    [Senate Hearing 117-120]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                                                            S. Hrg. 117-120

                         THE LATEST DEVELOPMENTS IN THE
                         NUCLEAR ENERGY SECTOR, WITH A
                         FOCUS ON WAYS TO MAINTAIN AND
                        EXPAND THE USE OF NUCLEAR ENERGY
                        IN THE UNITED STATES AND ABROAD

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

                                    HEARING

                                   BEFORE THE

                                  COMMITTEE ON
                          ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES
                              UNITED STATES SENATE

                        ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS

                                 FIRST SESSION

                                   __________

                                 MARCH 25, 2021

                                   __________

       [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                           Printed for the use of the
                   Committee on Energy and Natural Resources

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

                           ______

                 U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
     00-000          WASHINGTON : 2023

                   COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES

                    JOE MANCHIN III, West Virginia, Chairman
    RON WYDEN, Oregon                    JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming
    MARIA CANTWELL, Washington           JAMES E. RISCH, Idaho
    BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont             MIKE LEE, Utah
    MARTIN HEINRICH, New Mexico          STEVE DAINES, Montana
    MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii              LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska
    ANGUS S. KING, JR., Maine            JOHN HOEVEN, North Dakota
    CATHERINE CORTEZ MASTO, Nevada       JAMES LANKFORD, Oklahoma
    MARK KELLY, Arizona                  BILL CASSIDY, Louisiana
    JOHN W. HICKENLOOPER, Colorado       CINDY HYDE-SMITH, Mississippi
                                         ROGER MARSHALL, Kansas

                          Renae Black, Staff Director
                          Sam E. Fowler, Chief Counsel
                    Rory Stanley, Professional Staff Member
                 Richard M. Russell, Republican Staff Director
                  Matthew H. Leggett, Republican Chief Counsel
          Justin Memmott, Republican Deputy Staff Director for Energy
                     Brad Williams, Republican INL Detailee

                                C O N T E N T S

                                  ----------

                               OPENING STATEMENTS

                                                                       Page
    Manchin III, Hon. Joe, Chairman and a U.S. Senator from West
      Virginia.......................................................     1
    Barrasso, Hon. John, Ranking Member and a U.S. Senator from
      Wyoming........................................................     2

                                   WITNESSES

    Lyash, Jeffrey J., President and Chief Executive Officer,
      Tennessee Valley Authority.....................................     4
    Levesque, Chris, President and Chief Executive Officer,
      TerraPower.....................................................    23
    Melbye, Scott, President, Uranium Producers of America, and
      Executive Vice President, Uranium Energy Corp..................    33
    Roma, Amy C., Founding Member, Nuclear Energy and National
      Security Coalition, Atlantic Council, and Partner, Hogan
      Lovells US LLP.................................................    41
    Sell, J. Clay, Chief Executive Officer, X-energy.................    59

              ALPHABETICAL LISTING AND APPENDIX MATERIAL SUBMITTED

    Barrasso, Hon. John:
        Opening Statement............................................     2
    Central Washington Building and Construction Trades Council:
        Letter for the Record........................................    72
    Grand Canyon Trust:
        Briefing for the Record......................................   150
    Industrial Energy Consumers of America:
        Comments for the Record......................................   153
    Levesque, Chris:
        Opening Statement............................................    23
        Written Testimony............................................    25
        Responses to Questions for the Record........................   104
    Lyash, Jeffrey J.:
        Opening Statement............................................     4
        Written Testimony............................................     6
        Responses to Questions for the Record........................   100
    Manchin III, Hon. Joe:
        Opening Statement............................................     1
    Melbye, Scott:
        Opening Statement............................................    33
        Written Testimony............................................    35
        Responses to Questions for the Record........................   114
    NuScale Power:
        Statement for the Record.....................................   156
    Roma, Amy C.:
        Opening Statement with attachments...........................    41
        Written Testimony............................................    43
        Responses to Questions for the Record........................   121
    Sell, J. Clay:
        Opening Statement............................................    59
        Written Testimony............................................    61
        Responses to Questions for the Record........................   139
    Tri-City Development Council:
        Letter for the Record........................................   163
    Vieira, Paul and Peter Landers:
        Wall Street Journal article entitled ``Canada Embraces
          Nuclear Energy Expansion To Lower Carbon Emissions'' dated
          March 3, 2021..............................................   165

                         THE LATEST DEVELOPMENTS IN THE

                         NUCLEAR ENERGY SECTOR, WITH A

                         FOCUS ON WAYS TO MAINTAIN AND

                        EXPAND THE USE OF NUCLEAR ENERGY

                        IN THE UNITED STATES AND ABROAD

                                  ----------

                            THURSDAY, MARCH 25, 2021

                                           U.S. Senate,
                     Committee on Energy and Natural Resources,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:45 a.m. in Room
    SD-366, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Joe Manchin III,
    Chairman of the Committee, presiding.

              OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOE MANCHIN III,
                    U.S. SENATOR FROM WEST VIRGINIA

        The Chairman. The Committee will come to order.
        First of all, thanks to all of you. I will do it more
    formally when I do this, but I want to thank you all for being
    here. It is going to be a very important meeting that we have
    today.
        I am pleased to focus our conversation today on nuclear
    technology and how we can maintain and expand the use of
    nuclear energy both domestically and abroad. I want to thank
    our witnesses, who will provide us with a vision of our nuclear
    energy future. A lot happened in the last year on the nuclear
    front. First and foremost, we passed the Energy Act with the
    Advanced Reactor Demonstration Program (ARDP), which was
    spearheaded by Senator Murkowski. We also were successful in
    lifting the Development Finance Corporation's ban on civil
    nuclear financing, allowing the U.S. to offer more competitive
    deals to the international community. Two of our witnesses,
    TerraPower and X-energy were selected as winners of the
    Department of Energy Advanced Reactor Demonstration Program--
    congratulations. And $75 million was appropriated to initiate a
    uranium reserve while we also authorized the Russian suspension
    agreement to prevent manipulation of our energy markets.
        With those accomplishments behind us, we still have a lot
    of work ahead of us. The public remains cautious about nuclear
    energy. Congress must pass legislation that allows states to
    have buy-in when it comes to the nuclear repository site
    selection and construction and we must ensure that the National
    Nuclear Security Administration has the proper resources to
    operate their non-proliferation and safeguards program in
    coordination with the International Atomic Energy Agency. I
    look forward to working with members of this Committee to
    accomplish these objectives.
        But today, I want to focus on our efforts to build advanced
    reactors. The Department of Energy and our national
    laboratories play a central role in leading this effort in
    concert with private advanced nuclear energy companies. This
    public-private relationship is incredibly important, especially
    in delivering financing to commercialize these reactors.
    Already, private investments have surpassed $1.3 billion. This
    is largely because of their enormous market potential for
    electricity, process heat for manufacturing, electrolysis for
    hydrogen production, and desalinization.
        We include important provisions with the Energy Act,
    directing the continued research on how to develop hybrid and
    integrated energy systems to operate seamlessly together. Idaho
    National Lab (INL), the National Renewable Energy Lab (NREL),
    and the National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL) in
    Morgantown, West Virginia, are leaders in this effort. Nuclear
    power provides about ten percent of the world's electricity and
    prevents approximately two gigatons of carbon from reaching our
    atmosphere every year. But about 789 million people around the
    world still live without any electricity. Nuclear energy can be
    part of delivering that electricity to lift people out of
    poverty and provide the opportunities that many have become
    accustomed to. The Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) was created
    to do that very thing during the Great Depression. This is a
    model that can inform our efforts, both domestically and
    abroad. Russia and China have made a strategic effort to
    supplant our nuclear leadership over recent years and we must
    push back. With the necessary policy and funding, we can
    maintain our nuclear supply chain, create high-paying
    manufacturing jobs, and reassert U.S. leaderships.
        We also need to discuss the role of our existing fleet,
    where we are seeing more closures. This year alone, five
    reactors at three locations with 5.1-gigawatt capacity are
    slated to close. The International Energy Agency (IEA) found
    that across the advanced economies, if countries continue to
    allow nuclear reactors to be prematurely shut down, it will be
    $80 billion a year more costly to meet emission goals--that is
    $80 billion more each year. Lifetime extensions are cheaper
    than new builds and are generally cost-competitive with other
    generation technologies. We cannot afford to let this carbon-
    free energy resource fade out.
        So with that I will turn it over to the Ranking Member,
    Senator Barrasso, for his opening statement.

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

        Senator Barrasso. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
    Thanks for holding this very important hearing today.
        Now more than ever, Washington must advance policies to
    preserve and expand the use of nuclear energy. Nuclear
    technology is fundamental to meeting our energy, environmental,
    and national security goals. Nuclear power is our nation's
    largest source of carbon-free energy. In turn, it is critical
    to reliable, resilient, and affordable electric service. During
    last month's cold snap, nuclear power plants, by one key
    metric, outperformed all other energy sources. For the last 75
    years, America's nuclear energy industry has been the world's
    leader in safety, as well as performance. We need to ensure our
    leadership endures.
        As we speak, America's adversaries, Russia and China, seek
    to undermine our nuclear industry. Russia and its satellites
    have intentionally dumped uranium into our market. They
    undercut American uranium producers and processors. They drive
    our companies out of business. America's uranium production is
    so low, it is now at a level not seen since the 1940s. We are
    on the brink of finding ourselves completely reliant on foreign
    uranium to power our nuclear power plants. This is
    unacceptable. The Biden Administration must take decisive
    action to prevent this from happening. Last year, Congress
    appropriated $75 million to establish a national uranium
    reserve. This year, Secretary [of Energy] Granholm should
    complete the establishment of the reserve, begin a purchasing
    program, and buy American-produced uranium. We must maintain
    our ability to produce and process our own uranium.
        In addition to losing our uranium producers, we are also
    losing our nuclear reactors. Currently, we have 94 operating
    nuclear reactors. These reactors provide 20 percent of our
    nation's electricity. Since 2013, 11 reactors have shut down.
    Even more are scheduled to retire by 2025, including five this
    year. Many of these plants could safely remain online for
    decades. While the reasons for these closures may be complex,
    too often they result in carbon emissions going up nationally
    and electricity reliability going down. That is why Senators
    Whitehouse, Crapo, Booker, and I introduced the American
    Nuclear Infrastructure Act. We did that last Congress. Among
    other things, the bill would keep reactors online that are at
    risk of closing prematurely. Last December, the Environment and
    Public Works Committee reported this bill with broad bipartisan
    support.
        Innovation will also be key to re-establishing America's
    leadership in nuclear energy. Two years ago, President Trump
    signed into law the Nuclear Energy Innovation and Modernization
    Act. It is a bill I introduced along with Chairman Manchin and
    Senator Risch and others. This bill established a network for
    the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to approve advanced
    nuclear reactor designs. Over the next decade, we expect
    advanced nuclear technologies to be deployed. New reactors will
    be safer, smaller, and more efficient. Advanced nuclear
    reactors will generate less nuclear waste, some may even run on
    previously used nuclear fuel. Advanced nuclear technologies
    will enable new market opportunities beyond the electricity
    sector. The heat from advanced nuclear reactors can drive a
    variety of industrial processes. It can improve the efficiency
    of chemical and hydrogen production. This heat can clean up
    wastewater and make salt water from our oceans usable. Advanced
    nuclear reactors will also improve access to materials used to
    diagnose and to treat diseases. They will even power missions
    to space.
        The world is looking to nuclear power to meet its energy
    and environmental goals. We must ensure American technologies
    are leading in this global expansion of nuclear energy.
    American leadership in this sector is critical. It is critical
    to ensure nuclear energy is used safely for our peaceful
    purposes. Today, we will hear directly from the industry
    executives working to maintain our historic leadership in
    nuclear energy. I look forward to the testimony.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Barrasso.
        And now, let me welcome our highly qualified panel of
    witnesses for their opening statements.
        Starting with Mr. Jeffrey Lyash, who is President and CEO
    of the Tennessee Valley Authority. Mr. Lyash, thank you for
    being here.

