn't so much about nuclear energy specifically but more about
    the importance of how our government makes a commitment to
    science and scientific research and scientific leadership in
    the world.
        From your experience coming up through NASA, seeing what
    it's like to train to that degree to do something incredibly
    risky and dangerous like go into space and to work with other
    countries to do it, do you see a parallel in why we have to
    maintain our nuclear fleet, our nuclear science, and especially
    the people who make up that fleet in order to have leadership
    in the world and be able to continue that culture that we've
    built all those years?
        Dr. Apt. Chairman Lamb, that's a superb observation. When
    we went to the moon, you know, 50 years ago, that was a
    bipartisan commitment that stretched over a decade from the
    time that we were shocked in October 1957 when the Russians
    launched Sputnik 1 to when we landed on the moon on July 20,
    1969. Those kind of decade-long commitments are critical to
    doing science and engineering projects of all sorts.
        One of the things that we don't have is a commitment where
    a vendor can go out and say, OK, I'm going to build a big new
    press that can make the top of the nuclear reactor vessel. We
    don't have that in this country anymore because there hasn't
    been the demand for it.
        Chairman Lamb. Right.
        Dr. Apt. And there hasn't been the demand for it because we
    don't have consistent decade-long commitments. And so you're
    exactly right. That kind of stuff would help in lots of things.
    Infrastructure of all sorts requires the length of commitment
    that President Eisenhower did for the interstate highway
    system, that President Kennedy did for the moon project. Those
    sorts of things are absolutely critical.
        Chairman Lamb. And that type of commitment would actually
    allow us to build a lot more of this equipment and material
    here in the United States instead of buying it overseas like we
    have to do a lot of times now.
        Dr. Apt. Yes. And part of the reason why we had trouble
    building the two nuclear power plants that are still under
    construction, Plant Vogtle in the south, is that we didn't know
    how to build big things here very well. The same design, the
    Westinghouse AP1000, got built in China with our plans much
    quicker because they still build large stuff. If we have
    infrastructure commitments, then companies will naturally start
    building the big forges. We'll start understanding how to do
    big projects again. And we won't have the time and cost
    overruns that we see when we do this once every two
    generations.
        Chairman Lamb. That's exactly right. And, Admiral Fallon, I
    was hoping you could touch on that, too. You mentioned a little
    bit about the importance for our influence in the world, these
    overseas opportunities to build plants in the way that Russia
    is doing it now. And if I'm correct, Russia not only builds
    them but they'll also operate them for many of these countries,
    so it's actually Russian scientists and businesses that are
    benefiting from all of this. You've spent a lot of your career
    overseas working with foreign governments, working with foreign
    business leaders. Can you talk about why it's important for us
    to be in that game and building those plants?
        Adm. Fallon. Sure. It's even more than that, Mr. Chairman.
    So the Russians and the Chinese construct and they own and they
    operate these plants. And they're paid for typically with long-
    term loans at interesting interest rates. But effectively what
    happens is the providing country dominates these--particularly
    the places in Africa and Asia that can least afford this, and
    they've got them very beholden to them. And so the people in
    these countries want electric power like everybody does, and
    you know what happens here, turn off the power and what
    happens? We fall apart. So in these countries they're very
    eager to get it, but it's come at a tremendous price. And the
    influence that Russia and China are beginning to have in these
    places is overwhelming, and we're just becoming irrelevant. And
    it's very important I believe for U.S. leadership to be able to
    have something behind the talk, to be able to stand up and do
    it. And so Eisenhower's initiative to use atomic power in those
    days, nuclear power for peaceful purposes to provide a need
    that everybody in the world wanted I think was terrific, and we
    just kind of lost that now.
        And if I could for a minute, I want to make this--this is
    very personal for me, but my last job was the Commander of all
    U.S. forces in the Middle East during the wars in Iraq and
    Afghanistan. And as an incentive to get us to invest in nuclear
    research and development, to give us some opportunities to
    change what is still the primary fuel source in the world
    today, oil. I would tell you that my estimation is about half
    of our casualties killed and wounded in Iraq and Afghanistan
    were directly related to our need to truck fuel and water in to
    operate our facilities in these countries, a staggering number
    of casualties. These are our people, our soldiers, marines,
    sailors, and airmen. This is absolutely unnecessary in my
    opinion. We can do better.
        And this is what I think the primary--a significant
    motivation ought to be at a national scale in this country to
    motivate the kind of research and development that can give us
    alternatives. And I'm convinced that we can do it. We've done
    it before. We have a lot more knowledge today and computing
    power we never had before. We need to put it to work, but it's
    going to take leadership, and hopefully--I thank you for this
    hearing and for going through the travails of travel to get
    here to put this on, but it's very, very important to our
    country.
        Chairman Lamb. Thank you. Go ahead, Dr. Lyons.
        Dr. Lyons. If I could add one point to what the Admiral
    just said, when the Russians talk about build, own, and
    operate, for many countries they are also offering to provide
    all of the fresh fuel and they will take back all of the used
    fuel. It is absolutely a complete package. When they offer this
    to a country like Bangladesh, they're not offering it because
    Bangladesh has a bunch of nuclear experts with whom they wish
    to work. They're offering it with the idea that they are
    controlling the energy supply of Bangladesh for the next
    century.
