[Congressional Record Volume 155, Number 82 (Wednesday, June 3, 2009)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5992-S5994]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                                 ENERGY

  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, as the ranking member and previously the 
chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, I understand we 
are actually the committee of jurisdiction over a lot of the energy 
concerns we have in this country. It is a real crisis. I know there are 
other things happening now that people are focused on, but this is 
certainly something the Presiding Officer is aware of, given the 
committees on which he is serving. When it comes to developing a 
comprehensive energy policy in the United States, we are faced with a 
stark contrast. We can develop and produce domestic supplies of 
reliable and affordable energy that will help jump-start our economy, 
create high-paying jobs, and bring down energy costs on consumers, all 
while making our Nation less dependent on foreign energy supplies, or 
we can implement policies designed to drive up the costs of energy on 
American families, shift jobs overseas, and deepen this recession.
  For the sake of our economy, our energy security, and environmental 
goals, I choose the ``all of the above'' approach.
  I sit and listen to people who say we want to do something about our 
dependence on foreign countries for our ability to run this machine 
called America. At the same time, they are against coal, they are 
against oil, they are against gas, they are against nuclear. Those are 
the things that are there, the technology is there and we can use them. 
But they are looking somehow into the future and saying there has to be 
some green solution. I am the first one to say, when the technology is 
there, I am going to be right there with them. It is not there yet.
  Over the next several weeks, I am planning to speak on the floor 
several times about the benefits of nuclear energy and my proposals for 
reinvigorating that industry. Today, I will discuss how nuclear will 
help put Americans back to work and move our economy forward as well as 
focus on the regulatory challenges facing new nuclear construction and 
what I plan to do to help nuclear energy play an increasing role in 
meeting our energy needs.
  One of the problems we have had is we have had several colleagues 
coming down, talking about why nuclear is good and why we should do it, 
but they have not addressed the barriers there and the bureaucratic 
problems we have right now.
  The need to grow our domestic energy supply is clear. The Energy 
Information Administration projects that our demand for electricity 
will increase 26 percent by the year 2030, requiring 260 gigawatts of 
new electricity generation. Every source will need to grow to produce 
more energy to meet that demand. Curtis Frasier, the executive vice 
president of Shell America Gas & Power, was recently quoted in 
Greenwire, warning that the recession could be masking a global energy 
shortage.
  He said:

       When the economy returns, we're going to be back to the 
     energy crisis.

  He said:

       Nothing has been done to solve that crisis. We've got a 
     huge mountain to climb.

  This is a very significant chart. It shows electricity growth is 
linked to the American economy. Mr. Frasier voices real concern. As you 
can see, this graph shows the total energy and shows the GDP. The GDP 
is the blue line going up and the electricity use and the total energy 
are lines that go right along with it. In fact, when it flattens out, 
such as it did in 1990 for about a 3-year period, all three flattened 
out at the same time. The same thing is true up here when it flattened 
out during 2005. So we see there is that linkage there, and it is a 
very real one.
  This is not your father's nuclear industry. Today's nuclear industry 
has demonstrated marked improvement in safety, reliability, and costs 
since the late 1980s. The industry also has proved that safety and 
reliable performance are closely linked.
  We have a chart here, ``Improved Safety Yields Better Performance.'' 
If you look at the two lines, we are talking about the line that would 
be the capacity factor, and this line, the red line, would be 
significant events. Significant events are things that are problems. We 
all remember significant events in nuclear energy. The press always 
highlights these and tries to make us believe this is a dangerous form 
when it is, in fact, not dangerous. The significant events have been 
going down. It is hard to see there. It goes from 1988 all up to the 
present year and it goes down as the capacity factor is going up. This 
is an indicator of the results, that the industry has dramatically 
increased its capacity by 45 percent and has operated roughly 90 
percent of the time in the last 5 years. This improved performance is 
demonstrating that nuclear is both safe and reliable. It has made 
nuclear energy more affordable.
  We have another chart that is the ``U.S. Electricity Production 
Costs.'' Nuclear energy generates nearly 20 percent of the energy that 
powers our economy and has the lowest production cost compared to other 
sources. You can see by the chart, not only has nuclear energy had the 
lowest production costs for the last 7 years, its production cost is 
very stable and not vulnerable to the price fluctuations here shown by 
the other resources.
  These lines here represent nuclear and coal. They go along pretty 
much the same. However, if you look at fluctuations in gas and in 
petroleum, you can see they are moving. This is something that is very 
significant.
  I might mention, even though we only are using 22 percent of our 
energy

[[Page S5993]]

coming from nuclear, countries such as France and other countries are 
doing 80 percent. That is what we are going to get to. We are going to 
try to do something to increase our nuclear capacity. Not only will 
nuclear energy give a boost to our economy by providing safe, reliable, 
and affordable electricity, it will also produce new jobs. Mark Ayers, 
the President of the AFL-CIO Building and Construction Trades 
Department, has described his union's relationship with the industry. 
He said--and this is the unions I am quoting now:

       We will be there with you to help pursue the adoption of a 
     diverse American energy portfolio that places a high priority 
     on the reemergence of nuclear power.