     STATEMENT OF JEFFREY J. LYASH, PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE
                  OFFICER, TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY

        Mr. Lyash. Thank you, Chairman Manchin, Ranking Member
    Barrasso, and members of the Committee, and thank you for the
    opportunity to appear today and to represent one of the
    nation's largest and most innovative utilities and a corporate
    agency of the Federal Government, the Tennessee Valley
    Authority. My career began in the energy industry 40 years ago
    and it included service at the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
    Commission and in both public and investor-owned utilities. I
    spent a significant portion of my career building, maintaining,
    and operating nuclear facilities and I believe that nuclear
    energy plays an important role in our nation's current and
    future energy supply. I appreciate the Committee's interest in
    this important resource.
        TVA has a clear mission to serve the nation and the people
    of the Tennessee Valley. Our employees deliver on this mission
    by focusing on three mission-related areas: first, energy--low-
    cost and reliable; second, environmental stewardship--
    protecting and managing natural resources; and third, economic
    development--attracting and retaining jobs and capital
    investment. It's as powerful a mission as I have seen in my
    career and TVA funds this mission entirely from energy sales--
    no federal appropriations. As I look to the future, the
    alignment and interdependency of these three mission elements
    only grows stronger. Energy, environment, and the economy must
    move together and forward in balanced lockstep. A core TVA
    strength is our diverse and clean generating portfolio, one of
    the most diverse in the industry, including hydroelectric
    power, renewable energy, natural gas, a lessening contribution
    from coal, and the nation's third largest nuclear fleet. Our
    power system is one of the most reliable in the industry. We
    serve many rural communities over a seven-state region that is
    economically disadvantaged. So the price of electricity in our
    region matters. We have kept energy costs low and stable for
    most of the last decade and we intend to keep them flat.
        Our system is also one of the nation's cleanest, with 60
    percent coming from carbon-free sources last year. The
    aggregate of this supports quality economic growth in a region
    that is home to ten million people. In the past five years, TVA
    has helped deliver 341,000 jobs and over $45 billion in capital
    investment to the region. Consistent with our environmental
    stewardship mission, we are a leader in carbon reduction,
    having already lowered our greenhouse gas emissions by 60
    percent when compared to the 2005 benchmark. We accomplished
    this by incorporating renewable energy assets, replacing aging
    plants with new, high-efficiency natural gas and, importantly,
    expanding our nuclear program. We are committed to continuing
    this effort by executing our plan to reduce emissions 70
    percent by 2030 and building a path using existing technology,
    including nuclear power to an 80 percent reduction. Of course,
    our aspiration is to achieve net-zero carbon emissions and to
    support broader, national efforts to decarbonize the economy.
    If we continue to lower greenhouse gas emissions without
    sacrificing cost and reliability, efficient electrification
    could be a key to decarbonizing other sectors of the economy.
    We already see this in the rapid development of electric
    transportation technology.
        Electricity as a percentage of final energy has risen from
    three percent in 1950 to 21 percent in 2020, and studies
    project that this could be 40 percent by 2050. As electricity
    grows, so will customers' need for affordability and
    reliability, and our challenge is to lower existing fleet
    carbon emissions while adding reliable and affordable low-
    carbon resources to support electrification. Maintaining
    balance between price, reliability, electrical generation-
    sector CO2 reduction, and efficient electrification
    will help deliver a sustainable economic advantage. Now, this
    will require investment in technologies such as energy storage,
    carbon capture, low-carbon fuels, and advanced nuclear design.
    Currently, 42 percent of TVA's total power supply comes from
    nuclear, and I believe that nuclear energy will play a critical
    role in our collective path to a net-zero carbon future. This
    large-scale energy source delivers reliability, cost
    effectiveness, and carbon-free energy, and its dispatchability,
    fuel stability and security, diversity, and its regional,
    positive economic impact is unmatched and, frankly, it's
    unrecognized in the organized market.
        Optimizing and extending the operating lifetime of our
    nuclear fleet has to be a primary focus. We've already extended
    the lives from 40 to 60 years and we will shortly extend to 80,
    perhaps 100. But while extending the lives [of these reactors]
    is critical, it's not sufficient. TVA is actively engaged in
    developing new nuclear technology for tomorrow. Enabling new
    nuclear here will take innovation and creativity, but it also
    takes old school discipline and hard work. The momentum for new
    reactors is growing and that momentum can lead us to a diverse
    portfolio of advanced reactors to meet new needs. At TVA, we
    received an early site permit from the NRC for our Clinch River
    site. We're currently executing the environmental assessment
    process as the next step to establish this as a future option
    and our team is engaged with technology developers, including
    those that are here today to understand cost and risk
    associated with various reactor designs. When we begin site-
    specific engineering, it will be after an extensive and careful
    series of preparations. Our current schedule is to have a small
    modular reactor, perhaps in service, at Clinch River by 2032.
        In summary, TVA has long been a leader in technology
    innovation. Nearly 90 years after our founding, pursuing new
    ideas and innovative solutions is an important part of
    everything we do. We believe nuclear technology plays a
    critical role in maintaining the necessary balance between
    price, reliability, generation-sector carbon dioxide reduction,
    and efficient electrification that will help deliver on our
    environmental goals and build sustainable economic advantage
    for the country.
        Thank you. I look forward to answering your questions.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Lyash follows:]
    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Lyash.
        Next we have Mr. Levesque, President and CEO of TerraPower.
        Mr. Levesque.

      STATEMENT OF CHRIS LEVESQUE, PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE
                          OFFICER, TERRAPOWER

        Mr. Levesque. Thank you, Chairman Manchin, Ranking Member
    Barrasso, and members of the Committee. My name is Chris
    Levesque and I'm the Chief Executive Officer of TerraPower.
        TerraPower was founded by Bill Gates and Nathan Myhrvold in
    2006 to solve the dual challenges of the growing global demand
    for energy and the rising threat of climate change. Our mission
    is to improve nuclear energy delivery using 21st century
    technologies to increase safety, reduce costs, reduce the risks
    of weapons proliferation, minimize waste, and more efficiently
    use fuel. America is well-positioned to lead on advanced
    nuclear. TerraPower's goal is to provide a commercial product
    that provides reliable, zero-carbon, cost-effective energy
    solutions.
        This is a critical period for nuclear power. Nuclear
    provides a majority of the clean energy in the United States.
    It is now America's second largest single source of
    electricity. But more nuclear plants are slated for closure
    than are currently being built. As the Intergovernmental Panel
    on Climate Change has noted, meeting aggressive climate goals
    requires expanding global nuclear capacity in the coming
    decades. This presents an opportunity for our industry both
    here and, importantly, globally, to meet this growing demand.
    Thankfully, the Committee recognizes it is time to demonstrate
    and deploy American advanced nuclear technology.
        Last year, TerraPower was grateful to win a competitive
    award for the Advanced Reactor Demonstration Program, a program
    authorized by this Committee, to demonstrate our Natrium
    technology. Natrium is designed to meet the energy needs of the
    21st century electrical grid, which is facing growing
    resiliency challenges as fossil plants are retired, and clean
    but intermittent sources like wind and solar are deployed in
    mass. Natrium not only generates clean energy at 345 megawatts
    rated electrical output, it could also store heat from our
    reactor in a molten salt storage system, allowing it to deliver
    500 megawatts of power for five and a half hours. Such storage
    capability is four times greater than the largest lithium
    battery storage system in the world. It allows Natrium to work
    well with renewables, like wind and solar. This is a benefit
    because as more utilities plan to dramatically reduce or even
    eliminate emissions and pollution from their power systems,
    they need firm, dispatchable power and hours-long storage
    capability that batteries cannot economically provide.
        We are confident that Natrium's cost and safety profiles
    will make it an attractive option for utilities around the
    world. Natrium's novel architecture provides significant
    improvements in safety. Instead of water, Natrium uses sodium
    as our coolant, which has a boiling point of 882 degrees
    Celsius. Unlike conventional reactors, Natrium operates at
    atmospheric pressure and its operating temperature is hundreds
    of degrees below the boiling point of the coolant. This greatly
    reduces the likelihood and, importantly, the severity of any
    accident. Our design relies on natural forces, like convection
    to cool the reactor after an unexpected shutdown. Because
    inherent safety is built into the reactor design, we are able
    to reduce the number of man-made systems needed to ensure
    safety, which results in cost savings. In addition, the Natrium
    architecture separates the energy storage and electricity
    production systems from the nuclear island, allowing us to
    further decrease costs.
        The Committee has also recognized the role the Federal
    Government can play in developing advanced nuclear technology,
    like it has for civil nuclear advances over the past half
    century. Companies like TerraPower and X-energy have spent many
    years and hundreds of millions of dollars to develop our
    technologies. The Advanced Reactor Demonstration Program
    (ARDP), which establishes a 50/50 cost share program to build
    the first commercial-scale units to demonstrate the technology,
    comes at a critical moment. If Congress continues to fully fund
    the ARDP, we will have multiple advanced reactors, fully
    demonstrated and commercially available in the late 2020s--
    reactors that will help the United States decarbonize, create
    good, high-paying jobs, and allow our country to re-establish
    leadership, strengthening our nation's security. We urge
    Congress to continue funding the ARDP at the levels required to
    demonstrate both of these reactors under the timeframe Congress
    mandated.
        TerraPower appreciates the Committee's bipartisan support
    for nuclear. Do recognize that the country that owns the
    advanced nuclear transition will be a leader in the global
    nuclear market. As countries around the world turn to nuclear
    energy for reliable, clean, and abundant energy, we will have
    American technology options to offer them. I look forward to
    taking your questions.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Levesque follows:]

      [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Levesque.
        And next we have Mr. Scott Melbye, President of the Uranium
    Producers of America.
        Mr. Melbye.

      STATEMENT OF SCOTT MELBYE, PRESIDENT, URANIUM PRODUCERS OF
       AMERICA, AND EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT, URANIUM ENERGY CORP

        Mr. Melbye. Thank you, Chairman Manchin and Ranking Member
    Barrasso. It is an honor to testify before the Senate Energy
    and Natural Resources Committee. I am a second-generation
    American uranium miner and currently President of the Uranium
    Producers of America and Executive Vice President of Uranium
    Energy Corp, with operations in Texas and Wyoming. I have 36
    years of experience in every facet of the international nuclear
    fuel cycle, from the production and global marketing of uranium
    to its use as clean energy fuel in the Palo Verde Nuclear
    Station near Phoenix, Arizona.
        This is an exciting time for nuclear, which is already
    providing electricity in one in five American homes and over
    half of our nation's carbon-free power. Nuclear power can work
    hand-in-hand with other green technologies, like wind and solar
    to help advance the American clean energy revolution. But the
    United States must establish its global nuclear leadership,
    including a robust nuclear fuel cycle that has been eroded by
    Russia, China, and state-owned entities in recent years.
    America is dangerously close to losing our uranium fuel
    industrial base. We lack a domestic enrichment capacity, free
    of control by foreign powers. The sole U.S. conversion facility
    in Illinois has been idle since 2017 and will restart
    operations in 2023. We are nearly completely dependent on
    foreign uranium imports, state-owned entities in Russia,
    Kazakhstan, and Uzbekistan, for supplying almost half the fuel
    used by America's reactor fleet. And Chinese state-owned
    entities are capturing large portions of global uranium mining
    capacity, taking supply out of the free market and putting it
    under Beijing's control.
        Uranium is also required for naval propulsion and nuclear
    deterrents, the pure essence of what it means to be a critical
    mineral. The 93 small modular reactors in our fleet of 82
    aircraft carriers and submarines have defended our interests
    safely and reliably since the 1950s. These reactors must rely
    on U.S.-origin uranium, which is unobligated to the controls of
    foreign nations, and we need to retain our ability to
    independently refuel them. TVA's tritium production and
    Department of Defense microreactors have similar domestic
    uranium requirements. Absent a renewed commitment to America's
    nuclear fuel cycle, we are jeopardizing our defense
    capabilities and our clean energy goals. Russia and China fully
    leverage energy dominance to their geopolitical advantage.
    They're playing a long game in a way America is not, using
    their nuclear energy clout to strengthen geopolitical ties with
    energy-starved countries around the world. America is also
    risking its seat at the global non-proliferation table.
        The similarities to our rare earth mineral dependence on
    China are startling, but it doesn't have to be this way and it
    isn't too late. We have over one billion pounds of uranium in
    known and likely deposits in the United States. With 21st
    century conventional mining practices and environmentally
    friendly in situ uranium recovery technology, the modern
    uranium mining industry is very different than was the case
    back in the 1950s. We are highly regulated and have embraced,
    for many reasons, the world's highest health, safety, and
    environmental protection standards, and we are cost-competitive
    globally, but for the price undercutting tactics of state-owned
    companies. With swift action to implement the strategic uranium
    reserve, the Department of Energy can take advantage of the
    licensed infrastructure and human resources we still have on
    standby. Congress recently appropriated $75 million for the
    uranium reserve on a bipartisan basis, and with the support of
    nuclear utilities, it is crucial the Department move quickly to
    begin purchasing uranium this year. This will preserve the
    industrial base, guard against global supply disruptions, and
    create a source of U.S.-origin uranium for defense needs. We
    urge Congress to grant the full funding recommended over the
    next ten years by the interagency Nuclear Fuel Working Group
    led by the Department of Energy. One hundred fifty million
    dollars a year is a modest investment, considering it will
    preserve the nuclear fuel cycle in the U.S. instead of ceding
    it to China, Russia, and their allies.
        In closing, I applaud this Committee for exploring ways to
    advance America's nuclear leadership and capabilities in
    support of clean energy goals, national security, and our
    global competitive presence. I look forward to taking any
    questions that you may have.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Melbye follows:]

        [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Melbye.
        And next, we have Ms. Amy Roma, Founding Member of the
    Atlantic Council's Nuclear Energy and National Security
    Coalition and a Partner in the law firm, Hogan Lovells.
        Ms. Roma.

