[Senate Hearing 117-230]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]


                                                        S. Hrg. 117-230

    A LEGISLATIVE HEARING TO EXAMINE S. 2373, THE AMERICAN NUCLEAR 
   INFRASTRUCTURE ACT OF 2021, AND S. 1290, THE STRANDED ACT OF 2021

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

                                HEARING

                               BEFORE THE

                              COMMITTEE ON
                      ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS
                          UNITED STATES SENATE

                    ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS

                             SECOND SESSION
                               __________

                            FEBRUARY 9, 2022
                               __________

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

                  [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]  
  


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

                               __________

                    U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
                    
47-256 PDF                 WASHINGTON : 2023   




               COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS

                    ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS

                             FIRST SESSION

                  THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware, Chairman
BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland         SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West 
BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont                 Virginia 
SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island         Ranking Member
JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon                 JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma
EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts      KEVIN CRAMER, North Dakota
TAMMY DUCKWORTH, Illinois            CYNTHIA M. LUMMIS, Wyoming
DEBBIE STABENOW, Michigan            RICHARD SHELBY, Alabama
MARK KELLY, Arizona                  JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas
ALEX PADILLA, California             ROGER WICKER, Mississippi
                                     DAN SULLIVAN, Alaska
                                     JONI ERNST, Iowa
                                     LINDSEY O. GRAHAM, South Carolina

             Mary Frances Repko, Democratic Staff Director
               Adam Tomlinson, Republican Staff Director


                            C O N T E N T S

                              ----------                              
                                                                   Page

                            FEBRUARY 9, 2022
                           OPENING STATEMENTS

Carper, Hon. Thomas R., U.S. Senator from the State of Delaware..     1
Capito, Hon. Shelly Moore, U.S. Senator from the State of West 
  Virginia.......................................................     4
Duckworth, Hon. Tammy U.S. Senator from the State of Illinois....     6
Whitehouse, Hon. Sheldon, U.S. Senator from the State of Rhode 
  House..........................................................     8

                               WITNESSES

Knabel, David A., City Administrator and Director of Accounts and 
  Finance, Zion, Illinois........................................     9
    Prepared statement...........................................    12
    Responses to additional questions from Senator Carper........    17
Cohen, Armond, Executive Director, Clean Air Task Force Maria 
  Korsnick, President and Chief Executive Officer, Nuclear Energy 
  Institute......................................................    19
    Prepared statement...........................................    21
    Responses to additional questions from:
        Senator Carper...........................................    56
        Senator Whitehouse.......................................    59
        Senator Capito...........................................    59
Korsnick, Maria, President and Chief Executive Officer, Nuclear 
  Energy Institute...............................................    61
    Prepared statement...........................................    63
    Responses to additional questions from:
        Senator Whitehouse.......................................    73
        Senator Markey...........................................    79
        Senator Duckworth........................................    79
Harrell, Jeremy, Chief Strategy Officer, Clearpath Action........    81
    Prepared statement...........................................    84
    Responses to additional questions from Senator Carper........    91

                          ADDITIONAL MATERIAL

Letter from Greyson Buckingham, Disa Technologies, Inc., to 
  Senator Lummmis................................................   111
Article by Timothy Gardner, California Urged to Keep Nuclear 
  Plant to Meet Climate Goals....................................   117
Article by Robert Bryce, NRC's Rejection of Oklo Application 
  Shows U.S. is Miles Behind China in Advanced Nuclear Reactors..   119

 
     EXAMINING PROGRAMS AT THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION

                              ----------                              


                      WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 9, 2022

                                       U.S. Senate,
                 Committee on Environment and Public Works,
                                                    Washington, DC.
    The committee, met, pursuant to notice, at 10:05 a.m. in 
room G50, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Thomas R. Carper 
(chairman of the committee) presiding.
    Present: Senators Carper, Capito, Whitehouse, Markey, 
Duckworth, Kelly, Padilla, Inhofe, Sullivan, Ernst.

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

    Senator Carper. Good morning, everyone. I am pleased to 
call this hearing to order.
    Welcome, one and all. Our hearing today is focused, as you 
know, on two pieces of bipartisan nuclear energy legislation. 
Senator Capito and I meet almost every week, in person or 
virtually, with our staff directors, both minority and 
majority. We talk about, among other things, a hearing 
schedule, which we hold hearings on. I want to thank Senator 
Capito for suggesting that we have at least one hearing early 
this year that focuses on the major source of carbon-free 
electricity in this Country of ours, and that is nuclear power.
    Today we are going to reexamine the American Nuclear 
Infrastructure Act. This legislation is sponsored by our 
Ranking Member, Senator Capito, along with Senators Whitehouse, 
soon to be a grandfather, Senator Crapo, Senator Booker, and 
our former Chairman, John Barrasso. We are also going to 
discuss the sensible, timely relief for American's Nuclear 
Districts Economic Development--there has to be an acronym in 
that. Senator Duckworth, what would be a good acronym for a 
bill like that?
    Senator Duckworth. It is called the STRANDED Act.
    Senator Carper. Whoever came up with that, I take my hat 
off to them. I am not big for acronyms, but this is a good one: 
Sensible Timely Relief for America's Nuclear Districts Economic 
Development, the STRANDED Act, for short. It will become clear 
as we go through this what we mean by stranded. Thank you for 
introducing legislation, along with Senator Collins and for 
leading us on this important, important issue.
    As we consider the merits of both bills, we are fortunate 
to have an expert panel of witnesses joining us. We want to 
thank each of you for your willingness to be part of this 
discussion.
    The numbers don't lie. As I said earlier, nuclear energy is 
by far the largest source of reliable, clean energy in our 
Country, generating over half of our Nation's carbon-free 
electricity. Nuclear power plays a critical role in our efforts 
to address the climate crisis, while also creating economic 
opportunity. Right across the Delaware River from us in 
Delaware are a couple of nuclear power plants. I think each of 
them employ close to 1,000 people, well-paid, highly trained 
work force.
    So that in today's hearing is an important opportunity to 
explore how we can help the U.S. energy industry safely develop 
the technologies that are necessary to lead our climate goals, 
while also lowering energy costs and boosting economic 
development across our Country.
    With regard to the American Nuclear Infrastructure Act, my 
hope is that we can buildupon and improve the Nuclear Energy 
Innovation and Modernization Act which became law in 2019, as 
you may recall, thanks to bipartisan work of this committee, 
including people sitting on either side of me. That Act 
required the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to create a new 
regulatory infrastructure for the next generation of nuclear 
power. This new structure is moving us closer to making 
advanced nuclear power a reality in this Country, and doing so 
without jeopardizing safety but actually enhancing safety.
    The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is not only on time when 
it comes to meeting its statutory requirements to develop a new 
framework for licensing advanced reactors, the Commission is 
currently ahead of schedule. I understand they are ahead of 
schedule by as much as 3 years, which is very impressive.
    With that thought in mind, I think we ought to be careful 
not to make unnecessary changes to the regulatory process that 
could undermine this progress, as long as they continue to make 
this kind of progress ahead of schedule. Still, it has been 
difficult for the NRC to operate under the constraints that the 
Nuclear Energy Innovation and Modernization Act requires.
    In December, NRC Chairman Hanson testified before this 
committee and expressed concerns about the impact of budgetary 
caps on the agency's ability to hire the work force of the 
future and take on the challenges of licensing advanced reactor 
technologies. We know that for the NRC to do its job 
effectively, including processing license applications in a 
timely manner, the NRC must be adequately resourced.
    As we work to improve this legislation, I would like for us 
to ensure that the NRC has the support it needs to continue its 
safety message and to hire the best and brightest needed to 
work on the next generation of nuclear reactors, which I 
believe we badly need in this Country of ours. I know a number 
of members of our committee on both sides of the aisle agree 
with that.
    While the next generation of nuclear technology presents 
opportunities for clean energy and job creation, I am also all 
too aware of the economic difficulties facing many nuclear 
facilities today, and the challenges that closing a facility 
can create for surrounding communities and the families that 
live in those communities, not unlike auto factors and other 
advanced manufacturing facilities.
    We lost, in our State, about 10, 12 years ago, we lost two 
auto plants. At one time, they employed as many as 3,000 people 
in each plant. We lost them both at the bottom of the great 
recession. We know how devastating that can be for the 
families, and for the communities and for the State. We have 
seen that in Delaware first-hand.
    The loss of highly skilled, good paying jobs oftentimes 
leads to smaller tax bases, to reduced revenues for local 
businesses, and to depressed housing values. At the same time, 
these communities are also unfairly burdened with the cost of 
nuclear waste storage.
    Senator Duckworth's STRANDED Act would benefit those 
communities that are working to move past the legacy of their 
decommissioned nuclear plants and to create a brighter, more 
prosperous future for their residents. As my colleagues have 
oftentimes heard me say, I believe on of the primary roles of 
government is to help create a nurturing environment for job 
creation and job preservation. I think everybody on this 
committee agrees with that.
    The STRANDED Act would do just that. I commend Senator 
Duckworth and her staff for their commitment to these 
communities, and her work on this bipartisan bill. She will be 
speaking following Senator Capito's opening remarks.
    In closing, I believe we have an opportunity to help our 
Nation's nuclear energy industry transition into the future, 
while reducing carbon emissions and creating economic 
opportunities at home as a result. As we make that transition, 
it is imperative that we prioritize safety and equity.
    We look forward to hearing the unique perspectives of our 
witnesses today. Before I turn to Senator Capito of an opening 
statement, let me just close with this thought. There are a 
number of the members of the committee, particularly Senator 
Duckworth, who served our Country in uniform with great courage 
and great sacrifice. I spent a few years of my life in the 
Navy, used to chase, from airplanes, nuclear submarines. As a 
father, I remember taking a Boy Scout troop down to Norfolk 
Naval Station about every 3 years. We would visit ships, 
submarines and aircraft carriers, including the Teddy 
Roosevelt.
    I will never forget, we had about 25 Scouts 1 weekend, 
about a decade ago. We met with the captain of the ship up on 
the bridge. The captain of the ship welcomed the Scouts warmly. 
We had about 25 Scouts, maybe a half dozen or so Scout leaders.
    I will never forget what he said to the Scouts. He said, 
the Teddy Roosevelt is 1,000 feet long. The boys went, oohh. 
The Teddy Roosevelt is, I think he said 40 stories high. And 
the Scouts went, oohh. And he said, and the Teddy Roosevelt has 
about 5,000 men and women who serve on the ship. And the Scouts 
went, oohh. And then he said, the Teddy Roosevelt has something 
like 75 aircraft and helicopters on board. And the Boy Scouts 
went, oohh. And then he said, the Teddy Roosevelt stops to fuel 
once every 25 years. And the adults went, oohh.
    The lats time we lost an American sailor aboard a nuclear-
powered ship, submarine, or aircraft carrier, never. We have 
never lost one. We can do this stuff safely, and we have shown 
that in the Navy and other ways as well.
    Senator Capito, thank you so much for your leadership in 
this arena, and for letting me be your wingman on what I think 
is an incredibly important issue.
    Senator Duckworth, I will turn to you right after Senator 
Capito. Thank you.

        OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, 
          U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA

    Senator Capito. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank 
the witnesses for being with us here today, both in person and 
virtually. I am looking forward to this hearing.
    We know, as the Chairman has said, that nuclear energy is 
an integral part of a clean energy system, a reliable one. It 
generates carbon-free power around the clock for up to 2 years 
before you even need to refuel. I guess it is the same with an 
aircraft carrier, only 25 years is much longer.
    Nuclear energy must remain a part of America's diverse 
energy portfolio now and in the future. State and local 
governments are realizing the benefits of preserving and 
expanding the use of nuclear energy.
    Last year, Illinois extended its law to keep the State's 
existing nuclear power plants online. Other States with no 
existing nuclear reactors, such as Wyoming, Kentucky, and 
Montana, are opening the door to deploy new nuclear plants. 
Just last week, the West Virginia legislature voted to allow 
new nuclear development in our State, and our Governor signed 
that bill into law yesterday.
    Nuclear energy can provide a tremendous potential 
opportunity for economic growth, particularly communities 
impacted by the closure of coal plants that still have 
developed sites and transmission assets that could accommodate 
new generation. In this way, development of nuclear energy 
would build on West Virginia's long history of providing 
baseload energy that fuels our economy.
    Congress should build on previous bipartisan legislation to 
continue to promote safe use and development of nuclear energy 
nationwide. That is why I introduced the American Nuclear 
Infrastructure Act with our Democrat lead, Senator Whitehouse, 
along with Senators Barrasso, Booker, and Crapo. Since 
introduction, Senators Graham and Manchin have also joined as 
cosponsors.
    The committee passed substantially the same legislative 
text last year, I believe, with bipartisan support by 16 to 5 
in this committee. I thank Senator Whitehouse for his 
leadership on nuclear issues and his partnership on this 
legislation.
    Current events serve as a reminder of the importance of 
this bill. International turmoil threatens to disrupt our 
nuclear fuel supply chain. New England generated a quarter of 
its electricity by burning fuel oil during a cold snap just 
last month. That follows the closure of two of New England's 
three nuclear plants in recent years.
    Meanwhile, China continues to build new nuclear reactors. 
China is poised to overtake France as the world's second 
largest operator of nuclear power plants. This legislation 
would strengthen America's international nuclear energy 
leadership, supporting deployment at home and making us more 
competitive in markets abroad.
    The bill incentivizes the deployment of advanced nuclear 
technologies for innovative purposes, it modernizes outdated 
nuclear restriction, it encourages using advanced manufacturing 
and construction techniques to build nuclear power plants 
safer, faster, and cheaper.
    I look forward to working with Chairman Carper and other 
members of this committee to advance this legislation as we 
have other bipartisan legislation already in this Congress.
    On a separate but related note concerning this committee's 
oversight efforts, in order to realize nuclear energy's 
economic national security and environmental benefits, the 
Nuclear Regulatory Commission must be prepared to review and 
approve advanced nuclear designs and licenses in a timely and 
collaborative manner to get new generation assets onto the 
field. EPW members on both sides have extensively supported 
efforts to develop and deploy these new nuclear technologies.
    Signed into law in 2019, the Nuclear Energy Innovation and 
Modernization Act which this committee developed directed the 
NRC to review and update the agency's practice to efficiently 
consider new reactor applications. Over the last few years, 
members on both sides of the aisle on this committee, myself 
included, have repeatedly asked the NRC is the Commission needs 
any additional authorities or resources for its advanced 
regulatory work. In December, I asked NRC Chairman Hanson 
whether the Commission is currently prepared to review license 
applications under the existing regulatory framework. He 
assured me that the Commission was ready.
    Yet approximately 1 week later, the NRC staff denied the 
only application actively under review to construct and operate 
an advanced reactor. This decision is concerning and clearly 
does not align with what the chairman told me. I recognize that 
the licensing process is a two-way street that requires an 
engaged applicant as well as an engaged NRC staff.
    Congress has provided substantial public investment to 
assist the deployment of these new technologies. Nuclear 
innovators and entrepreneurs need to be confident that the NRC 
will review applications in a timely, predictable, efficient, 
and affordable manner. That is why I asked the GAO to assess 
NRC's preparedness to review and approve advanced nuclear 
applications. GAO's review should also consider the Commission 
and senior NRC staff's process to oversee these licensing 
reviews.
    Additionally, Commission leadership is critically important 
to successfully managing these important projects. I have said 
before, leadership is strengthened when the Commission operates 
with a full complement of five members. For more than 7 months, 
the Commission has operated with only three members. I again 
urge President Biden to promptly put forth a bipartisan pairing 
of qualified individuals to fill these vacancies. Chairman 
Carper and I have joined in that request.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this important 
hearing. With that, I would yield back.
    Senator Carper. Senator Capito, thank you for that 
statement, and for your leadership. We like to work across the 
aisle on all kinds of issues, and this is certainly one that we 
have and continue to do so. It is important that we do.
    Senator Duckworth, my mom raised my sister and me to 
believe in practicing the Golden Rule, treat other people the 
way we want to be treated. When I look at the work that you 
have done on STRANDED in other communities, whether they be 
coal communities, whether they have lost economic opportunity, 
we have a moral obligation to help them, put ourselves in their 
shoes. Your legislation really has built on that premise. Thank 
you. You are recognized. Thanks for your leadership.

          OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. TAMMY DUCKWORTH, 
            U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS

    Senator Duckworth. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you to 
Chairman Carper and Ranking Member Capito for holding this 
hearing on my bipartisan bill, the STRANDED Act. My cosponsor, 
Senator Collins, is not on the committee, but she sends her 
support of the STRANDED Act and our need to get this bill 
passed and these communities the support that they need.
    As this committee will learn today from my constituents in 
the city of Zion, Illinois, there is a desperate need to pass 
the STRANDED Act as soon as possible. However, our bipartisan 
proposal is not a new or radical idea. We are simply seeking to 
fulfill a promise Congress made 40 years ago, four decades ago, 
when it passed the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982. I was 
still in high school.
    This law recognized that we need to safely dispose of and 
store nuclear waste in the interim. The Federal Government has 
a responsibility to help communities the decommissioning of a 
nuclear power plant. Specifically, Congress authorized 
assistance payments to help stranded communities to mitigate 
the social and economic impacts of being stuck with spent 
nuclear waste.
    Yet to this day, communities like Zion have not received 
their assistance. Instead, the city of Zion has lost hundreds 
of jobs and millions in tax revenue, and has been deprived of 
the valuable lakefront property that could be the base of 
future economic growth. That was never the deal.
    The Federal Government and nuclear industry promised 
communities like Zion that in exchange for their patriotic 
efforts to help our Nation generate zero-emission power, they 
would not only receive jobs and economic growth, but 
ultimately, the nuclear plants would be decommissioned, the 
waste safely removed, and the land returned for future use.
    Now, I recognize that a long-term storage solution will not 
be solved overnight. However, that is no excuse to abandon my 
constituents in Zion and Americans throughout the Country. The 
social and economic impacts of having an industry leave 
overnight are brutal, no matter the industry. But when a 
company abandons a community and leaves behind 2.2 million 
pounds of toxic spent nuclear waste sitting on 90 acres of 
lakefront property on Lake Michigan, the impact is simply 
devastating.
    This situation is not unique to Illinois. I have a chart 
here. As indicated on this map, the congressional Research 
Service has identified 80 sites, that is eight-zero sites, that 
store nuclear spent fuel around the Country. Additionally, 25 
of those sites are geographically distinct nuclear sites that 
have been furnished by litigation settlements and court 
judgments. This is no way to do business.
    The U.S. Economic Development Administration's Nuclear 
Closure Communities, NCC, Initiative, provides some support. 
But in its current form, the help is only for new construction 
or development projects. Of course, for stranded communities 
like Zion, financing new construction is of little use when the 
very stranded nuclear wastes have resulted in their loss of tax 
base, jobs and land needed to keep the lights on. It is a 
downward spiral.
    I hope to offer a substitute amendment to the STRANDED Act 
during a future markup that will build on the EDA's NCC program 
by improving it to provide the type of support communities like 
Zion desperately need now. The STRANDED Act contains three 
pillars. First, the non-competitive economic impact grants will 
provide financial assistance to local government where a 
nuclear power plant is located. The affected local governments 
are eligible to receive amounts valued at up to $15 per each 
kilogram of spent nuclear fuel stored in the affected 
community, a payment framework established under the Nuclear 
Waste Policy Act of 1982. We are not even using 2022 dollars. 
We are pegging this at the rate set in 1982 of $15 per 
kilogram.
    Second, the Innovative Solution Prize Competition will 
award prizes for proposals for affected communities to carry 
out alternatives to nuclear generating sites and waste sites, 
giving them another chance at economic development through 
innovative proposals.
    Finally, this bill would create a stranded nuclear waste 
task force to conduct a study on existing public and private 
resources for these affected communities, and develop immediate 
and long-term economic adjustment plains tailored to the needs 
of each of the affected communities. We cannot rely on 
communities to give us power then leave them to be our active 
nuclear dumpsters.
    The U.S. Government must help these communities that 
powered our lives to survive another day. Passing the STRANDED 
Act would be a first step toward fulfilling a commitment we 
made to these patriotic communities long ago.
    Of course, the inspiration to write the STRANDED Act 
stemmed from a visit to the city of Zion during my first year 
in the Senate. I am honored that the Mayor of Zion, Billy 
McKinney, is here in support of the hearing, and to have David 
Knabel, the city's administrator and director of accounts and 
finance, here as our witness to give stranded communities like 
theirs a voice.
    Mr. Knabel was born and raised in Zion, Illinois, and knows 
first-hand how stranded nuclear waste negatively impacts 
surrounding communities. After graduating from the University 
of Wisconsin Parkside in 1999, followed by a CPA certification 
in 2008, Mr. Knabel went on to obtain 14 years of experience in 
public accounting. Throughout his 10 years working for the city 
of Zion, he has championed several high-profile projects to 
assist Zion with its financial needs and worked hard to address 
the impacts of a nuclear power plant closure by working with 
legislators across the Country, the results of which will be a 
template for other communities to use for nuclear waste 
storage, evaluation and redevelopment.
    Mr. Knabel and Mayor McKinney, while this is a less than 
ideal situation, we are so fortunate to have you here today to 
share your story with us. I look forward to hearing Mr. 
Knabel's testimony on behalf of the city of Zion. Thank you 
both for being here.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I yield back.
    Senator Carper. Senator Duckworth, thanks so much for your 
leadership on this, and for bringing in one of our witnesses. 
As an aside to my colleagues, city of Zion, I read that and 
thought, that could be in Israel. In Delaware, if you get off 
I-95 in Delaware, take Route 1 and head for our beaches, one of 
them is Rehoboth, which means room for all. When you go through 
another little town, it's called Little Heaven. So we could 
have a panel with somebody from Little Heaven, the city of 
Zion, and it would be almost like a revival.
    Senator Whitehouse asked for a chance to say some words 
here. I am happy to recognize you, Sheldon. Go ahead.

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

    Senator Whitehouse. On a biblical theme, let me just say 
that Rhode Island has Galilee, where our fishing port is 
located.
    Senator Carper. This just gets better and better. Amen.
    [Laughter.]
    Senator Whitehouse. Thank you, Chairman.
    Our current climate goal of net zero by 2050 may or may not 
be adequate. But whether it is adequate or not, we are not 
going to get there without nuclear energy. Advanced nuclear 
reactors are safer, they can operate longer without refueling, 
they can run on spent nuclear fuel, very important 
consideration.
    Senator Carper. Would you say that last part again? That is 
worth emphasizing.
    Senator Whitehouse. They can run on spent nuclear fuel. 
They have a smaller geographical footprint that makes them 
easier to deploy. They can be standard design for safety. And 
in some cases, they produce high temperatures that can be used 
for separate industrial processes.
    I support the Nuclear Regulatory Commission in establishing 
a regulatory framework for advanced reactors by engaging with 
stakeholders to create a useable and workable final rule. 
Putting an advanced reactor through the current licensing 
process is like putting a Tesla through a regulatory procedure 
that requires the testing of its carburetor.
    I introduced the ANIA bill last July with Senators Capito, 
Barrasso, Booker, and Crapo. As the Ranking Member, Senator 
Capito, the Republican lead on this bill mentioned, Senators 
Manchin and Graham have joined us.
    I would also note the positive development that the 
Bipartisan Infrastructure Law created a program to support 
existing nuclear generators, which suffer competitive 
disadvantage because they get no revenue for the carbon-free 
benefit that they provide.
    ANIA further supports investment in our current fleet, and 
in future technology. I will emphasize again the importance of 
a focus on repurposing spent fuel. We cannot overlook that 
potential benefit.
    ANIA includes prizes for the first reactors licensed by NRC 
in three different categories. One of these categories is for a 
reactor that can productively re-use spent nuclear fuel. ANIA 
helps local communities affected by nuclear closures and 
assists with cleaning up legacy abandoned mining sites on 
tribal lands.
    I will close by providing a personal hello and thank you to 
Armond Cohen, one of our witnesses today, who is coming to us 
from London. Armond and I worked together back in the 1980's on 
the first conservation-based electric rates for an American 
utility, Rhode Island's own, then-little Narragansett Electric, 
now lost in the enormous national grid system. We did good work 
together way back when, and I am delighted that he is here with 
us today.
    Thank you, Chairman.
    Senator Carper. Thank you. Thanks for your steadfast 
leadership on this. It has been so important.
    The 1980's, did you say?
    Senator Whitehouse. We were first.
    Senator Carper. That was when you were Young Sheldon.
    [Laughter.]
    Senator Whitehouse. Yes, that would be then.
    Senator Carper. Still young.
    I think that does it for our members' statements. Now we 
are going to turn to our witnesses.
    Our first one is Mr. Knabel. Do I have that pronounced 
correctly, Mr. Knabel?
    Mr. Knabel. You do have that. Thank you very much for that.
    Senator Carper. Today I think Mr. Knabel is joined by 
Armond Cohen. Armond is the Executive Director of the Clean Air 
Task Force. Maria Korsnick is the President and Chief Executive 
Officer of the Nuclear Energy Institute. And Jeremy Harrell is 
the Chief Strategy Officer at ClearPath Action. We are 
delighted that you have all joined us, in some cases live and 
in person, other cases virtually.
    Mr. Knabel, if you would lead us off, that would be great. 
Please proceed with your testimony. Your entire testimony will 
be made part of the record. Please proceed, thank you.

