    [Senate Hearing 116-270]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                                                            S. Hrg. 116-270

                       HEARING TO EXAMINE A DISCUSSION DRAFT
                        BILL, S. 4897, THE AMERICAN NUCLEAR INFRA-
                         STRUCTURE ACT OF 2020

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

                                    HEARING

                                   BEFORE THE

                                  COMMITTEE ON
                          ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS

                              UNITED STATES SENATE

                         ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS

                                 SECOND SESSION

                                   __________

                                 AUGUST 5, 2020

                                   __________

      Printed for the use of the Committee on Environment and Public Works

    [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

            Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.govinfo.gov

                                   __________

                        U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
    41-427 PDF                  WASHINGTON : 2020

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                   COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS

                         ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS

                                 SECOND SESSION

                        JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming, Chairman
    JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma            THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware,
    SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia      Ranking Member
    KEVIN CRAMER, North Dakota           BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland
    MIKE BRAUN, Indiana                  BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont
    MIKE ROUNDS, South Dakota            SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island
    DAN SULLIVAN, Alaska                 JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon
    JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas               KIRSTEN GILLIBRAND, New York
    ROGER WICKER, Mississippi            CORY A. BOOKER, New Jersey
    RICHARD SHELBY, Alabama              EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts
    JONI ERNST, Iowa                     TAMMY DUCKWORTH, Illinois
                                         CHRIS VAN HOLLEN, Maryland

                  Richard M. Russell, Majority Staff Director
                  Mary Frances Repko, Minority Staff Director

                               C O N T E N T S

                                  ----------
                                                                       Page

                                 AUGUST 5, 2020
                               OPENING STATEMENTS

    Barrasso, Hon. John, U.S. Senator from the State of Wyoming......     1
    Carper, Hon. Thomas R., U.S. Senator from the State of Delaware..     3
    Whitehouse, Hon. Sheldon, U.S. Senator from the State of Rhode
      Island.........................................................     6

                                   WITNESSES

    Roma, Amy, Founding Member, Nuclear Energy and National Security
      Coalition, Atlantic Council; Partner, Hogan Lovells............     7
        Prepared statement...........................................    10
        Responses to additional questions from:
            Senator Barrasso.........................................    21
            Senator Whitehouse.......................................    32
            Senator Van Hollen.......................................    33
    Goranson, William Paul, President, Uranium Producers of America;
      Chief Operating Officer, Energy Fuels Resources, Inc...........    35
        Prepared statement...........................................    37
        Responses to additional questions from Senator Barrasso......    45
        Response to an additional question from Senator Sanders......    48
        Responses to additional questions from:
            Senator Whitehouse.......................................    49
            Senator Van Hollen.......................................    50
    Cohen, Armond, Executive Director, Clean Air Task Force..........    54
        Prepared statement...........................................    56
        Responses to additional questions from:
            Senator Barrasso.........................................    74
            Senator Sanders..........................................    77
            Senator Whitehouse.......................................    79
            Senator Van Hollen.......................................    82

                              ADDITIONAL MATERIAL

    Discussion Draft S. 4897, the ``American Nuclear Infrastructure
      Act of 2020''..................................................   160
    Discussion Draft Titled ``American Nuclear Infrastructure Act of
      2020''; Section-by-Section.....................................   208

       HEARING TO EXAMINE A DISCUSSION DRAFT BILL, S. 4897, THE AMERICAN
                       NUCLEAR INFRASTRUCTURE ACT OF 2020

                                  ----------

                           WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 5, 2020

                                           U.S. Senate,
                     Committee on Environment and Public Works,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The Committee, met, pursuant to notice, at 10:05 a.m. in
    room 406, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. John Barrasso
    (Chairman of the Committee) presiding.
        Present: Senators Barrasso, Carper, Capito, Cramer, Braun,
    Rounds, Sullivan, Ernst, Cardin, Whitehouse, Booker, and Van
    Hollen.

               OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN BARRASSO,
                 U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF WYOMING

        Senator Barrasso. Good morning. I call this hearing to
    order.
        Clean, reliable nuclear energy is a cornerstone of
    America's energy infrastructure. Nuclear provides over half of
    our Nation's emission-free power. Today's nuclear reactors can
    run up to 2 full years without needing to be refueled.
        America's nuclear engineers and scientists also support our
    national security. Nuclear energy powers our Navy's aircraft
    carriers and our submarines. Nuclear technology is fundamental
    to meeting our energy, environmental, economic, and national
    security goals.
        Since America's first nuclear engineers worked on the
    Manhattan Project to win World War II, the United States has
    led the world in developing new nuclear technologies. For the
    last 75 years, our nuclear energy industry has been the world's
    leader in safety as well as performance. We must ensure that
    our leadership endures.
        The draft bill we are discussing today, the American
    Nuclear Infrastructure Act of 2020, will do just that. The
    legislation will ensure we maintain the United States'
    historical position as the global nuclear energy leader.
        Our foreign competitors, specifically China and Russia,
    seek to undermine America's nuclear industry for their own
    advantage.
        President Trump's recent Nuclear Fuel Working Group Report
    unequivocally states that Russia weaponizes its energy supplies
    to advance their strategic goals. I agree with this assessment.
    Time and again, Vladimir Putin has used energy as a
    geopolitical weapon.
        It is well documented that Russians have withheld its vast
    natural gas supplies to bully energy dependent foreign
    neighbors to achieve their geopolitical aims. Even in the
    United States, Russia has been deliberately trying to dump
    uranium into our energy markets. This undercuts American
    uranium production, and it drives our American companies out of
    business.
        The Administration report describes the dire situation
    facing our Nation's uranium producers. America is on the brink
    of finding ourselves completely reliant on foreign uranium to
    power our homes and our businesses.
        Wyoming is the leading uranium producer in the United
    States. Production is down significantly. The Energy
    Information Administration recently reported that last year's
    American uranium production was at an all time low. It is
    dangerous, and we must reverse this trend.
        The draft legislation establishes a uranium reserve to
    receive and revive and strengthen our uranium production.
    American mined uranium would fill the reserve. The material
    would be available in the event of a supply disruption.
        This strengthens our energy security, and it preserves
    critical uranium mining jobs around the country. If we lose our
    ability to mine uranium, it would take a generation to rebuild
    it. Establishing a uranium reserve preserves good jobs and
    protects our national security. It is a win-win situation.
        I applaud the Trump administration for their efforts to
    protect our uranium industry. I support the Department of
    Commerce's actions to extend an agreement to limit how much
    Russian uranium can enter the United States.
        If those efforts succeed, Congress will establish those
    Russian importation caps into law. If we fail, it will lead
    efforts to set the needed caps in law.
        The draft legislation takes other important steps to
    maintain America's leadership on nuclear energy. The bill
    directs the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to coordinate with
    foreign nuclear regulators to enable the safe use of innovative
    nuclear designs.
        The draft builds on Nuclear Energy Innovation and
    Modernization, an act that we have gone on, which is authorized
    by members of this Committee to expand nuclear energy to
    advance nuclear technologies.
        The draft legislation also modernizes environmental
    permitting requirements to address the needs of new
    technologies. The bill identifies regulatory barriers that
    limit the safe deployment of new nuclear technologies.
        These new technologies are capable of radically reducing
    carbon emissions. It is time to remove regulatory roadblocks
    for the next generation of nuclear reactors.
        This discussion draft would preserve America's existing
    nuclear power plants by authorizing temporary, targeted
    financial credits to reactors at risk for closing. It will help
    develop advanced fuels needed to power cutting edge reactors.
        The draft will also help reduce construction costs to build
    advanced nuclear reactors.
        Finally, it reauthorizes critical training programs to
    bolster our nuclear work force.
        The American Nuclear Infrastructure Act is a blueprint to
    revitalize our nuclear energy industry. I would like to thank
    Senators Whitehouse and Booker and Crapo and Carper for working
    with me on this draft. The policies in this draft legislation
    will keep the United States on track to remain the undisputed
    international nuclear energy leader for the next 25 years.
        I would now like to turn to Ranking Member Carper for his
    opening statement.

              OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. THOMAS R. CARPER,
                U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF DELAWARE