     STATEMENT OF AMY C. ROMA, FOUNDING MEMBER, NUCLEAR ENERGY AND
      NATIONAL SECURITY COALITION, ATLANTIC COUNCIL, AND PARTNER,
                          HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP

        Ms. Roma. Good morning. My name is Amy Roma and I am a
    member of the Atlantic Council's Nuclear Energy and National
    Security Coalition and a lawyer at Hogan Lovells. Thank you for
    the opportunity to testify today.
        Commercial nuclear power has always served as an important
    tool to achieve U.S. national security objectives and U.S.
    economic 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. First, it prevented the spread of nuclear
    weapons. Second, it made the United States the leader in
    nuclear power, ensuring the U.S. maintained dominance in
    nuclear safety, security, innovation, and nuclear trade. And
    third, 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 long
    positioned as the global leader in commercial nuclear power
    and, remarkably, the same arguments used to support nuclear
    trade after World War II are still just as relevant today. That
    is that the United States should lead in nuclear trade because
    if we do not, another country will. And while the U.S. still
    has the largest nuclear fleet and best-run plants in the world,
    we have seen our international role as a global leader in
    nuclear power sharply decline, replaced largely by Russia, with
    China close behind.
        Russia and China have identified building nuclear power
    plants and nuclear trade as national priorities promoted by the
    highest level of government and backed by state financing and
    state-owned enterprises. Their focus has paid off. Nuclear
    power plants are being built all around the world. But Russia
    is building them. Russia uses nuclear exports as a tool to
    exert foreign influence and reaps significant economic gains
    with a claimed $133 billion in orders for foreign reactors.
    Nuclear energy is also a component of China's ``Belt and Road''
    initiative, with China estimating it could have $145 billion in
    orders for foreign reactors and create five million Chinese
    jobs. The U.S. nuclear power industry, competing against state
    governments for new projects, has quickly been sidelined on the
    foreign stage with no new orders for nuclear reactors abroad.
        The global market opportunity is huge and growing and the
    impact of the lack of U.S. leadership is widely felt. The
    current market for new nuclear is already in the hundreds of
    billions of dollars. If carbon mitigation measures are
    deployed, the global nuclear market would be in the trillions
    of dollars. Sitting by the wayside and letting Russia and China
    continue to capture this market hurts not only our country's
    economic interests, but also undermines U.S. national security,
    technical innovation, and geopolitical interest. Russian energy
    policy, in particular, expressly recognizes the export of
    energy technologies as a geostrategic tool to promote Russian
    national security. As one example, Egypt and Russia recently
    finalized a $21 billion contract for the Russians to supply
    four reactors in Egypt. A few months later, Egypt and Russia
    announced a preliminary agreement to allow Russian military
    jets to use its air space and bases. This agreement will give
    Russia its deepest presence in Egypt since 1973.
        While China appears to generally view nuclear power exports
    as an important economic opportunity, its expansion in
    developing new nuclear technologies also has defense
    implications. For example, China plans to build a number of
    floating nuclear reactors to provide power to the artificial
    islands that it is currently building in the South China Sea, a
    hotly contested area. These same weapons can support not only
    power for these islands, but also provide power for advanced
    weaponry.
        While the U.S. has ceded the current mantle, we have a
    chance to regain it when it comes to the next generation of
    advanced reactors, where we hold a significant innovation edge.
    In particular, the U.S. leads the world in the development of
    advanced fission reactors as well as the nation's fusion
    industry. These advanced technologies are diverse, but share
    common design features, such as they are simple, scalable, and
    safe and can be used for both power and non-power applications
    such as hydrogen production, water desalinization, and process
    heat for industrial uses. U.S. innovation, when properly
    supported, can stand up to state-backed competitors. We saw
    this recently in the aerospace market. In 2013, Russia
    controlled about half of the launch industry. Due in large part
    to the success of SpaceX, shepherded by NASA's Commercial
    Orbital Transportation Services (COTS) program, Russia is now
    estimated to capture only ten percent of the market. We came
    back with a one-two punch. First, the punch of U.S. innovation,
    and second, the punch of the U.S. Government providing
    commercialization support.
        So we can emerge here as a global leader in nuclear power
    with U.S. Government support. The opportunity is there. We have
    the innovation and the stakes are worth it. Thank you and I'm
    happy to answer any questions that you may have.
        [The prepared statement of Ms. Roma follows:]

       [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        The Chairman. Thank you, Ms. Roma.
        And now we have Mr. Sell. He is our final presenter and he
    is CEO of X-energy.
        Mr. Sell.

                      STATEMENT OF J. CLAY SELL,
                   CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, X-ENERGY

        Mr. Sell. Chairman Manchin, Ranking Member Barrasso, and
    members of the Committee, thank you again for the opportunity
    to provide testimony today on current developments in the U.S.
    nuclear energy sector. I respectfully request that my full
    written testimony be submitted for the record and I will
    briefly summarize my remarks.
        The Chairman. Without objection.
        Mr. Sell. My name, again, is Clay Sell and I'm the Chief
    Executive of X-energy, a clean energy technology company
    founded by Dr. Kam Ghaffarian. We are developing Generation IV,
    high-temperature, gas-cooled, nuclear reactors and we are also
    a manufacturer of special TRISO-X fuel used in our reactors and
    other advanced reactors emerging on the market. Our commercial
    plant has four 80-megawatt electric modules and totals 320
    megawatt electric. It's in an optimized configuration sharing a
    single control center and other plant infrastructure. Our plant
    is intrinsically safe, benefits from a simplified and flexible
    design, and is economically attractive for a variety of
    electricity and process heat applications. This is the plant
    that we will build with our utility partner, Energy Northwest,
    as part of the Advanced Reactor Demonstration Program,
    authorized by this Committee and signed into law last year. Our
    DOE award will deliver a project requiring approximately $2.5
    billion in expenditures between now and 2027 to achieve three
    major scopes of work. We will complete the final design and
    licensing of the plant at the U.S. NRC. We will license and
    construct the first phase of our commercial fuel plant in this
    program, and we will construct, fuel, and commission the
    commercial-scale plant in Richland, Washington.
        I came back to the nuclear industry with X-energy two years
    ago after ten years in the oil and gas and renewable
    development business. I do have a passion for nuclear energy
    and I've had it for
    20-plus years, but that is not the reason I came back to
    nuclear energy. I came back because of the immensity of the
    business opportunity before us. With global energy demand
    increasing by 50 percent by 2050 and the need to dramatically
    reduce carbon emissions, the business opportunity for nuclear
    power is simply massive. And we at X-energy see a different
    future for nuclear power than what has gone on before and we
    are creating it with the help of visionary leaders in the
    Congress and the Department of Energy. I believe the
    revitalization of the U.S. nuclear industry is a strategic
    imperative for our country.
        Now, as I testify along Mr. Levesque from TerraPower--they
    are the other U.S. company that was awarded a demonstration
    contract. I just want to make something clear--TerraPower, as a
    company, is a respected competitor and a company that we hold
    in the highest regard. But they are not the real competition.
    The real competition, as you've heard in other testimony today,
    is state-owned, Chinese and Russian companies. And today, those
    companies have replaced the United States as the dominant
    sellers of new nuclear power plants in the world. The Chinese
    and Russian enterprises know that nuclear power plant sales in
    foreign markets create 80- to 100-year relationships that
    become tightly woven into the fabric and destiny of a country's
    energy and critical industrial infrastructure. If the U.S. will
    not, or if the U.S. cannot compete in these export markets, the
    resulting global realignment of nuclear commerce will
    negatively impact our national security interests and our
    international influence for decades to come. In this
    geopolitical light, the Advanced Reactor Demonstration Program
    takes on even greater importance and value. I know that
    Congress recognizes this and sees the ARDP as a necessary and
    powerful tool that will reinvigorate our domestic and export
    industries, including uranium production and domestic
    enrichment capabilities, thereby allowing the U.S. to reclaim
    its position of global leadership and influence now.
        I would like to highlight three challenges that require
    continued vigilance. First, availability of sufficient
    quantities of high-assay low-enriched uranium, known as HALEU,
    to fuel both the X-energy and TerraPower reactors. We will need
    that beginning in 2024 and it remains a critical concern. The
    Committee has provided strong leadership, but I have outlined
    additional policies in my written testimony that I respectfully
    urge the Committee to pursue. Second, continued reform and
    evolution of the NRC licensing framework, appropriate to the
    reduced risk and improved safety cases of advanced reactors,
    will require continued vigilance. And finally, predictable and
    consistent appropriations to match the billions of dollars of
    private capital committed to these demonstrations will be
    essential to delivering the projects on schedule by 2027.
        I hope I have provided you some insight into the value of
    this program and the exciting market opportunities. At X-
    energy, we are proud to join with the leadership of the
    Committee to reclaim our global leadership position in this
    great American-born industry to create thousands of new, high-
    paying American jobs, to enhance our energy and national
    security, and to ensure the high standards for safety and
    security around the world.
        Thank you for the opportunity to testify. I look forward to
    your questions.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Sell follows:]

     [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        The Chairman. I want to thank all of you experts for your
    presentations. We appreciate it very much.
        I am going to turn it over now to Senator Barrasso. I have
    to go to a quick meeting. I will be right back. He will start
    with the questioning and we will continue with questions.
        Senator Barrasso.
        Senator Barrasso. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Melbye, could you please explain why it is so important
    that the United States maintain our ability to produce and
    process our own uranium?
        Mr. Melbye. Well, Senator Barrasso, uranium, as you know,
    is a critical mineral in every sense of the definition, not
    only supplying 20 percent of our electricity in the United
    States, it is over half of our carbon-free energy, and the use
    in The Nuclear Navy and other defense programs cannot be
    understated where we definitely have to have the domestic
    infrastructure available to support those programs. It's also
    about nuclear leadership around the world as well, as we're
    going to be competitive against China and Russia in competing
    in markets for these advanced reactors, including small modular
    reactors. We need to have the whole package, and fuel cycle is
    part of that. It's something our competitors--our government
    competitors are offering. We need to be competitive in that as
    well.
        Senator Barrasso. So last year Congress appropriated $75
    million to establish the Strategic Uranium Reserve through the
    Department of Energy. Why is it so urgent that the Department
    establish that reserve, begin a pre-purchasing program, and buy
    American-produced uranium this year?
        Mr. Melbye. Well, Senator Barrasso, as you know, the
    uranium market conditions have really been crushed by, I would
    call it, predatory pricing by these state-owned entities, but
    we still have the infrastructure in place. We still have the
    companies and expertise hanging on to recover and grow and not
    just survive, but thrive in the uranium industry, but we do
    need that support, urgently. We've gone through quite a period
    of low uranium prices, but the promise of the uranium reserve
    has already resulted in significant serious measures being
    taken at a number of our member companies to advance their
    operations, to be ready to supply into that uranium reserve
    very quickly.
        Senator Barrasso. Thank you.
        Mr. Levesque, I appreciate you joining us from the other
    side of the country and I appreciate the work that you have
    been doing. In your testimony, you discuss how TerraPower's
    Natrium advanced nuclear reactor is safer to operate, produces
    lower volumes of waste, and is cheaper to build than
    conventional light-water reactors. You also discuss how the
    Natrium reactor will power a molten salt energy storage system,
    which can store much more energy than a typical battery storage
    facility could do.
        Could you elaborate on the benefits of the Natrium reactor?
        Mr. Levesque. Yes, Senator, I would be happy to.
        You know, and I should begin by referencing the great safe
    operating record of light-water reactors that are operated by
    TVA, for example, that Mr. Lyash discussed. I have, in fact,
    operated light-water reactors earlier in my career as a
    submarine officer. Those reactors are very safe and TerraPower
    totally agrees that light-water reactors, like the ones at TVA,
    should have license extensions to 60, 80 years, possibly more.
        So beginning with that great safety record, there are, in
    fact, technologies that have been developed in the national
    labs for literally decades, and by companies like TerraPower
    and X-energy, that are now ready for demonstration. To focus on
    TerraPower's Natrium technology, as I mentioned, Natrium is a
    sodium-cooled reactor. So where past reactor designs--the ones
    that have been demonstrated by the U.S. in the late '50s at the
    Shippingport Station, for example--past reactor designs are
    water-cooled, high-pressure systems. Natrium is a low-pressure
    system that operates hundreds of degrees Centigrade from the
    boiling point of the coolant, which is sodium. That offers
    great safety benefits. Also, sodium naturally retains
    radioactive materials like iodine and cesium so you don't have
    to worry about those radioactive isotopes getting out into the
    containment and into the environment. So it offers an order-of-
    magnitude lower accident and severity rate on an already great
    record in the light-water reactors today. Also, the fact that
    it's a low-pressure system is really important for reducing
    cost. Light-water reactors today are high-pressure systems that
    not only need very heavy components, but need heavy piping
    systems and heavy civil structures, heavy buildings and steel
    to support them. If you start with a lower pressure system,
    your components can then be lighter and your civil structures
    can then be lighter and cheaper as well.
        TerraPower also has a really novel architecture. Instead of
    boiling water with our reactor heat directly--the way reactors
    have done for over 50 years--we looked really closely at what's
    going on with the grids today and the growing expansion of wind
    and solar, which is good for clean energy and good for
    decarbonization. But that's creating grid resiliency issues and
    energy storage needs. So with Natrium, what we're doing with
    the heat, before we boil the water to run turbines the
    conventional way, we first store the heat in large molten salt
    storage tanks--the same technology that concentrated solar
    plants have today because they have to deal with the sun going
    in and out--but their customer demand is there all the time. So
    what Natrium does on top of having these safety and cost
    benefits, it's really the first American nuclear reactor--first
    nuclear reactor anywhere--that offers energy storage. And
    instead of being a baseload supply of electricity, as nuclear
    has been for 50 years, Natrium now provides a peaking
    capability that can ramp up and down as intermittent sources
    like wind and solar come and go.
        Senator Barrasso [presiding]. Thanks so very much.
        Senator Cantwell.
        Senator Cantwell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and thank you to
    you and Senator Manchin for holding this important hearing.
    Obviously, the State of Washington has had a long history in
    nuclear power and I think that continues today. We are here to
    talk about the impacts of the next generation of nuclear
    energy. And I would say that the workforce in the Tri-Cities is
    especially excited about that. They have had a long history
    there, today over 12,000
    nuclear-skilled scientists, engineers, and craft workers are
    working there in 100 different companies. So it certainly is a
    home to a lot. Columbia Basin and Washington State University
    campuses offer bachelor's, master's and Ph.D.s in nuclear-
    related fields, and the region hosts a strong apprentice
    program. In fact, I would like to enter, if I could, Mr.
    Chairman, into the record, a letter from Nick Bumpaous,
    President of 16 affiliated unions of Central Washington, in
    support of DOE's Advanced Reactor Demonstration Program.
        Senator Barrasso. Without objection, so ordered.
        Senator Cantwell. Thank you.
        [Letter from Nick Bumpaous, President of CWB&CTC follows:]