        Chairman Lamb. Thank you. And with that, I recognize
    Representative Stevens for another round of questions.
        Ms. Stevens. Great. Well, it's evident that we are built
    for moments like these, and while I certainly don't like to
    hear the examples of being--squirrels chasing their own tail in
    terms of why we're in the place that we are in, if you reverse
    it on its head and look at it, we are in a position where we
    can seize hold of why we are here. And so the questions I would
    like to ask and maybe each of you could kind of chime in is why
    are we here as it pertains to nuclear energy and the threats to
    the cuts and the plant closures? How do we maybe in an
    existential way seek to solve it? Thinking big is great. And
    then if you could also touch on ways in which your current
    portfolio of work is helping to solve this or some examples
    that you might have. That would be great.
        Dr. Apt. Let me start by picking up on your word portfolio.
    Anybody who looks at fluctuations in any market, stock markets
    or anything else, knows that you have to put your bets on a lot
    of different numbers on the roulette wheel because you don't
    know what's going to come up. We're that way with gas. You're
    at ground zero of the shale gas revolution in this part of the
    world, and gas is produced here in enough quantities that it's
    driven the price way down. That's great. But I'm an old guy.
    Look at those gray hairs. And I remember that 10, 12 years ago
    the price of gas went up from $3 to $12 in a matter of months.
    Those things happen with commodities.
        And one way to look at the nuclear fleet is a hedge against
    those kind of price spikes. Now, like in any hedge, there's a
    risk premium that you have to pay. When Southwest Airlines
    hedged their fuel costs a decade ago for their jetliners and
    thereby avoided the price spikes that almost killed other
    airlines, they had to pay a small risk premium for that. I
    think that's a robust lesson out of economics that we ought to
    learn in our power system.
        Ms. Stevens. Diversified industries.
        Ms. Taylor. So I would say one of the reasons we're here
    now is that the current options to build a new nuclear plant
    are very large, long-term, expensive plants. We only really
    have, you know, one type of option right now. And a decision to
    invest that kind of money to build a plant is--requires looking
    ahead--80-year future, what is the value of that going to be in
    80 years? So that has made it very difficult. There was the
    birth of the nuclear renaissance where we were going to build a
    lot of plants. In fact, I think 14 plants have received
    licenses or sites have received licenses from the NRC. And then
    the economy changed and things slowed down, electric growth
    slowed down. So I see that as a current challenge today to any
    company right now to invest, you know, essentially their full
    market capitalization in a large project with an uncertain
    future is very difficult.
        But the good news is that all of the work going on in the
    SMR space and the advance reactor space is really aimed at
    countering kind of the economy of scale that led to the
    attractiveness of these large plants with looking at the
    benefits of small where you can build things in more
    incremental stages and capture the value. So I think--so the
    way we work ourselves through this and out of this is to
    accelerate the development of the next wave of technologies.
    There are a ton of opportunities for that. There are some
    things that are already working very well in how the government
    is helping to accelerate the efforts of private investors who
    are developing some of these. And I think the example of the
    NuScale progress and the potential UAMPS (Utah Associated
    Municipal Power Systems) plant at the Idaho National Lab is a
    great example of things that can be done together with industry
    and government to accelerate the future.
        Ms. Stevens. Well, and one thing I read is that China and
    Korea are building nuclear power plants at one-sixth of the
    cost that it takes. And I don't know if that has to do with
    supply chain or, you know----
        Ms. Taylor. Yes.
        Ms. Stevens [continuing]. And if that leads to you----
        Ms. Taylor. I would--before I turn it over, I would just
    say I think part of that is what was already mentioned, that
    they're in the habit of very--building very large projects, so
    they've got the skills, capability, and workforce to do that.
        Adm. Fallon. To answer that specific question, the reason
    that they claim to build these at a fraction of the cost is
    because they're state-subsidized, so the national investment by
    the Chinese government, the Russian government, they're huge.
    And so that makes it extremely difficult for our companies
    right now to compete on a--it's not a level playing field, not
    even close, so that's probably the biggest reason why you see
    this tremendous growth from these two entities.
        Dr. Lyons. Maybe just to follow a little bit on what Ms.
    Taylor said, I strongly concur that the small modular reactors,
    the SMRs, are very likely to be the most attractive option for
    construction in the near term in this country. The very large
    plants, the gigawatt-plus plants like are being built in the
    Vogtle plant in Georgia today, there are few places in the
    country today, given our well-developed grid, where you need
    that much power all at once. But there are places where the
    small modular reactors will make a lot more sense, and you
    mentioned already the construction that is planned in Idaho.
        But if you look abroad, the situation may be very, very
    different. There are many, many places around the world where
    gigawatt-plus plants make a lot of sense and probably a lot of
    them, so we need to be looking at opportunities abroad for
    designs like our AP1000, like our ESBWR (Economic Simplified
    Boiling Water Reactor) from GE to move ahead in the markets for
    gigawatt plants. And then there's any number of countries where
    their grids are just starting where they couldn't possibly take
    a gigawatt plant. Their whole grid isn't a gigawatt. But they
    could take a small modular reactor.