 STATEMENT OF DAVID KNABEL, DIRECTOR OF ACCOUNTS AND FINANCE, 
                     CITY OF ZION, ILLINOIS

    Mr. Knabel. Thank you, Chairman Carper, Ranking Member 
Capito, and distinguished members of the committee. On behalf 
of Mayor McKinney, our city council, our community and all 
communities in our situation, I appreciate your time today.
    The city of Zion is located on the shores of Lake Michigan 
in northeast Illinois, just minutes from the Wisconsin border. 
It is home to 24,655 people. It was also home to the Zion 
Nuclear Power Station from 1974 to 1998, where it provided 
power to Chicago and the northern corridor of Illinois. The 
plant brought thousands of jobs to the community, contributed 
heftily to the local economy and was crucial to the foundation 
that helped the city thrive during those years.
    Residents of Zion, myself included, grew up with the two 
cooling towers being in their family photos at the beach and 
part of the city's skyline. It was just a part of life in Zion. 
We trusted that those responsible for the plant were monitoring 
the risks and keeping us safe. We accepted that the plant was 
part of our landscape, knowing that the jobs kept food on the 
table of Zion residents and many others. We understood that the 
plant kept the lights on at tens of thousands of homes 
extending far beyond our city's borders, and it was for the 
greater good.
    Unfortunately, that came to an abrupt end when ConEd 
decided they could not justify the necessary safety upgrades to 
continue to produce competitively priced power, and decided to 
permanently close the plant. The community was totally 
blindsided, as this was well in advance of the slated 
expiration of the license in 2013.
    Almost overnight, the plant closed, the jobs disappeared, 
and the lakefront and city were permanently blighted. Those who 
had been part of our city for decades were gone, and we were 
left wondering if those who had watched out for us would 
continue to do so, whether those from beyond our borders who 
had benefited from the risk the city had taken would be there 
to help us in our time of need. Would anyone care that we were 
left as a nuclear waste storage site?
    Now, over two and a half decades later, with 2.2 million 
pounds of nuclear waste sitting in our city only 400 yards from 
the shore of Lake Michigan, we now know that answer. At the 
time of closure in 1998, the Zion Nuclear Power Station 
provided almost $19 million annually in property taxes to 
support the local schools, city services, and other 
governmental entities that the public relied upon. The 
historical value and taxes collected are shown in Attachment 1 
provided.
    The plant made up over half of our entire tax base. When 
that foundation disappeared from our tax base, it did nothing 
to reduce the costs of education of our students, nor did it 
reduce the costs of our police, fire, rescue and 
infrastructure. The service demands of the public remained 
steady.
    Therefore, the tax burden that was largely paid by the 
plant instead now shifted to the residents and businesses 
resulting in an immediate 30 percent increase in their tax 
bills. There was little to no value in the now vacant plant and 
there was no opportunity to replace that tax base with 
redevelopment on what would normally be 90 acres of lakefront 
property as shown in Attachment 2 provided.
    This resulted in a cycle, which continues to this day, of 
property values dropping as a result of taxes significantly 
increasing. Property values became so depressed that large 
landlord groups were buying 40 to 50 homes at a time to rent 
out. Many of these groups failed to maintain these properties 
while they collected cash-flow, and then moved on to the next. 
At the peak, over 60 percent of our housing stock were rental 
properties, which is triple that of a healthy community.
    The demand on our schools and city services skyrocketed 
while our resources continued to dwindle. The tax rate over the 
20 years since closure almost tripled while the plant was 
decommissioned and the waste remains on our lakeshore in the 
heart of our community.
    That brings us to where we are today, with over 2.2 million 
pounds of nuclear waste stranded in our backyard next to the 
lake that provides drinking water for over 10 million people, 
the location of which shown in Attachment 3.
    Ours is not an isolated case. There are over 30 reactors 
that have been or are in the process of decommissioning and 
another 56 currently operating in 28 States. Many of the 
Senators on the Committee are or will be facing this exact same 
issue.
    It is clear that a resolution to nuclear waste storage 
needs to be addressed, but that is not for me to address the 
solution, nor is it the issue before us today. That answer has 
been debated for decades, however until a decision is reached, 
we are the end solution. We have become, against our will, a 
nuclear storage site, and the community of Zion has been 
irreparably damaged without recognition and without 
compensation.
    We humbly ask that Congress help us to start to repair 
those damages with this legislation. This is not a new concept 
for Congress. As Senator Duckworth mentioned, the Nuclear Waste 
Policy Act of 1982 was passed with strong bipartisan support 
and recognized that there should be impact assistance payments 
to units of local government to ``mitigate social or economic 
impacts occasioned by the establishment and subsequent 
operation of any interim storage site.''
    Congress acknowledged again in 2020 that assistance was 
essential to nuclear closure communities with the adoption of 
the EDA Nuclear Closure Communities program. However, that 
program required us to inflate our budget with matching dollars 
that we don't have for projects that would not address our 
inability to compete and recover.
    We have become very good at being fiscally responsible and 
do not want to spend funds unless it would address the crisis 
we are facing. The STRANDED Act of 2022 fixes these limitations 
and provides us that opportunity by permitting us to address 
the inequities in our local tax base and begin to dig out of 
the hole that the plant closure put us into.
    We are not asking for a handout but rather to just be able 
to survive. We are a prideful city and want to be self-
sufficient.
    However, over 20 years of fighting this battle alone has 
left it impossible to do so. Our goal is to utilize this 
funding to address our tax base issues and make it possible to 
compete to attract residents and businesses to our community 
and begin the rebuilding process. All of these plants across 
the United States produce nearly 20 percent of the Country's 
electrical needs. We ask that while the people of the Nation 
might not acknowledge us when their lights turn on, that they 
do remember us before ours turn off forever. It is for the 
greater good.
    Again, I appreciate your time today.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Knabel follows:]

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Senator Carper. Mr. Knabel, thanks a million for coming 
here today, and Senator Duckworth, thank you for inviting him 
to join us and speak.
    Now we are going to turn to Maria Korsnick. Maria is the 
President and Chief Executive Officer of the Nuclear Energy 
Institute. Maria, you are recognized. Take it away, thank you.
    Ms. Korsnick. I think Armond Cohen is next.
    Senator Carper. OK, thank you. In that case, Maria, we will 
wait for you for a few minutes.
    Armond, Executive Director of the Clean Air Task Force. 
Please proceed, Armond, thank you.

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

    Mr. Cohen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member, and 
thank you, Senator Whitehouse, for the shout-out. You have been 
a great leader on clean energy issues.
    I would note that when we worked together 30 years ago on 
energy efficiency, climate change wasn't really front and 
center like it is today. What is so interesting is that even in 
the 18 months since I testified before this committee last, 
there has been enormous change in recognition of the problem of 
climate change. Countries representing about 90 percent of 
world GDP and CO2 emissions are now committed to varying 
degrees to a net-zero energy system to be achieved over the 
next few decades.
    Actually, regardless of what happens in Washington, more 
than half of the U.S. electricity sales taking place today are 
taking place in States or in utility service territories that 
have a net-zero missions commitment by mid-century.
    So you could say that is the easy part. Now, the hard part 
is how do we actually achieve those goals in time, and at an 
affordable cost.
    Nuclear energy could be a very significant contributor to 
the success of meeting those goals. In our view, it could 
indeed be essential. It can serve as a powerful complement to 
increasingly inexpensive renewable energy and energy storage, 
by providing zero-carbon electricity and heat, with 90 percent 
plus availability year-round, independent of season and 
weather. Nuclear energy also provides energy in a relatively 
compact land area which is increasingly important in a crowded 
world.
    In addition to providing electricity to power the grid, 
nuclear can also power high temperature electrolysis to help 
provide zero-carbon fuels, like hydrogen, which today serves 
about 80 percent of world energy demand. Interestingly, also in 
the last 18 months, the value of nuclear energy has become 
increasingly recognized across the Country by opinion leaders 
and by the general U.S. public, as is supported by some of the 
polling and thought leadership pieces that are contained in my 
testimony.
    That said, there are many challenges to a meaningful scale-
up of nuclear from tens of gigawatts a year to hundreds of 
gigawatts a year, which is what we are going to need if it is 
going to make a meaningful contribution to climate change 
mitigation. Costs need to come down, deployment has to speed 
up. Key issues around nuclear waste disposal need to be 
resolved.
    And advanced reactor designs can help on all those fronts. 
But so can just best practices in manufacturing business model 
and licensing, as well as novel deployment strategies like 
utilizing and repurposing existing fossil fuel mining and 
electricity productionsites as Senator Capito referred to.
    Now, also in the last 2 years, Congress has done enormous 
good in this area with bipartisan legislation like NIECA, 
NEIMA, the 2020 Energy Act, Infrastructure Investment and Jobs 
Act of last year, but more needs to be done.
    In my testimony I highlight four areas for improvement in 
addition to making nuclear a real option. First of all is 
providing incentives for cost-effective scale-up of multiple 
units of advanced nuclear energy designs beyond initial 
demonstration to achieve scale and lower costs. That is 
important. Demonstrating first of kind is good, but to really 
get the scale and cost reductions that we need, we are going to 
really need to build in series. That is what every nation which 
has had a successful low-cost nuclear energy program has 
demonstrated.
    Second, we support licensing processes that are appropriate 
for advanced reactor designs, both in the U.S. and activities 
or licensing activities that will support diffusion of U.S. 
design reactors globally. Third, we need to fundamentally reset 
U.S. nuclear spent fuel policy in the direction of community-
driven, consent-based siting policies. Recently, Finland and 
Sweden have demonstrated that you can cite a permanent nuclear 
waste repository if you take this consent-based approach. We 
are going to need to take a step back and figure out how to do 
that in this Country.
    Then finally, we can look at the possibility of using 
existing retired or retiring fossil fuel sites for siting 
advanced nuclear.
    So those are four immediate areas for attention. I am happy 
to discuss further in Q&A. Once again, I really appreciate the 
opportunity to testify remotely. This was a business plan that 
had been planned some months ago. So I appreciate your 
accommodation to let me testify by video.
    Thank you.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Cohen follows:]

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Senator Carper. Mr. Cohen, we are delighted you could join 
us. Thank you for that enlightening testimony.
    Now we are going to turn to Maria Korsnick. Maria is still 
the President and Chief Executive Officer of the Nuclear Energy 
Institute. She will be followed by Jeremy Harrell.
    Ms. Korsnick, please proceed. Thank you for joining us.