        [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Senator Cantwell. Obviously, PNNL [Pacific Northwest
    National Laboratory] gets a lot of money, $400 million, I
    think, a year to do R&D in nuclear-related fields. So we are
    very excited overall about this next generation of clean power.
        Mr. Sell and Mr. Levesque, you both testified to the
    benefits, particularly in comparison to light-water reactors,
    but how integral is the federal support for the advanced
    nuclear energy technology as a continuation to meeting our
    goals? And how important is Washington State's Clean Energy
    Transformation Act, you know, requiring sources be carbon-free
    by 2030, as a motivation to keep going? Also, I wanted to, you
    know, I should just mention, I certainly appreciate Bill Gates'
    and Nathan Myhrvold's efforts on TerraPower over a long period
    of time and recognition that the company is there.
        And Mr. Sell, you and I just had a conversation about X-
    energy's larger footprint in the Tri-Cities, so anyway, we're
    all good. So maybe just tell the rest of us about the state's
    initiative and the federal support and what we need to keep
    doing.
        Mr. Sell. The first thing I will say is the federal support
    through the Advanced Reactor Demonstration Program is critical
    to seeing first-of-a-kind reactors built.
        Senator Cantwell. You mean commercialization?
        Mr. Sell. Yes, I mean, we are demonstrating a full-scale
    commercial plant, just like the plant that we will sell in
    Canada, that we hope to sell to TVA, that we hope to sell
    around the world. But the first plant is always the most
    challenging one to get built because all of the inherent risks
    associated with the first-of-a-kind plant. And so the federal
    support, in our case, is putting $1.2 billion into the project,
    but the private sector is matching that with $1.2 billion. So
    it's a critical accelerator to investment.
        We wanted to be in Washington State for our first-of-a-kind
    project. We wanted to partner with Energy Northwest. We have
    great regard for their CEO, Brad Sawatzke, and the way he has
    dramatically improved the operations of their single nuclear
    reactor over the last ten years. But the critical thing was the
    way the market has been shaped by the Clean Energy
    Transformation Act in Washington, that was passed in 2019. That
    is the most transformative thing that has happened in nuclear
    energy markets in the United States because it has created the
    commercial framework for nuclear to succeed and to succeed
    wildly. And as Washington State phases out coal by 2027 and
    then natural gas by 2045, that's going to generate an eight-
    gigawatt gap of baseload, emissions-free power that needs to be
    filled. And the opportunity to do that with nuclear power, to
    continue the great nuclear tradition in Washington State, to
    continue the great tradition of emissions-free generation, is
    something that we really look forward to doing in Washington
    State by 2027 and we anticipate that we'll break ground on the
    initial non-nuclear construction there by the middle of 2023.
        Senator Cantwell. Mr. Levesque, hard to top that, but you
    can try.
        Mr. Levesque. Yes, nice to see you again, Senator Cantwell,
    and thanks for all your support in Washington. TerraPower is
    based in Bellevue, Washington, near Seattle. I completely agree
    with Mr. Sell's points on the kind of federal and state support
    that has really been positive in the last couple of years. I'll
    elaborate a little bit on the design of the Advanced Reactor
    Demonstration Program. It's really an excellent program for
    many reasons. I think the chief reason being the public and
    private cost share.
        These technologies that we're talking about, Generation IV
    advanced nuclear technologies, they've been worked on in the
    national labs for up to 20 years. TerraPower is a 14-year-old
    company. We have been working on the Natrium design with
    private investment, funding work at national labs, but all that
    work is really for naught if we don't demonstrate the reactor.
    These will just be power points and technical papers if we
    don't demonstrate the new technology, the way the U.S. did in
    the late 1950s. We demonstrated light-water technology at the
    Shippingport Station in Pennsylvania, which led to 400 reactors
    around the world based on U.S.-origin technology. If we don't
    demonstrate now, all of this technology investment that's been
    made by companies like TerraPower, X-energy, and government
    investment at the national labs, it will be for naught.
        So the ARDP is coming at the perfect time. You heard about
    the growing demand for electricity that's going to come with
    electrification of transportation and the industrial sectors.
    Well, at the same time, we're shutting off coal. That's going
    to create a great demand for clean energy generation like
    TerraPower's Natrium reactor. So the ARDP is really well-
    designed in that it requires significant private cost share. If
    we think about the investment that TerraPower will be making
    during the construction of the demonstration reactor, you know,
    that investment and X-energy's will certainly be the largest
    private investments in nuclear energy in history, and the ARDP
    enabled this.
        Senator Cantwell. Thank you.
        Mr. Levesque. Now, why is--yes?
        Senator Cantwell. Thank you. I am sorry. I am way over my
    time.
        Mr. Levesque. Okay.
        Senator Cantwell. I appreciate your fine points. I am going
    to ask, Mr. Chairman, a question for the record that we can get
    the witness on because it begs the question, if what Washington
    did in setting this market or in encouraging this kind of
    development, obviously again, in coordination with the Federal
    Government, what else could we be doing on setting a more
    predictable price that would signal to the rest of the United
    States and otherwise stop reactors from being shut down?
        So I do think it is an interesting question. We will get
    the witnesses on that, but thank you, Mr. Chairman, for this
    important hearing.
        Senator Barrasso. Thank you very much.
        Senator Cortez Masto.
        Senator Cortez Masto. Thank you. Thank you so much. I
    appreciate the hearing today. Let me just say to the Chairman
    very quickly because, as everybody knows--I am from Nevada. I
    am for consent-based siting for nuclear waste. I think it is
    something that needs to be done and I think, particularly, as
    we look to nuclear power this is an issue we have to address as
    a country. And I think every state should be treated equally.
        So let me just thank the Chairman for his opening remarks.
    I also want to just recognize, again, that S. 541, the Nuclear
    Waste Informed Consent Act, that Senator Rosen and I
    introduced, I think is so important. I hope that my colleagues,
    we can all, along with the industry, address this issue, but
    treat every state equally, every state should be part of the
    solution and be treated equally.
        So I appreciate the opportunity just to make that
    statement.
        Mr. Melbye, let me start with you. In your written
    testimony, you raise some concerns about our domestic
    workforce, noting that the nuclear industry, and I quote,
    ``requires trained, experienced, and skilled engineers,
    geologists, scientists, technicians, and operators.'' I am
    curious to hear more about the current overall status of our
    workforce and whether or not the panel thinks that the U.S. has
    enough nuclear engineering professionals to fully ramp up
    development and deployment of advanced nuclear technologies.
        Mr. Melbye. Well, thank you, Senator, and I can speak from
    the experience of our company, Uranium Energy Corp. You know,
    as I sit around our operational staff meetings and I look
    around at the folks around the table, a lot of them are in
    their 60s and even into their 70s and providing consulting,
    even after they leave our company. We've tried, as a company,
    to really provide mentoring for younger people and
    professionals and we've been able to do that, but it's
    difficult in a low uranium price environment to have that kind
    of bench strength, but I'm totally confident that schools like
    Texas A&M, Colorado School of Mines, and the University of
    Wyoming are ready to take on those next generation. The
    knowledge transfer hasn't been lost yet. So if we ramp up when
    we can and I know on the reactor side, our university and
    laboratory programs around the country are putting out young
    people that are very eager to get into small modular and
    advanced reactors as a way to really advance their interests in
    science and technology and do something to improve the planet
    through cleaner energy technologies.
        So I think we have a young next generation of willing
    employees, both in the fuel cycle, but also in reactor
    development.
        Senator Cortez Masto. Okay.
        And I want to hear from the rest of the panel. I only have
    so much time, so I--this is an issue that is important for, I
    think, for all of us to understand and make sure we are
    investing in our workforce, as well, as we move forward. But
    there is one thing I want to touch on and it goes back to my
    concerns about the nuclear waste, and this is for the panel
    members.
        How do--or how should--advanced nuclear reactor
    technologies compare to current in-use technology when it comes
    to the production of nuclear waste? Can you address that and
    can we talk a little bit about that and the difference between,
    and how we would address, the nuclear waste situation we are
    in?
        Mr. Sell. Senator----
        Mr. Levesque. Go ahead, Clay.
        Mr. Sell. Thank you, Chris.
        Senator, my name is Clay Sell, with X-energy, and our waste
    profile is a material improvement over the light-water waste
    situation in four chief respects. Number one, we're a much more
    efficient user of uranium and so, from an efficiency
    standpoint, we produce less waste per megawatt generated.
    Number two, our fuel form is a ceramic-encased material and it
    is a tremendous fuel form, but it is an even better waste form.
    And so, when you think about this waste being stored in a
    geologic repository, you don't have to consider the kinds of
    degradation that you face with metal-clad fuels.
        The third thing is we never have to cool this waste in
    water. It's just air-cooled, and our plant has the ability to
    store all of the waste that we will produce in the 60-year life
    of the plant onsite. So we're confident that with your
    legislation and other similar efforts, that a consent-based
    system will lead to a nuclear waste solution, a geologic
    repository, at some point in the next 60 years, but we have got
    the issue covered in a safe, responsible way that will be fully
    appreciated by our stakeholders and we do not anticipate that
    as a significant issue holding up the advanced reactors.
        Thank you.
        Senator Cortez Masto. Thank you. Thank you.
        And I know my time is up. I will submit the rest of my
    questions for the record. Thank you so much.
        The Chairman [presiding]. Next, we have Senator
    Hickenlooper.
        Senator Hickenlooper. Great. Thank you all for your
    excellent testimony and I want to kind of take up where Senator
    Cortez Masto left off. Just to come back to that, you know, one
    of the great challenges of developing new nuclear energy assets
    beyond the cost is the fear, and that there is still this
    residual concern and fear about, you know, is this new facility
    going to be built in my community and what are those risks? And
    can advanced nuclear technologies offer a solution to this and
    in that process, how do we address some of those issues of
    fear?
        Mr. Lyash. Yes, Senator, this is Jeff Lyash, from the
    Tennessee Valley Authority. I think this is an issue that is
    trending in a very positive direction. Actually, the largest
    support for the operating fleet in nuclear reactors around the
    plants comes from the local communities and governments where
    those facilities exist and serve because they have the deepest
    understanding of the technology.
        The second comment I would make is that there is a growing
    sense, I believe, across the country and around the world and
    certainly reflected in this dialogue today, that confronting
    the issue of climate change and greenhouse gas reduction will
    require all the tools in the toolbox--nuclear, prime among
    them--and the technology is one of the safest ways to address
    what is a significant issue. I see that particularly in the
    younger generations and in the professional workforce that
    we're growing and engaging in this today.
        So the direct answer to your question is that I think
    recognition that nuclear is one of the central ways we can
    cost-effectively, reliably, and resiliently reduce greenhouse
    gas emissions and create an economic development for the
    country at a policy level and then continued communication that
    the existing fleet of reactors we operate in this country are
    some of the safest generating facilities on the planet and the
    U.S. nuclear program is the strongest nuclear program in the
    world.
        Senator Hickenlooper. Great.
        Mr. Levesque. If I could add, Senator Hickenlooper, I'll
    just agree with Mr. Sell that these advanced nuclear plants,
    like X-energy and TerraPower's, offer a significant reduction
    in waste volume. That was one of TerraPower's goals at the
    start of our company, and that's really been enabled through
    advanced computer modeling and advanced materials. We have less
    waste at the end of the day. We also have much lower accident
    frequency.
        So as we go to the public, which we will inevitably do as
    we license these plants, there will be public meetings as we go
    through this seven-year project. We will be talking to
    communities about the waste reduction, about the safety
    improvements.
        And one other important thing: some of our messengers will
    be young people. There are many young people entering nuclear
    energy. We have young Ph.D.s at TerraPower who just committed
    their careers to nuclear energy because they want to fight
    climate change with nuclear energy. So we have technology
    improvements and we also have some great new voices that, I
    think, are going to help address these concerns.
        Senator Hickenlooper. I could not agree more and I do
    appreciate--I am not sure which one of you mentioned the
    Colorado School of Mines, but I know a couple of the kids out
    there that are really engaged in studying the future of nuclear
    power.
        But the fear does lead us into my one last question. Time
    always goes by so quickly in these. I thought I would ask Ms.
    Roma. You highlight the dominance of Russia and China in the
    new-build reactor market. How can we take advantage of the
    increasing export opportunities for nuclear energy and in a
    real way, I think, push back on both China and Russia trying to
    market autocratic government as being the better way around the
    world? I think this is an opportunity where we can really push
    back on that.
        Ms. Roma. Yes, I completely agree, thank you.
        First, to your earlier statement about fear and consent-
    based siting, I have been doing licensing of new nuclear
    facilities for 17 years, and I can tell you that it's really
    hard to build any facility in a state and local community that
    don't want it. And so, engagement and making sure you're
    building it where people want it and that they support it and
    that everybody is brought to the table to be informed in that
    discussion is critical to deploying successful projects.
        Turning to how the U.S. can become competitive overseas,
    other countries want a U.S. option. They don't have one. I was
    recently looking at a map of Africa that kind of laid out every
    country that is looking at deploying nuclear and what their
    plans are for doing that and who they're talking to. Every
    single country has either an agreement for nuclear cooperation
    in place with Russia or with China or both, none of them have
    any in place with the United States. The same is true--I was on