        And so I see globally a tremendous market and opportunity
    for the United States in both large and small. In the United
    States I think most of our options in the future will be the
    SMRs that Ms. Taylor suggested.
        Ms. Stevens. Well, it's an American leadership moment, and
    I just--I continue to hold onto something that the Admiral
    said, which is that, you know, as it compares to the global
    indicators, we almost feel inferior.
        But as I sit up here with your Congressman, by the way, Mr.
    Conor Lamb, you have a leader in him. And again, I would just
    like to recognize his efforts. I don't forget the minute he
    came up to me on the--or the moment he came out to me on the
    House floor and passed me an invitation to come here today. And
    it's particularly special because Beaver County is on my way
    home. Normally, I fly, but it's the midway point, so I'm just 4
    hours west of you all here, about 280 miles, and I think we'll
    be able to continue this dialog and continue to seize the
    opportunity and moment before us.
        I yield back my time, Mr. Chairman.
        Chairman Lamb. All right, thank you. Representative Foster.
        Mr. Foster. Yes, I guess I would like to just spend a
    moment talking about the nuclear Navy because it's sort of
    unique. You know, our--the deterrent, the nuclear deterrent of
    our country relies on three legs, the intercontinental
    ballistic missiles, the strategic air bombing, and also our
    nuclear submarines that go off in the deep ocean and hide where
    they cannot be detected and they--because they cannot be
    detected, they cannot be destroyed.
        When the President is faced with a decision whether to
    launch weapons, the horrible situation that he or she could be
    put in is having to decide whether to push our button in
    response to an enemy attack that--of uncertain nature.
        And so in the case of our land-based systems and the
    strategic bombing, you know, we face the possibility that our
    forces could be wiped out because the enemy knows where they
    are and how to get them. That is not the case of nuclear
    submarines, and it's unique. It means that we can hold back and
    we can decide when to counterpunch at a time of our choosing
    and not be panicked into a nuclear war that will destroy the
    world. So they're what's referred to as stabilizing.
        And the nuclear submarine force is something--if you had to
    choose between these three legs, there's no question the one
    you would keep would be the nuclear submarines. And so it's for
    that reason that I've been proud to have visited the facility
    in West Virginia where the nuclear fuel is made and the places
    down in naval yards very near the Capitol where a lot of the
    very highly classified and brilliant design work is done on
    those.
        And so if we lose the commercial nuclear business in this
    country, we will--it will make our submarines much more
    expensive, but we will still have to build them. And so it's a
    false economy to think that, oh, we can just, you know, let the
    Koreans, that the Japanese, you know, let the Chinese and
    Russians do the commercial start stuff and we'll just continue
    building our subs. Because of the shared workforce that's
    represented by many of you in this room, it's a--I think it's
    essential that we preserve for national security reasons alone
    a strong commercial nuclear capability.
        And if you have anything to add to that, I'd be----
        Adm. Fallon. Thank you. You've said it all, that the
    submarines are the most survivable aspect of our nuclear
    deterrent. And again, the idea is that they--because they're
    going to be very, very difficult to find and attack, that this
    survivability is our deterrent against somebody that might
    think that they could neutralize us, take out our strategic
    capability, and thereby blackmail us into whatever they want to
    do. So it's really important.
        I believe that the options in the supply chain are not only
    shrinking dramatically but in some cases I've been told we're
    down to one supplier in this country to provide absolutely
    critical components for the Navy nuclear power program, and the
    reason is because there's just not an opportunity to diversify
    and, you know, do things economically. So I couldn't agree
    more. Thank you, Congressman.
        Mr. Foster. Well, thank you. And also one of the things
    that I know all of us are going to be very active on in the
    Science Committee is looking at advanced nuclear designs
    because of, you know, the real promise that is there, that's
    recognized both commercially and in the Department of Energy.
        For example, just the spent fuel that's sitting there in
    storage in the pond in the dry cask storage there is enough to
    operate this plant in principle for more than 100 years just
    with the fuel that is sitting there in the ground today. And
    that opportunity is one that we have to understand how we're
    going to take advantage of it where it is frankly a disgrace of
    Congress that we haven't dealt with the nuclear waste problem.
    You know, we have this thing called Yucca Mountain and a
    promise that was given that we would accept nuclear waste in
    the facility, and for various political reasons, that--you
    know, we have not followed through on that. One of the ways out
    of that politically is with these advanced designs, the designs
    that can burn the nuclear energy that's still stored in this
    spent fuel.
        And I was wondering if any of you have--do you have a
    favorite design, Ms. Taylor, or just an idea for a way forward
    and making sure that we actually follow through on that
    promise?