  STATEMENT OF MARIA KORSNICK, PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE 
               OFFICER, NUCLEAR ENERGY INSTITUTE

    Ms. Korsnick. Thank you. Good morning, Chairman Carper, and 
Ranking Member Capito. My thanks to you and the rest of the 
committee for the opportunity to testify today. It is really my 
pleasure to be here.
    The Nuclear Energy Institute represents more than 300 
companies across the Country, including companies that own or 
operate nuclear power plants, reactor designers, advanced 
technology companies, and labor unions. Together, we are 
working to provide the clean, reliable and affordable electric 
system of the future.
    On behalf of those member companies, I thank this committee 
for its continued support of nuclear carbon-free energy and the 
thoughtful legislation that we are here to discuss today. 
Nuclear technology is American technology. From the first 
commercial plant built in the 1950's to the new reactor designs 
that, thanks to congressional support, are moving from design 
to demonstration to deployment. The United States has long been 
the global leader in nuclear technology.
    Our innovation and leadership have never been more 
important. The world is at an inflection point. The climate 
crisis requires swift action to mitigate the worst impacts of a 
changing climate. The urgency to act is finally catching up to 
the urgency of the climate crisis. We have no shortage of high-
level plans. Executing them depends on our choices.
    The stakes could not be higher. We need to prepare for a 
future that demands smarter, more reliable and more efficient 
energy solutions. Nuclear energy is the key to meeting our 
clean energy goals while ensuring our electric system remains 
reliable. We are moving toward alignment in support of 
nuclear's role in terms of policy, in terms of industry 
commitments, and in terms of interest from investors and 
consumers.
    Many States, including Illinois, New Jersey, and New York, 
have taken steps to preserve their existing nuclear generation. 
Other States, including West Virginia and Wyoming, are taking 
steps to consider new nuclear for their future energy needs.
    Preserving existing reactors offers us many years of 
additional carbon-free electricity while supporting SMRs and 
advanced reactors promises to unlock potentially game changing 
growth in U.S. nuclear new builds both domestically and abroad. 
This isn't just about reliable carbon-free energy. It is also 
about creating hundreds of thousands of American jobs.
    I appear before you today in support of the American 
Nuclear Infrastructure Act. The legislation you are considering 
contains many provisions that will protect current carbon-free 
generation and maintain U.S. global leadership and a technology 
necessary for the decarbonization of economies around the 
world.
    ANIA originally conceived of preserving nuclear by enabling 
EPA to provide payments to economically challenged nuclear 
plants. This idea continued to evolve and was included in the 
Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act that was passed into law 
last fall. We are grateful for the committee's leadership on 
this issue. This program can help to prevent millions of tons 
of CO2 emissions while supporting cost-effective and reliable 
electricity for millions of Americans.
    Further, ANIA accelerates nuclear energy innovation by 
providing three prizes to advanced reactor designs that 
complete the NRC licensing process. Navigating the regulatory 
process is expensive and time-consuming, and creates additional 
difficulties in securing financing. This unique approach will 
help accelerate the development and deployment of new nuclear. 
By creating incentives that reduce and remove these burdens, 
nuclear innovation can flourish.
    Finally, ANIA takes a different, direct approach to 
bolstering U.S. leadership in nuclear energy by empowering the 
NRC to focus on nuclear energy export and innovation 
activities. This is a major step forward in leveling the 
playing field for U.S. companies competing with state-sponsored 
enterprises internationally.
    The actions outlined in ANIA are not only a critical step 
in decarbonization and enhancing U.S. leadership, but they are 
also necessary combat climate change and protect our national 
security interests. The committee is also considering the 
STRANDED Act, designed to address one of the hurdles that 
remains to fully realizing the value of nuclear power.
    NEI is supportive of Federal efforts to satisfy its long 
overdue obligation to remove the used nuclear fuel from nuclear 
power plant sites. As Congress explores options to address this 
community impact, we support action that advances a durable 
solution for used fuel management.
    I thank the committee for its work to preserve America's 
largest source of carbon-free power and to support the 
development and deployment of new nuclear technologies. Nuclear 
energy is critical to achieving a just transition to a clean 
energy future. Many of the provisions in ANIA are positive 
toward that future.
    NEI, on behalf of our members, pledges to work with you to 
help us get there. Thank you, and I look forward to your 
questions.
    [The prepared statement of Ms. Korsnick follows:]

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Senator Carper. Ms. Korsnick, thank you for your valuable 
testimony. It was great to see you. Welcome, and thank you, and 
our best to everyone at the Institute.
    Finally, batting cleanup is Jeremy Harrell. Jeremy is the 
Chief Strategy Officer at ClearPath Action. Jeremy, welcome 
today, and you are recognized to give us your testimony. Thank 
you.

STATEMENT OF JEREMY HARRELL, CHIEF STRATEGY OFFICER, CLEARPATH 
                             ACTION

    Mr. Harrell. Thank you. Good morning, Chairman Carper, 
Ranking Member Capito, and members of the committee. My name is 
Jeremy Harrell, and I am the Chief Strategy Officer at 
ClearPath Action. We advance policies to accelerate 
breakthrough innovations that reduce emissions in the energy 
and industrial sectors.
    Additionally, I represent the U.S. Nuclear Industry Council 
as the chairman of its board.
    Clean energy and climate is regularly top of mind here in 
Washington as well as many of your constituents. While there is 
no silver bullet that will solve the urgent climate challenge, 
accelerating the global deployment of American advanced nuclear 
reactors will significantly reduce emissions and meet growing 
energy needs.
    The International Energy Agency projects nuclear generation 
needs to double by 2050 to meet net-zero emission goals. Dozens 
of American entrepreneurs developing advanced nuclear 
technologies are racing toward that cause. The bipartisan 
American Nuclear Infrastructure Act could help unlock their 
deployment at scale.
    I want to underscore three key points in my testimony 
today. First, advanced nuclear is here now. The Nuclear 
Regulatory Commission could receive roughly 10 new license 
applications before 2025, all looking to build advanced 
reactors over the next decade. Today's NRC is not equipped to 
effectively conduct those reviews.
    Second, the world's clean energy future requires nuclear 
energy, as illustrated by the IEA's projections. The only real 
question is, will it be American nuclear or will it be Chinese 
or Russian?
    Finally, the American Nuclear Infrastructure Act is the 
natural next step in a series of big legislative wins 
spearheaded by leaders of this very committee. ANIA can ensure 
that advanced nuclear meets its potential, contributing 
immensely to global security, economic growth, and emissions 
reductions.
    We are truly at an exciting time for the American nuclear 
industry. Nuclear power has re-emerged as a smart, reliable 
power source and an integral part of global emission reduction 
efforts. A flurry of next generation nuclear reactor companies, 
including Oklo, X-energy, TerraPower, GE, Kairos, and NuScale 
are all on the cusp of building reactors in the next decade. 
These technologies provide clean, reliable power and create 
jobs in local communities, but also offer additional benefits 
relative to traditional reactors.
    Advanced reactors are smaller, which allow them to be sited 
in new locations. They can operate flexibly to complement 
renewable energy, are walk-away safe, and can decarbonize 
industries beyond the power sector with their high temperature 
steam and heat.
    In other words, these technologies are a new breed of 
reactor, much different than the fleet the NRC has regulated 
for nearly 50 years. Many of the NRC's existing requirements 
are not relevant to these new designs.
    Two Congresses ago, this committee wisely enacted the 
Nuclear Energy Innovation and Modernization Act, otherwise 
known as NEIMA, directing the NRC to prepare for the licensing 
of advanced reactors. Advanced reactor companies are ready now, 
but the NRC is not.
    Oklo, for example, the first advanced reactor company to 
submit a license application the NRC, recently had its 
application rejected. NuScale, the first small modular reactor, 
took 5 years and half a billion dollars to get a design 
certification. There will always be hiccups for first movers, 
but that cannot become the norm for the review of new 
technologies.
    The NRC must modernize its processes to unlock the 
potential of these companies rather than add layers of 
unnecessary and overly burdensome regulations. Licensing is a 
necessary step between the development of new designs and 
commercialization. If America is not proactive, the U.S. could 
fail to meet its own clean energy pledges while also losing 
ground to China and Russia on technological innovation.
    Which leads me to my next point on the global picture: 
climate change is an urgent global challenge that merits 
significant action at every level of government and the private 
sector. While the U.S. and a few others have reversed emissions 
trajectories, much of the rest of the world is growing their 
emissions as they grow their populations, their industries, and 
their quality of life. We need an American innovation-focused 
approach to solve the global climate challenge.
    As I mentioned earlier, nuclear generation will need to at 
least double globally by 2050 to meet carbon neutrality goals, 
meaning new nuclear capacity additions, in addition to what we 
already have operating, need to reach 30 gigawatts per year by 
the early 2030's. That is the annual equivalent of enough 
electricity for 20 million households.
    That is daunting, but is also a huge opportunity. Nearly 50 
countries are projected to have markets for advanced nuclear 
before 2050, a more than $360 billion market opportunity for 
the American supply chain. Make no mistake about it: if the 
U.S. does not seize that opportunity, China and Russia will.
    So how does the U.S. seize this moment? Thankfully, 
Congress has recognized the importance of nuclear energy. 
Significant bipartisan legislation has been passed, providing 
both robust support for the existing civilian fleet and for the 
R&D of nascent nuclear technologies. Now, Congress must provide 
the direction needed to ensure there is a clear path for the 
next generation to be licensed, sited and permitted.
    The American Nuclear Infrastructure Act contains several 
provisions in this very vein. These policies include prizes to 
offset initial licensing costs for first movers, continued 
regulatory modernization, preemptive environmental reviews of 
key Federal facilities, and broader international collaboration 
and investments.
    In addition to these important provisions, there are other 
areas where the bill could be improved. The committee should 
look to expand the modernization efforts in NEIMA, provide 
additional financial flexibility to grow the work force of the 
future, catalyze the next generation of American nuclear fuels, 
and further streamline permitting of brownfield sites, like 
former power plants. ClearPath Action looks forward to offering 
our support to this effort.
    Thank you for the opportunity today. I look forward to 
answering your questions.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Harrell follows:]