        Senator Carper. Mr. Chairman, thanks so much for holding
    today's hearing.
        To our witnesses, the two that are here live and in person,
    we welcome you.
        To the witness who joins us from afar, thank you for doing
    that.
        Mr. Chairman, as the United States continues to battle a
    deadly respiratory pandemic that has tragically claimed the
    lives now of more than 159,000 Americans, emerging evidence
    continues to show that people living in places with greater,
    longer term exposure to air pollution are experiencing far
    worse health outcomes. So at a time when breathing clean air is
    paramount to public health and quality of life, it is only
    appropriate that we talk about the potential for nuclear power.
        Today, nuclear power is our Nation's largest source of
    clean, reliable, carbon-free energy. That is why when I think
    about nuclear power, I think about clean air.
        I also think about economic opportunity and the potential
    we have as a Nation to lead the world in advanced nuclear
    technologies. In fact, there was a time not long ago when the
    United States did lead the world in nuclear manufacturing,
    nuclear construction, nuclear production.
        By supporting the next generation of advanced nuclear
    technologies that are being developed here at home,
    technologies that are safer, that produce less spent fuel, that
    are cheaper to build and to operate, and that provide good
    paying manufacturing, construction, and operating jobs for
    Americans, the U.S. can lead the world again.
        I believe that Congress, and this Committee in particular,
    have an important role to play in ensuring that our Nation
    invests wisely in nuclear energy while maintaining our focus on
    safety to ensure cleaner air for our people and this planet we
    call home.
        That is why, in the last Congress, I was proud to work with
    you, Mr. Chairman, and with a number of our colleagues on this
    Committee and off this Committee to enact the Nuclear Energy
    Innovation and Modernization Act, known as NEIMA. Among many
    things, NEIMA directs the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to
    develop a new framework to accept and process license
    applications for advanced nuclear technologies.
        These changes are already being implemented at the NRC
    today, resulting in greater efficiency, greater transparency in
    the licensing process. With NEIMA, we are moving closer than
    ever before to making advanced nuclear power a reality in this
    country, and we are doing so without jeopardizing safety.
        The draft legislation before us today represents the
    Chairman's efforts to build on NEIMA's success, and it attempts
    to move us even closer to that reality.
        A number of us on this Committee, and that certainly
    includes me, share our Chairman's enthusiasm for supporting
    advanced nuclear technologies. Let me be clear in saying that I
    support the broader goal of what this legislation aims to
    achieve.
        That being said, I would be remiss if I didn't hasten to
    add that I have several serious reservations with the
    legislation as it is currently drafted, and I suspect that some
    of our colleagues, both on and off this Committee, share
    several of those reservations.
        Let me just mention a couple of them here this morning. I
    am particularly concerned with the additional changes to the
    permitting process, which I believe could result in unintended
    adverse consequences for environmental quality, for public
    safety, and for public health.
        We only recently made a number of necessary changes to the
    NRC's regulatory structure for advanced nuclear technologies
    through NEIMA. I fear that making additional, unwarranted
    changes at this time could seriously disrupt the regulatory
    process in a way that threatens the safety reviews of these new
    technologies.
        We have seen the damage that nuclear power can inflict if
    proper safety precautions are not in place, are not kept up to
    date, or are not followed. Safety has been and must always
    remain a top priority in the operation of nuclear reactors, and
    oftentimes, regularly conducting these safety reviews is a
    critical part of ensuring the safety that we all seek.
        It is also critically important that the NRC remains the
    world's gold standard of nuclear regulatory agencies. I believe
    we all agree that a strong, independent NRC is essential to
    ensuring a safe nuclear industry.
        A safe nuclear industry is essential to ensuring public
    confidence, and maintaining public confidence in this vital
    industry is absolutely essential to ensuring that nuclear power
    can continue to play the vital role that it plays in this
    country, and I believe, around the world.
        If we want to lead the world in advanced nuclear
    technologies, and I believe that many of us do, we must be
    careful, very careful, not to jeopardize the still promising
    future of the nuclear industry by further streamlining safety
    regulations, largely for the sake of streamlining.
        Colleagues, if we do not proceed with genuine caution on
    this front, shortcuts on safety will do more to harm this
    industry in the long run, not help it.
        I am not going to dwell on this this morning, but I also
    have several concerns about the Environmental Protection
    Agency's incentive program for the existing nuclear industry
    that is included in this bill, especially in light of the
    recent cuts to EPA's budget.
        We need to keep in mind that the proposed Federal budget
    for fiscal year 2021 calls for cutting EPA's budget by 27
    percent, a reduction of $2.4 billion from the appropriation we
    enacted for the current fiscal year. By creating this new
    program at EPA without new funding, we run the risk of asking
    the agency to do even more with, quite possibly, far fewer
    resources.
        With those cautionary notes in mind, Mr. Chairman, let me
    thank you again for holding today's hearing. I appreciate very
    much the opportunity to discuss those concerns further with you
    and our colleagues and our witnesses, both today and in the
    days to come.
        I also appreciate the opportunity for us to focus, as well,
    today, on the potential that nuclear power still holds for our
    country, and what it can still mean for our air quality, our
    economy, and our global competitiveness.
        When it comes to nuclear power, we have a real opportunity
    here. If we are smart about it, we will seize the opportunity,
    and we will do so without foregoing safety.
        And if we are smart about it, we will enable our country to
    reap the economic, the environmental, and public health
    benefits that flow from realizing that opportunity. America
    will be a world leader in nuclear energy once again, while
    helping to make Planet Earth a safer, healthier home for us
    all.
        I am going to stop my prepared remarks there, Mr. Chairman.
        I can't leave this hearing today without expressing my
    dismay at the news that a couple of utilities in this country
    have been, apparently, caught bribing two States to implement
    State programs to support this industry. One of those is in, I
    think it is in maybe in Illinois, ComEd, a subsidiary of Exelon
    was charged, I think, $200 million by the Federal Government
    for bribery in Illinois. First Energy is involved in a $60
    million bribery case in Ohio.
        In addition to that, we have the new construction of the
    AP1000 reactors in the Georgia Vogtle site that continue to
    face billions of dollars in overruns, in costs, in years of
    delays.
        I have been wearing a special mask this week, and it is a
    mask of my favorite baseball team. How a kid born in West
    Virginia, grew up in Virginia, went to Ohio State, could end up
    as a lifelong Detroit Tigers fan is a long story, but I am.
        The Tigers are not playing this week; they are supposed to
    be having a four game series, I think, with the Cardinals. That
    series has been canceled because six of the Cardinals came down
    with the coronavirus. About a half-dozen of the folks who work
    in the clubhouse came down as well. They canceled the series.
        This past weekend, on Sunday, there was a very special
    game. The Tigers played Cincinnati. Cincinnati walked off to a
    three-nothing lead, I think, in the third inning, and the
    Tigers brought in a young relief pitcher named Tyler Alexander
    that most people in this country, even in Detroit, had never
    heard of. Tyler Alexander struck out the first nine batters he
    faced.
        That has never happened but maybe once in the history of
    baseball. Nine. That day, he brought his best, very best, to
    the mound and to the game, and we need to bring our very best
    to this game.
        This is not a game; this is serious business. I will just
    say to the industry itself whose efforts we support and have
    for years, you have got to bring your best game. You have got
    to bring your very best game, as well.
        Thank you.
        Senator Barrasso. Well, thank you very much, Senator
    Carper, for your continued leadership on this and so many other
    topics related to this Committee.
        I also want to thank Senator Whitehouse for his significant
    involvement in putting this draft together, and I ask and
    invite Senator Whitehouse, if you would like to say a few
    words.

             OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. SHELDON WHITEHOUSE,
              U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF RHODE ISLAND

        Senator Whitehouse. I would be delighted to, Chairman.
        Let me thank you for the way you have had this Committee
    work in a really good, bipartisan fashion, both on the Nuclear
    Energy Innovation Capabilities Act, which is the collaboration
    bill between the national labs and the industry and academia,
    and also on the Nuclear Innovation and Modernization Act, which
    put together a new regulatory framework to solve what I said
    was the problem of, how do you get a Tesla through regulatory
    procedure that requires the testing of its carburetor.
        By analogy, we have to change the regulatory framework for
    nuclear innovation to adapt to the fact that these are going to
    be innovations. Both have passed, both are underway, both are
    successful, and I appreciate it very much.
        I think that two of the big issues we need to address here,
    one is, how do you deal with the fact that the nuclear energy
    industry is financially burdened by the fact that it doesn't
    get compensated for the carbon-free nature of its power? It
    makes no damn sense to shut down a safely operating nuclear
    plant to open up a gas fired plant that actually costs more,
    but gets away with actually costing more because the carbon
    differential doesn't factor into the equation.
        This bill works in that space in ways that I think are very
    helpful, very close to what we did on 45Q. We also have this
    problem of spent fuel, nuclear waste, for which we have no
    solution.
        Some people say we are going to put it in Nevada. Good luck
    with that. I don't think so. I don't think we have a solution.
        As we steer nuclear innovation forward, I want to make sure
    that we make it a really important strategic priority to have
    that innovation focus on the potential, the Holy Grail, of
    dealing with that terrible burden of spent fuel and actually
    turning that burden into an asset.
        Senator Braun is here; he comes with a business
    perspective. If we were a company, that spent fuel would be a
    liability on our books, and every single member of that board
    of that company would be saying, Oh, my God, how do we get that
    liability off our books?
        If we have a million dollar liability, we have a $999,000
    incentive to get it off your books. But it just sits there, and
    this bill actually creates some incentives and some reporting
    to kind of get it onto America's books so we pay attention.
        So, I thank the Chairman for both of those. We have work to
    do before I can fully support this bill on the environmental
    review side, on what we call streamlining, and with respect to
    foreign investment. That is what is keeping me from being on
    this bill at this point, but I think the Chairman and the
    members of the Committee know that I have been a good partner
    on these issues, have worked in good faith and in good
    bipartisan spirit.
        I expect that we are going to get there on this bill as
    well. I pledge that I will work as hard as I can to make sure
    that we do get there.
        And I thank you, and I want to give a particular shout out
    to Armond Cohen, one of our witnesses today. You may not
    notice, but many, many, many, many years ago, my first job as a
    new kid in the Rhode Island Attorney General's Office was the
    job nobody else wanted. You are the last one in, you get public
    utility regulation.
        Armond Cohen and I and Mary Kilmarks, now not with us any
    longer, and a few others, worked together, and in Rhode Island,
    we made the first conservation based electric rates in the
    United States of America.
        With our little utility, Narragansett Electric, which is
    now a part of the great national grid empire, and with a
    wonderful start, Armond's work in that was super important, and
    we have this long, long, long tradition. So it is really
    wonderful for me to see him in this Committee hearing after all
    those many years of good work, now multiple decades ago.
        I think we started something with those conservation based
    rates, and they are all over the country now.
        Thank you, Chairman.
        Senator Barrasso. Well, thank you very much, Senator
    Whitehouse, for your continued partnership. You really have
    been a good faith partner with us and an honest broker. We
    appreciate your commitment, too, and I believe we will get to
    that same point that we are all aiming for.
        We will now hear from our witnesses. We have Ms. Amy Roma,
    who is here, Founding Member of Atlantic Council's Nuclear
    Energy and National Security Coalition.
        We have Mr. Paul Goranson, who is the President of Uranium
    Producers of America.
        And as Senator Whitehouse just said, Mr. Armond Cohen, who
    is the Executive Director of the Clean Air Task Force, and Mr.
    Cohen is joining us remotely via Webex from Boston.
        I would like to remind the witnesses that your full written
    testimony will be made part of the official hearing record
    today. Please keep your statements to 5 minutes so we that may
    have time for questions. I look forward to the testimony.
        Ms. Roma, please proceed.

      STATEMENT OF AMY ROMA, FOUNDING MEMBER, NUCLEAR ENERGY AND
     NATIONAL SECURITY COALITION, ATLANTIC COUNCIL; PARTNER, HOGAN
                                LOVELLS