    a presentation where people from Southeast Asia, from Indonesia
    and Vietnam, were talking about the considerations that they
    have when they're looking at what technologies they're going to
    select and they said Russia and China are already coming and
    talking to us and you guys aren't. And so, it's the industry
    going out, but the industry can't do it by themselves.
    TerraPower and X-energy can't go to a foreign country by
    ourselves and say, oh, can you build my reactor? It needs to be
    in coordination with the U.S. Government and creating this
    real, genuine kind of ``team USA,'' using U.S. innovators and
    teaming them with the other tools that the U.S. Government has
    in its arsenal to go and become competitive.
        Senator Hickenlooper. We agree and thank you all. I am out
    of time, but I will submit my other questions so they will be
    in the record. Thank you so much.
        The Chairman. Thank you, Senator.
        I am going to take the privilege, if I can, to ask a
    question before I go to Senator Daines because I had to step
    out for a minute.
        Mr. Lyash, you and I had a good conversation. I really
    enjoyed it very much. I was just fascinated by the mix, your
    portfolio mix, for TVA. But also, we know that nuclear is
    emissions-free and plants have baseload attributes and proven
    track records of complementing variable energies, like
    renewables--I think you all do it all. But without new
    construction and the preservation of the existing nuclear fleet
    in the U.S., achieving a sustainable energy system will be more
    challenging and expensive as more renewables come online. Every
    year in the U.S., nuclear-generated electricity prevents more
    than 506 million metric tons of carbon dioxide from entering
    our atmosphere.
        So if we are serious about using all-of-the-above and doing
    it right and reducing our emissions, what actions should
    Congress take to ensure that additional nuclear power plants do
    not suffer premature shutdowns? And you can give me the age of
    your fleet and how you have been able to maintain and operate
    at the capacity you have?
        Mr. Lyash. Thank you, Senator. I appreciate the question.
        You know, I believe that incorporation of renewables is
    important. We're building a thousand megawatts of solar a year,
    but nuclear makes that possible. That diverse fuel supply, that
    reliable resource, that high amount of carbon-free energy,
    backstands the renewables that we're adding. Your question
    about the existing fleet, we have the best performing nuclear
    fleet in the country, or in the world, and these plants are at
    the peak of their performance over the 50-year life of the
    industry.
        The Chairman. What is the age of your plants, average age
    of your nuclear?
        Mr. Lyash. Our plants are on average about 40 years old.
    We've extended the life----
        The Chairman. How much life do you have left in them?
        Mr. Lyash. I believe these plants can operate to 100 years.
    We are----
        The Chairman. Unbelievable.
        Mr. Lyash. We are extending the lives currently from 40 to
    60 and we will move 60 to 80 and I believe, ultimately, we'll
    be able to extend past that. We can do that because we
    recognize the full value of these plants. One of the issues the
    fleet is facing----
        The Chairman. Let me ask you--I hate to interrupt you, but
    why is the U.S. fleet then, why are we decreasing? Why are we
    taking them offline?
        Mr. Lyash. Yes, because in my view, in the organized
    markets, we don't recognize the full value that a nuclear plant
    brings. We have short-term focused energy markets and very
    short-term, three-year focused capacity markets that don't
    recognize that nuclear plants can operate for decades at 98
    percent reliability. As was mentioned earlier, they have a
    captive and secure----
        The Chairman. You are saying the power generating companies
    themselves today, as we have them, you know, different
    companies I have in my state, my area, and everybody--but they
    are just not, basically, utilizing fully their nuclear fleet
    or--?
        Mr. Lyash. That's correct. They don't--the markets don't
    recognize the full value. In order to correct that in the
    organized market, it's going to take action.
        The Chairman. Because all we hear about is, well, as the
    fossil plants decrease, then we have to come on with
    renewables. Well, we know renewables do not have storage, so
    they are not baseload, but then the only baseloads I have ever
    known to be totally baseload were nuclear and coal, both fuels
    are right there.
        Now gas has replaced an awful lot of the coal fleets and it
    seems like it has been more competitive, cost-wise, against
    nuclear. So it is replacing nuclear and coal--gas is. That is
    what we are seeing in the national market.
        Mr. Lyash. Gas is certainly an important resource and I
    agree it is displacing coal. We should be aware though that
    gas, although it's valuable and it's an important bridge fuel,
    it still emits carbon dioxide as an effluent. Nuclear does not.
    Nuclear adds tremendous economic impact to the communities
    where those exist. A nuclear unit, on average, probably
    produces about a billion dollars----
        The Chairman. And the cost of your nuclear? You are selling
    your nuclear power at what price?
        Mr. Lyash. Our nuclear power is the second lowest-cost
    resource on the system. Our hydroelectric is the lowest.
    Nuclear is the second lowest.
        The Chairman. Lower than gas and lower than renewables?
        Mr. Lyash. It is.
        Gas has approached nuclear power prices for us, but not
    surpassed them and----
        The Chairman. Wind and solar?
        Mr. Lyash. Both higher than nuclear.
        The Chairman. I'll be darned.
        Mr. Sell, do you have anything on this since you are right
    in the throw with things?
        Mr. Sell. No, it's a great question that I know the
    Congress and the states have struggled with. Fundamentally----
        The Chairman. We never hear--we don't talk, you understand,
    all of us here--we don't hear about nuclear. We don't talk
    about nuclear and it has been around. We have been running our
    whole military for what, 50-plus years?
        Mr. Sell. Yes.
        The Chairman. But yet, we don't even talk about it. All we
    are talking about--and I like renewables, we have renewables in
    my state. Every state has renewables. But nuclear really does
    the job, 24/7.
        Mr. Sell. The issue has become, in the United States, as we
    have deregulated the markets--and appropriately deregulated
    them--we have a market design failure. In each of the
    individual states that regulate their electric market----
        The Chairman. You are talking about merchant, right?
    Merchant plants?
        Mr. Sell. Well, it's not just merchant plants. It's a
    market design that does not value the number-one attribute that
    nuclear power gives, which is 24/7 baseload, emissions-free
    generation. That has a tremendous value, which nuclear
    operators are not compensated for in the marketplace. And as a
    result, you've seen good, operating plants, producing power at
    very low cost, shut down--not in the TVA region, but in the
    Midwest region--when they were in a perfect condition to
    continue to operate. And it's really an issue that the
    Congress, I hope, can work with the states to resolve.
        The Chairman. Thank you. My time is up.
        Senator Daines.
        Senator Daines. Chairman Manchin, I appreciate your
    curiosity on nuclear. I think you made some really great
    points. And this is a nuclear option both sides might agree on,
    actually.
        [Laughter.]
        Well, speaking of nuclear, currently Montana does not have
    any nuclear generation sites. However, the Montana state
    legislature, which is in session as we speak, is working on a
    few bills that would make it easier for Montana to build a
    nuclear energy site, and a study replacing some old coal-fired
    boilers with new advanced nuclear reactors. In bringing nuclear
    energy to Montana, it would help create more high-paying jobs,
    as we know. It would further diversify and balance our energy
    portfolio, and with Montana losing important baseload power--as
    the Chairman just talked about the importance of baseload and
    affordable, reliable power--we are losing the power. We are
    losing these high-paying jobs, and as we are adding new, clean,
    carbon-free energy like nuclear, it could help keep Montana
    powered for decades and help sustain rural communities and jobs
    that depend on it.
        Ms. Roma, there have been very few new nuclear energy
    projects built in recent decades and many of our laws and
    regulations are very outdated. What state and federal hurdles,
    like the ones in Montana, should we re-examine to help spur
    more nuclear power production?
        Ms. Roma. There's a whole host of things to consider. One,
    for states, it depends on what the states' laws are. Some
    states have laws in place that outright ban nuclear and so
    those states either won't build nuclear or need to revisit
    those laws. Other states have in place renewable energy
    portfolios that recognize the carbon-free benefits that
    renewable energy brings. Some expand the definition of power
    generation that can fit into that window to include nuclear,
    others do not.
        I suspect that as states actually look at how they're going
    to decarbonize their grid and have a diverse energy portfolio--
    because you have to realize that even if you have tons of great
    wind in your state, you don't want to get 100 percent of your
    power from solely wind. That's putting all your eggs in one
    basket and it's a pretty dangerous strategy for power
    generation sources. We need to focus on diverse energy
    portfolios. So keeping in mind, how do you get that diversity
    while still meeting your climate goals is probably--and then
    how do you, kind of, work down from there--is probably a pretty
    strong objective.
        From the federal level, there's a whole host of things to
    be done. I think for advanced reactors, really continuing to
    support the demonstration projects with TerraPower and with X-
    energy and then the Advanced Reactor Demonstration Program is
    also supporting a number of other advanced reactor companies. I
    think the most important thing to remember is, in the United
    States we can build a demonstration facility that can also
    serve as the first commercialized facility. It makes it a lot
    easier to sell something to other states and across, you know,
    into other countries, if we have a demonstrated technology so
    that people know what they're buying, know what the costs are
    associated with it, and know what the benefits are. So doing
    things to support research and development, doing things to
    support the advanced reactor companies, support innovation and
    then any kind of incentives to help take the sting off of
    deploying first-of-a-kind type facilities, such as loan
    guarantees or cost sharing would be very helpful.
        Senator Daines. Ms. Roma, thank you.
        Now, let's assume we solve the nuclear issue here. We start
    building plants. I have another question though, that relates
    to what do we do about the uranium supply because we import 90
    percent of our uranium from places like Russia, Kazakhstan, and
    Uzbekistan. This is despite the fact that we have ample
    reserves of recoverable deposits throughout the western United
    States and even in my home State of Montana. In fact, back in
    the '80s, the U.S. was a leading global producer of uranium and
    produced almost all the fuel that we needed to power a nuclear
    fleet, but now our production capabilities are at risk and we
    have ceded global leadership to foreign countries. This has
    caused the U.S. Commerce Department, in fact, in 2019, to
    determine that uranium imports threaten the national security
    of the United States.
        Mr. Melbye, uranium can be found with other critical
    minerals. How can we better coordinate domestic mining to
    increase both uranium as well as other critical mineral
    production?
        Mr. Melbye. Senator Daines, you're exactly right. Many rare
    earth elements and minerals, they occur geologically with
    radionuclides, like uranium. So the uranium industry actually
    possesses the facilities and expertise to actually handle and
    process these rare earth minerals alongside of uranium
    operations. In fact, the licensed uranium facility in Utah is
    doing just that, and being part of the rare earth element story
    and trying to reduce our reliance on those elements, those
    critical minerals, from trying to pull that away from China and
    Russia, so----
        Senator Daines. And when we think about that, as being
    global stewards of the environment, we have some of the most
    stringent mining environmental laws in the world. We should be
    mining more here in the U.S. instead of depending on foreign
    countries that have less stringent standards.
        Mr. Melbye, could you briefly describe how 21st century
    mining practices are beneficial to the environment, for jobs
    and our national security?
        Mr. Melbye. Well, Senator, you know very well in your state
    with such a mining tradition, the 21st century mining companies
    today have not only embraced the highest standards of health,
    safety, environment--we're setting the bar for around the
    world. So if we push mineral production offshore to other
    countries, we can't guarantee that those are going to be mined
    as responsibly as they are here.
        I also know that the investment community, through ESG
    practices, is continually measuring us on our attention to our
    local communities, the health of our workers, our social
    responsibility in the places where we operate. So I think today
    we're a global standard for responsible mining in the United
    States and we should do more of it right here.
        Senator Daines. Thanks, Mr. Melbye.
        Senator Barrasso [presiding]. Thank you very much, Senator
    Daines.
        Senator King.
        Senator King. I have been listening to this discussion. I
    came late. I was in another hearing. But the problem I have
    always understood with nuclear power is it is prohibitively
    expensive to build. Plants that are 40 years old that are fully
    amortized can compete with other forms, but a new plant--of the
    figures I remember and I may be somewhat out of date, about $5
    million a megawatt for a new nuclear plant, $500,000 a megawatt
    for a gas plant, about $1.5 million for a wind project. Nuclear
    power just is not remotely competitive economically in terms of
    new plants. Now the key, it seems to me, is innovation and
    development of these new alternatives that can bring that cost
    down but, I mean, I do not see how we can be having this
    discussion, at least about new conventional nuclear plants
    because the cost just is not even in the ballpark.
        Am I wrong, Mr. Lyash? What is the cost per megawatt of a
    new nuclear power plant today in the United States?
        Mr. Lyash. Well, Senator, the initial capital cost of new
    nuclear power is certainly higher, that initial capital
    investment, than a number of other generating sources.
        Senator King. It is not only higher, it is massively
    higher.
        Mr. Lyash. But taken over----
        Senator King. Prohibitively higher.
        Mr. Lyash. But taken over the lifetime of the facility,
    which extends 40, 50, 60 years, and levelizing that cost of
    energy, it's quite competitive. If we focus on nuclear power
    with a three-year time horizon like many organized markets do,
    it can't compete. But if you think of the total value of a
    nuclear plant and its lifetime, much like any other capital-
    intensive asset, and levelize that cost, it's actually quite
    competitive.
        New nuclear designs are lower capital cost per kilowatt
    installed, shorter construction durations, and smaller sizes to
    reduce that initial capital investment, and like the existing
    nuclear plants, when thought of over their lifetime, are quite
    competitive.
        Senator King. And I appreciate that, and that is why I
    emphasized that I think demonstration projects, R&D, additional