        Ms. Taylor. Well, I don't have a favorite design, but I'm
    absolutely impressed by the group of young people that are
    working on all sorts of designs, several of which are--have
    this concept of somehow burning the current used fuel. And
    working through the technology part of that is a challenge, but
    the uncertainty about how one would go about doing that, if
    that would ever be legal, if the framework would be in place to
    use that fuel is a large uncertainty to anybody looking to
    invest in those technologies today. So I think that's an
    important aspect.
        Mr. Foster. From a technological point of view, when one of
    those is demonstrated, is there any reason that it could not be
    sited at an existing location such as here?
        Ms. Taylor. I don't think there's any technical reason why
    it couldn't be.
        Mr. Foster. Yes, Dr. Lyons?
        Dr. Lyons. May I just add, sir, there are certainly no
    technical obstacles to the vision that you described. In my
    mind, the decision that I hope this country will eventually
    make will be between an open cycle where we are now and a
    closed cycle, as you just described, where we would reprocess
    and reuse the fuel. My guess is that this choice will be done
    on an economic basis but I don't know how to answer the
    economic question for either an open or closed cycle. We have
    yet to show that we could open a repository in this country, so
    I don't have the foggiest idea what that costs.
        We also have not done a complete demonstration in order to
    understand the costs of a closed cycle. The country is
    committed by law now to use the open cycle and show we can open
    a repository. I hope we can. I'm not sure it will be Yucca but
    maybe. But in any case, we're on this path of an open cycle. I
    would like very much to see us also explore the path of work to
    understand the economics be of a closed cycle so that the
    country can make an intelligent decision sometime in the future
    between the open or closed cycle. There are many potential
    advantages to going with a closed cycle, but the economics are
    uncertain in both cases.
        Mr. Foster. Yes. And I agree, but I think it's important
    that economic calculation consider both the national security
    aspects and the necessity of keeping a strong nuclear
    enterprise going in this country, as well as the secondary
    environmental damage when you start providing that energy with
    fossil fuels.
        Dr. Apt. If I may, let me just say that it's a privilege to
    be on a panel with the former NRC Commissioner and one of our
    graduates, Bill Magwood was also on the NRC.
        Dr. Lyons. Yes, a very good friend.
        Dr. Apt. But I have to say Nuclear Regulatory Commission is
    stretched so thin that their ability to do the kind of
    oversight of these clean-sheet-of-paper designs is in question.
    And that's one of the reasons why TerraPower that we talked
    about before is looking at licensing abroad. I don't want to
    see that. What I do want to see is additional resources in the
    NRC to be able to license and test those designs in the United
    States of America.
        Chairman Lamb. Thank you. I will now recognize
    Representative Casten.
        Mr. Casten. Thank you, Chairman.
        As promised, I want to follow up on the--some of the
    economic barriers to capital deployment in this space, but I
    want to start by singing the praises of economics because the--
    I think a very compelling case can be made that the single-most
    important thing we did for CO2 emissions in my
    professional lifetime was the 1992 Energy Policy Act. The--
    actually creating an incentive where people preferentially
    operated their lowest-cost sources has been a boon to the
    nuclear industry. You know, the fleet has gone from 60 percent
    to 90 percent capacity factor. I think the FirstEnergy folks
    told me this morning that you're only 93 percent capacity
    factor at the upper end of that tier. And, you know, you're
    doing that because you've got good people, you're doing that
    because you're motivated by the right things, and you're also
    doing it because you're greedy because if you can make money by
    operating more hours, you operate more hours, and that's a good
    thing.
        Now, having said that, the pernicious side effect of that
    is that over the course of deregulation, there's a saying
    that's crept into the energy world that everybody wants to be
    the third owner of a power plant but nobody wants to be the
    first owner.
        And my question for you, Dr. Apt, is, you know, at a broad
    level what have we done wrong, but more specifically, is there
    a market tool that we can use to actually encourage the
    deployment of new capital in the energy sector or do we have to
    go back and look at--you know, we knew how to build stuff in
    the old regulated model. We didn't know how to make the right
    dispatch decisions all the time, but capacity markets, are they
    working, can we tweak them to work? What are your thoughts
    about how we might learn from the last 20 years of history to
    better deploy capital in this space?
        Dr. Apt. So the technology changes that have happened in
    the electric power industry have been largely stimulated by two
    things. One has been command-and-control regulation for
    conventional pollutants. If you look at the level of patents
    for things like sulfur dioxide and particulate matter control,
    you know, people have done many patents until the 1970 Clean
    Air Act and especially the 1990 Clean Air Act amendments came
    in, and then the patents went way up. So one of the things that
    we do right is to have Federal and State regulations that
    stimulate people to go in their lab and figure out a new piece
    of technology.
        The second, as you mentioned, is competition. That's why we
    brought in natural gas generators. Our companies have built all
    coal all the time until restructuring happened and then people
    said, oh, well, we can build a natural gas plan for one-fifth
    of the cost in 2 years instead of 8 years.
        And the other thing is to have stimulation of low-pollution
    sources explicitly, renewable portfolio standards, for example,
    and the kind of low-pollution standards that we have in
    Illinois and New York and perhaps here in Pennsylvania.