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Senator Carper. Mr. Harrell, thank you for joining us. 
Thank you for your testimony as well.
    I am going to lead off the questioning. Next will be 
Senator Capito. Senator Whitehouse is next in order but he has 
had to step away for a while. If he doesn't return immediately, 
then Senator Inhofe, you will follow Senator Capito. Then we 
will turn to Senator Duckworth, and then depending on who joins 
us we will take it from there.
    In baseball, a pitcher someone in delivering a pitch 
signals what kind of pitch they are throwing, a fast ball, 
curve ball, slider. They say the pitcher has telegraphed their 
pitch. I want to telegraph my pitch to the panel. Probably the 
last question I will ask you is this. One of the things we are 
pretty good at, as Senator Capito and Senator Inhofe, who used 
to be the chairman of this committee, still a valued senior 
member, but we are pretty good at finding principal 
compromises. Senator Inhofe and I join together almost every 
Thursday for half an hour, for a Bible study. You would be 
amazed at how many Bible studies are prayer breakfasts there 
are on Capitol Hill, almost all bipartisan.
    One of the things we always pray for, Democrats, 
Republicans, Independents, is wisdom. One of the things I will 
be asking you right at the end of this hearing is where do you 
agree, where is there consensus on the key issues before us, 
where is the consensus on some of the key sticking points. We 
look forward to hearing from you on that score.
    All right, questions. Mr. Cohen, again, thanks for joining 
us. When the American Nuclear Infrastructure Act was considered 
by this committee last Congress, I believe you testified that 
you had concerning regard the NRC budget cuts in the Nuclear 
Energy Innovation and Modernization Act that placed caps on the 
NRC's corporate support spending. The NRC has also expressed 
concerns to our committee about their ability to continue to 
meet these caps and resulting impacts on the NRC's 
modernization efforts as these limits are set to become more 
restrictive over time.
    Here is my question. This again would be for you, Mr. 
Cohen. Do you agree with the NRC's assessment that the 
administrative budget restrictions in the Nuclear Energy 
Innovation and Modernization Act ties the hands of the NRC from 
hiring the best and brightest, and could hurt the NRC's ability 
to keep up with the industry innovations and new technologies? 
Second half of the question would be, do you still believe we 
should amend the Nuclear Energy Innovation and Modernization 
Act corporate support caps? Mr. Cohen?
    Mr. Cohen. Thank you for the question, Mr. Chairman. Yes, 
we do share the concern that you outlined that the current 
budget caps are constraining the NRC's ability to deal with 
both existing safety issues as well as licensing and reviewing 
new reactor designs.
    We have looked at the NRC's submission to this committee, 
and believe that their analysis is correct. We believe also 
that this committee should consider legislative modifications 
to the cap. At a minimum, to provide the NRC with some more 
flexibility around how the cap is defined with respect to the 
definition of corporate support, with adjustment for inflation 
and, for example, removing 2018 as the base year.
    So the answer is generally yes, we believe that those caps 
have been proven to be overly restrictive and could constrain 
the NRC's ability to be effective.
    Senator Carper. All right, thanks. Let me also direct my 
second question, involving advanced reactor deployment. The 
Nuclear Energy Innovation and Modernization Act requires the 
NRC to develop a new technology-inclusive regulatory framework, 
as you know, capable of accommodating the diversity of advanced 
reactor design, by the end of 2027. The NRC is expected to 
finalize this framework, not by 2027, but actually I have 
learned this last week, by 2024, about 3 years ahead of the 
Nuclear Energy Innovation and Modernization Act's deadlines.
    Recently, the NRC denied a license application for Oklo 
Advanced Microreactor. Although this decision does not prohibit 
the company from resubmitting an application in the future, the 
NRC decision has raised doubts among critics about the NRC's 
capabilities to review license applications before the new 
framework is put in place.
    Would you briefly describe your thoughts on what led to the 
NRC's denial and comment on the merit of concerns regarding the 
NRC's capabilities? Do we need further streamlining changes to 
the regulatory process, or are there other policies the 
committee should pursue to better support the deployment of 
advanced nuclear reactors? Mr. Cohen?
    Mr. Cohen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    I can't claim to be extremely close to the Oklo situation 
in particular. But my best information suggests the following, 
that the denial of the application was not linked necessarily 
to a fatal flaw in the regulatory process or even the way the 
NRC handled it, but possibly a variety of, I will call them 
growing pains, in terms of adjusting to these advanced reactor 
designs and reviews, specifically, communications around the 
kind of information required.
    That said, I think this does suggest the need to get on 
with the business of implementing NEIMA and in developing a 
new, separate lane for advanced reactor development. That is 
the so-called Part 53 discussion that is going on right now. My 
testimony contains a little hint of our suggestions as to how 
the future actions by the NRC could more directly and 
efficiently accommodate new reactor designs.
    So I guess my answer is a little bit split. On the one 
hand, I don't think the current Part 50 arrangement is fatal or 
even that the NRC is hobbled. I think this one will work out . 
I think that the Commission did give Oklo a little bit of a 
road map to come back.
    That said, it is clearly much better to proceed on a fit-
for-purpose lane of Part 53, which is being developed. That is 
what we look forward to seeing happen.
    Senator Carper. All right, thanks for your response to that 
question.
    Senator Capito, it is your turn.
    Senator Capito. Thank you. I am going to yield my slot to 
Senator Inhofe to begin his questions.
    Senator Carper. All right, Senator Inhofe.
    Senator Inhofe. First of all, let me thank both the 
Chairman and the Vice Chairman for acknowledging the fact that 
we have a lot of competing committees taking place all the 
time. This is very important to me, though, and I enjoyed all 
four of the statements. I thought they were great statements 
that were made.
    Ms. Korsnick, I have long supported nuclear energy and 
ensuring spent fuel is safely and properly stored in a 
permanent repository. We have been talking about this issue for 
so long now, I keep thinking we are getting closer, and I think 
we are.
    While Senator Duckworth's bill is a good faith effort to 
help her State, I am concerned that basically it kind of pays 
the communities to tolerate long-term problems. I know 
localities shouldn't have stranded nuclear waste, but this is a 
result of the fact that we have been trying, and we have had 
opposition over the years to permanently dispose of the sites.
    There has been resistance, such as there was for such a 
long period of time, to Yucca Mountain. Taxpayers nationwide, 
including Oklahomans, already paid the liability costs of 
storing spent fuel where it is after the government failed to 
build a permanent repository.
    So instead of sending more Oklahomans' taxpayer dollars to 
localities with spent fuel, we should work together to secure a 
permanent solution.
    Ms. Korsnick, would you agree that Congress should return 
its focus to securing a permanent repository for the spent 
fuel? What ideas do you have along that line?
    Ms. Korsnick. Thank you very much, Senator Inhofe. Yes, we 
very much support a long-term, durable solution for nuclear 
storage. If I could perhaps step back for a moment, to say we 
should be very proud of the American nuclear industry for all 
that it has brought. We are the strongest operating fleet in 
the world. We bring a lot of American innovation.
    That American innovation can be used to help solve this 
long-term storage issue. We simply need to put our mind to it. 
When we began the nuclear industry 50 years ago, of course, 
things were put in place to manage used fuel. We have done that 
part of it. Money has been collected, over $40 billion today in 
the Nuclear Waste Fund. We have promised to operate safely and 
to store this fuel in a safe manner until the government kept 
up its end of the bargain to pick up this fuel.
    The government has not picked up that end of the bargain. I 
think it is high time that we focus on that. I applaud the DOE 
for recently putting out an RFI on a consent-based siting 
process for interim storage. I think that is a good step. We 
are happy to work together to make inroads.
    But as a Nation, we need a long-term storage repository. If 
you look across the world, it was mentioned earlier, Sweden is 
doing this, France is doing this, Finland is doing this, 
Switzerland is doing this.
    Senator Inhofe. OK.
    Ms. Korsnick. So we are behind.
    Senator Inhofe. All right. We are behind, and I am getting 
a little behind also. So let me mention, Mr. Harrell, several 
people in their opening statements talked about NEIMA and the 
successes that we have had, and we have had successes. Its core 
mission is conducting inspections and licensing reviews, yet 
only 21 percent of its budget is allocated for that purpose, 
while corporate support is over 30 percent. Mr. Harrell, do you 
agree that the NRC needs to streamline its corporate support 
budget so it does not exceed that of its inspection and 
licensing reviews?
    This is kind of an interesting thing, because we are 
dealing with government here. Some of this comes out quite 
accidentally. What do you think?
    Mr. Harrell. Yes, that is a great question, Senator Inhofe. 
Thank you for your strong support for nuclear, and particularly 
your work at the Armed Services Committee on microreactors and 
the NEDA. I agree. I think that the resources need to be 
focused on key areas in modernization. No doubt, we need to 
inject new talent into the NRC.
    As I mentioned in my testimony, 10 new reactor designs 
could be coming in the next 3 years. We need to be able to 
focus and bring the NRC to the 21st century and get them 
focused on these new technologies, and so making sure that 
resources that are coming in, whether it is corporate support 
or off-fee resources, whatever it may be, need to be zeroed in 
on the key licensing areas to accelerate the licensing and 
ultimate appointment of those advanced reactors.
    Senator Inhofe. I appreciate that very much. Let me also 
compliment you on the statement that needs to be made all the 
time, and that is, if we don't do it, China and Russia are 
going to do it.
    Mr. Harrel. Yes, sir.
    Senator Inhofe. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Senator Carper. Thanks, Senator Inhofe. Thanks for your 
leadership over all these years on trying to get us to a place 
where we have safe, clean nuclear energy and do it in ways that 
are smart.
    Senator Inhofe. I appreciate that. I think each member of 
this committee will say this is probably the least partisan of 
the committees dealing with such serious subjects. I think we 
all have been doing well, you folks included.
    Senator Carper. Thanks for saying that. Senator Whitehouse, 
thanks for rejoining us, and again, for your leadership, too. 
Thanks.
    Senator Whitehouse. Thank you. I would like to ask Mr. 
Cohen and Ms. Korsnick what we could be doing more of. I know 
we have a prize in this for nuclear designs that operate off of 
spent fuel and allow a vehicle for us to go through the spent 
fuel waste stockpiles that are located mostly at the industrial 
sites where the power plant was.
    What more could we be doing to make sure that this 
technology that we are encouraging doesn't lose its focus on 
that aspect of the problem set we are dealing with to make sure 
that a focus on repurposing spent fuel stays at the heart of 
innovation? Mr. Cohen first, then Ms. Korsnick.
    Mr. Cohen. Thank you, Senator Whitehouse. I don't consider 
myself to be an expert on this particular topic, but there is 
clearly a lot of opportunity to, from my understanding and my 
staff's research, to look at some advanced technologies for 
reprocessing that are not the traditional technologies for 
reuse of spent fuel.
    I am well beyond my technical depth in describing those, 
but what I understand is that there are a number of research 
areas that really could use more funding. The U.S. is behind on 
this. There are a lot of good ideas, but there is not much 
funding in that space.
    So I am just going to leave it at that high level that 
there is a lot that probably could be done with Federal RD and 
demonstration of this advanced fuel reprocessing, and modes 
other that the traditional MOX reprocessing, for example. I 
don't have details to offer, but we could, at the committee's 
request, come back with some more specific ideas.
    Senator Whitehouse. Ms. Korsnick? Mr. Cohen, do that that 
as a QFR and get back to me, if you would. Ms. Korsnick, please 
proceed.
    Ms. Korsnick. Yes, thank you. I would just offer, in fact, 
I think there was an announcement this week between Argonne 
National Lab and Oklo to explore some reprocessing ideas. That 
tells you that the wheels are moving in terms of people being 
interested in reprocessing.
    I know there are other private companies that are also 
interested in exploring reprocessing. I would just add that 
even if we reprocess, it still requires us to have a long-term 
repository.
    I think, ultimately, we need this broader conversation on 
the used fuel final solution. I think the reprocessing adds a 
great element, as you mentioned, in terms of being able to use 
this. We call it used fuel, but, you know, there is 95 percent 
good energy still in this thing we call used fuel. It is an 
excellent opportunity for us to tap into it. As Mr. Cohen said, 
I am happy to bring back more ideas with some additional QFRs.