    support for the new technologies that can bring that cost down,
    and also the construction period.
        A question about ratemaking. Your point is well taken of
    the lengthy life cycle of 40 or 50 years. Do our current
    regulatory structures allow for that kind of spread-out of the
    cost because the problem is the bankers or the people that
    finance, they want their money back, maybe not in three years,
    but they want it back in sooner than 40 years. So is there a
    way to levelize the cost in terms of impact on the ratepayers?
        Mr. Lyash. Yes, we have various regulatory structures in
    the U.S., which is part of the complication. For integrated
    investor-owned utilities, Southern Company, for example, that's
    building the Vogtle site, the regulator is providing oversight
    and working with them to do exactly that. For the Tennessee
    Valley Authority, we're public power. We continue to operate
    our plants quite successfully and could build new nuclear
    because, once again, we have the regulatory construct to
    amortize that over the life of the plant and levelize that cost
    and make it competitive. When you move to organized markets
    who, by their design, have short-term focus--day-ahead, week-
    ahead energy markets, three-year capacity markets--that
    regulatory structure makes it very difficult to build any
    investment that takes a high upfront capital cost----
        Senator King. Yes.
        Mr. Lyash [continuing]. But delivers significant benefits
    in the long term. And I think if we're going to----
        Senator King. I understand that. I have done business in
    those markets and the problem is, they essentially discriminate
    against any capital-intensive energy farm. They make natural
    gas pretty much the only alternative.
        Mr. Lyash. Yes. And to Senator Manchin's earlier question,
    that's why the nuclear fleet struggles in those markets and
    it's an issue that we really need to correct to preserve that
    fleet.
        Senator King. Thank you very much.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Barrasso. Thank you very much, Senator King.
        Senator Lankford.
        Senator Lankford. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you all
    for the testimony. It is extremely important to be able to have
    this dialogue.
        Let me follow up with a basic question that I think we have
    talked about a little bit on the edge, but it has been
    interesting to do some reading on it. Mr. Lyash, is nuclear
    power determined to be base power or is it flexible power? Is
    it intermittent power or is it determined to be consistent?
        Mr. Lyash. Senator, I think you could characterize nuclear
    power as either baseload or flexible depending on the plant
    design and its operating regimen. We have historically thought
    about nuclear plants as baseload and that's the way we tend to
    run them in this system. But the technology can fill any one of
    those roles if designed and located properly.
        Senator Lankford. So, why would it be flexible? Why
    wouldn't it be baseload? What would be the design and the
    reason to be able to use it as flexible?
        Mr. Lyash. I thought Mr. Levesque pointed out a good
    example where using thermal salt storage to store the power so
    it can operate as a baseload or you can use that storage
    capability as a peaking resource. That's a good example of the
    flexibility in nuclear technology.
        Senator Lankford. Okay.
        Mr. Levesque. That's correct, Senator, and that's one of
    the design goals of Natrium. And you know, when we talk about
    the economics of nuclear energy, better economics involve lower
    cost, that's enabled by new technology, but better economics
    for utilities is also related to the rate at which the power
    can be sold. In a plant like Natrium, being able to flex is
    going to be able to participate in capacity markets where the
    electricity will be at a higher cost. So in the past, nuclear
    has been baseload. New plants, like Natrium, will allow nuclear
    to participate in entirely new and more economically attractive
    markets.
        Senator Lankford. Mr. Levesque, you talked a lot about
    having the power that is more of a smaller modular unit and not
    trying to create as large of a reactor. Tell me the advantage
    of that and how many facilities would have to be built to be
    able to make a difference on our power grid across the country.
        Mr. Levesque. So, to be clear, Senator, if we think about
    2050, TerraPower envisions many small and large nuclear plants.
    Today, most nuclear plants are gigawatt-scale. And yes, we're
    talking about building smaller plants on the order of 300
    megawatts per station now. That's what customers are looking
    for as they retire coal units, as we work nuclear into an
    established grid in countries like the U.S. and Europe, where
    there are developed grids. But certainly, as we prove out these
    first units as 300 megawatts, we anticipate growing the Natrium
    output back up to gigawatt-scale.
        And again, if we think about 2050, we imagine many, many
    nuclear plants around the world. New 300-megawatt units and
    also new gigawatt-scale units as well, providing both
    electricity and process heat.
        Senator Lankford. Mr. Levesque, let me ask you, when you
    say about many, many--give me a number. How many are you
    talking about? To be able to cover the United States by 2050,
    how many facilities would have to be built that are nuclear to
    be able to cover our energy needs?
        Mr. Levesque. Yes, it would be scores of plants. It all
    depends on----
        Senator Lankford. More than ten?
        Mr. Levesque. Certainly, certainly scores of plants----
        Senator Lankford. More than 100?
        Mr. Levesque. Yes, the opportunity for these advanced
    reactors is in the hundreds. I mean----
        Senator Lankford. So are we talking a thousand? Are we
    talking a thousand that would have to be built by then?
        Mr. Levesque. Certainly hundreds between now and 2050 and
    that's why companies like TerraPower and X-energy are bringing
    so much private investment because we plan to sell and deliver
    hundreds of plants. That's how we'll get the return on
    investment.
        Senator Lankford. To get to zero emissions by 2050, does
    anyone have a good idea how many facilities we would have to
    build by 2050 because we have talked a lot about wind power and
    solar power and how many acres that would cover, and actually,
    how many entire states that that would have to cover to be able
    to do that.
        How many nuclear facilities would we have to build to be
    able to get to that point by 2050? Does anyone have a good
    number for that?
        Mr. Sell. I do not have a good number, but when you're
    talking about zero emission, that's increasing the entirety--
    eliminating the entire coal fleet, eliminating the entire
    natural gas fleet, and eliminating the industrial--or
    converting the industrial heat use, which is 90-plus percent
    fossil fuel, all to non-emitting baseload technologies. And
    that's going to require hundreds of plants, hundreds of
    gigawatts of plants over the next 50 years. Far greater than we
    operate, basically 100 gigawatts of plants now in the United
    States that were built between 1960 and 1995. We're talking
    about doing a multiple of that between now and 2050 in order to
    get close to achieving the kinds of decarbonization goals that
    you've outlined in your question.
        Senator Lankford. And each one would cost about how much
    each?
        Mr. Sell. For the X-energy plant, we're going to be
    competitive with the price of natural gas. So we have a price
    at less than $50 per megawatt-hour on a go-forward basis.
        Senator Lankford. Okay, thank you.
        Mr. Chairman, thank you.
        Senator Barrasso. Thank you.
        Senator Cassidy.
        Senator Cassidy, are you available? He may have had to go
    to vote because we are in the middle of a series of votes.
        While we are waiting for the Chairman to come back--we have
    four votes going on and the Chairman was going to do the end of
    the first vote and the beginning of the second vote. I voted
    already in the first vote. So I am going to go with additional
    questions and we will then await the Chairman.
        Ms. Roma, the world is looking to expand the use of nuclear
    energy to meet our environmental as well as our energy goals.
    Why is the United States' leadership in the nuclear energy
    sector critically important? And can you also talk about what
    the consequences would be of losing nuclear deals to, say,
    Russia and China?
        Ms. Roma. Sure. It's critically important for the United
    States to be a global leader because that's where we've been
    and we've had huge dividends. It's prevented the spread of
    nuclear weapons. It's ensured that U.S. safety standards that
    come out of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission are widely
    adopted around the world, setting the gold standard for how you
    should regulate nuclear power plants to make sure they're run
    safely. It gives the United States a voice on nuclear safety
    and security purposes and allows us to strengthen and further
    develop relationships with countries that are building nuclear
    power plants that aren't just necessarily longtime U.S. allies,
    but allies that we're trying to establish further relationships
    with and that happened more recently with the UAE, where they
    didn't build a U.S. reactor design, but a number of U.S.
    companies helped support standing up that program. And that
    significantly influenced the safety standards, the
    implementation of the nuclear safety culture.
        I think that's something that we don't talk about very
    often when we talk about how important it is in running a
    nuclear power plant, but that's the idea that anybody within an
    organization can raise the safety issue, no matter what tribe
    you belong to, no matter what position you have within the
    plant. And in some of the places where we're building nuclear
    power plants, that entire concept is a foreign concept to them.
    And so, kind of embedding that at the beginning of a program,
    making sure that when countries that are new to nuclear and
    developing nuclear, that they do it safely and in a way that
    makes sense.
        From a geopolitical standpoint, when we look at Russia and
    China, we have to look at not what are they just doing with
    nuclear, but what are they doing generally. Russia,
    historically, has treated its work in foreign countries as a
    geostrategic objective, where it can go and exert its
    influence, and by building, owning, operating, and controlling
    the major source of someone's power supply. I mean, one of the
    things that we talked about a little bit here when we think
    about nuclear is yes, it's expensive, but it's also immense.
    It's huge amounts of electricity for plants that can operate
    for 100 years. And so, when you look at building that much
    electricity in a country, if you have Russia who builds, owns,
    operates it and can shut it off, they now have a leverage over
    a foreign country that they didn't have before. That's probably
    a more aggressive tactic but it also allows them to establish a
    further, deeper relationship with that country as well.
        For China, you know, they see an economic opportunity, but
    one of the things that I think is a concern is when China also
    builds, owns, and operates a nuclear power plant in a foreign
    country that it's financing--you know, the Egyptian reactors
    that Russia is building, it's financing for a 30-year finance
    period for a two percent annual rate of return, to the tune of
    like, I don't know, $20 billion. When China offers the same
    thing and all of a sudden, a country in Africa can't make due
    on its payment, China has the ability to kind of foreclose on
    that and then exert its economic interests further in the
    country by taking over their power supply.
        The United States doesn't do that. That's not how we
    operate. And we need to be able to offer other countries an
    option that isn't as predatory and that is more benign, while
    at the same time also hugely economically beneficial to the
    United States.
        Senator Barrasso. Thanks so very much.
        Senator Hoeven.
        Senator Hoeven. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I
    appreciate it.
        My first question is for Mr. Melbye, and that is, in your
    testimony you mention the national defense requirements for
    U.S. uranium, including nuclear deterrents--and in North Dakota
    that is certainly the mission of the Minot Air Force Base. We
    have both the B-52s with the nuclear capacity as well as the
    ICBMs. And so, my first question is, we need an industrial
    base, obviously, to support military uranium requirements, but
    are the defense needs by themselves enough to create enough
    demand to sustain the required industrial base?
        Mr. Melbye. Actually, the easy answer is ``no.'' I think,
    you know, the combination of commercial nuclear power and
    defense needs can be complementary to each other. We've seen
    our defense needs met by stockpiles of uranium and fissile
    materials that were built up all the way back to the 1950s and
    '60s. And so, we haven't worried much about availability of
    future supplies, but we do know that these are finite and
    diminishing inventories, and those within the Defense
    Department that are looking out not only at our existing fleet
    of aircraft carriers and submarines, but new future
    deployments, are concerned that we could lose that domestic
    ability to produce not only uranium, but conversion and
    enriched uranium in support of our defense needs.
        So fortunately, with robust commercial nuclear fuel markets
    at home and abroad, you know, this doesn't have to be solely on
    the back of our defense budgets, but can come out of the
    commercial nuclear fuel cycle.
        Senator Hoeven. Do we have enough industrial demand--
    commercial demand--to maintain a source here or are we reliant
    on other countries?
        Mr. Melbye. Well, we have the demand, if you look at
    nuclear generation globally, I think we're back to pre-
    Fukushima levels of nuclear generation and hence, uranium
    demand, so that's certainly not a problem. It's just the period
    of low prices, which we're now only beginning to come out of.
    We need to maintain that domestic capability. We're coming
    awfully close to losing it, but the infrastructure and the
    natural resources and the people are still in place and can
    ramp up quite quickly. I think the uranium reserve, if DOE can
    stand that up quickly and get it going this year, it was a
    bipartisan support of the budget for this year, and we get it
    funded in future years, that's an excellent stimulus to get
    this industry back going, not only for commercial nuclear
    power, but defense needs as well.
        Senator Hoeven. Mr. Levesque, I would like to ask you the
    same questions. Where are we in terms of the supply and our
    ability to produce the uranium that we need and do you have
    recommendations on steps that should be taken?
        Mr. Levesque. Yes, certainly, Senator.
        You know, TerraPower's designed Natrium will require high-
    assay low-enriched uranium, which is the same uranium that
    we're hearing about from, you know, mines in states like
    Wyoming. But I wanted to point out that these new technologies,
    like Mr. Sell was mentioning as well, require a higher level of
    enrichment. So not only do we need to, you know, reinvigorate
    things like the mining infrastructure, but we do not have
    enrichment capability in the U.S. today to produce HALEU, high-
    assay low-enriched uranium. So TerraPower and X-energy are
    working with the Department of Energy to identify a source of
    HALEU for our demo units, but again, we plan to sell many,
    many, hundreds of these X-energy and TerraPower reactors. And
    for that, we're going to need not just uranium supply, but
    we're going to need enrichment capability, U.S. enrichment
    capability, for high-assay low-enriched uranium. Our partner,
    Centrus Energy, has a small pilot project going on today to
    demonstrate that HALEU production, but we definitely need to
    ramp up that capability in the U.S. if we're going to be ready