        Ms. Roma. Thank you.
        Good morning. My name is Amy Roma, and I am a founding
    member of the Nuclear Energy and National Security Coalition at
    the Atlantic Council and a nuclear regulatory lawyer at Hogan
    Lovells. Thank you for the opportunity to testify at this
    hearing in support of the draft, American Nuclear
    Infrastructure Act of 2020, or ANIA, for short. My testimony
    today represents only my views and observations.
        ANIA is a great step forward for ensuring that U.S. nuclear
    capabilities will be preserved and expanded, providing America
    with clean and reliable energy, tens of thousands of jobs, and
    billions of dollars in foreign trade opportunities for U.S.
    companies, while protecting U.S. interests.
        In 1954, at the dawn of nuclear power, President Eisenhower
    delivered his famous ``Atoms for Peace'' speech, offering to
    share U.S. nuclear energy technology with other nations who
    committed not to develop nuclear weapons.
        This program resulted in three important economic and
    national security objectives. One, it prevented the spread of
    nuclear weapons; two, it made the U.S. a leader in nuclear
    power, ensuring that the U.S. maintained dominance in nuclear
    safety and security, nuclear technology development, and
    nuclear trade; and three, it ensured the U.S. benefited from
    the geopolitical relationship that goes with such significant
    assistance with a foreign country's power supply.
        President Eisenhower's historic move has paid dividends for
    decades, and the U.S. was well positioned as a global leader in
    commercial nuclear power as well as safety and non-
    proliferation.
        While the U.S. still leads the world with the biggest
    nuclear power program and 95 reactors providing 20 percent of
    the U.S.'s electricity and the best run plants, we have seen
    our international roles sharply decline, replaced largely by
    Russia, with China close behind, who have identified building
    nuclear power plants and nuclear trade as national priorities,
    promoted by the highest levels of government and backed by
    state financing and state owned enterprises.
        Russia now dominates nuclear power plant construction
    around the world, using it as a tool to exert foreign influence
    and reap significant economic benefits.
        With $133 billion in orders for nuclear reactor exports,
    nuclear energy is also a component of China's ``Belt and Road''
    initiative, with China estimating it would build as many as 30
    foreign reactors by 2030, with an estimated value of $145
    billion. China further estimates that capturing just 20 percent
    of the ``Belt and Road'' market could create 5 million Chinese
    jobs.
        The U.S. nuclear power industry competing against foreign
    governments for new projects has quickly been sidelined on the
    foreign stage with no orders for new reactors abroad.
        While we have ceded the mantle at the moment, we have a
    chance to regain it when it comes to the next generation of
    nuclear technology, such as advanced reactors. ANIA will close
    the gap between U.S. potential and execution of these
    technologies, further supported by actions to preserve the
    operating nuclear fleet and support nuclear infrastructure.
        While there are many helpful provisions in ANIA, I would
    like to specifically note two examples and explain how they
    could help. One, the environmental review provisions set forth
    in Section 201; and two, the investment by allies provision set
    forth in Section 304.
        To the first example, over the years, the National
    Environmental Policy Act, or NEPA, has brought forth immense
    environmental health and safety benefits. Nonetheless, both
    sides of the aisle have recognized that NEPA reviews can be
    lengthy and create delays, all driving up project costs without
    making environmental reviews any better.
        By regulation, NEPA reviews should be concise, clear, and
    to the point. But when implemented at the agency level, the
    concise and clear elements often get lost. With no change in
    the law, NRC modern environmental reviews for new reactors can
    be a thousand pages longer than they were with the last wave of
    nuclear power plant construction for projects with less
    environmental impact.
        While the NRC has spent significant energy in the last few
    years trying to right size its safety focused technical reviews
    of advanced reactors, it has paid little attention to applying
    a right size practical approach to environmental reviews.
    Importantly, ANIA asks the NRC to do just that: Evaluate and
    consider how to conduct its reviews more effectively,
    leveraging existing resources, lessons learned, and evaluating
    the ways the reviews can be improved.
        To the second example, ANIA offers a refreshing revisit to
    the cold war era foreign owners restriction in the Atomic
    Energy Act, which was implemented at a time when U.S. policy
    focused on closely guarding nuclear technology without the
    national security safeguards we have in place today. Notably,
    it was implemented before the Committee on Foreign Investment
    in the United States, or CFIUS, was established, which now
    polices significant foreign investment into the U.S. nuclear
    industry.
        While it is unclear whether the foreign ownership
    restriction ever served any national security benefit, it has
    been very problematic in recent years when applied to the NRC,
    resulting in projects being canceled, impeding investment,
    creating huge regulatory uncertainty, and costing billions of
    dollars to the commercial U.S. nuclear power industry.
        The NRC unsuccessfully requested that Congress remove this
    restriction 20 years ago, and recently, this Committee received
    a letter from 10 former NRC commissioners, again urging
    Congress to remove this restriction.
        ANIA would amend this restriction to permit investment by
    certain U.S. allies, while the investment would still be
    subject to a CFIUS review, and the NRC's own non-inimicality
    finding, to ensure it does not harm U.S. interests. This is a
    simple change, but it can open the door to significant
    investment in this industry.
        Thank you. I am happy to discuss these or other provisions
    of ANIA or answer any other questions you may have.
        [The prepared statement of Ms. Roma follows:]
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Senator Barrasso. Well, thank you so much for you
    testimony. It was very thoughtful, and we look forward to
    getting to questions in a few moments.
        I would now like to welcome Mr. Paul Goranson this morning.
    In addition to serving as the president of the Uranium
    Producers of America, he is currently the Chief Operating
    Officer for Energy Fuels. It owns two uranium production
    facilities in Wyoming.
        He has lived in Wyoming for many years. He is the past
    president of chemical resources based in Cheyenne, also lived
    in Casper, and I am delighted to have you here, my friend.
        Please proceed.

        STATEMENT OF WILLIAM PAUL GORANSON, PRESIDENT, URANIUM
      PRODUCERS OF AMERICA; CHIEF OPERATING OFFICER, ENERGY FUELS
                            RESOURCES, INC.

        Mr. Goranson. Chairman Barrasso, Ranking Member Carper.
    Thank you for holding this hearing on the American Nuclear
    Infrastructure Act of 2020.
        I am the President of the Uranium Producers of America, a
    trade association representing the domestic uranium mining and
    conversion industry. I am also the Chief Operating Officer for
    Energy Fuels Resources, and I have worked in the U.S. uranium
    industry for over 30 years.
        The UPA strongly supports this bill, which will help
    reclaim America's leadership in global nuclear markets.
        As I started my career, the U.S. led the world in uranium
    production, employing over 20,000 workers, supplying almost all
    our own nuclear fuel, and we were a net exporter of uranium.
        Today, commercial reactors in the U.S. import more than 90
    percent of annual demand, and less than 1 percent of the
    uranium they use is mined in the United States. This has left
    the domestic production on the brink of collapse.
        Earlier this year, the multi-agency Nuclear Fuel Working
    Group recommended immediate government actions to address the
    predatory market tactics of the state owned uranium
    enterprises.
        U.S. mine production in 2019 was the lowest since 1949. The
    U.S. mined only a fraction of uranium needed to fuel even one
    of our 95 commercial nuclear reactors.
        Employment is at all time low, we are almost entirely
    dependent on imported uranium, and we rely heavily on strategic
    competitors to sell us uranium. Uranium imports from the former
    Soviet Union, Russia, Kazakhstan, and Uzbekistan represent
    almost half the fuel used by America's nuclear reactor fleet.
        Let me be clear: We have a more than ample uranium supply
    in the U.S. We have over 40 million pounds annually of licensed
    and partially licensed capacity, almost enough to fuel
    America's entire commercial nuclear fleet.
        When normal market forces are in play, U.S. mines are cost
    competitive globally. We have abundant high quality uranium
    resources for the future.
        The challenge today for any free market uranium company,
    whether it is in the U.S., Canada, or Australia, is that we are
    not competing with other free market companies; we are
    competing with governments that seek to use energy as political
    capital. State owned enterprises are not price sensitive.
        When global prices plummeted a decade ago, free market
    companies were forced to reduce production and lay off workers,
    while Russia, Kazakhstan, and Uzbekistan increased their
    production, drove down prices, and took control of global
    supply chains.
        The potential expiration of the Russian Suspension
    Agreement at the end of 2020 will only hasten the demise of the
    U.S. industry. The agreement already guarantees Russia 20
    percent of the U.S. market, but Russia has already contracted
    to increase imports significantly, should the agreement expire.
        The UPA strongly supports the Commerce Department's effort
    to extend RSA with protections for the domestic industry, as
    well as legislation to codify more restrictive limits on
    Russian uranium.
        We appreciate the support of Chairman Barrasso in leading a
    bipartisan effort to rein in Russian uranium imports.
        It is not just Russia; China is increasingly dumping
    underpriced uranium in the global markets. Data from the
    Departments of Energy and Commerce show that tens of millions
    of dollars' worth of Chinese uranium has entered the U.S.
    reactors in recent years. The U.S. must immediately take bold
    action to reserve a domestic supply chain for nuclear fuel in
    the United States.
        The UPA strongly supports the draft American Nuclear
    Infrastructure Act. Section 402 would codify the Nuclear Fuel
    Working Group's proposal to establish a strategic uranium
    reserve. This reserve would ensure domestic uranium supply in
    the event of market disruption and reduce our reliance on state
    owned enterprises.
        The Department of Energy's fiscal year 2021 budget requests
    $150 million for the uranium reserve, a modest investment,
    considering it will preserve the nuclear fuel cycle in the
    U.S., instead of ceding it to Russia, China, and their allies.
        The UPA also supports the U.S. nuclear fleet, our Nation's
    largest source of carbon-free baseload power. Section 301 of
    the draft bill would provide financial incentives to prevent
    the premature shutdown of nuclear power facilities.
        We appreciate the draft's recognition that such facilities
    should be buying American uranium. We look forward to working
    with the Committee to strengthen this requirement and ensure
    that nuclear power facilities receiving taxpayer funds procure
    U.S. mined and converted uranium.
        Also, codifying the recent MOU signed by the EPA and NRC
    would further strengthen the legislation by providing
    certainty, robust, effective regulation of the in situ uranium
    recovery industry.
        Thank you again, Chairman Barrasso, Ranking Member Carper,
    and members of the Committee. I look forward to your questions
    and working with the Committee to address these important
    issues.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Goranson follows:]
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Senator Barrasso. Well, thank you so much for your
    testimony.
        We will get to questions in a few moments, but first, we
    will go ahead to Boston, where Mr. Armond Cohen, Executive
    Director of the Clean Air Task Force, is joining us via Webex.
        Mr. Cohen, welcome to the Committee, and please proceed.