    Senator Whitehouse. I think that danger here is that the 
economics get misaligned. Companies that are having to follow 
what for them is the best economic path will go down wrong 
paths if we haven't got the economics of this aligned properly, 
in the same way that safely operating nuclear plants closed to 
open natural gas facilities that polluted a lot more for 
economic reasons that would have evaporated if the harm and 
cost of the natural gas emissions has simply been taken into 
account, as they should been. It was an economic misfire, but 
it created bad decisions out in the real world, because 
companies follow real dollars, not ideal dollars.
    My worry here is that it is going to cost a little bit more 
and take a little bit more trouble and effort to deal with 
repurposed fuel than it is to simply start new. If we allow 
that to happen, then we will have inadvertently choked off the 
innovation that could provide a way to put what is now 
dangerous, toxic, expensive waste with no plan for dealing with 
it into a productive use. I hope we can continue to focus on 
that and make sure we don't set up an economic system in which 
we inadvertently steer people away from solving that problem 
instead of toward solving that problem.
    Mr. Cohen, you mentioned hydrogen. Is nuclear power a 
potential source for what we would call green hydrogen?
    Mr. Cohen. Senator, if by that, you mean zero carbon 
hydrogen, for sure.
    Senator Whitehouse. That is what I mean.
    Mr. Cohen. Absolutely. There are a number of good studies 
out on that. Most recently, there was an analysis of the 
potential even for the Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant in 
California to coproduce electricity and hydrogen. That report 
went into great detail on how that could be done.
    This is not rocket science. The technology is well 
understood. Electrolysis has been around for many, many 
decades, but the particular advantage of nuclear in producing 
hydrogen is the potential to couple electricity production with 
high-temperature heat, which, as I understand it, makes the 
hydrogen production process much more efficient.
    I believe there are now four pilots, maybe even six now 
underway under previous legislation authorized by Congress to 
demonstrate this, very small-scale. The next step for the U.S. 
is to scale those up to a much larger level. In fact, the most 
recent infrastructure act includes a provision for a hydrogen 
hub that would be nuclear based.
    Yes, absolutely, the technical capability is there. 
Hydrogen is going to be needed at large-scale to displace gas 
and oil, and nuclear could definitely be part of that zero-
carbon mix.
    Senator Whitehouse. Thank you, Chairman. Thank you to all 
the witnesses.
    Senator Carper. Those are great questions. Senator Capito, 
and then after Senator Capito's questions, we return to Senator 
Duckworth next, and we have been joined by Senator Kelly. 
Thanks for joining us, Mark. Ranking Member Capito, it has been 
a great hearing so far. We are only about halfway through. Go 
ahead, please.
    Senator Capito. Thank you. My first question is going to 
focus on using the sites of former coal-fired power plants. 
Obviously, this is an important question for me. One of the 
reasons that West Virginia changed their law, I think, was to 
try to remove the barriers of nuclear energy, but also to 
couple those two initiatives together. I believe that in 
Wyoming, this is already moving forward.
    Ms. Korsnick, what can we do, either Congress or at the NRC 
to facilitate the creation of nuclear jobs in these former coal 
communities?
    Ms. Korsnick. Thank you, Senator Capito, for that question.
    You are right on the mark. Repurposing coal plants or other 
fossil plants is extremely attractive for future nuclear plant 
siting. For one thing, they have the transmission already 
there. That is a challenging part of the infrastructure, if you 
will. It is costly to build, so it is a great opportunity to 
reuse that.
    I can say, just a point of note, recently the NRC did 
revise some guidance, that would actually help coal plant 
operators to receive some credit for their experience operating 
fossil plants as part of their review process to become a 
certified nuclear operator. It is things like that that we can 
do.
    I operated nuclear power plants for many, many years, and 
when we did refueling outages, we brought the folks down from 
the coal plants to help us in our refueling outages. Nuclear 
and coal, nuclear and fossil have a long history of 
partnership. Nuclear plants, we boil water differently, 
perhaps, than a coal plant, but after that, once you have 
turned it into steam, there are a lot of similarities in the 
jobs and a high degree of opportunity for us to bring jobs to 
these former coal plants.
    Senator Capito. Thank you.
    I want to talk a bit about the expense. Mr. Harrell, I 
believe you mentioned an application that had cost a half a 
billion dollars, and I can't remember how long it took. 
Obviously, this has to be a sticking point of the initial 
application, but also the innovation that is going to be 
required. What kinds of ideas would you have in terms of being 
able to afford to actually move in this direction?
    Mr. Harrell. It is a great question, Senator Capito, and 
thank you for your strong leadership on this bill and other 
clean energy issues, both at this committee and at the 
Appropriations Committee.
    I think one of the key ideas here, and included in your 
legislation, is the XPRIZE to offset some of the fees related. 
I was mentioning NuScale in my testimony, $500 million over 5 
years to get to design certification, $70 million of that in 
fees. That is a huge barrier to entry.
    There are a variety of exciting, advanced reactor companies 
that have technology that can contribute to both our economy 
and to emissions reductions that are startups. They are venture 
capital raised. So that type of financial barrier is providing 
a barrier for these companies to move forward, and essentially 
saying you need big backers to move forward.
    I think that is squandering an opportunity for American 
entrepreneurs as a whole. Right-sizing regulations to make sure 
that they are consistent with the true risk of these reactors, 
so we are not doing a dilatory review type of thing. Then 
providing support to some of these advanced reactors, 
particularly first movers who are doing the heavy lifting here 
at the onset, I think are really important.
    Senator Capito. I appreciate that. I appreciated Mr. 
Cohen's response on hydrogen to Senator Whitehouse's question. 
I would like to ask both of you if you have anything to add on 
the innovators that are developing designs to generate high-
temperature heat to be used for manufacturing and industrial 
purposes. We are requiring the NRC to identify and address 
potential regulatory barriers to deploying this for other 
technologies.
    Where is the nexus here between creating a hydrogen economy 
and having nuclear power at the same time? I will go to you, 
Mr. Harrell, first, and then Ms. Korsnick.
    Mr. Harrell. Yes. That is one of the most exciting 
components of these new designs, a bunch of different 
applications. Nuclear can play a huge role in hydrogen 
production as a 24-7 resource and it contributes to the no-cost 
[phonetically] paradigm, the ability to use processed heat in 
manufacturing of hard to abate sectors, like steel and 
concrete.
    Even outside of the climate space, nuclear thermal 
propulsions is a really exciting opportunity in a way that 
these new technologies can help expand our space frontiers. We 
are excited about it, but it is a new frontier for the NRC, and 
they are used to only electrical applications.
    Senator Capito. Ms. Korsnick, did you have anything to add 
there?
    Ms. Korsnick. Yes, thank you.
    I would just add that we talk about how long it took to 
license some of these technologies, but after you license it, 
there is also a licensing process for the site, in other words, 
a site selection process. When you asked earlier about what 
other things we can do, what are the next barriers, I think we 
need to really look at the NRC process for siting so we can 
take some of these coal sites and sort of quickly understand 
that they are suitable for nuclear.
    I think it goes to your last question as well. If you are 
going to use nuclear for other things, you are going to want to 
site those nuclear plants, in fact, near some of these 
manufacturing facilities. So there is a nexus around siting and 
making the siting process more effective and more efficient.
    Senator Capito. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    Senator Carper. Thank you so much. Senator Markey has 
joined us. Senator Markey, I understand under the rules of the 
committee, you could move ahead of Senator Duckworth and 
Senator Kelly and ask your questions. If it is not urgent for 
you to leave, if you could let them go first, I would 
appreciate it.
    Senator Markey. When you phrase it that way, it sounds like 
an offer I can't refuse. Senator Duckworth, you are recognized.
    [Laughter.]
    Senator Carper. You are a good man. Thank you.
    Senator Duckworth. I thank Senator Markey.
    Mr. Knabel, when the city of Zion accepted the economic 
benefits and the risk of hosting a nuclear facility to generate 
zero emissions power for itself and surrounding communities, 
what did Zion expect to happen to the lakeside property once 
the plant's operating license had expired?
    Mr. Knabel. We expected that the property would revert back 
to unrestricted use, that the site would be cleaned up, and we 
would have the opportunity to have the community either 
redevelop for, again, replacement tax base or to be able to use 
the property for recreation or other purposes to grow our 
community. We did not expect to have a 90-acre nuclear 
footprint buried onsite or be a nuclear storage site 
indefinitely, for sure.
    Senator Duckworth. Thank you. I think this is an important 
point, because the Senator from Oklahoma mentioned that part of 
the problem we have here is that we have not come up with a 
location for disposal or long-term storage of a nuclear site, 
whether it is Yucca Mountain or where else.
    My point is even if we agree today on a site, wherever that 
is, it will still take 20 years to develop that site. In the 
meantime, cities like Zion remain a de facto nuclear storage 
facility, and that is simply not fair to the community. As our 
Nation debates the permanent solution to safely dispose of and 
store radioactive nuclear waste, it is my hope that we can find 
common ground around a simple principle: that until a permanent 
solution is implemented, the Federal Government should help 
communities deal with economic and social harms of stranded 
nuclear waste.
    Mr. Knabel, can you explain why the city of Zion needs 
Congress to pass the STRANDED Act and finally fulfill the 
Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1986 original vision of 
distributing economic impact assistance payments to help 
stranded communities offset the economic and social harms of 
temporarily storing nuclear waste, even if that temporary ends 
up being 40 years?
    Mr. Knabel. Sure. It was agreed to in 1982 that there was a 
social and economic impact to municipalities that stored waste 
on an interim basis. This is just reiterating that need.
    But during the time that we have been a storage site, that 
the plant has been decommissioned and closed, we have been 
operating at an annual deficit, basically have been treading 
water ever year. Every year, we go a little further beneath the 
surface.
    We don't have the opportunity for redevelopment. Our 
property tax base has declined significantly. We have been 
irreparably damaged financially community wide as a result of 
this. This is crucial to us being able to survive to even get 
to a point where we can talk about moving the waste or even get 
to a point where we can talk about reuse.
    We are less staffed for police, fire, and public works than 
we were in 1998, and we are handling three times the calls and 
service demands from the community. Over 60 percent of 
infrastructure is 70 years or older, and we don't even have the 
funds to address those issues. We are just trying to survive 
and still be in existence.
    This will help us to address those deficits, to try and put 
a plan in place to get a return on that investment so that we 
can be self-sustaining, we can dig out of that hole, to get to 
the point where we can even start to address those issues.
    Senator Duckworth. Thank you.
    I think this is critical to say, passing the STRANDED Act 
will actually help us make good decisions on where to move the 
nuclear fuel. I think it will act almost as a pressure valve to 
take the pressure off making a decision immediately to, say, 
choose Yucca Mountain or someplace like that, so that we can 
make good decisions on where this waste will go. Because in the 
meantime, the waste can remain where it is in a way that the 
community that is holding the waste can sustain it.
    The Economic Development Administration administers the 
Assistance for Nuclear Closure Communities Program, often 
referred to as the NCC Initiative. As I noted in my statement, 
while promising, the NCC initiative suffers from key 
limitations, which my STRANDED Act seeks to address.
    Mr. Knabel, can you explain why the EDA's NCC Initiative 
falls short in meeting the urgent needs of stranded communities 
like Zion and address why it is so important to expand the 
EDA's support, as my STRANDED Act will seek to do?
    Mr. Knabel. Absolutely. The program as it is currently 
written is a nice idea for maybe a step three in our process. 
As I mentioned, we would be lucky to have the luxury of only 
having to figure out how to pay for our infrastructure like 
other municipalities do.
    However, we are not at that point. The way I have kind of 
equated it to others is, when you are worried about trying to 
put food on the table for your family, you can't even consider 
how you are going to fix the leaky roof.
    Development projects, first of all, on a site or in a 
community that cannot attract redevelopment because of tax base 