    to provide hundreds of plants in the U.S. and worldwide that
    are fueled by high-assay low-enriched uranium.
        Senator Hoeven. Thank you.
        Ms. Roma, your thoughts as well in the time I have
    remaining here.
        Ms. Roma. So it's critically important when we think about
    our energy needs that we also think about energy security and
    independence. Anytime you build a power source you need to be
    able to make sure you have your fuel nearby. The entire front
    end of the fuel cycle has been degraded when we saw the decline
    in the domestic nuclear power industry in the United States,
    the mining industry, the milling industry, the conversion
    industry, and the fuel fabrication--we need to be able to have
    these capabilities. The great news is, it's not a supply
    problem. We have immense amounts of uranium in the United
    States and we need to make sure we keep these capabilities on
    hand and fresh and sometimes, I think, as we saw most recently
    with the N95 mask shortage, sometimes you don't know you need
    something until you can't get it, and we just don't need to be
    in that situation with uranium.
        Senator Hoeven. Thank you, Ms. Roma. Thanks to all three of
    you and thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Barrasso. Thank you, Senator Hoeven.
        Senator Murkowski.
        Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for
    this hearing. I so appreciate the opportunity to focus again on
    the benefits of nuclear and, particularly, advanced nuclear
    reactors. I think we were able to accomplish some good things
    in this Committee last year and we want to be able to continue
    to build on those efforts.
        I want to focus my questions this morning on some of the
    regulatory matters related to microgrids. So, I don't know,
    perhaps this is a question best asked for Ms. Roma. We have
    several microreactors that are in pre-application review with
    the NRC. One company, Oklo, has an application accepted for
    review under the combined license (COL) approach. The issue is
    the regulatory structure equates an operating permit with a
    specific site there.
        So what should we do with this? Should Congress act to
    create new exemptions for microreactors so that a single design
    can be permitted for multiple sites? How can we, again, allow
    for an approach that will ensure greater commercialization
    opportunities for microreactors? And I pose that to Ms. Roma,
    but if there are others that wish to respond to that, I would
    appreciate it.
        Ms. Roma. I could start off and then maybe the others can
    hop in.
        So the NRC does have a design certification process, but
    the NRC regulations that they stood up were for large-scale,
    light-water reactors and they envisioned a very slow and long
    process where a company applied for a design certification.
    Once the NRC reviewed and issued the design certification,
    which can be a five- or six-year process, then a company could
    apply for a site-specific combined construction and operating
    license application. It could also apply for an early site
    permit where the NRC would do early environmental review of a
    site and then it could apply for the COL and then get the COL.
    That whole process combined, which is probably what the NRC's
    preference would be for anybody doing licensing, can take
    decades.
        Senator Murkowski. Right.
        Ms. Roma. And it is cost prohibitive and doesn't make any
    sense, particularly for designs like microreactors, which have
    very, very small footprints, both from a public safety
    standpoint and from an environmental standpoint. And the NRC
    has been really looking at its regulations to figure out how we
    can right-size these for these types of facilities, but they're
    bringing their large, light-water reactor mindset, which is
    really a round peg in a square hole.
        And so, what Congress can do is support the streamlining or
    even help check certain boxes so that the NRC can do a more
    efficient--not a less robust--a more efficient review,
    commensurate with the size and impact of these facilities. That
    would be very, very helpful.
        Senator Murkowski. Well, I appreciate that. I have tried to
    outline the potential that we would have in a place like
    Alaska, where, I think, we have some interesting applications
    for microreactors and what we might be able to deploy. But when
    you look at the structure within the regulatory commission, it
    is just not set up to help facilitate deployment in a state
    like Alaska, where you have some pretty remote communities,
    some pretty remote sites that would benefit from exactly this
    type. So you are suggesting we need legislation. NRC says that
    they are dealing with what they are going to deal with.
        Did one of you--Mr. Sell, nice to see you.
        Mr. Sell. Senator Murkowski, there is something interesting
    going on that I think is relevant and that, as you may know,
    the Department of Defense has a program to design mobile
    microreactors for four operating bases.
        Senator Murkowski. Right.
        Mr. Sell. Our company, X-energy, is one of the companies
    involved in that design effort. That reactor will be deployed
    on a prototype basis by 2024. And although it will be licensed
    by the Department of Energy, the NRC regulators are embedded
    into the program. And so, there is an opportunity for the NRC
    to observe--to learn and to take lessons out of that and apply
    those to the commercial applications like Oklo and others. It
    is a rapid technology development program and the licensing
    process to go along with that is having to evolve to go with
    it, to move at the appropriate level of speed. And I think real
    lessons will come out of that effort.
        Senator Murkowski. My observation is that we are at that
    point where we are building out the prototypes--we know what it
    is that we need to do. The thing that is slowing us down is the
    regulator, who has not caught up to the fact that this is not,
    you know, ``your father's Oldsmobile'' in the sense of what we
    have been building in this country in terms of nuclear
    facilities for so many decades.
        Mr. Sell. I think that's true. I will acknowledge that the
    last number of years at the NRC and now, with Chairman Hanson,
    there is a strong commitment at the leadership level to be
    responsive to the laws that this Committee originated and
    passed, and reformed the process. And they want to do the right
    thing, but you know, sometimes changed management in a large
    organization is challenging and we're going to continue to push
    on.
        Mr. Levesque. I would agree. I would agree, Senator. The
    leadership has been very progressive and I think legislation
    that empowers the NRC to consider new approaches toward
    regulation, that's really helpful. And finally, I'll add that,
    you know, I've worked around the world in nuclear energy and
    been asked many times in other countries, what does the NRC
    think? The NRC is the worldwide standard for nuclear safety and
    if we think about a ``team USA'' approach, if we have advanced
    reactors that are licensed by the NRC, the U.S. is going to be
    so competitive worldwide offering these reactors as options to
    Russian or Chinese technology.
        Senator Murkowski. Thank you.
        Mr. Chairman, thank you. I have additional questions that I
    am probably going to submit for the record, where as you know,
    we are bouncing in between votes, but this is such an important
    hearing and I really appreciate that.
        Senator Barrasso. Thank you, Senator Murkowski.
        Senator Cassidy.
        Senator Cassidy. Hey, thank you all and, again, it is a
    great hearing. I, too, have been bouncing between committee
    hearings and votes, so I apologize if there is redundancy in
    what I ask.
        Mr. Sell and Mr. Levesque, what will be the cost per
    megawatt-hour both--first, how much is it going to cost to
    build one of these? What is their capacity? After you have the
    flow down and you have built four or five, what can we expect
    the cost to be then and how much will it cost to operate per
    megawatt-hour compared to other forms of energy?
        Mr. Levesque. Okay, Senator.
        The first units, these demonstration units that TerraPower
    and X-energy are working on, they will cost several billion
    dollars each because they have all of those first-of-a-kind
    costs that Mr. Sell was mentioning, the first-time licensing,
    the first-time design and also, frankly, you know, the U.S.
    supply chain and the U.S. infrastructure is out of practice. So
    those first demonstration plants will cost somewhat more
    because of those first-of-a-kind and learning curve things. And
    that's what makes it ideal for us to have the ARDP, which is
    public and private funding--kind of, you know, overcoming this
    speed bump to get us into the next technology.
        But after the demonstration, we see plants that are going
    to be, because of the technology differences, again, because of
    things like lower pressure, we're going to have plants that are
    totally competitive with natural gas. They're going to be safer
    and, again, in the case of Natrium, it's going to be able to
    flex its power and participate in electricity markets that are
    more lucrative than what plants can----
        Senator Cassidy. But Mr. Levesque, I mean, just to put a
    point on it, do you have--okay, you've built your first five.
    So then do you have a projected cost of what it would cost then
    because I think Mr. Lyash was involved with CB&I. They
    attempted to do something for Southern Company and initially
    had to rebuild all the training of the workforce, but it still
    ended up being incredibly expensive and it never got over that
    initial bump.
        By the way, I am supportive of it. I want this to happen. I
    am just trying to figure out what the landscape looks like.
        Mr. Levesque. Yes, Senator. The landscape is this: the U.S.
    is rusty, Russia and China are building many units.
        Senator Cassidy. No, I get that.
        Mr. Levesque. Yes.
        Senator Cassidy. But do you have a projected cost after you
    have done your first three or four and you have kind of worked
    out the kinks?
        Mr. Levesque. You know, plants that are of this 300-
    megawatt size should certainly cost less than $1 billion. It'll
    be competitive. I also want to point out, by going to some of
    these new plants, the number of U.S. jobs and the invigoration
    of the supply chain should increase. Light-water reactors
    today, you have to go to Japan to get super-heavy forging for
    the pressurized water reactors.
        Senator Cassidy. Let me just ask, because I only have a
    couple minutes left.
        Mr. Lyash, I apologize if I am mispronouncing your name,
    but when I was listening earlier you seemed to be talking about
    some challenges. I didn't hear the whole conversation, but you
    were talking about why we are decommissioning some of our
    existing nuclear. To what degree do production tax credits and
    other incentives to allow renewable energies to sell below
    market--to actually pay people to take their energy--to what
    degree has that played into the demise of the decommissioning
    of some of these plants?
        Mr. Lyash. Senator, I think it plays significantly into it.
    You know, as Mr. Levesque was saying, these plants are high
    capital cost, but when you levelize the cost over the life of
    the facility, 20, 30, 40, 50 years, they produce quite
    competitive levelized costs of power, but they deliver more
    than that. They deliver reliability, fuel diversity, fuel
    security, huge amounts of zero carbon electricity. These don't
    have----
        Senator Cassidy. I am totally getting that, Mr. Lyash,
    again, but just back to the point.
        Mr. Lyash. Yes.
        Senator Cassidy. We are going to be making decisions
    regarding tax breaks for renewables, some of which are quite
    mature, but nonetheless, advocates are still advocating for
    continuation of the tax breaks. So to what degree are these tax
    breaks playing a role in the decommissioning of a nuclear power
    plant in Illinois, for example?
        Mr. Lyash. Directly, because these attributes of nuclear
    power aren't rewarded by the market, and wind and solar have
    tax credits. Production tax credits or investment tax credits,
    they artificially depress the price of that energy below the
    nuclear plant
    and lead directly--contribute directly, I should say--to a non-
    cost-competitive position of those plants, not because----
        Senator Cassidy. I once heard somebody say that,
    paradoxically, renewables in the current environment, by
    forcing the construction of baseload facilities, but
    simultaneously forcing the decommissioning of nuclear power
    plants, which would be the natural baseload, are actually
    paradoxically increasing global greenhouse gas emissions. Maybe
    too strong of a statement, but is there some rationale to that?
        Mr. Lyash. There is. The intermittent renewables with the
    depressed prices due to production tax credits and investment
    tax credits are forcing high energy baseload units into a non-
    competitive position. The retirement of those baseload units
    makes the addition of renewables not possible, or at least not
    possible without significant adverse effects on reliability.
    These things have to move together in balance to have a system
    that is both economic and reliable in the long term.
        Senator Cassidy. One more question, because I am over my
    time. Mr. Levesque, Mr. Lyash points out that yes, initially
    your cost is high, but if you levelize it over 60 years--I
    think there is a nuclear power plant in Louisiana that may go
    for at least 60 years. What is the actual cost, once you have
    done your construction cost, what is going to be the cost of
    operating and maintaining one of these plants, because it does
    sound like your initial construction plant is still going to be
    more expensive than a natural gas, but what was just implied in
    that, is that your operation and maintenance could be less than
    another form of energy?
        Mr. Levesque. Yes, Senator, certainly cheaper than natural
    gas on that levelized cost and, you know, with automation and
    technologies, the required staffing at the plant to operate the
    plant should be much lower. And again, if we secure these U.S.
    fuel and enrichment sources, that'll give us greater control
    over the life cycle fuel cost.
        Senator Cassidy. Got it. Okay, I yield back. Thank you.
        Senator Barrasso. Thank you very much, I appreciate it.
        Mr. Sell, you know, I appreciate your support for the
    establishment of a uranium reserve. You talked about that. Your
    written testimony highlighted the need for a specific type of
    uranium, a high-assay low-enriched uranium. You state that the
    timelines set in the Energy Act of 2020 are not aggressive
    enough to meet your needs. I think you stated you need this
    material by 2024.
        So will the Department of Energy be able to supply the
    necessary material to meet your needs, and if not, how are you
    going to secure the material?
        Mr. Sell. Well, Senator, it's really not the Department of
    Energy's total responsibility. There is a commercial market for
    HALEU, and Centrus is a private company, and they have a pilot
    project that is funded by the Department of Energy to begin the
    production process. But I'm going to need about three tons of
    high-assay LEU in the 2024 timeframe in order to start the
    fuel-making process for our first plant at Energy Northwest.
    And so, I think there's going to be a number of initiatives
    that will have to be pursued in order to increase the
    availability of HALEU for that first plant.
        Senator Barrasso. Thank you so much for that answer.
        Mr. Levesque, is there anything that you would like to add
    to that?
        Mr. Levesque. No, Senator. We have a very similar need with
    TerraPower's Natrium reactor.
        Senator Barrasso. Thank you.
        Senator Manchin.
        The Chairman [presiding]. I am so sorry, Senator Barrasso.
    They are still on the first vote, if you can believe it. I
    thought it would have wrapped up when I went down, I could have