                      STATEMENT OF ARMOND COHEN,
                EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, CLEAN AIR TASK FORCE

        Mr. Cohen. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and thank you
    for letting me participate remotely.
        Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Carper, members of the
    Committee, I appreciate the opportunity to engage this morning.
    I want to especially thank Senator Whitehouse for his
    acknowledgement of our past work together, forging an agreement
    among consumers, environmentalists, and industry around what
    was then a very novel approach to conservation in the utility
    sector.
        I think that is an interesting model for what we can do on
    nuclear. The challenges are different than they were when
    Senator Whitehouse and I worked together years ago, but I think
    that the process could be the same. I think there is a huge
    center of gravity around moving this option forward.
        So, as an environmentalist and a climate change fighter,
    why am I here? Because managing climate change is just a huge
    challenge. We have to achieve deep reductions in carbon
    emissions by mid-century.
        It is not just electricity, which we usually focus on, but
    it is the rest of the system, which is 75 percent of total
    consumption, from transport, industry, and building heat.
        All of the work that we have done and that many other
    groups have done has suggested that we need to maximize our
    options to achieve success. So we support rapid expansion of
    renewables, like wind and solar, development of other renewable
    resources like advanced geothermal as well as nuclear energy
    and carbon capture and storage, which can help complement the
    suite of zero-carbon resources.
        Nuclear energy has some distinct contributions to make to
    this if we can get it right. First of all, it is where most of
    our current zero-carbon electricity comes from, as was noted by
    the Chairman at the outset.
        Its major advantage, maybe its first major advantage, is
    that it is always on. Having an always on, always available,
    zero-carbon source to complement variable renewables that are
    weather dependent, most studies have shown, can substantially
    reduce the cost of a zero-carbon grid by reducing the need for
    redundant renewable capacity and expensive storage.
        Second, it is very power dense, a lot of energy per square
    kilometer. Minimizing infrastructure footprints can be a key
    asset because infrastructure is not easy to build, and we need
    to increase our total amount of carbon-free energy at about 5
    to 10 times the rate that we ever have historically.
        Finally, because of its power density, it is also quickly
    scalable, at least when we are able to build standardized
    designs. For example, France substantially decarbonized its
    grid in 15 years, mainly with nuclear.
        Nuclear also has some distinct advantages regarding its
    ability to produce zero-carbon hydrogen, which we may get to
    later, which will be necessary for the things we can't
    electrify.
        But if we are going to replicate those past successes, we
    are going to need to make a lot of changes in the way we do
    nuclear, reducing costs, and improving delivery times. Some of
    this can be done with existing light water technology, but some
    of the advanced reactor designs will provide some distinct
    advantages in terms of lower costs, ability to standardize,
    faster to go from order to operation, lower material inputs,
    and so forth.
        With that in mind, there is a lot to like in this draft
    bill that would advance those objectives. I will mention a few.
        First of all, we very much like the notion of incentives
    for continued operation of the existing fleet. That will keep
    carbon out of the atmosphere during our transition and keep the
    infrastructure in place to build on.
        Second, getting the NRC to think ahead on permitting for
    non-electric applications in places like the industrial sector
    and other novel applications. We like the provisions that allow
    for more international cooperation with trusted allies in the
    areas of harmonized licensing and joint investment and domestic
    plants, front running the regulatory issues related to use in
    advanced manufacturing, and so on. We provided staff with
    detailed comments to refine and enhance some of these
    provisions.
        Before I close, though, I do want to echo Senator Carper in
    expressing our concern regarding the Section 201 and 203 permit
    and streamlining provisions. Our view is that the NRC currently
    has a very strong mandate from the Nuclear Energy and
    Innovation Modernization Act, as well as the environmental
    review provisions of the Fixing America's Surface
    Transportation Act of 2015, which streamlined environmental
    review. We think those provisions should be given a chance to
    work before we contemplate other major efforts in this area.
        I agree with previous comments that nothing could be more
    damaging to a relaunch of this industry than a perception that
    environmental safeguards have been specially trimmed. Nuclear
    energy can be safe, but it also has to be perceived to be safe,
    and maintaining strong environmental permitting review would be
    important to public confidence.
        There are several other provisions in this draft which I
    have noted in my testimony which I believe may be unnecessary
    or counterproductive, and we can get into that, but that was
    the major one.
        That said, we applaud the efforts of the Chairman, Ranking
    Member, and other members of this effort to move forward with
    modernization of this important technology to make it relevant
    to the extremely daunting challenge of managing climate change.
        Thank you very much.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Cohen follows:]
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Senator Barrasso. Well, thank you so much, Mr. Cohen, and
    as you stated, we are working together collaboratively. I
    appreciate your comments; they are very helpful.
        As Senator Whitehouse talked about, we are a bipartisan
    Committee in our efforts here. We want to make sure we get the
    best results.
        As Senator Carper said, we need to make sure that we bring
    our best game today and every day. So thank you for the
    comments to all three of you.
        We will start with questions.
        I would like to start with you, Mr. Goranson. We know
    American uranium production is right now at an all time low.
    This has had a devastating impact on production, certainly in
    our home State of Wyoming. To revitalize the nuclear fuel
    supply chain, the Department of Energy is proposing
    establishing a national uranium reserve. The discussion draft
    legislation follows through on that proposal.
        Will you please describe how this strategic reserve will
    help preserve the Nation's nuclear fuel supply?
        Mr. Goranson. Thank you, Chairman Barrasso. The U.S.
    uranium industry is faced with a situation where, over the last
    several years of declining commercial purchases, it has led to
    an industry that is on the verge of collapse.
        The uranium reserve would provide the U.S. Government with
    a backstop to support this industry in this vital piece of the
    industrial base, in order to preserve it and maintain a skilled
    work force, as well as maintaining the infrastructure necessary
    to produce uranium.
        It would also provide for a domestic basis in case we have
    supply disruptions from our foreign imports, as well as a means
    for supporting any future national security and also energy
    security needs for the country.
        Senator Barrasso. On this Committee, we have members of the
    Foreign Relations Committee. We have the Chairman of the Armed
    Services Committee.
        So I wanted to just ask you, Mr. Goranson, about Russia.
    Russia has weaponized its energy supplies; all of us are well
    aware, in terms of their efforts to advance their strategic
    interest. With regard to uranium, in Russia, they tend to
    manipulate the market by flooding America with cheap uranium to
    undercut out Nation's producers.
        The Commerce Department right now is working to extend
    existing caps that limit the import into the United States of
    Russian uranium. If the caps are allowed to expire, Russia
    could have unlimited access to our uranium market. So I am
    leading efforts to make sure that doesn't happen.
        Could you explain to the Committee why it is so important
    that we establish limits on how much Russian uranium comes into
    the country, and do it by law?
        Mr. Goranson. Chairman Barrasso, thank you. As you know,
    the Russian Suspension Agreement has been in effect since the
    early 1990s. It is in place, and it has gone through several
    sets of reviews where the Commerce Department has determined
    without that suspension agreement, the Russians will dump
    uranium on the market. That is harmful for our domestic
    industry and for our national security.
        As we go forward, looking forward to the Commerce
    Department's efforts to renegotiate the suspension agreement
    and extend it, we know one thing, that the Russian government
    we are dealing with today is not the same Russian government we
    were dealing with in 1992 or around that period.
        It is important, in my perspective, to see legislation to
    codify those terms on the Russian Suspension Agreement to
    assure that it shows that the U.S. Government, the whole U.S.
    Government, supports this vital piece of protection of our
    domestic industry, but also to keep from becoming extremely
    reliant on a strategic competitor.
        Senator Barrasso. Ms. Roma, we talked earlier, and Senator
    Whitehouse did as well, on modernizing the regulatory approach.
    So tomorrow's advanced nuclear reactors, they are going to be
    smaller, safer than today's designs. They will also have a
    reduced environmental impact while they are generating clean
    energy.
        The draft bill that we are working on requires the Nuclear
    Regulatory Commission to examine its environmental review
    process, and then identify opportunities to update outdated
    environmental requirements.
        What aspects, Ms. Roma, of environmental reviews must we
    update to enable the safe deployment of these new technologies?
        Ms. Roma. Well, there is a whole handful that I can think
    of, but just a few off the top of my head.
        The NRC can examine the use of generic environmental impact
    statements to address issues that are common across several
    different advanced reactor designs, such as the use of high
    SALAU fuel, or other common issues that would enable a
    subsequent site specific license to incorporate by reference
    that earlier analysis, and streamline the NRC's subsequent
    review of a site specific application.
        Another area that the NRC could look to is reevaluating the
    presumption that advanced reactors necessarily require an
    environmental impact statement.
        The one thing that I would note is that the NRC requires an
    environmental impact statement for power reactors, which have
    traditionally been large scale, light water nuclear reactors.
    But it doesn't require an environmental impact statement
    necessarily for smaller reactors, such as commercial non-power
    reactors, which tend to be 10 megawatts or less.
        A lot of the designs that we are looking at in the advanced
    reactor designs are micro-reactors, so they would fall within
    that window. The only difference between the existing
    regulations for commercial non-power reactors and for power
    reactors is power requires EIS. So one thing that they could
    look at is that as well.
        Another way that they could streamline is looking at co-
    located facilities and the alternative siting analysis that you
    need to do.
        Oftentimes, new reactors are located at the same site as an
    existing reactor. Yet, under the NEPA methodology as
    implemented by the NRC, there is a very significant, in depth
    analysis of putting that reactor at another location that would
    be a greenfield site, for example, that needs to be analyzed,
    where the NRC staff flies out and looks at all these other
    sites, when it is just going to come back to putting it at the
    exact same site as the existing nuclear power plant.
        So there are a number of areas that the NRC could
    streamline and improve efficiencies. But the one thing that I
    would note is that, I actually thought, I understand and I hear
    the concerns that people are raising about doing a less in
    depth environmental review.
        But I don't actually see that in the draft legislation. The
    draft legislation asks the NRC to look at ways that it can do
    the review more efficiently by looking at lessons learned and
    other areas that it can do a better review, not a less in depth
    review.
        I just want to go back to the earlier comment that I made
    in my opening remarks. Longer doesn't mean better. The NRC, for
    the Fermi 3 environmental impact statement, the NRC wrote 2,200
    pages. That is a lot of writing, not a lot of analysis.
        So I think that the NRC can look at ways where it is not
    necessarily making very long environmental reviews, but doing
    better environmental reviews, that would be better for
    everybody.
        Senator Barrasso. Thank you, Ms. Roma.
        Senator Carper.
        Senator Carper. Thanks, Mr. Chairman.
        Again, our thanks to our witnesses, those who are really
    here, and those who wish they were here.
        I want to start off with a question or two to Mr. Cohen if
    I could. Less than 2 years ago, Congress passed, as you know,
    the Nuclear Energy Innovation and Modernization Act, which made
    significant changes to the NRC's budget structure and to the
    NRC's regulatory framework for advanced nuclear reactors.
        This law's significant changes include caps on NRC's
    budget, which phase down over time, and restrictions on the
    amount of money that the NRC can charge industry. The budget
    caps are expected to ratchet down starting, I believe, this
    coming fiscal year. But I am already hearing reports that the
    NRC's budget may be too low to meet its existing workload.
        In February of this year, the NRC Inspector General
    surveyed 2,800 NRC staff to assess NRC's safety culture. The IG
    reported that 64 percent of the surveyed NRC employees said
    they were worried about the NRC's budget and what it might mean
    for the NRC's future.
        My question for you, Mr. Cohen, have you heard similar
    concerns about the pending NRC budget cuts, and how important
    is it for the NRC to have the funding necessary to successfully
    fulfill its mission? Please proceed.