        Economists can't argue about the nitpicky details of
    whether a price on carbon or an all-comers for all-low-
    pollution standards are best or whether you should have tiers
    as in Pennsylvania for the advanced energy portfolio standard
    where one tier is renewables and another tier might be nuclear.
    The difference between doing any of those and doing nothing at
    all is immense.
        Mr. Casten. So let me ask you because you're very humble
    about your background, but I'm--you know, I know you know that
    I know that you've been really one of the leading thinkers on
    figuring out how to get rid of some of these inefficiencies in
    the system. And so if we presume for a moment that the four of
    us on this side of the dais have the authority to deputize you
    as king of the energy system for a day or two, if we get to
    pick three things that if you make those changes we will cause
    a greater deployment of capital and clean energy technology
    using market tools, what are your--where do you see the low-
    hanging fruit? What's your top three?
        Dr. Apt. Clearly, you have to first re-examine your
    question of whether they should all be market tools. The issue
    with market tools is they lead you to short-term answers. And
    so you have the dash to gas as it was called. Everybody built
    gas plants around the time when gas first began available in
    the energy information age and see if the same prices would
    stay low, and that's what drove around the year 1999 and 2000,
    2001 60 gigawatts per year of gas was built, had the absolutely
    predictable effect of driving natural gas prices up by a factor
    of four. So markets are inherently short-term.
        One of the things that we can do is to say, well, where are
    market tools appropriate and where should you have things like
    a low-pollution standard or, if you'd like, a renewable
    portfolio standard? Again, we're not running out of fossil
    fuels, so renewability in itself is not our goal. We're running
    out of atmosphere in which to put the combustion products of
    fossil fuels. So low-pollution should be the goal.
        And you can have regulations of various types that put in
    low-pollution. The absolute market solution would be a price on
    pollutants, including greenhouse gases. That's not likely to
    happen, and it's cumbersome when it does happen.
        Waxman-Markey I testified about some years ago, a decade
    ago in front of a number of committees, and it got pretty
    complex, more complex than I expected it to get. I think that a
    kind of portfolio of command-and-control regulation for
    pollutants, opening up a window for low-pollution sources,
    including renewables and nuclear, and then keeping an idea that
    we ought to have a portfolio are the three things that I would
    do.
        Mr. Casten. Thank you, and I yield back.
        Chairman Lamb. OK. And we'll do one final round just kind
    of for parting shots, make sure everyone gets a chance to
    finish off here. I don't think I'm going to take the full 5
    minutes, but I just wanted to flesh out the jobs issue a little
    bit more because it's been referred to by several of our
    witnesses.
        We've had the chance to talk about the folks that work here
    at Beaver Valley that work for FirstEnergy that are represented
    by their locals here today, many of them veterans, extremely
    important for us to protect those jobs. There is also a wider
    jobs issue for us here Pennsylvania, and I have with me here a
    report by the Energy Futures Initiative that looks at the
    companies in the nuclear supply chain and where they're located
    and how many of them there are. It's been referred to a few
    times.
        And some of these companies sell equipment both to nuclear
    power stations like Beaver Valley and to the U.S. Navy, and
    that it's very important for the future of the Navy's nuclear
    program that these companies survive because they need to buy
    their stuff from them. But if they're not able to also sell to
    Beaver Valley because Beaver Valley closes down, then some of
    those companies might close down, and then all of a sudden the
    Navy is stuck when it comes to buying what they need.
        And it turns out that Pennsylvania is actually one of the
    leaders in this area, so if you look at the States that have
    the highest number of nuclear supply chain companies, we're
    actually No. 1. We have 71 nuclear supply chain companies here
    in the State of Pennsylvania. They offer about 655 different
    types of products, really important things when it comes to
    valves, boilers, storage containers, pumps, concrete. I mean,
    they're really the things that make up the power station that
    we know.
        And we are again a huge leader when it comes to having
    companies that do business both with Beaver Valley and with the
    U.S. Navy. There are really big companies like Bechtel and
    Westinghouse and General Electric are some of the examples that
    you'd probably be familiar with. But that actually goes all the
    way down the line to smaller companies, too.
        And so I wanted to highlight that because that's one of the
    things that's at stake. If we're trying to support our national
    security and make sure that the Navy can be a leader in nuclear
    going forward, they need these companies to survive just like
    our communities need the companies to survive, too, because
    people work there.
        Admiral Fallon, I think you're responsible--or you're
    pretty familiar with this issue from your time in the Navy but
    also some of the work you've done on the outside. You know
    about the Energy Futures Initiative and this report. Is that a
    fair description that I've just given of the issue as it faces
    the Navy?
        Adm. Fallon. Sure. There are dozens and dozens if not
    hundreds of companies all over this great Nation of ours that
    provide bit-and-piece support for the big names, so
    Westinghouse, Bechtel, whatever the--there are untold bits and
    pieces that are essential for the equipment to operate
    correctly. And those are often overlooked. You know, you just--
    people don't pay attention to them except at the local level
    where people are actually employed, and so it's very important.