or because of blighted property, it is just not feasible, but 
second, it also has matching requirements on there that we 
simply can't add to our budget that is already hemorrhaging as 
a result of 20 years of spiraling property values due to the 
decommissioning.
    So there is a limitation on that. It a good step three, but 
the STRANDED Act addresses the step one needs.
    Senator Duckworth. Thank you. I have additional questions, 
but I will submit those for the record. I yield back.
    Senator Carper. Thank you, Senator Duckworth. Senator 
Kelly, and then Senator Markey.
    Senator Kelly. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate your 
having this hearing today on these important pieces of 
legislation.
    I want to start by discussing the American Nuclear 
Infrastructure Act of 2021, Ranking Member Capito and Senator 
Whitehouse's bipartisan bill, which I support. Nuclear energy 
is critical to our shared goal of reducing carbon emissions and 
fighting the effects of climate change, and this bill would 
provide financial support and more regulatory certainty to next 
generation advanced nuclear reactors, help more Americans get 
trained for good-paying, high-skilled jobs in the nuclear 
industry, improve coordination with international nuclear 
regulators, and support nuclear investments made by our allies, 
and provide financial support for our aging nuclear fleet.
    Important to me, this bill builds upon the work I have done 
to support the cleanup of abandoned uranium mines in Tribal 
communities. As a member of the bipartisan group of Senators 
who negotiated the infrastructure law, I fought to secure $5 
billion for investments for superfund sites and brownfield 
cleanups, including for more than 500 abandoned uranium mines 
on the Navajo Nation. I appreciate steps taken in this 
legislation to further strengthen U.S. global leadership in 
next-generation nuclear energy technologies to compete with 
China and Russia.
    This brings me to my first question. Ms. Korsnick, can you 
expand upon your testimony on the ways that China and Russia 
are threatening to rival U.S. leadership on the international 
stage, and how the American Nuclear Infrastructure Act's 
provisions relating to international nuclear reactor export 
activities and international regulatory competition would help 
to combat the challenges that are posed by Russia and China?
    Ms. Korsnick. Yes, thank you, Senator. If you would, 
imagine the partnership that grows when two countries work 
together on commercial nuclear. It essentially forges a 100-
year relationship, from design to build to operate 
decommissioning. The idea of working together with nuclear 
forms very strong geopolitical bonds. This is something that we 
should strategically look at as supportive of United States 
geopolitical interests.
    In that same way, China and Russia are very interested in 
controlling other countries' energy supply for reasons that you 
actually have seen play out, even over in Europe over gas 
lines, for example. There is a lot of power in controlling 
somebody's electricity supply.
    China is going all-in. I think they are building 20 
reactors right now, and they have a strategic plan to build a 
whole lot more. China, right now, looks like the United States 
in the 1950's. They are building all kinds of different types 
of reactors. They want to get good at all of them.
    Both China and Russia, when they show up in other countries 
saying, let me help you out, I will operate it, I will build it 
for you, I will operate it for you, and I will take your used 
fuel. They make a deal with these other countries that is so 
attractive, it is very difficult for any of the U.S. companies 
to compete. We can either do something about that, or we can 
reap these benefits in 10 to 20 years.
    Senator Kelly. When you talk about how the partnership 
between two countries is lasting and enduring and sounds like 
it helps both of them, have you seen, are China and Russia 
partnering with each other on nuclear technology?
    Ms. Korsnick. I don't see as much. I can't say that it is 
not happening. I can say both of those countries have expressed 
common interest in certain other countries. For example, they 
are both interested in places in Africa. They have both 
expressed interest in Brazil. They are very interested in a 
longer-term strategic play, where it is their technology that 
is operating in as many countries as they can make that happen.
    Senator Kelly. Thank you, Ms. Korsnick.
    Mr. Cohen, I wanted to ask you about the role nuclear 
energy can play as a clean, firm source of electricity. As you 
can imagine, as the sunniest State in the Nation, Arizona is a 
leader in solar energy deployment and development, and there is 
a lot more growth to come. But reliability is a challenge, 
especially in Arizona's long hot summer months when air 
conditioning is non-negotiable.
    Mr. Cohen, for States like Arizona, which are prime markets 
for solar energy deployment, what role does a firm source of 
energy, like nuclear energy, play in ensuring grid reliability 
and keeping costs low for customers?
    Mr. Cohen. Thank you for the question, Senator Kelly. Yes, 
all of the studies that I have seen for the Southwest, and this 
is true for all the studies actually that we have done for all 
the geographies I have seen in the U.S., suggest that 
renewables and nuclear don't really compete. What they do is 
complement each other. Even in a very sunny State like Arizona, 
you do have a great solar energy resource, but it is quite 
variable by season, by a factor of as much as two to one.
    What nuclear does is provide an always-on base, if you 
will. Even if it has to be curtailed at certain times or ramped 
down on certain days because of very, very high solar 
production, there are typically still a lot of cost savings in 
having that always-available source.
    It is also true that Palisades in Arizona is a mainstay 
right now of the western grid and reliability. So renewables 
are great for reducing costs at the margin, but what nuclear 
provides is a firm base when the sun isn't shining, when the 
wind isn't blowing. That is often true for weeks, even months 
where it isn't blowing at the levels aren't at maximum, nuclear 
can provide and fill those spaces and ensure a much lower cost 
grid.
    It is often nuclear versus renewable; I think that is a 
false distinction. They work very well together.
    Senator Kelly. I think folks are often unaware that when 
the demand is the highest is not actually when the sun is 
shining the brightest and is directly overhead. Demand is 
usually in the hottest part of the day, also happens to be the 
time that people are coming home from work and shortly 
thereafter, the sun is at a much lower angle and is not 
generating as much electricity. So this is a good option to 
fill that demand gap.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Senator Carper. Senator Kelly, thanks so much for joining 
us.
    Senator Markey, you are next. I think Senator Padilla may 
be trying to join us after you question the witnesses. Thank 
you for allowing the other two Senators to go ahead of you. 
Thank you.
    Senator Markey. No, of course. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    We have a moment here where we can just kind of do a review 
of the nuclear industry as it sits today, including the two 
nuclear power plants in Georgia, the Vogtle Plants, which were 
proposed as $14 billion for the two units to be generating 
electricity. They have had their problems over the years, let's 
be honest, and it is up to $30 billion now for the two units. 
Still, they are not without their difficulties.
    Let's just talk about that as a state-of-the-art for the 
industry, and there still is no known meltdown for a solar or a 
wind project in the United States, so the safety issues, 
obviously, around nuclear, are not small.
    In the infrastructure bill, which has already passed, there 
were $6 billion for the nuclear industry that was built into 
the infrastructure bill, which we all voted for. In the Build 
Back Better Bill, Mr. Chairman, there is, as passed by the 
House, and hopefully, we could get to it in the Senate, there 
is actually $23 billion in production tax credits for the 
nuclear industry just through the year 2027. I know Senator 
Manchin is arguing to cover it up to 10 years. That would 
obviously increase it, but $23 billion in that bill.
    From my perspective, I think that we should just realize 
that this is an industry that has had difficulty in actually 
bringing any new plants online. It gets more and more costly as 
each year goes by.
    Yet, we should also be focusing on the wind and solar and 
other industries. If we are going to do something, we just have 
to do it together. That is actually what the Build Back Better 
Bill is. The Build Back Better Bill deals not just with 
nuclear, $23 billion in tax credits, but also tax breaks for 
wind and solar and battery technologies and all electric 
vehicles, so that we are looking at this from a comprehensive 
perspective.
    Mr. Cohen, do you agree that we should be investing in mass 
deployment of renewable energy and not just focusing 
exclusively on nuclear in order to achieve our climate and 
clean grid potential?
    Mr. Cohen. Yes. Thank you, Senator, for that question. I 
absolutely agree with that. We have been big supporters of the 
renewable tax credits and all other kinds of RD&D and 
deployment. It absolutely has to be a balanced portfolio. That 
is what all the modeling suggests.
    In fact, most of the modeling suggests that the zero-carbon 
grid of the future is likely to be dominated, actually, by 
sources like wind and solar. Again, nuclear can play a 
supporting role, but without that inexpensive wind and solar, 
at scale, the cost of decarbonization will be much more 
expensive. Absolutely, both of these policies have to work in 
tandem.
    Senator Markey. So, in addition to nuclear plant bailout, 
which is in this bill, there is also a doubling down on the 
infrastructure bill, and it is a $2.5 billion Advanced Reactor 
Demonstration Program by making taxpayers foot that bill for 
additional advanced reactor activities. Supporting that 
continued nuclear generation also then raises questions about 
nuclear waste and how our Country is going to handle those 
issues.
    Mr. Cohen, do you agree that a long-term solution for 
nuclear waste needs to be a principal component of any 
discussion of additional nuclear generation in our Country?
    Mr. Cohen. I think that it is a problem that needs to be 
solved. I believe it is a problem we can solve. I think we are 
going to have to get way out of the box in terms of how we 
solve it in a way that other industrialized countries like 
Sweden and Finland have managed to do.
    I do not view a permanent solution as an absolute 
precondition, however, for any additional deployment of 
nuclear. I believe that these two issues can be pursued in 
parallel.
    Senator Markey. OK. Well, from my perspective, this is a 
perfect subject for discussion in the Build Back Better Bill. 
We clearly are going to be looking at technologies that should 
be invested in in order to deal with our clean energy programs, 
and this is a very good hearing to have in order to explore 
this one part of it.
    I will say, again, a part that is unlikely to add, over the 
next 10 years, a significant amount of electricity, given the 
Vogtle Plant experience. But if it is coupled with tax breaks 
for wind and solar, all-electric vehicles, and battery storage 
technologies, well, that is a good discussion. Then we can just 
allow the market to work in order to demonstrate, ultimately, 
which of these technologies is going to be producing 
electricity between now and 2030.
    Again, I hate to say this, but it is unlikely that there 
will be another new nuclear power plant that will be authorized 
in that period of time. But I am very open in the Build Back 
Better Bill to adding on to what we already voted for in the 
infrastructure bill for the nuclear industry. But I think it 
should all be tied together as an all-of-the-above strategy in 
this clean energy field.
    I thank you, Mr. Chairman, very much, and I thank the 
Ranking Member.
    Senator Carper. The Senator from Massachusetts raised an 
interesting and timely point. In the Clean Energy Tax Credit 
provisions within Build Back Better, which I have started to 
call Build Back Slimmer, but there are provisions that actually 
do, tax provisions provide production tax credits that are, my 
staff and I and others on this committee were involved in. We 
have tax provisions for clean hydrogen, green hydrogen that are 
in that legislation.
    My hope is that, as we come back and try to find the 
portions, significant portions, I hope, of Build Back Better, 
Build Back Slimmer, that we will be able to include some of the 
things that we are talking about right here, makes a lot of 
sense.
    Senator Markey. Can I just say?
    Senator Carper. Please.
    Senator Markey. The beauty of Build Back Better is that the 
tax that all these incentives are technology neutral. So yes, 
it is hydrogen and it is nuclear, but it is wind and solar and 
battery storage technologies. So it is technology-neutral, and 
it will all be there. It is just a race to the finish line at 
that point, so I just think that is important for us to 
understand.
    Senator Carper. Great, thank you so much.
    Senator Markey. Thank you.
    Senator Carper. Senator Padilla was trying to join us by 
WebEx. Do we know if he is on or off? If he comes on, let us 
know.
    Senator Capito, would you like to go next?
    Senator Capito. I have just a couple quick questions.
    I wanted to ask, first of all, before I do that, because I 
forgot to do this before, I would like to ask unanimous consent 
to insert two articles into the record. One is an article from 
Reuters titled California Urged to Keep Nuclear Plant Open to 
Meet Climate Goals. The other is from Forbes titled NRC's 
Rejection of Oklo Application, which we have heard about in 
this hearing, Shows the U.S. is Miles Behind China in Advanced 
Nuclear Reactors.
    [The referenced information follows:]