        Mr. Cohen. Right, thank you. Yes, Senator Carper, we do
    share that concern. We have heard both from employees at the
    NRC as well as some of the advanced reactor developers, who are
    concerned about constraints. Obviously, the developers are
    interested in getting things moved through as quickly as
    possible.
        We are concerned about the funding flows. Again, it goes
    back to the question of credibility and the ability of NRC to
    do its job, which is really critical to getting this industry
    back in business at scale. So we do share that concern.
        In my testimony, I suggested that the caps that were put in
    place in the Nuclear Energy Innovation and Modernization Act be
    revisited and removed, or at least that the ratchet that starts
    at 30 percent, I believe, of the 2021-2022 request at least be
    frozen there and not be reduced further.
        We are extremely concerned about understaffing at the
    agency. It can always be more efficient. I know that Chairman
    Svinicki is working very diligently to improve efficiency at
    the NRC. But we think overly restrictive funding is not going
    to help the cause.
        Senator Carper. OK, thank you. I have one more question for
    you, and then a question for Ms. Roma.
        My second question for you, Mr. Cohen, deals with NEIMA and
    [indiscernible] and advanced nuclear framework. In your written
    testimony regarding the draft American Nuclear Infrastructure
    Act, you state that, ``This bill proposes some alterations to
    environmental permitting that this committee must reconsider.
    These provisions are not necessary and could even be damaging
    to the future of the advanced nuclear industry.''
        My question is, Mr. Cohen, can you further discuss for us
    why you believe the streamlining provisions in the Chairman's
    draft legislation could be damaging to the advanced nuclear
    industry?
        Mr. Cohen. Thank you. As I said in my opening remarks,
    Senator Carper, I think the major concern is that this industry
    needs not only to be safe, but to be perceived as safe. I think
    at least among the nuclear critics, there is already a view
    that the modernization that was undertaken in the Modernization
    Act that moves the agency to a more risk informed, performance
    based licensing approach is already a step, I guess from their
    standpoint, it is a step in the wrong direction; from our
    standpoint, it is a step in the right direction, to move from a
    prescriptive, burdensome, sort of widget based review to
    something that is more like looking at the whole safety case.
    We already have, I believe, a good framework in place to move
    things forward faster.
        Then there is the FAST Act, or the Federal permitting, the
    Surface Transportation Act Amendments of 2015, that further
    provide environmental permitting streamlining. These are very
    significant provisions that apply to the NRC already.
        There is a lead agency, there has to be a plan, all the
    agencies have to coordinate, there is a fixed schedule, you
    can't deviate from that schedule without extraordinary
    circumstances.
        It expands the agency's ability to provide categorical
    exclusions, which the NRC could do. It establishes a Federal
    permitting improvement steering council, which can make further
    streamlining initiatives. And then it restricts judicial review
    of NEPA related reviews. It is a very substantial streamlining,
    again, not universally supported, but nonetheless, it is law.
        My answer really is that with these two major efforts to
    clear the way and expedite environmental and safety review
    already in place, our view is that should be given a chance to
    work out. If we have problems down the road, then we will talk
    about those problems.
        I just should say, I am a cofounder of the Nuclear
    Innovation Alliance, which is an alliance of environmental
    organizations, academic groups, and developers. I can tell you
    that this is not what I am hearing that is priority No. 1 for
    the advanced reactor sector, or even priority No. 2.
        I think that while there might be some perceived gain, I
    believe that the negative consequences of yet a third major
    reform on top of the previous two could undermine confidence in
    the integrity of the permitting process.
        That is an issue of perception. I think we can argue the
    merits, but I think at least at a level of perception, this
    would be a bad move at this time when we are trying to get the
    industry back on its feet.
        Senator Carper. OK, thanks very much for those thoughtful
    comments.
        Mr. Chairman, when we come back for a second round, I have
    one follow up with Ms. Roma and maybe Mr. Cohen on clean
    hydrogen production at reactor sites, which I think is quite
    promising.
        Thank you.
        Senator Barrasso. Thank you, Senator Carper.
        Right now, we have Senator Capito joining us remotely.
        Senator Capito.
        Senator Capito. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        I want to thank our witness panel today.
        Ms. Roma and Mr. Cohen, I have been working in a bipartisan
    fashion, particularly with Senator Whitehouse, on the Clean
    Industrial Technology Act, which is to promote the
    decarbonization of industries that inherently create greenhouse
    gas emissions, like steel production. Nuclear energy is
    primarily viewed by the public in terms of power generation.
        So, your testimonies touched on nuclear technologies may be
    applied to industrial non-electric purposes, such as generating
    heat for use at a chemical facility, or hydrogen
    fractionization, or desalinization. Section 204 of the American
    Nuclear Infrastructure Act explicitly directs the NRC to review
    potential regulatory barriers to such deployments.
        In your opinion, is the NRC currently equipped to review
    those applications for deployment of nuclear technologies
    outside of the spaces of power generation and medical research
    reactors, and what obstacles do you think they might face in
    that regulatory space?
        Ms. Roma, I will go to you first.
        Ms. Roma. Thank you. That is a wonderful question.
        The NRC is well equipped to probably handle a commercial,
    non-power reactor design that is similar to a research reactor
    that has already been deployed in the United States. So that
    would be a smaller version of a light water reactor design.
        They have an existing guidance document that applies to
    that. They are looking at them now and applying them to the
    medical isotope community that is looking at getting licenses.
        I think if you look at how the NRC regulations would apply
    to the non-power uses with advanced reactors, I think that that
    is an area that the NRC should further evaluate to do a gap
    analysis of where its regulations may fall short, or what
    guidance may need to be examined.
        I am just going to give a quick example. I was working with
    a medical isotope client that was looking at preparing a
    commercial, non-power reactor application. So really, a first
    of a kind type application.
        One of the things that we rolled up our sleeves and
    realized, is how many times the NRC makes a distinction between
    a power reactor and a non-power reactor that doesn't really
    have a regulatory necessity.
        The NRC just implemented a regulation thinking that, Well,
    the only types of reactors that would do this are large scale,
    light water, nuclear power reactors. So they put the word power
    in there.
        For example, a medical isotope production facility building
    a commercial non-power reactor can't apply for a combined
    operating license. It needs to submit a separate application
    for a construction permit, and then another application later
    for an operating license.
        Just looking at the regulations and evaluating ways that
    there could be unintended consequences from the ways that the
    NRC worded their regulations at the time of the rulemaking I
    think would be helpful to ensuring when those applications come
    in, the NRC is prepared to evaluate them.
        Senator Capito. I am going to skip Mr. Cohen. She gave a
    very good answer there, very complete answer there, because I
    want to get a chance to get a last question in.
        There was an article in the Wall Street Journal yesterday,
    you can probably see the headline here, Saudi Arabia, With
    China's Help, Expands Its Nuclear Program. My question is, as
    you read through the article, you couldn't distinguish what the
    actual usage was going to be for the help that they are getting
    from China. Is it power, is it a weapons program? A lot of
    unanswered questions there.
        I guess my question is, where do you see, since these
    reactors last for maybe a hundred years, this relationship of
    Saudi Arabia and China in the nuclear space, do you feel that
    is an issue? How are you all looking at that?
        Mr. Cohen, I will go with you first. I am going to ask
    everybody that question.
        Mr. Cohen. Senator Capito, we don't necessarily focus as
    much on the geopolitics of nuclear as some of the economic
    issues. But yes, I think it is a concern, and I would just flip
    that around and say, China is going to do what it is going to
    do. It has a mercantile model of export, often at below cost
    just for strategic reasons.
        We are not going to do anything about that. I think we need
    a better mouse trap, and we need to be talking to our allies.
        An example is what we did in the United Emirates in
    collaboration with the Korean institutions to build a western,
    or at least an OECD originated reactor, and under sort of
    western standards, with western non-proliferation agreements
    and so forth.
        So I think our view is that the only way to win this one is
    to really come with a very robust, cost effective product, but
    also bring along the kinds of things that are in this bill in
    terms of international coordination of licensing. The Chinese
    will do what they do, and we may not win every commission. But
    we are not in the running right now.
        Senator Capito. Right. Thank you.
        Mr. Goranson, do you have a comment on that?
        Mr. Goranson. Senator Capito, yes, I do. As you have
    mentioned in your question, is that once a nuclear power plant
    is built into another country, that creates basically a hundred
    year relationship between those two entities.
        This is another case for, as I mentioned in my testimony,
    as that where countries like China can use this to leverage
    foreign policy objectives. The Saudis have been a traditional
    ally of the United States for quite some time, but bringing the
    Chinese in and giving them this opportunity to be able to have
    such a critical part of their infrastructure under their
    control could create some challenges in our foreign policy as
    we move forward in the future with our foreign policy
    objectives.
        As far as an answer as to how to resolve that, I am not an
    expert in foreign policy myself. But I will say that this is
    another example of why we need to be cognizant of these state
    owned enterprises where they can go in and use the leverage of
    their government to be able to compete.
        The U.S. companies did try to compete for that nuclear
    technology in Saudi Arabia and also other nuclear fuel supply
    as well. As you can see, the state owned enterprises have an
    edge over the United States.
        Senator Capito. Thank you.
        Ms. Roma, do you have a comment on that?
        Ms. Roma. I do. Thank you, Senator. To answer your question
    directly, does this concern me? Yes, it does concern me that
    China is providing nuclear technology and services for Saudi
    Arabia.
        I think it gets back to the crux of my testimony that
    underscores the importance of the U.S. asserting global
    leadership so that we can ensure that we have the highest level
    of safety and nuclear non-proliferation standards in place.
        To echo the statements of the other panelists, particularly
    Mr. Cohen, what can we do about it? Well, right now, not much.
    We are not well positioned to compete against China,
    particularly in areas like Saudi Arabia, because we don't know
    if they want to build any of our plants.
        That is why it is the importance of implementing the
    provisions of ANIA and ensuring that we can get out in front,
    particularly on these emerging technologies where the U.S.
    currently has the global lead in advanced reactors and in
    fusion facilities as well. We are going to lose the next
    generation of lead that we have because we are not going to be
    able to get our act together in time to compete against Russian
    and China.
        Senator Capito. Right, and as we repeated, these are
    generational decisions that are being made, so thank you all
    very much.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Barrasso. Thank you, Senator Capito.
        Senator Cardin.
        Senator Cardin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Let me thank all of our witnesses for their testimonies.
    This is a really important hearing.
        In Maryland, nuclear power is very important, as it is
    around our country. We have two nuclear reactors located at
    Calvert Cliffs. They produce about 20 percent of our State's
    electricity needs, and 55 percent of our carbon-free
    electricity needs. It is an important source of energy in the
    State of Maryland, and of course, in our country.
        I want to just underscore the point that Senator Carper
    made earlier with Mr. Cohen, and that is, I am proud of the
    work force of NRC located in the State of Maryland,
    headquartered in the State of Maryland. They are understaffed,
    and they are losing a lot of their expertise.
        So I think the budget support here is an important part of
    what we do in regard to modernizing our nuclear energy fleet,
    as well as preserving our aging fleet.
        Senator Barrasso, you are absolutely right. This is an
    issue that has brought our Committee together. We have worked
    in a bipartisan manner in order to advance nuclear energy in
    this country. I am proud to be part of that team.
        I know your bill was introduced as a way to advance our
    mutual efforts. You hear that we have concerns in regard to the
    environmental aspects, and in regard to the traditional role of
    the NRC. So we look forward to working together to try to come
    to grips with the differences so that we can continue to
    advance this issue in the best tradition of our Committee.
        Your bill deals with several aspects, including how we deal
    with advanced nuclear reactors, but also what do we do in
    regard to our existing nuclear fleet.
        Senator Cramer and I have introduced a different approach