        And the Navy tries to encourage companies to diversify, to
    spread it out for reasons of redundancy and common sense and
    also to appeal pretty blatantly to the Congress to support
    things because it has a direct impact on people in their
    districts. So I don't know all the details of it, but I can
    tell you that the general practice is to encourage companies to
    have a number of suppliers to give you an option economically
    and also to encourage the kind of support that we need at the
    top.
        Chairman Lamb. Great. Thank you. And I'll turn now to
    Representative Stevens.
        Ms. Stevens. Great. I referenced the article from Pinker,
    Steven Pinker, who's a thinker, right, and I didn't mean for
    that to rhyme, but he's a psychologist. And in his article I
    just want to make reference to this. He said--in talking about
    nuclear energy, he said, ``Despite its demonstrable safety,
    nuclear power presses several psychological buttons.'' And then
    he goes on to list what those buttons are, the risks that
    people associate some of the shock around what, you know, comes
    with--maybe thoughts around radiation of which Dr. Apt said we
    don't have any health--negative health effects. In fact, we
    only have health benefits. We have steam, you know, billowing
    from the tower, which is great, and he also mentioned that
    people feel better about eliminating a single tiny risk
    entirely than minimizing a risk from all hazards combined.
        And since we have a panel of experts and we have jobs that
    we want to keep because they're full of technical talent and
    industrial might, and Beaver County has got a lot in common
    with Oakland County, Michigan, western Wayne County, Michigan,
    where I represent. I'm wondering if you--from your knowledge
    standpoint if you could just maybe make any mention of
    awareness that you have with these local efforts around nuclear
    technology adoption and also, as we talked about some of the
    new plants and the opportunities for what we can create, who's
    raising their hand first? I mean, who's--Michigan, obviously,
    we've adopted some of this. We've put into--we've preserved a
    couple of our plants. We've had this discussion around what
    this means for our regional economy. But we want to create more
    plants. We don't want to just save the one that's here. We want
    to create more. So who's putting--what's happening at the local
    level?
        Congress has got a role to play here, OK? We legislate. We
    should do, by the way, all of our hearings in the field. I love
    this, get us out of the swamp. Let's keep coming in here.
        But yet really--and I know we've got some local leaders in
    the room. If you really want to get something done, you've got
    to start from the bottom up, your mayors, your township
    supervisors, your State officials. Who's putting their hand up
    from what you've seen? And then any other, you know, points on
    how we can kind of push back against these psychological
    issues. Dr. Lyons?
        Dr. Lyons. Let me just take a crack at a few responses, and
    I'm sure my colleagues can add a lot more. A number that sticks
    in my mind is that the average safety of workers at a nuclear
    power plant is roughly comparable to the safety of workers in
    an office environment, which is at least an interesting fact
    that many people may not know.
        I think one of the important ways of publicizing the safety
    of nuclear power plants is to remember that all the workers at
    those plants live in that vicinity, and the resident inspectors
    from the NRC are right there in those plants living with their
    families in that community.
        The last point I would like to make, is that where there
    are surveys of the acceptability of nuclear power in different
    localities around the country, the numbers are very high in
    places where people understand nuclear power. I would assume
    that here in Shippingport, it's like other similar communities.
    People here understand nuclear power, they understand the
    incredibly low risks, and they understand the very high safety
    standards of these plants. In most communities like this one,
    the support for concentration or expansion of nuclear power is
    in the 80 percent range.
        Ms. Stevens. Yes. Great. Continue to do it from the bottom
    up. Did you want to jump in here?
        Adm. Fallon. Yes. I'll give you--share an anecdote. So a
    number of years ago I was appearing before different panel in
    Washington on the other side of the green felt table, and I was
    becoming irritated. I was younger, had some arrogance those
    days, and I was really grinding my teeth because the--some of
    the witnesses who were spouting absolute complete falsehoods
    and it was just--kept coming on and coming on and I was just--
    and so finally, the Chairman said, all right, Admiral, what do
    you have to say about that?
        So I was very impertinent and I said, Mr. Chairman, in my
    business we deal in facts, and I haven't heard many today. Big
    mistake. So the Chairman leapt across the table and put his
    finger close to my chest and said let me tell you something,
    Admiral. Up here, we deal in perceptions, and the perception is
    you guys screwed up. So I tried to learn from that, and I think
    this is a really good example that you brought up.
        Ms. Stevens. Well, I'm going to make--go ahead.
        Adm. Fallon. No, so we have these perceptions out there, so
    it's kind of like back to the 1940s and early 1950s, atomic,
    uh-oh, you know, that thing, you know, you're going to glow. I
    remember joking in the first days of Navy nuclear power we'd
    say, oh, the guys on the ship, hey, you're starting to glow.
    You know, it's a joke.
        But people have these ideas, and they're perceptions. So
    how do you take on the perceptions? And my experience is that
    you take them on by being smart, learning, having the facts,
    but then you have to communicate and explain to people the
    reality of the way things are.
        And I think your comments, Dr. Lyons, are right on. People
    that live and work around these plants for decades--I've lived
    on nuclear-powered ships, slept 50 feet off the reactors for
    months and years on end and many, many days. I'm still here.