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Senator Capito. I would say to my friend who is leaving 
from Massachusetts that I am for an all-of-the-above energy 
plan, myself. You are just leaving several, very significant 
energy-producing materials out of what you were talking about. 
You know what I am talking about: natural gas, coal, carbon 
capture utilization. I will just put that on the record.
    You can head out now, that was my comment to you, thank 
you.
    Senator Markey. I just forgot about carbon capture, we are 
actually marking at $200 billion for carbon capture, and $200 
billion for carbon capture and sequestration. So again, we are 
totally open to any negotiation on carbon, hydrogen, all those 
issues.
    Senator Capito. Thank you.
    Ms. Korsnick, during COVID, there were lessons learned all 
around the horn on everything, but certainly some lessons 
learned in the NRC and the way they did some inspections by 
greater remote access to plant data. I am wondering if you have 
any examples of how these plants have improved their operations 
because of some of the lessons learned during the COVID 
pandemic.
    Ms. Korsnick. Yes, thank you, Senator. We actually had 
great success during COVID. We were able to run all of the 
refueling outages and significant work at all of our nuclear 
plants during this COVID experience.
    As you mentioned, one of those things was to kind of think 
about more creative ways that the NRC could conduct their 
oversight of our operations. At the end of the day, it proved, 
in some cases, more efficient and helpful for them.
    We very much look to identify some of those best practices 
and integrate those lessons learned into permanent processes 
and procedures of the NRC. For example, they were able to 
conduct several of their inspections remotely. Not everything 
avails itself to that kind of inspection, and so we are not 
saying we don't need NRC inspectors onsite by any means, but 
there were ways we think that they can run their business more 
efficiently. We allowed them more access remotely to our sites 
to facilitate it. I think it was a win-win.
    Senator Capito. Good, good. Mr. Harrell, final question 
from me on the STRANDED Act. I didn't know if, obviously, there 
is a cost to everything, and there is an authorization level, I 
believe, in the act that Senator Duckworth has brought forward. 
I didn't know if you at ClearPath had done any kind of estimate 
as to what the actual cost of something such as the STRANDED 
Act could cost.
    Mr. Harrell. Yes. It is a great question to ask, Senator 
Capito. If these economic impact grants continued indefinitely 
toward 2050, we are looking at $2 trillion. No doubt, the 
status quo serves no one well, and I think that includes Zion, 
Illinois. We need a variety of solutions to the spent fuel 
problem.
    I think innovation can play a major role in that. I think 
you have included some important provisions in ANIA to get at 
the support for communities who formerly hosted sites. One of 
the biggest things we do, and kudos to you and many members on 
this committee, including the chairman, on the infrastructure 
bill, one of the biggest things we can do is avoid closing 
these plants altogether so we don't have this economic story.
    Then, advanced reactors can play a role in using spent 
fuel. There is innovation in storage of fuel. There are 
exciting companies like Deep Isolation that are looking at 
storing spent fuel in bore holes, and so I think that is an 
area where we can wisely spend dollars and get to a solution. 
Because I do worry if a $2 trillion program over the next 30 
years is established, we are just perpetuating the same problem 
that exists.
    Senator Capito. Right. Well, thank you. Thank you, Mr. 
Chairman.
    Senator Carper. Thank you, Senator Capito. Again, thanks 
for your leadership on not just this issue, but especially on 
one of the two bills that we are holding this hearing on today. 
This has been a great conversation.
    I think we have been joined remotely by Senator Padilla by 
WebEx. Senator Padilla, if you are there, I would be happy to 
recognize you at this time. Are you there?
    Senator Padilla. Great, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I 
appreciate the flexibility. I was there in person earlier. As 
you know, multiple committees are meeting, so I am joining 
virtually.
    I want to begin by recognizing that my home State of 
California has actually three nuclear facilities in various 
stages of decommissioning: San Onofre, Rancho Seco, and 
Humboldt Bay, with the most recent action being the NRC's 
November 18th announcement that it has terminated the license 
for Humboldt Bay Unit Three, and released a unit site for 
unrestricted use.
    Operating nuclear power plants provides economic 
opportunities for local communities during the operation. As 
plants are decommissioned, communities often experience a 
significant loss of tax revenue and a loss of good-paying jobs.
    I know Senator Duckworth already spoke earlier about the 
STRANDED Act and what it could mean for communities undergoing 
these sorts of transitions. I wanted to point out another 
unique element of the decommissioning process and future use of 
sites. Some of California's decommissioned facilities are 
connected to or located very near existing electrical 
transmission infrastructure. Given the stigma around reusing 
former nuclear facilities because of cleanup concerns and 
otherwise, it does beg the question of how we can best put this 
land to use after facilities are decommissioned, how we best 
use the area.
    Question for Mr. Knabel. Beyond just financial support, are 
there additional support or services that the government could 
provide to smooth transitions and maintain local economies 
following the closure of a nuclear power plant?
    Mr. Knabel. Thank you, Senator Padilla. I believe Senator 
Duckworth's act addresses that, in part with the task force and 
the creative grant program, or the XPRIZE program. As you 
mentioned, there is a stigma associated with a decommissioned 
plant that you can look at 90 acres of lakefront property and 
say, that would be fantastic, but who is going to want to build 
on a prior nuclear footprint?
    On a local level, we try and look at ways to reuse that, 
and we try and attract business, we try and look at, is there 
potential for a natural gas plant. Again, you have the 
switchyard there for the electric grid infrastructure.
    So anything that can be identified through Federal 
resources to help get us back on track would obviously be 
appreciated. I think it is necessary to dig out of the hole for 
our community, for yours, for everyone that is affected by 
this, ultimately.
    As I mentioned earlier, we have to make sure that we are 
around to be able to benefit from that. Something like that is 
going to take quite a while to develop and see the benefit of. 
Step one of the STRANDED Act deals with noncompetitive grants. 
But there is a hope that, ultimately, there will be some sort 
of highest and best use for that property, but we know that it 
will never be what we originally had, what was there, and what 
was promised, especially while the spent fuel is still onsite.
    Senator Padilla. All right, to be continued.
    The second question, let me frame it here. Currently, there 
is roughly 86,000 metric tons of commercial spent fuel sitting 
in communities, not just across California, but across the 
Country. That figure is increasing at the rate of about 22 
metric tons per year. The waste is currently stored at 121 
sites in 35 States, mostly at the very same facilities that 
produced it.
    In the next 3 years, all of California's nuclear power 
plants will be shut down or are in the decommissioning process, 
which will leave the spent nuclear fuel at each power plant 
site. Again, referencing California specifically, here. As I am 
sure you all know, despite safety assurances, localized storage 
garners intense public interest, particularly in California, in 
light of seismic activity and earthquake risk. know there is 
increasing dialog about the consent-based siting strategy for 
storage.
    I am asking Mr. Cohen this question, if an interim or 
permanent storage site ever did become operational, spent fuel 
and waste would have to be transported through countless 
communities from the current site to that interim or permanent 
storage site.
    How do you balance that transportation need with the 
alternative of leaving waste where it currently is, from a risk 
and benefit standpoint?
    Mr. Cohen. It is a great question. I will venture a 
personal opinion, maybe not even an organizational opinion on 
this, that it has been demonstrated that we can transport 
nuclear waste safely. It has been done for many decades.
    However, and the alternative is to leave everything where 
it is, so you do have a tradeoff. There is always some risk in 
transport, but there is also risk, certainly, to future 
economic development in communities, as you have noted, in 
leaving things onsite. I think the best thinking is that we 
really need to move this waste. Again, I don't think it is an 
impossible task to do that safely.
    I can provide a more thoughtful and extended answer in 
writing, if you prefer. The evidence does support that you can 
safely transport nuclear spent fuel.
    Senator Padilla. A written response would be helpful and 
appreciated. Thank you both. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    Senator Carper. Senator Padilla, thanks so much for joining 
us, and for your patience today. We have a vote underway in the 
floor. I think we have about another 10, 12 minutes that I can 
stay here with you. It may seem longer, but it won't be long, 
about 10 or 12 minutes, then I have to go on and vote.
    A question, I want to ask one question for Mr. Cohen, and I 
think probably Ms. Korsnick as well. We will let our other 
witnesses off the hook on this one. Just keep in mind, I 
telegraphed my picture earlier. The last question I will ask 
is, where do we have some consensus here, maybe a couple of 
major points from each of you to share with us.
    Before we get to that, Mr. Cohen, Ms. Korsnick, recent 
advances in nuclear and material science has provided an 
opportunity to build safer, more efficient alternatives for 
existing nuclear fuel rod technology. These technology 
advancements are leading to a safer, more efficient nuclear 
fuel rod technology called accident tolerant fuels. These new 
accident tolerant fuels can serve as an important bridge to 
advanced reactors, while at the same time, allowing current 
nuclear reactors to be safer and more cost competitive.
    Here is my question, again, for Mr. Cohen and Ms. Korsnick. 
Would each of you take a minute and discuss what you know to be 
the status of accident tolerant fuels today, just briefly, and 
would each of you provide maybe one policy option we should 
consider to support the next generation of nuclear fuels? Mr. 
Cohen, then Ms. Korsnick.
    Mr. Cohen. I might suggest that Ms. Korsnick, who is more 
expert on this topic, go first.
    Senator Carper. All right, there you go. Ms. Korsnick, 
would you go first, please?
    Ms. Korsnick. Great, thank you. Yes, so your question is on 
accident tolerant fuels.
    Senator Carper. Yes.
    Ms. Korsnick. I think this is a wonderful opportunity for 
the industry. Again, American innovation at play. I think it is 
going to bring forward a variety of options, whether those 
options are used in current reactors that we use today or the 
reactors of tomorrow. I think it is a great opportunity.
    It is likely to be more expensive, so I think, as with 
anything, I think you have to sort of balance the need for that 
additional expense with the value that it brings. I think there 
is a good value proposition there.
    In terms of a policy option, I would suggest, we have some 
investment today in accident tolerant fuel. I think we should 
look at that investment and see if we can bring accident 
tolerant fuel to the markets even sooner.
    Senator Carper. All right, thank you.
    Mr. Cohen, anything, very briefly you want to say, and then 
we will go to the next question?
    Mr. Cohen. I would just add, the next step is obviously to 
think about fuel fabrication and the full supply chain, and 
that needs further attention.
    Senator Carper. Thank you.
    I will go back to my original, what I said to you at the 
beginning of the hearing. The pitch, well-telegraphed, is right 
here, in the ideas. We always look on this committee, more than 
probably any committee in the Senate, as much as any committee 
in the Senate, we look on ways to find consensus, even where 
there is a lot of adversity.
    What I would ask each of you to do is just to take a minute 
and tell us where you think there is, based on what you have 
heard today, and said today, where are some good areas for 
consensus that we ought to definitely, definitely pursue? Thank 
you. Let me go first with Mr. Knabel. Would you go first?
    Mr. Knabel. Thank you, Chairman. As far as common ground, I 
don't think these two bills are mutually exclusive to each 
other. ANIA and STRANDED realize that nuclear is part of our 
future for green energy.
    The piece that needs to be included is the end process. The 
current process, we are an example of the benefit of nuclear 
while the plant was operating, regionally benefiting other 
communities, nationally benefiting. But the current process 
ended at decommissioning, where everyone kind of washed their 
hands of it and said we are done. However, we were still left 
with the mess.
    ANIA recognizes that there is a need to figure out what to 
do with that waste, that that should be part of the process. 
That should be part of the overall proposal to make sure that 
we have the entire beginning to end in the process and how to 
best have everyone benefit from that and nobody left holding 
the bag.
    Senator Carper. Thank you. Thank you, sir.
    Mr. Cohen.
    Mr. Cohen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would say, just as a 
preliminary comment, that I feel like there is a great deal of 
consensus, certainly, among this panel about what the 
priorities are, dealing with the legacy problems, but also 
making sure that there is a viable pathway for advanced nuclear 
through the NRC licensing process, and also dealing with the 
long-term waste issue.
    Just a sort of an observation, which is that more than the 
consensus within this committee or among this panel is the fact 
that there is emerging consensus in the society about nuclear. 
I think that has changed quite a bit. It should make the job of 
this committee and this Congress easier.
    I inserted some polling data, which is quite interesting, 
which shows a vast majority of Americans support continued use 
and expanded use of nuclear energy. In particular, the 
Democrats, which are often thought to have a less favorable 
view, are also substantially in favor of this technology.
    I don't think it is rocket science to figure out what the 
remaining areas of concern are: waste, safe regulation of 
advanced nuclear. We still need the kind of legislation you 
have put forward in recent years to speed these sorts of less 
expensive, safer, easier to deploy reactors.
    So I am heartened that there is an enormous amount of 
consensus, not just bipartisan consensus in Congress, but in 
the society at large.
    Senator Carper. Thank you, sir.
    Ms. Korsnick.
    Ms. Korsnick. Yes, thank you.
    I agree very much with Armond Cohen. I would say, areas of 
consensus are the nuclear is a needed partner with wind and 
solar to create the best solution. I think very much an 
opportunity as you demonstrate these technologies can pair very 
well, you also actually lower consumer cost by doing that.
    I think another area is that American innovation is 
bringing forth really fantastic new nuclear options, making it 
more flexible and more useful, more diverse, whether it is 
hydrogen, whether it is high temperature steam, or whether it 
is electricity. So we must encourage that. We can encourage it 
through the licensing process. Make that more efficient. Make 
the site permitting process also more efficient.
    I will end with, the United States does, in fact, need a 
durable waste strategy.
    Senator Carper. Thank you.
    Mr. Harrell, please.
    Mr. Harrell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    I think what I heard clearly was, new American nuclear is 
an economic opportunity, important to global security, and a 
climate imperative. It needs to be enabled now. Even Senator 
Markey, who was talking about a little bit of skepticism, is 
rooted in, nuclear needs to play a significant role on a 
relevant climate timeframe.
    Legislation like ANIA is going to be necessary to bolster 
licensing both in the short-term, before the NRC completes the 
part 53 process, which isn't going to be completed for another 
three to 5 years at least, direct flexibility on applications 
because nuclear can play a huge role outside of electrical 
applications, like in heavy industry, and common sense 
permitting. Because in the end, if we are going to contribute 
to reducing emissions, we need to be able to build these things 
quickly so they can contribute to a 21st century electrical 
grid.
    Senator Carper. Yes. Thank you, thank you all.
    I will do a couple quick comments, if I could. First, thank 
you. I want to thank your witnesses. I want to thank all our 
colleagues who have come today. I especially want to thank 
Senator Capito and Senator Duckworth for their leadership, 
Senator Whitehouse, and others.
    I want to thank your staffs. We have staffs who work very 
well together. On most Thursdays, when we are in session, 
Senator Capito and I meet in person, usually with at least one 
member of our team, Adam and Mary Frances.
    I think on this Thursday, I just suggested to Senator 
Capito when she ran off to vote, that we think of enlarging 
that conversation, and people who come to that conversation, 
but really to focus on followup to this hearing today, what we 
have learned, where there is consensus, and some areas that we 
might look forward to working together, really along the line 
that Senator Markey has suggested.
    We have one witness, at least one witness today from 
Illinois. I am reminded of another son of Illinois, Abraham 
Lincoln, was once asked a question, what is the role of 
government. He said, the role of government is to do for the 
people what they cannot do for themselves. There is a great 
role here for us to play on this committee. I think we are 
well-primed to build on some of a lot of our earlier work, to 
build on what was in the infrastructure bill, and to build on 
what could be in a slimmed-down version of the Build Back 
Better Bill.
    I used to be a Governor, and I was very much involved in 
the National Governor's Association. I headed it for a while 
and headed up something the NGA called the Center for Best 
Practices. We would look, I would always look, as Governor, at 
other States and see what they are doing well, learn from what 
they are doing, and to learn what they are doing badly, so we 
would know what not to do.
    When I look around the world with respect to nuclear, 
people, my father's family is on the German side, his roots are 
in Germany, I think the German people are smart and capable 
people. But the idea that they are shutting down their nuclear 
power plants so that they can buy natural gas from Russia, not 
a good idea. Maybe we can keep that lesson in mind as we figure 
out how to avoid shutting down more nuclear power plants and 
creating even greater threats on the climate side.
    Also, my colleagues have heard me say many times, no silver 
bullets. No silver bullet as we face adversity here, problems 
to solve. No silver bullet here, but a lot of silver BBs. How 
about that? A lot of silver BBs. You have helped us identify a 
bunch of them. We want to act on it, sooner rather than later.
    Last, we had a great hearing a week or so ago on recycling. 
Senator Boozman and I cochair the Recycling Caucus in the 
Senate. Others on the committee here are very much involved. 
Senator Capito and I held a hearing on recycling and recycling 
strategies working hand-in-glove with the private sector, with 
EPA, and others.
    One of the comments that was made, I think was something 
like, one person's trash is another person's treasure. In this 
case, spent fuel rods, some people would call that as trash and 
something to demean, look at with abhorrence. There is a way, 
and the people in France are kind of leading the effort here 
and have been for a while, to figure out how to repurpose spent 
fuel rods.
    I think Ms. Korsnick, I think your statement said about 90, 
95 percent of the energy is unused within the spent fuel rods. 
People think of that as waste. Turns out there is actually, 
within that trash, if you will, there is a lot of treasure. We 
have to figure out how to harvest that treasure.
    Last, I have focused many, many times in this committee as 
Chairman and before, I am always, I think what I am about, what 
I my colleagues think about is, how do we save this planet and 
the threats that we face with climate change, dire threats we 
face across the planet and climate. How can we do that in a way 
that creates economic opportunity, a lot of job creation, and 
improves the quality of life for our people? We can do it all. 
We can, and we have to be smart enough.
    When Jim Inhofe and I get together with our colleagues for 
our Bible study tomorrow, say a word of prayer at the end, we 
will pray for wisdom. We will pray for wisdom for all of our 
colleagues and folks like you all and others around the 
Country, that we are smart enough to figure out how to do it 
all and get this right. I am encouraged with hearings like 
this, we will do that; we will do that. In adversity, lies 
opportunity. Thank you, Dr. Einstein.
    Before we adjourn, some housekeeping. Senators will be 
allowed to submit written questions for the record through the 
close of business on Wednesday, February 23d. We will compile 
those questions and send them to our witnesses, who we will ask 
to respond by March the 9th, if you could do that.
    Do we have any unanimous consent requests to close with? 
No? OK. I love to ask unanimous consent requests to include 
stuff in the record when nobody else is here, so I would be the 
only one who could object, but I don't get to do that today.
    With that in mind, this hearing is adjourned. This has been 
a great day, and again, our thanks to all of you and to our 
staffs who worked so hard to make this day possible. Thank you.
    [Whereupon, at 12:08 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]

                                 [all]