    dealing with our fleet, in that it provides an investment tax
    credit of 30 percent so that we can maintain our current
    nuclear fleet.
        The challenge today is the cost of energy. As we know, it
    has fluctuated, declined, and it has made nuclear power much
    more challenging. The tax codes were developed at different
    times, giving certain incentives to other forms of energy that
    the nuclear industry does not enjoy.
        My question to the panel is, how critical is it for us to
    deal with the economics of the pricing of energy as influenced
    by the policies of our own country in the tax code and
    elsewhere that could affect the ability to have economical
    nuclear modernization done for energy?
        Mr. Cohen. Mr. Chairman, I would be happy to take a swing
    at that, if you would permit.
        Senator Cardin, I agree with your statement of the problem.
    Basically, the bogey right now in the market is low cost
    natural gas, and we know that several, many units are not able
    to compete with that carbon emitting fuel.
        The academic answer is that we need some sort of carbon
    policy that would level the playing field. That is happening in
    some States, but it is anyone's guess as to when that might
    happen federally, so we are really dealing with second best
    solutions.
        CATF has been very active in States like New Jersey to
    enact provisions that would do much like what your bill did to
    recognize the value of the carbon-free energy from the nuclear
    units and enact a sort of a per unit or per kilowatt-hour
    payment.
        That is the reason we support the section of this draft
    that would provide for a Federal version of that. It is,
    frankly, catch as catch can as you go around to the States.
        As the opening anecdote suggested about Illinois and Ohio,
    there is often mischief that can occur when some of those deals
    are done. So I think a very transparent Federal support
    mechanism for existing nuclear units to run makes a lot of
    sense.
        The questions of where the money comes from is, of course,
    important, but the design that we see in the draft is
    fundamentally sound. Our only comment there is that we would--
    the draft as written doesn't really put a cap on that payment.
    There should be some reasonable upper cap on the payment. You
    don't want to have something completely that is out of whack,
    with say, the value of the carbon avoided.
        We recommended actually using as a possible benchmark the
    2.5 cents per kilowatt-hour subsidy for wind that is currently
    in the production tax credit.
        It has to be transparent; the public needs to understand
    that someone is reviewing these numbers, and we are not just
    giving out goodies without making sure that they are needed.
        Finally we recommend that we defer caps on roll, because
    EPA is not really an economic regulator, and they may not be as
    competent to review the numbers.
        Anyway, Senator Cardin, that is a long answer, but
    fundamentally, we support this kind of Federal intervention
    because we think doing this State by State is going to be a
    very long process, and we are probably going to lose a lot of
    carbon-free energy in that process.
        Senator Cardin. I would just comment that there are
    different ways to do it, different opportunities in Congress.
    Sometimes we have the opportunity through the tax codes,
    sometimes through appropriation and legislation.
        So I think I have to recognize there is an imbalance right
    now of carbon. I support that, I think that makes sense, but we
    have to look at what it is feasible to level the playing field
    so that nuclear power can compete, and therefore investments
    will be made in its modernization.
        Mr. Chairman, I don't have a clock in front of me, I don't
    know if I have used my time, but if either of the other two
    witnesses want to respond, I would appreciate their views on
    this.
        Ms. Roma. Thank you. I agree with the sentiments that Mr.
    Cohen just expressed.
        I think that moving this to the Federal level from the
    State level would ensure some consistency. I think it provides
    much needed support that recognizes the carbon-free benefits
    that nuclear power provides that it is currently not
    compensated for. There are probably a number of different ways
    that that support could happen, whether it is a production tax
    credit or through this EPA measure that is set forth in ANIA.
        Senator Cardin. Thank you.
        Mr. Goranson. Senator Cardin, I will add that with respect
    to--from my perspective, if we go back and look at the
    President's Nuclear Fuel Working Group Report, in that report
    it also states, one of the important portions of part of that
    is to value what nuclear power brings to its generating, that
    is, the clean air side of it, the baseload, the 24/7 power, is
    vital to maintaining a strong economy as well as vital to
    supporting our Nation's growth and place in the world.
        So that is why the UPA has taken such a strong support for
    Section 301, which provides some of that support.
        Senator Cardin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        I thank the witnesses.
        Senator Barrasso. Thanks, Senator Cardin.
        Senator Cramer.
        Senator Cramer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Thanks to all of our panelists. I have been sitting here
    the entire time listening to every single word from my
    colleagues on both sides and all of the witnesses.
        First of all, I am encouraged by it. Second of all, I
    continue to ask the question, how did we let this happen? How
    in the world did America ever allow its superiority in this
    realm slip away? Not just slip away, but we acquiesced it to
    our most dangerous adversaries. I think we need to get it back
    before it is too late.
        One of the thoughts that has come to mind as I have been
    listening to some of this, Ms. Roma, when you were talking
    about the stockpiles or the reserves--whenever I bring up
    reserve to people, there are people that will say, Oh, but we
    have several years of reserves. We don't really need to worry
    about that.
        Then I think about the state owned competitors that we
    have, who are run by emperors for life. Maybe you could just
    speak to the long game if you will, the importance of this, not
    just in the near future, but the consequence if we don't stop
    the bleeding soon.
        Ms. Roma. The question that you asked, how did this happen,
    is something that I have studied extensively for my entire 17
    year career in this field.
        I think that there are a lot of different factors that went
    into it. But one of the things that strikes me is that there
    seems to be a lot of complacency. There seems to be just an
    acceptance within the industry that we are the best, and of
    course, everybody wants the best, and we operate the best
    plants. So, by golly, we can build the best plants and design
    the best plants, and the rest of the world will want our
    plants.
        That happened in the last generation of build. But then the
    U.S. stopped building, and other countries continued to build.
        Countries like China are fairly newer to nuclear, and now
    they are doing lots of building, and so is Russia. They
    recognize, probably because of the integration of their state
    owned enterprises with their government, that if we can export
    this technology and embed ourselves in critical infrastructure
    in foreign countries, then we have the ability to exert our
    geopolitical influence.
        I don't think that the United States was looking at it with
    that holistic a viewpoint. So I think that is where we are now,
    and we just need to accept that fact. One of the best
    advantages that we have is we continue to operate the most
    efficient fleet and the largest nuclear fleet in the world. We
    need to continue to do that in order for other countries to
    want our input and our advice on what are the safety standards,
    what are the nonproliferation standards, what are the
    technology best practices, what are the operational best
    practices that we should implement.
        If we don't operate as many nuclear power plants as we do,
    and we don't operate them as well as we do, they will stop
    asking us.
        The second aspect is, right now, the United States, through
    our incredible universities and our national labs, we are at
    the forefront of advanced reactor development. We have numbers
    and numbers of advanced reactor initiatives. We have numbers of
    fusion companies that are looking at building demonstration
    facilities and commercially deploying their technologies. They
    are struggling to do that in the current climate that we have.
        So anything that we can do to help the NRC do a more
    efficient review, to put accountability on them for how much
    money it costs to do a review for a reactor design, and making
    sure that the resources they spend are achieving the objectives
    that they intend for it to achieve, such as in its
    environmental reviews, those are all good things, and those all
    better position us to be able to help with developing programs
    around the world.
        Senator Cramer. This is so fascinating. I going to skip all
    my rate design stuff. I am a former regulator, nerd, but you
    just touched on something that I think is really, really
    critical. I think this is applicable to lots of things that we
    do in the United States.
        I mean, China and Russia have taken our invention of
    hypersonic missiles, for example, and they are running with it
    while we are catching up. So often we do this.
        I would rather export our excellence than import their
    mediocrity every time. But both of you have talked about--but
    all of you have talked about the supply chain. The supply chain
    that I worry the most about compromising is the intellectual
    supply chain. We are going to wake up one day, and nobody--to
    your point about the expertise, it is not going to be available
    because the opportunities weren't available.
        Maybe in the remaining moments, you could speak to that,
    sir.
        Mr. Goranson. Senator Cramer, yes, I can. You are right.
    What we see here is our critical talent, what I consider one of
    the most key parts of our industry. I can speak from the
    uranium industry that, over the last few years, we have seen a
    lot of people come in through the domestic uranium industry,
    new hires, people right out of college.
        Unfortunately because of our competition with these state
    owned enterprises, as recently as last April, I actually had to
    go tell talented, experienced people that their services were
    no longer needed because of market conditions created by our
    current situation.
        Unfortunately, since 2013, I have learned that that story
    doesn't get easier by experience. I have had to do it several
    times. It has been a decline that has been very dramatic and
    very marked.
        What is important, I see, is that we have to keep the
    talent, we have to keep the people. If we don't have--speaking
    from the uranium mining perspective, there is no school of
    uranium mining you can go to. It is a skill set and an industry
    that is unique amongst the different extractive industries
    simply because we deal with uranium.
        So we have to have trained people. We want to do it safely;
    we want to be doing it in an environmentally protective manner.
    That means we have to have smart people who understand our
    regulations and understand how we do things on a regular basis
    to not only produce uranium, but also do it safely and
    efficiently.
        Senator Cramer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        I am well over my time, but maybe in another round I will
    ask Mr. Cohen about some rate design things. I think
    reliability, for example, dispatchability has value that should
    be recognized in rates as well as the environmental pieces of
    it.
        So with that, thank you.
        Senator Barrasso. Thank you.
        Senator Whitehouse.
        Senator Whitehouse. Thanks, Chairman.
        Just to nail down a few things that I think are well
    established in this hearing, there is value to the carbon-free
    nature of electric generation that does not create carbon
    emissions. Does anybody disagree with that proposition, or is
    that agreed?
        Mr. Goranson. Agreed.
        Senator Whitehouse. Agreed. And the nuclear industry is now
    ordinarily not compensated for that value. Does anybody
    disagree with that statement?
        Agreed, OK.
        And finally, the effect of that failure to compensate the
    industry for that value creates what an economist would call a
    market distortion. Does anybody disagree with that? So that is
    our situation. We have a market distortion that hurts the
    nuclear industry because it is not compensated for one of the
    assets of its power.
        Correct? Yes, yes, yes? OK, good.
        I think off of that platform, we have got a lot of
    opportunity to build here in bipartisan fashion. I would like
    to drill down now a little bit into the question of nuclear
    waste storage. That, I think everybody will agree, creates
    cost, creates hazard, creates danger. It is a liability in an
    economic sense to have nuclear waste stockpiled at our
    facilities. Correct?
        So there is value to finding a way to solve that problem.
    The question that I have is, as we embark on nuclear
    innovation, how can we make sure that the innovators see the
    value of that?
        Because if that is not on the table, then what you are
    going to see is a nuclear innovator who will say, I am going to
    put my money, my expertise, and my backing behind this power
    that costs 99 cents because it is cheaper than this other power
    that costs a dollar and one cent. They will save the two cent
    difference.
        But if the dollar and one cent used the nuclear waste
    stockpile, that is a huge value to America and to society. And
    a little bit like our problem with the market distortion of not
    pricing carbon, not pricing the value of drawing down on
    nuclear waste stockpile and turning it into a positive use, I
    think risks create on a smaller scale the exact same economic
    distortion.
        So let me ask Mr. Cohen first, since he is coming
    electronically, am I right that that is a problem? Is that
    something we should continue to work on to find an economic
    solution, so that the direction of innovation is not distorted
    away from the value of solving, at least to some degree, the
    nuclear waste stockpile problem?
        Mr. Cohen. Yes, and Senator Whitehouse, I absolutely agree
    with your approach. I applaud the provision of this draft that