    I'm not glowing too badly, am I?
        But I think we need to really make an effort to do that,
    and it's something that people are beginning to get concerned
    now. I see Governors and other people in States are recognizing
    they're being backed up against a wall because these things may
    go away. Now what are we going to do, folks? So they're kind of
    getting it, and I think hopefully they'll start to work down at
    the local level.
        But I believe that the very useful role for you--and I
    commend, again, your willingness to hold this hearing and come
    all the way out here to do this--is to try to put in place
    policies at the national level that will enable things to
    happen. And so incentivizing the R&D--I mean, this country is
    phenomenal, look at the things--look at a decade ago, the
    handwringing over the space program. Oh, my God, we're going
    down the tubes. We've ceded everything, we're--you know, we're
    nowhere. Well, guess what? Industry all of a sudden came out of
    nowhere and they have--there's a series of rockets and
    airplanes and things if you follow news, so who knows what the
    future is, but it's certainly turned around a lot.
        We can do the same thing here if the right incentives are
    put in place with the right policies. And there are a whole
    host of things--and my colleagues here know this a lot better
    than I do--that are in place that are de-incentivizing people
    to take the reasonable risks that are necessary I think to give
    us a future. Thank you.
        Ms. Taylor. Yes. I'll add a couple thoughts. I agree with
    you that it's extremely difficult for anyone to understand risk
    and compare risks of things. I myself am, I know, irrationally
    afraid of snakes, though there's no data to support that.
        But I have seen over the course of my career a big shift
    from strong opposition to nuclear power to now strong support
    that's growing, you know, it's becoming more widespread. I
    think two things are going on that are accelerating that and
    may be useful to further leverage. One is the change in the
    view from the environmental community from nuclear waste being
    a dangerous thing and concern about used fuel to recognizing
    the environmental friendliness of nuclear and the potential
    large role nuclear can play in decarbonization.
        And the other thing that I've seen is a real fueling of
    interest from young people, people who are in school right now.
    I think there was a big success when the DOE decided to invest
    a lot of its research in universities, I don't know, maybe 15
    years ago. Pete, you may have been responsible for that
    actually. We're now seeing these people who are out of college
    5 years, 10 years leading this charge in the advanced reactor
    space, leading the companies actually and challenging the rest
    of us who have been in the industry for a long time on the pace
    at which we can achieve change and ready new technologies for
    the industry. So I think there are challenges around
    communications, but I think there's a lot of hope and
    opportunity in the future.
        Chairman Lamb. Absolutely, thank you. And we have touched a
    little bit today and I'm sure we will as we wrap up on some of
    the proactive things that the Federal Government can do. But
    apart from, you know, specific things like loan guarantees and
    working on how the licensing works and production tax credits
    and doubling down on research, the biggest thing we need to do
    is send this signal like you're referencing to the
    universities, to young people, to the market that this industry
    is here to stay and that there will be nuclear plants today and
    nuclear plants tomorrow so that when people want to go into
    business to make the supplies or they want to choose it as
    their major in college, they'll do that and there will be the
    pipeline there to make it all thrive and survive.
        Representative Foster, any parting shots?
        Mr. Foster. Thank you, and thank you, Chairman.
        I guess maybe I'd like to just talk to the audience for a
    moment. You know, it is not an accident that Chairman Conor
    Lamb was chosen, despite being only a redshirt freshman, to be
    the Chair of the Energy Subcommittee on the Science Committee.
    You know, it is--I've been--I was a scientist most of my life,
    have been in politics for about 10 years, and in that time you
    sort of--you learn to spot who the leaders of the future are
    going to be. And when you see someone who is as smart, is a
    good guy and a leader like you see in him, you--every one of
    you who gets a chance to vote for him should be very, very
    proud that you have a Representative like that.
        The other thing that we're doing out here--and, this
    afternoon, we're all going to be going to the--to NETL, the
    National Energy Technology Laboratory, one of the national
    labs. The other hat that I have on here, I'm one of the Co-
    Chairs of the National Laboratory Caucus, which is a bipartisan
    group, to make sure that Congress fully appreciates all of the
    jewels in the research and development crown of this country,
    you know, that locations like Shippingport are historic because
    of the commercial and technical significance and also the
    national laboratories. NETL, which is--as you've all--probably
    all know, not far from here, is absolutely crucial to--not only
    to the jobs that it produces but to the technological future of
    this country. And so I'm very proud to be a part of that as
    well.
        Just I guess I had one last question having to do with
    electrical supply and cars and electrical cars because, you
    know, one of the things that make it difficult to support a
    very large nuclear fleet in this vicinity is that a lot of the
    load was for steel industries that has gone away. But this is
    also, you know, probably the center of the universe for self-
    driving cars and new technology. I know in my district we have
    Argonne National Lab, which is in the process of developing
    batteries that will have 5 times the range and will make
    electric cars, you know, really preferable to fossil-fuel-
    powered cars. But what will that do to the need for electrical
    grid capacity? Dr. Apt?