    voted twice and come back, but this is the Senate. Welcome to
    the most deliberate body in the world.
        If I am repeating a question, you know, please forgive me
    and then let me know what you are thinking. I just thank all of
    you. I really believe we are missing a golden opportunity if we
    do not get back in action. And I think Mr. Lyash and I had a,
    like you said before, we had a good conversation and realizing
    how strong TVA is, but it is a whole different ballgame--the
    way it was created, who it is, how it operates--but they do it
    and do it so well. If it can work in that type of environment,
    it can work in the market environment too. But what I am
    understanding from what you all have told me is that starting
    with FERC, starting with regulatory, basically, in Washington,
    demanding that we have that type of dependable, reliable, and
    affordable power which is, basically, baseload. And you know,
    because we have had other things kind of freeze up and we have
    had other things kind of shut down, stop, and I think Texas is
    a wake-up call.
        I am more concerned also too about the security. And I
    think nuclear can scare the daylights out of some people,
    thinking of the catastrophe. I remember Three Mile and how this
    happened. So they are saying, oh boy, if we have a
    cyberattack--I am going to let all of you comment on it--if we
    have a cyberattack, then we are really in a problem there
    because they can really melt this thing down and cause
    catastrophic--okay?
        So Mr. Sell, if you want to start on that and then we will
    go right down.
        Mr. Sell. Thank you for the opportunity.
        The X-energy plant is intrinsically safe. So what does that
    mean? What it means, Senator Manchin--Chairman Manchin--is that
    our plant cannot melt down. What happened at Three Mile Island
    is physically impossible to happen in an Xe-100 plant.
        The Chairman. Got it.
        Mr. Sell. So is the plant safer? Yes, it's safer. But the
    more important thing is, we do not have to build all of the
    safety-related systems that a typical light-water reactor plant
    has to make. So we result in a much simpler plant that is more
    economic to build and more economic to operate. And that is why
    our plant can be built quicker, to be operated more cheaply,
    and therefore, it's much more attractive from an economic
    standpoint than traditional large, light-water reactor plants.
        The Chairman. Mr. Melbye, do you have any comments on this?
    This is my last question.
        Mr. Melbye. Yes.
        The Chairman. I just need to know how we can make sure that
    nuclear is allowed to do the job we know it can do. And right
    now, we are not in that mindset, is what you are telling me? It
    is aspirational. Everybody wants to stop this, stop that, and
    let's do everything with renewables and this and that and I
    understand. But we know it is not going to carry the load. It
    will not afford us 24/7, rain or shine, and to be the number
    one and be the superpower of the world in having the demand for
    power that we have taken for granted all these years. We have
    to continue in that mindset of energy independence. So
    anything, just a quick comment from all of you on that.
        Mr. Melbye. I'll just reiterate what you said about how
    Texas was a wake-up call for all of us. We have operations down
    there, so we saw what happened firsthand and, you know, the
    resiliency, the 24/7 aspects of nuclear energy, the
    predictability of fuel cost. Gas is a great way to make
    electricity when gas is cheap, but we found out with $18,000
    electricity bills that when the price of gas goes up, it hurts
    that form of energy.
        So nuclear can really be the complement in--and as you have
    all----
        The Chairman. Did any nuclear go down in Texas?
        Mr. Melbye. We have four units in Texas. One did go down
    for a day, but was----
        The Chairman. I thought the supply, the water supply line
    froze up, is what I understand.
        Mr. Melbye. So we were 75 percent up, but back to 100
    percent after a day.
        The Chairman. But if there would have been weatherization
    precautions taken, that should have never gone down.
        Mr. Melbye. They are already taking them.
        The Chairman. Got it.
        Mr. Lyash.
        Mr. Lyash. Yes, Senator, I would just stress that nuclear,
    non-light-water and light-water reactors are going to be
    critical to maintaining reliability, economic development
    advantage, and hitting our environmental objectives. And I
    would suggest four things. First, action needs to be taken to
    preserve the existing nuclear fleet and to address this value
    that's not recognized by the organized markets that needs to be
    recognized. If we don't preserve that fleet, we cannot maintain
    or develop a leadership position in the world on nuclear power.
        The Chairman. What do you know about the fleet, sir,
    because you have a tremendous amount of experience in this
    operation? What do you know, any of you all know, about the
    fleets that have been shut down or those that are being
    targeted to be shut down? Is there any other reason except
    market decisions that people are making right now that those
    should ever be shut down?
        Mr. Lyash. No, the primary reason here is market decisions
    and it's a short-sighted view of the value of the plants.
        The Chairman. Got it.
        Mr. Lyash. And you must address that----
        The Chairman. We will get on that. We can get into that
    real quick.
        Mr. Lyash. The second step I suggest--you are already
    taking it--and that is to recognize the role of nuclear at a
    policy level in addressing long-term climate change objectives.
    The third is to support the development and deployment of
    advanced reactors, light-water and non-light-water reactors and
    I think the Advanced Reactor Demonstration Program is a step to
    doing that. I think more is going to be necessary to create
    this advanced reactor industry for the U.S. and to make it an
    export for the U.S. around the world. And the last is just to
    make sure that the regulatory and federal agencies that have to
    support extension of the existing fleet and licensing of new
    are properly focused and resourced to do just that.
        The Chairman. Ms. Roma, do you have any comments you would
    like to share with us?
        Ms. Roma. Actually, Senator, I thought it was great that
    you started off with your cyber fear for nuclear because when
    you look at any critical infrastructure, nuclear power has the
    most advanced cybersecurity protections, and that is you can't
    hack it. Right? You can't cause any kind of harm in a nuclear
    power plant from a cyberattack, which is fantastic and just
    shows you how robust this technology is. When you look at
    advanced reactors, most of----
        The Chairman. I hope you share that with the Federal
    Government and our Department of Defense because we get hacked
    every second of every minute of every day.
        Ms. Roma. They actually know that, yes.
        Yes, well, and they try to hack nuclear power plants. It
    just doesn't work.
        The Chairman. Good.
        Ms. Roma. There are just too many layers of defense and
    they're not attached to the grid.
        The Chairman. Got it, yes.
        Ms. Roma. So any of the security systems aren't attached to
    the grid, which makes it really, really robust.
        But from a safety and security standpoint, with advanced
    reactors, you know, a lot of them, they're small, they're
    buried underground, you know, you could do whole lots of bad
    things to them and nothing is going to happen because they're
    underground so they're not going to hurt anybody or harm
    anybody. But I think to your underlying point, right?--this is
    an important discussion and it needs to be based on facts, not
    fear.
        And so we need to have this conversation. The American
    public needs to be engaged and make decisions that they feel
    fit what they need--carbon-free, safe power. And we can do
    that. We just have to keep----
        The Chairman. Mr. Levesque.
        Mr. Levesque. Yes, Mr. Chairman, advanced nuclear is going
    to give you that reliability and resiliency that the current
    fleet has, you know, to sustain multiday tropical storms in
    Florida or the polar vortex in Illinois. Advanced nuclear is
    going to give you that kind of reliability, but it's also going
    to give you those safety and cost improvements that Mr. Sell
    and I have been describing.
        The Chairman. Let me just say this and then I am going to
    go to Senator Marshall to finish up our meeting.
        Just a lack of knowledge, a lack of education to the
    people. I have always believed because everyone, the life
    cycles of anything--so coal-fired plants, we knew what their
    life cycles were and they started ending the end-of-life cycle
    and it was time to deploy them out and cycle them out. So we
    think in the same terms. Well, it is not--what you are telling
    me--that is not the case. If they are properly maintained, they
    can go on and on and on with some technology changes, I guess
    is what I am understanding.
        So if you are going from a normal plant, probably at TVA or
    any of you all, when those first came online, maybe you had a
    40- or 50-year life to them. But you found out that you can
    extend those lives very, very safely in this environment. We
    have to now find out every nuclear plant that is on the
    chopping block right now and get to the CEOs of those companies
    and make them come here and tell us why they are taking offline
    something that should never have been taken offline, should not
    even be considered to be taken offline and why we cannot build
    the rate in to make sure they are able to operate at that
    level. We can do that. That is our job here, for the sake of
    our country. That is what we are looking for.
        You all have been invaluable today, and with that, I want
    to thank each and every one of you, but I want to turn to my
    friend, Senator Marshall, for his final round.
        Senator Marshall. Yes, thank you so much, Chairman. It is
    great to be here with you all this morning. I was on my path to
    become a nuclear engineer when medical school interrupted it.
    So it is certainly a field that has been near and dear to my
    heart growing up. Watching Wolf Creek nuclear power plant in
    Kansas being built, I think, was an inspiration for a lot of
    young men and women to go into engineering and study math a
    little bit harder.
        I think my first question will probably be to Ms. Roma. I
    am just shocked to see these nuclear plants being retired, in
    my opinion, prematurely. Everything that we are talking about,
    you know, what is an economical way to get to lower carbon,
    would say to keep the existing plants operating. What is
    leading to these being shut down prematurely? Who is making
    that decision? Who is driving that decision to shut these down
    ahead of time?
        Ms. Roma.
        Ms. Roma. Yes, well, the nuclear power plants are
    businesses and, you know, they recover rates and get paid for
    the electricity that they generate and that's based on the
    existing market structure we have in the United States that
    just says how much does it cost to produce electricity over the
    next few years and they go with the cheapest and then they go
    to the next cheapest, the next cheapest until they're done. And
    so when you look at the price of natural gas, until about the
    2008 timeframe, new nuclear was very competitive and actually
    dozens of nuclear power plants were planned because the price
    of natural gas was higher. Around 2008, the price of natural
    gas took a sharp dive down and then we discovered we can
    probably just leave it down there for a while, which all of a
    sudden made nuclear not economic anymore.
        When you look at renewables, they're subsidized. They're
    intermittent--a huge, important part of the energy mix--but
    they're intermittent and they're subsidized and so nuclear just
    doesn't fit into the mix anymore. But the largest value that it
    has besides providing immense amounts of constant power is that
    it's carbon-free and secure and reliable.
        Senator Marshall. Huh. Okay.
        Mr. Lyash, I guess what I hear her saying is that it is
    probably a huge capital cost, obviously, to keep these plants--
    to keeping them going. So it is just cheaper to build a new
    coal plant or it is cheaper to build a new natural gas plant
    than it would be to rehab these and keep them going? Is it just
    economics?
        Mr. Lyash. Yes, I think what was pointed out, that the
    markets aren't structured to reward the value of this, is right
    on target, but I think there's a deeper problem. It stems from
    a very short-term focus on our energy plan, that we're in the
    market buying whatever the cheapest energy is by our definition
    today, not recognizing that diversity in the energy supply, in
    terms of fuel, in terms of technology, in terms of the economy,
    long-term environmental objectives, is how we really need to
    plan this energy system. It's the same conversation we had
    earlier with respect to uranium mining and enrichment, taking
    the long view and the global view. I think the same view needs
    to be taken of the energy mix in this country. And if you do
    that, technologies like nuclear emerge with a critical role to
    meeting our long-term objectives. And I think the markets need
    policy and they need signal and they need direction in order to
    establish that kind of balance.
        Senator Marshall. Great.
        Being a big defender of nuclear engineering for decades,
    you know, the question always posed for me was the disposal
    part of it. And as I think about electric cars today, I am
    equally concerned about the environmental impact of disposing
    of their batteries as well. And I am thinking of these big
    graveyards of electric batteries. And I know everyone is going
    to talk about future technology, and we are going to reuse it
    all. Is there anybody that has really seen any good
    environmental impacts of nuclear waste versus just the
    equivalent number of batteries we are going to have to throw
    away to make this worse? If this was happening today, not
    future, are there any good studies out trying to compare apples
    and apples?
        Mr. Lyash. Senator, spent nuclear fuel is extremely well
    understood. We can store a lifetime of fuel ever used safely on
    the nuclear site that utilized that fuel. Alternatively, as a
    country, we could go to regional storage or monitored storage.
    Countries around the world have moved safely to geological
    repositories. The strength of nuclear, even in the face of the
    spent nuclear fuel, is that we understand it. We contain it and
    it has no impact on the environment.
        Unlike what we're seeing, for example, with transportation,
    where we drive down the street with our automobile. We emit
    waste from the tailpipe. We're not sure how much. We're not
    sure where it goes. We're not sure what it's doing.
        And so I think the nuclear waste issue is certainly not
    immaterial. It's significant, but it is not a safety issue and
    I think it's an issue we can solve in the long term.
        Senator Marshall. I guess I am past my time, but I have
    been told we could take all the nuclear waste in the United
    States and put it on one football field and if we just had a
    place to do that.
        So thank you so much and I yield back.
        The Chairman. Again, let me thank each and every one of you
    for taking the time and effort to come here because it has been
    invaluable. I can tell you, you have helped me a tremendous
    amount and I think you helped our Committee understand better
    what we are facing and how we can, basically, decarbonize
    without basically killing ourselves, if you will, shooting
    ourselves in the foot.
        So I will say this, members will have until close of
    business tomorrow to submit additional questions for the
    record.
        The Committee stands adjourned.
        [Whereupon, at 11:55 a.m., the Committee was adjourned.]

                          APPENDIX MATERIAL SUBMITTED

                                  ----------

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]