    would actually require an annual report to Congress to quantify
    that liability and describe some of the opportunity. Yes, we do
    need to think about nuclear waste, spent fuel, as a potential
    asset.
        The first thing we can do though, I think, is sort out the
    issue of the repository. It doesn't need to be first, but it
    should at least proceed in parallel. Regardless of reuse of
    spent fuel, there will be a residual amount, probably a
    significant amount, that will need to be dealt with and
    isolated for many, many years.
        Senator Whitehouse. Yes, that is a separate and larger
    issue. I am trying to focus on the innovation direction piece,
    here.
        Ms. Roma.
        Ms. Roma. I agree that it is important to consider the
    spent fuel considerations for innovation.
        Two points, just to add. One, a number of the advanced
    reactor technologies that are under development embed in their
    commercial case the spent fuel consideration. Having sat
    through investor meetings with private equity and venture
    capitalists looking at investing in them, one of the first
    questions they say is, well, what about the waste?
        Senator Whitehouse. Yes.
        Ms. Roma. And so a lot of them are looking at, can we use
    spent fuel, can we use natural uranium, so we don't have high
    level nuclear waste on the back end coming out? So, it is
    embedded in a number of these designs, but not all of them.
        Senator Whitehouse. Yes. If you are a utility buying, then
    you have this incentive. If you are not, then you don't, and so
    it is not a complete market response, it is only in those
    specific cases, correct?
        Ms. Roma. No. For any advanced reactor designer, who aren't
    necessarily looking at just selling to utilities, they actually
    consider it in their design because they have to go and sell
    this to customers, and customers are like, Well, what about the
    spent fuel?
        Senator Whitehouse. And some of them will be utilities?
        Ms. Roma. Yes. Some of the will be utilities. Some of them
    won't be.
        Some of them are intended to be foreign countries that have
    no nuclear power programs right now and won't be able to handle
    the nuclear waste. So that is why they are trying to consider
    it as part of their commercial case. But some of this is pie in
    the sky technology advances that they are hoping to implement,
    and they haven't yet.
        But to your second point about innovation, refer back to my
    earlier comments that we are at the forefront of advanced
    fission and fusion technology development.
        America is a great innovator. When it has the support it
    needs, it can do leaps and bounds. So I would urge everybody to
    consider any financial support for innovation for spent fuel,
    ways to handle spent fuel.
        Senator Whitehouse. My time is up, so let me interject
    here, ask Mr. Goranson if he wants to add something, to add it
    as a question for the record, since my time is up.
        But I do want to say, as somebody who has watched this for
    a while, there have been times when our leadership in this
    space has left a lot to be desired. There have been times when
    our innovation has not been so great.
        A lot of our existing reactor fleet is big, cludgy,
    complicated, non-standardized, inefficient, not great design by
    anybody's standards.
        I believe that is because they were built in a cost-plus
    environment, in which the utilities figured, spend everything
    you can get away with, because you are going to earn a return
    on equity on whatever you can legitimately put into this thing.
    That is not a path to innovation.
        Now, I think we are on a much stronger path to innovation.
    But I think we have got to be candid and clear that America has
    not always been a great and successful innovator in this space.
    There has been a lot of cludgy stuff that got built, and there
    have been a lot of failures as a result.
        So let's make sure innovation really works.
        Thank you.
        Senator Barrasso. Thank you, Senator Whitehouse.
        Senator Braun.
        Senator Braun. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have been here a
    year and a half, and in the general context of what we are
    talking about, I have always been interested in the
    environment.
        I think Sheldon's comments on finally starting to quantify
    these external costs makes a lot of sense.
        We started the Climate Caucus here in the Senate less than
    a year ago, and I probably worked as hard on it, maybe not
    quite as much as trying to reform healthcare. The healthcare
    industry is fighting everything that we are trying to do. It
    does not want to reform itself.
        My observation has been across the different parts of
    energy, from agriculture to power generation, transportation,
    and more broadly than that, technology, finance, they are
    interested in being part of the solution.
        So I think my frustration is that we have got something
    that does not emit carbon dioxide. But it seems like we have
    got a large gulf between light water, the current fleet, which
    seems to be operating fairly safely across the world, at least,
    recently. How do we get from where we are to where we need to
    be by 2050?
        The first question would be for Ms. Roma. What can we glean
    from what France has done, to where they are now, I think,
    close to 80 percent of their power generation? What have they
    done that we haven't, and is it just that they are taking the
    risk?
        Please comment on that, and then I have a question for Mr.
    Cohen.
        Ms. Roma. France, I believe, gets about 80 percent of its
    power from nuclear power. It did that because it needed energy
    security and independence, and it figured if it builds all
    these nuclear power plants, then it controlled its own power,
    and didn't rely on other countries for its power. That is how
    they got to where they are.
        We had a lot more alternatives, and we had a lot more
    natural resources in the United States, and so we have a more
    diverse energy portfolio.
        Senator Braun. Is there anything we can learn from them
    specifically since they have put so many eggs in one basket?
    Will they try to migrate from light water to advanced
    technology to kind of hedge their safety bets over time?
        Ms. Roma. I am not sure if they are going to migrate to
    advanced reactors. They are considering it, but they already
    get so much power from their operating fleet, which can operate
    for decades without having to develop a new technology.
        One of the lessons that we could look to for France is how
    they handle spent fuel, how to reduce its volume and size and
    storage.
        Senator Braun. Thank you.
        Mr. Cohen, in a more general sense, how do you see that
    interplay between our existing fleet and advanced technology,
    nuclear technology? What is your vision of where that can go
    between now and 2050? Because to me, it looks like it is the
    one bird in the hand that we have.
        I think we are already running into maybe bottlenecks as it
    relates to solar and wind, and it has got other disadvantages.
    Kind of give me your vision there of how you see that reliance
    on our current fleet, and advanced nuclear technology, and what
    percentage it would be of total energy generation by 2050.
        Mr. Cohen. Well, if we don't get busy, it is going to be a
    very diminishing share, I am afraid.
        Just going back to your previous question, Senator Braun,
    the secret to the French nuclear program was standardization,
    basically, settling on a design and building the same thing
    over and over again with the same people. We never did that in
    the United States. We actually had increasing costs rather than
    declining costs, as France was able to do.
        So the key is getting back to that world where you are not
    building one off big units that have to be built mostly onsite.
        I think my answer to you is basically for the near term, in
    the next 10 years, we should be doing more export of
    conventional reactors. That is the kind that are being built
    right now in United Emirates.
        But innovation really offers us a number of opportunities
    to reduce material inputs to these units, making them much more
    manufacturable, much more standardizable, if that is a word.
    When we can get into that mass production mode, we are going to
    have a much better shot at scaling.
        So that is where the innovation is really important, and
    that is a long discussion about what specifically needs to
    happen in the R&D space.
        But fundamentally, my view is that we do need a different
    kind of business model and probably technology model to get to
    the scale that we need to do in the time that we have.
        Senator Braun. Thank you. That makes sense, and I think
    that we can learn a lot from what we see works elsewhere if we
    want to hit the target by 2050.
        Thank you.
        Senator Barrasso. Thank you.
        Senator Booker.
        Senator Booker. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and to
    Ranking Member Carper, as well.
        I just want to say some introductory comments at the top,
    that I share the bipartisan remarks that have been said at the
    beginning. It is been an honor to work on this legislation. I
    have seen this as a space of urgency since I came to the
    Senate.
        But we have, as Senator Whitehouse put it, terrible market
    distortions that undermine the value and the important part of
    our energy blend that nuclear is.
        In fact, it not only has an important role, I think it has
    a critical role as we transition as a Nation to net-zero carbon
    emissions as quickly as possible. If we are going to avoid the
    worse impacts of possible climate change, nuclear has got to be
    a critical part of that.
        It also has a national security issue as had already been
    said in this hearing of the challenges that we see from foreign
    adversaries that have taken our singular positioning in this
    kind of energy away from us as they have charged to embrace
    this while we have gotten entangled in a lot of things that
    undermine nuclear energy.
        I believe there are two really critical sets of policies
    that the Federal Government should be focused on now if we are
    going to move forward. That is first, we need to enact policies
    to prevent the existing fleet that we have of reactors from
    shutting down permanently, and our existing fleet of reactors
    that do provide that majority of carbon-free electricity that
    is currently generated, losing these plants would be a massive
    step backward that we cannot afford to take in the fight
    against climate change.
        Second, we need to enact policies that facilitate the
    development of next generation advanced reactors. This is a
    discussion at this hearing which I think is of such urgency.
    Advanced nuclear reactors have the potential to be even safer,
    more economical, generate less waste than existing reactors.
        That is why I am so proud to be a part of the bipartisan
    work we have done in this Committee in recent years related to
    nuclear energy. I really believe that with the incorporation of
    some of the feedback that Senator Whitehouse and myself have,
    as well as from stakeholders, we can now really craft this
    important piece of legislation and move it forward out of
    Committee in a very bipartisan manner.
        I just want to ask really briefly in the 2 and a half
    minutes I have left, for Armond Cohen.
        Mr. Cohen, can you just explain why the Clean Air Task
    Force believes that it is important to have nuclear energy as a
    part of that mix as we try to de-carbonize our electricity
    generation as quickly as possible?
        Mr. Cohen. Certainly. If we are going to get to zero by
    mid-century, you do the math, and you say, we have to basically
    build carbon-free energy at 5 to 10 times the rate that we ever
    have in the past. Those numbers are really daunting.
        If we just rely on one source, as good as solar and wind
    are, and we support massive expansion of those resources, we
    are racing against time. We believe that nuclear could provide
    a lot of clean power very fast.
        I gave the example of France earlier. If we could get to
    that kind of trajectory, we could provide a very significant
    chunk. So it is all about scale and time for us, nuclear being
    a very power dense resource. That is why we think it needs to
    be in the running, but we have a way to go to get there.
        Senator Booker. We have talked a lot about electricity
    generation, and of course the important role it has. But can
    you also talk about sort of the non-electric purposes,
    industrial applications, productions of zero-carbon fuels, such
    as hydrogen? Can you explain why it is important from a climate
    change perspective to focus on these elements of application of
    [indiscernible] through our [indiscernible]?
        Mr. Cohen. Right. It is important, Senator, to recognize
    that electricity is only 25 percent of total, final energy
    consumption in the United States and the world. The other 75
    percent is basically molecules that get burned right now. It is
    oil and gas, fundamentally.
        So, if we dealt with electricity, that would be great, but
    then we have industry and transport and building heat and all
    kinds of other applications. So we need a zero-carbon fuel to
    substitute for those molecules and for the things we can't
    electrify. We are going to lose 75 percent of the game if we
    don't have that.
        Nuclear is uniquely suited, for reasons we go into in the
    testimony, for that hydrogen production in particular, because
    we can supplement the electrolysis with high temperature steam,
    and so forth. It is very power dense, can scale quickly. That
    is why we need to think about non-electric applications of
    nuclear.
        Senator Booker. Ms. Roma, really quick, if I could just ask
    my question, could you explain real quickly, again, this
    international perspective is so urgent. Why is it important
    from a non-proliferation perspective for this legislation to
    facilitate the U.S. exercising more of a leadership role
    internationally related to advanced nuclear energy?
        Ms. Roma. One of the best tools that we have in our non-
    proliferation toolbox is exporting nuclear technology because
    with that can come the U.S. standards that go with that
    technology about how it can be used and where it can be used.
        I will just give you an example. If you have a U.S. origin
    nuclear reactor, even if it goes to another country, and they
    further develop it, and then they try to export it to a third
    country, U.S. standards go with that technology all the way.