        Dr. Apt. So I drove here in a Chevy Volt, and, you know,
    we've spent a long time looking at that. Electric demand in
    this country went up at almost 8 percent a year from 1950 to
    1973. Then it transitioned to linear growth. There's a big
    difference between exponential and linear. And then in 2007 it
    went flat, where it stayed. And so folks are looking at what
    the future may bring.
        If we have more electric vehicles, which will help the
    environment, it should go up. And when it goes up, if it does
    transition again to growth, then keeping our existing nuclear
    fleet is going to be terribly important because if that goes
    away and we fill in with fossil fuel, we are in deep trouble.
        Mr. Foster. Thank you. And thank you, Chairman Lamb, again,
    for holding this hearing.
        Chairman Lamb. Thank you. Representative Casten.
        Mr. Casten. I'm going to be pretty brief. Thank you again,
    Chairman, for pulling this together and everybody for coming.
    We--all of us on this side of the panel serve on multiple
    committees, but we're here in our capacity on the Science
    Committee where our jurisdiction is essentially deciding what
    the United States should spend its research dollars and how
    much of those dollars should be, and then holding people
    accountable in our oversight role.
        There's been a consistent theme on this panel about the
    potential for advanced nuclear technology, and, you know, I'd
    start with Ms. Taylor but just welcome your thoughts as we
    leave here, what specific programmatic areas would you really
    like to see an increased focus from the Federal side, you know,
    where we can really catalyze some activity and I--you know, the
    electric power research industry I imagine you're pretty close
    to that. What would you recommend that we take back as we think
    about what we're going to fund in----
        Ms. Taylor. Well, I'll----
        Mr. Casten [continuing]. Upcoming budget cycles?
        Ms. Taylor. I'll speak to a couple things. One is to
    recognize that there is a strong link between a lot of the
    research that's needed for advanced reactors and the plants
    that are operating today. So, for example, in the area of
    advanced technology fuel, we're looking at new materials that
    can make fuel more tolerant in the case of an accident, but
    then we're finding bringing in some of the concepts from the
    advanced reactors of going to higher enrichment fuel, for
    example, can bring nearer-term economic benefits to the plants
    today while readying the regulator, the supply chain, and the
    designers for the plants of tomorrow. So I think there's a lot
    of opportunity in that space. What are those things that can be
    accelerated to help accelerate the availability of advanced
    reactors while potentially bringing value to plants today?
        The adoption of all the modern technologies that are going
    on in the world around us to these existing plants is an area
    where there's big opportunity for, you know, sensors,
    monitoring, data analytics, using things like drones and
    robotics for inspections all help bring, you know, better
    operation today and ready the future for the designers and the
    regulatory aspect, which is important and probably a critical
    path to the commercial availability of advanced reactors.
        Mr. Casten. Yes.
        Dr. Lyons. I certainly agree with the comments from Ms.
    Taylor, but let me just added another very strong need in this
    country, as you look at the advanced reactor concepts, is for
    testbed capabilities for those reactors. For example, I
    mentioned TerraPower earlier and Mr. Gates. They had to go to
    Russia to get some of their test capabilities because we don't
    operate a fast spectrum reactor in this country. One of the
    projects that is now being seriously considered within the DOE
    and Congress is the so-called Versatile Test Reactor, which
    would be a fast reactor. It would return the U.S. to a
    leadership position in fast reactors, a position we held in
    earlier decades.
        So there definitely are testbed requirements, but as you
    look toward the advanced reactors, with nonlight water
    coolants, there are very definite needs for advanced test
    capabilities. These would logically be built at some of the
    national laboratories that have the expertise to build and
    operate such facilities. It would then be available to a vast
    number of advanced reactor startup companies around the country
    that need these test capabilities.
        Mr. Casten. Thank you.
        Chairman Lamb. OK. Thank you. Before we bring the hearing
    to a close, I just wanted to say two more thank yous. We are
    here in this room right now because of the kindness and
    generosity of the people of Shippingport, who have welcomed us
    today. So to any Shippingport residents or local elected
    officials or, you know, government officials that are with us
    today, thank you for having us. We do have two members of local
    law enforcement with us in the back who have been watching over
    us the whole time and standing while doing so, so thank you,
    gentlemen, for doing that and for keeping us safe.
        And then finally, I wanted to recognize we have several
    staff Members from Congress in attendance with us today, too,
    you can see at the table here and one behind me, and they're
    really the people that make Capitol Hill run every day, and
    they made sure that this place was all set up perfectly and
    ready to go. They prepare us, they get us where we need to go
    on time, pretty much always behind-the-scenes. The members of
    my congressional office are the same way. There are several of
    them all across the back of the room. So I just wanted you to
    know the major, major contribution that they make in making
    your government work every day and making hearings like this
    happen day in and day out in Washington, DC. and here. So we're
    very thankful for--to all of them for their work in getting us
    here and making this possible.
        With that, the record will remain open for 2 weeks for any
    additional statements by the Members and for any additional
    questions the Committee may ask of the witnesses.
        The witnesses are now excused with a final thank you from
    us for your participation, and the hearing is now adjourned.
        [Whereupon, at 12:02 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]