    Including what it can be used for and where it can go, making
    sure that the country that is the recipient of that technology
    has signed onto the highest level of nuclear non-proliferation
    agreements. If we don't have our hands in that technology, we
    don't really control where it goes or what somebody does with
    it.
        To go back to Mr. Cohen's comment earlier about China and
    Saudi Arabia, does it concern us? Yes. Can we do anything about
    it? No, because what they are doing is perfectly legal, subject
    to the international agreements that they have committed to.
        So we lose our ability to have that voice in the
    development of technologies and how those technologies are used
    and where they can go.
        Senator Booker. Thank you very much.
        Mr. Chairman and Mr. Ranking Member, again, I am just
    really grateful to be a part of this partnership with you all
    to try to advance what I consider utterly urgent for national
    security reasons, for the planetary challenges we have in
    climate change and more. This is an exciting area, and I hope
    we can continue to make strides together in a bipartisan way.
        Thank you.
        Senator Barrasso. Thank you so much, Senator Booker, for
    your leadership on this. I agree with you entirely.
        You might not have heard my opening remarks, but I made
    reference specifically to your good work in helping in our
    efforts here, so thanks so much, Senator Booker.
        Senator Van Hollen.
        Senator Van Hollen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member
    Carper, and to the witnesses today.
        I also share and believe much of the views that were
    expressed by my colleague, Senator Booker, during his
    questioning.
        I do want to follow up with the last issue he raised with
    respect to nuclear non-proliferation. While I support the
    development of advanced nuclear reactors as part of our own
    energy mix and also would support exporting that technology,
    the export of that technology has to come with that important
    caveat that it is consistent with our nuclear non-proliferation
    goals. There are some aspects of advanced nuclear reactors that
    could increase the risks of proliferation with the development
    of the paleo, the more highly enriched uranium, and also as
    part of the reprocessing efforts, the plutonium.
        So let me start with Mr. Cohen. Mr. Cohen, do you agree
    that we have to address those additional risks? What kinds of
    measures do you think we should put in place?
        Mr. Cohen. Yes, I agree, Senator, we do have to be mindful
    of that issue. I think the specific opportunities here and
    challenges are first of all, as was mentioned, if we are in the
    game, we have a better control over what the product is and how
    it is deployed. If we are not in the game, we don't, and our
    adversaries will set the rules.
        Second is that specifically, the bill contemplates
    international harmonization and coordination of licensing. I
    think that can be expanded to include international cooperation
    over non-proliferation.
        Third point is that some of these designs actually may pose
    less proliferation risk than more. For example, many of them
    are much more efficient, so it means that the amount of fissile
    material involved is lower.
        Finally, as we discussed earlier, there are a lot of
    opportunities for R&D on the back end of the fuel cycle. There
    is no such thing as a completely proliferation resistant
    reactor, let's just be honest, but there are many steps we
    could take as part of this innovation process to ensure that we
    have got as tight a rein on that problem as we possibly can.
        Senator Van Hollen. Well, I fully agree with you, that we
    should encourage and incentivize the companies that are
    developing these advanced reactors to build in, to the maximum
    extent feasible, those protections against non-proliferation.
        Would you agree that we could address that issue with an
    amendment to this draft proposal that would say that countries
    that are receiving these advanced reactors should implement the
    additional protocol of the IAEA?
        As you know, over 150 countries have signed that. It seems
    to be a basic protection that we could take to protect our non-
    proliferation efforts. Could you comment on that?
        Mr. Cohen. Senator, I am not the staff non-proliferation
    expert. I would prefer to get back to you in writing, but that
    is the general direction of our program, is to try and
    socialize all of the newcomer countries into the existing
    international framework.
        Senator Van Hollen. Ms. Roma, can you comment on that? You
    mentioned in your remarks the importance of protecting against
    nuclear proliferation. Can you talk about writing in a
    requirement that recipient countries agree to the additional
    protocol with the IAEA?
        Ms. Roma. Senator, I am going to have to look into that and
    get back to you in writing. Namely, I would just want to
    evaluate more closely the existing framework that we have with
    our Section 123 agreements and our Part 810 process, and the
    restrictions and considerations that go with that to see what
    additional protections a write in like that would afford. I
    just need to look at it more closely.
        Senator Van Hollen. Sure. Well, the gold standard, which is
    what we have been applying in many of our recent agreements,
    would require recipient countries to sign the additional
    protocol with the IAEA to have that enhanced protection against
    nuclear proliferation.
        Thank you for your comments. I look forward to your written
    responses.
        Mr. Chairman, I look forward to working with you and the
    Ranking Member to address that aspect of this. Again, I am a
    proponent of nuclear energy as part of the mix, so long as we
    maximize the safety component, including the safeguarding
    against nuclear proliferation to the extent that we can. I
    think the IAEA additional protocol has been an important
    measure that we should ensure that people are complying with.
        Senator Barrasso. Thank you, Senator Van Hollen, for your
    continued leadership and interest in this important topic.
        Senator Carper, I know you had a few additional questions.
        Senator Carper. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. It has been an
    important, and I think in many respects, a fascinating hearing.
    We are grateful to you, Mr. Chairman, for holding it, to our
    staffs for helping to put it together, and to our witnesses for
    being here with us today.
        A long time ago, I was a naval flight officer living in
    California, and stationed at a base about halfway between San
    Francisco and San Jose right off of Route 101. It was called
    Moffett Field Naval Air Station. We shared half of that base
    with NASA, a big NASA installation on the other half of our
    base.
        I was back visiting Moffett field, happened to be at
    Mountain View, visiting a technology company years later, and I
    revisited Moffett Field. It is no longer a naval air station,
    but NASA is still there.
        I happened to visit a facility actually using one of the
    buildings on the Moffett Field side, where they were doing some
    NASA experiments. They were trying to figure out how to create
    electricity on Mars. It was a NASA funded operation, which led
    to the development of a company now called Bloom Energy, which
    is headquartered not too far from Moffett Field in California.
        A tropical storm roared up the East Coast yesterday,
    leaving a lot of wreckage and mayhem in its path. We almost
    never have tornadoes in Delaware. We did yesterday, and the
    weather forecasters tell us, the meteorologists tell us it is
    not going to be the last hurricane that is going to come visit
    us this summer. There will be plenty more, and we are going to
    lose power during those hurricanes, as we did yesterday in
    Delaware and other parts of our country.
        There is a company now that is headquartered in California,
    but they actually have a considerable manufacturing facility in
    what used to be our Chrysler plant in the south side of the
    University of Delaware. It is called Bloom Energy, and they
    take hydrogen from natural gas, and they turn it into
    electricity. Yesterday, when the electricity went out in a
    number of places up and down the East Coast, they were able to
    restore the electricity right away by using these bloom boxes.
    Bloom boxes.
        It would be great if somehow, the hydrogen that is used in
    conjunction with fuel cells in these bloom boxes, it would be
    great if the hydrogen could be clean hydrogen, and not just
    come from carbon sources, like natural gas. I understand, I
    think one of you actually mentioned in your testimony, actually
    mentioned something about clean hydrogen production at reactor
    sites.
        I am sitting here thinking, is there a way to not only
    create through these bloom boxes, electricity for, could be a
    housing development, could be for a hospital, it could be a
    shopping center, is what they were using them for all over this
    country and around the world now.
        But the bloom boxes could be an even more environmentally
    friendly source of electrical energy in this country if we
    could somehow come up with a clean hydrogen source, and nuclear
    power plants might somehow play a role in that.
        Ms. Roma, would you just respond to that? Is that a pipe
    dream? Is that something that is realistic? I would welcome
    your thoughts, along with Mr. Cohen.
        Ms. Roma. No, I don't think it is a pipe dream, Senator, I
    think it is realistic. I think a lot of the non-power
    applications of advanced reactors are truly remarkable, from
    medical isotope reduction to water desalinization to heat
    processes, anything that you need to burn carbons for,
    hopefully can be replaced with advanced reactors. That is why I
    am in this field and excited about it.
        Senator Carper. Same question, Mr. Cohen, do you have any
    thoughts on clean hydrogen production from the nuclear power
    industry?
        Mr. Cohen. Yes, Senator Carper, definitely not a pipe
    dream. In fact, the Department of Energy right now has four
    demonstrations with four separate U.S. power companies to do
    precisely that, to test out a use of nuclear for electrolysis.
        As I mentioned earlier, the advanced reactors might even be
    better at doing that because they have higher heat, which will
    make the electrolysis process more efficient. So a lot of folks
    are chasing that right now. It should be part of the innovation
    process.
        Our recommendation, although it is not--this Committee
    doesn't have jurisdiction over the DOE R&D budget, but we are
    separately developing proposals to really put that whole effort
    of nuclear to hydrogen on fast forward.
        Senator Carper. That is great.
        Mr. Goranson, I don't want to pass you by if you have
    something you would like to add on this, you are welcome, and
    thank you.
        Mr. Goranson. With respect to using nuclear power as a
    source of clean hydrogen generation, I think from my
    perspective I think it is an ideal way to do it. In fact, I was
    thinking here while you were raising it, it was raised by a
    science fiction writer 20 years ago, about doing that. To see
    some work being done right now to make it come to reality is, I
    think, it is an important thing to do.
        Senator Carper. Good. Thanks for that.
        Mr. Chairman, I was handed a note by Lauren, who is sitting
    right behind me. The note says, France is reducing its
    dependency on nuclear power. Its goal is to reduce that
    dependency from 80 percent to maybe 50 percent by 2035,
    investing in renewables, and that is all well and good, and we
    commend them for going reliance on renewables.
        We are seeing a growing reliance on renewable here, too,
    and we are seeing a dropping reliance on nuclear, which is
    concerning to a lot of us, Democrats, Republicans, and
    Independents, for a variety of reasons that we have discussed
    here today.
        The nuclear industry, as I said earlier, has to bring their
    A game to work every day, and in several instances that I have
    described earlier, they haven't, and I have been very
    disappointed with that.
        Having said that, there is still a lot of potential here,
    and it is important for us to seize the day. I look forward to
    working with you and our colleagues that are here and those
    that aren't to achieve that.
        This won't surprise you, Mr. Chairman, but before this
    hearing ends, I want to ask for unanimous consent to submit for
    the record some statements from groups who have a real interest
    in these issues, too.
        And with that, our thanks to the witnesses, great to see
    you all, and thanks to our staff for helping us to pull all
    this together. Thank you. We look forward to following up with
    you.
        Senator Barrasso. Well, thank you, Senator Carper. Without
    objection, those are submitted for the record.
        [The referenced information follows:]
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Senator Barrasso. I also have some unanimous consent
    requests for items for the record. One is my August 3rd, 2020,
    op-ed entitled ``The Future of Nuclear Energy Is American''; a
    July 17th article from the Energy Information Administration
    entitled ``U.S. Uranium Production Fell to an All-Time Annual
    Low in 2019''; a July 2020 report from the Columbia Center of
    Global Energy Policy entitled ``Strengthening Nuclear Energy
    Cooperation Between the United States and Its Allies''; and a
    letter from the Nuclear Energy Institute supporting the draft
    American Nuclear Infrastructure Act of 2020.
        [The referenced information follows:]
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Senator Barrasso. I want to thank all of you, Ms. Roma, Mr.
    Goranson, Mr. Cohen, thank you so much for being here today.
        Other members of the Committee, and you saw a number of
    members came and left, some of them may submit additional
    questions for you to answer in writing, and we ask that you
    please respond as quickly with thorough answers as you could.
        As a result, the hearing record will remain open for 2
    weeks.
        We are so very grateful you would take the time to be with
    us and to share your knowledge and your expertise.
        With that, I want to just thank you once again for your
    time and your testimony, and the hearing is adjourned.
        [Whereupon, at 11:52 a.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
        [Additional material submitted for the record follows:]
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                     [all]