  Why is Mr. Ayers so supportive of nuclear energy? He knows the number 
of high-quality jobs that just one new nuclear plant would provide. It 
would be 1,400 to 1,800 jobs during construction for each new plant; 
400 to 700 permanent jobs when the plant begins operating, with 
salaries 36 percent higher than the local average. It would provide 400 
to 700 additional jobs providing goods and services.
  It is a huge boost for the economy and for the labor unions, so we 
have their strong support. Clearly, increased development of nuclear 
energy would strongly benefit our economy by providing energy and 
putting Americans back to work. However, right now investors in new 
nuclear plants face political and regulatory risks. The capital 
investors still remember the cost overruns experienced during the 
construction of our existing fleet of plants, caused in part by a 
cumbersome licensing process. The licensing process has been revised 
but has, as yet, to be fully tested. The risk of licensing delays may 
be lower, but the potential consequences of regulatory delays remain 
significant.
  This chart shows the locations of the potential new nuclear plants. 
On September 25 of 2007, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission filed an 
application to build and operate a plant near Bay City, TX. That was 
the first application for a new plant that the NRC has received in 34 
years. Since then, 16 more applications have been filed for a total of 
26 new nuclear reactors.
  Let's stop and think about that. We are talking about 2007.
  I ask unanimous consent I be given an additional 5 minutes of time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. INHOFE. That is, since 2007, we have been able to do that. We did 
nothing for 34 years, and now we have 16 more applications on file 
which would be for 26 nuclear reactors. Some applications cover more 
than one reactor. These efforts to develop new plants are critical to 
meeting our energy needs, and I am committed to doing what I can to 
help build these new plants.

  One of the most significant factors contributing to this 
revitalization is the NRC's transformation over the last 12 years. In 
1997, Republicans were the majority. I was the chairman of the Clean 
Air Subcommittee of the Environment and Public Works Committee, which 
had jurisdiction over nuclear energy. At that time, we had not had an 
oversight hearing in some 12 years, and I tell you, you cannot let a 
bureaucracy continue to operate without any oversight, so we started 
having oversight hearings. We gave targets that they had to do certain 
things by certain dates. As a result of that, they are now coming along 
and doing a good job.
  This chart shows where the 16 applications are, so people can find 
their own State and see what it would do to the economy of their own 
State. Unfortunately, we don't have any in my State of Oklahoma. I wish 
we did and perhaps we will be able to in the future.
  The next chart is the ``Applications Under Review By NRC.'' It is a 
little bit complicated, so I am not going to be using this chart. If 
anyone wants to know where the status is and what the companies are 
that have made the applications, certainly we have that information for 
them.
  Despite significant efforts on the part of the NRC staff, this 
process has not unfolded as smoothly as it should. Schedules are not as 
detailed or transparent as they should be, and detailed schedules are a 
critical tool for managing such a large and complex process and to 
ensure it is thorough, efficient, and timely. Schedules are publicly 
available for safety evaluation reports and environmental impact 
statements but not for hearings or Commission consideration, which will 
ultimately determine when the license is actually issued.
  At this time, there appears to be no information readily available 
regarding any of the actual dates that any of the new plant licenses 
will be issued. The absence of any specific schedules for issuing 
licenses seems to indicate a failure of the agency to properly plan and 
schedule its work, a failure to share such information, or both. This 
situation is troubling. How could a utility prepare for construction 
without a firm date when it can expect--be expected to receive their 
license?
  These are huge investments we are talking about. There has to be 
predictability. How can an investor judge the risk of a project without 
being able to evaluate progress in the regulatory process? Both 
licensees and their potential investors would greatly benefit from the 
increased certainty.
  I commend the Commission and staff for the level of effort that is 
reflected in existing schedules. However, I believe the Commission 
should pursue these remaining steps. It should require hearing boards 
to produce and to follow detailed schedules that reflect lessons 
learned during the review of the LES National Enrichment Facility in 
New Mexico. We would consider the recommendations we have there.
  I firmly believe proper planning, detailed schedules, and the 
Commission engagement will foster more thorough, consistent, organized, 
and efficient efforts to issue new plants licenses.
  I take my oversight role as the ranking member of the EPW Committee 
very seriously and will work to ensure that the NRC continues to build 
on the improvements made since I initiated oversight back in 1997. I 
intend to increase my focus on this and other licensing issues, 
including monthly progress reports on licensing activity and regular 
meetings with Chairman Jaczko. In our committee, we have Democrats and 
Republicans very supportive of this effort to expand our capability in 
nuclear energy.
  My hope is to see that the NRC issues the first new license before 
the end of 2011 and eight more by 2013. Given construction estimates of 
4 to 5 years, the first 2 reactors could be operational in 2016, with 
14 more potentially in operation by the year 2018. Sixteen new reactors 
would be a good start to rejuvenating an industry that has been 
stagnant for 34 years. I believe these reactors can revitalize our 
economy and meet the growing demand for energy. I also agree with labor 
unions that are excited about the prospect of new jobs and what it will 
do for low-cost energy for America.
  I look forward to the future. I plan to host a roundtable to 
highlight progress toward advanced design and to stay on board. Back in 
1997, we hadn't had an oversight hearing in 12 years at that time, and 
we will make sure we don't repeat that mistake.
  A lot has been done to prepare for nuclear construction, but a lot 
remains to be done. Whether the industry will succeed in building new 
plants will greatly depend upon President Obama's leadership. I am 
disappointed that the administration seems to send mixed signals 
regarding its support for nuclear energy. Last month in Prague, the 
President said:

       We must harness the power of nuclear energy on behalf of 
     our efforts to combat climate change and to advance peace and 
     opportunity for all people.

  Yet just this month his budget contained language terminating the 
Yucca Mountain program before the Nuclear Regulatory Commission could 
even do its review--30 years of research and $7.7 billion down the 
drain, purely for political reasons. It is unthinkable that could 
happen, but it has happened.
  In addition, President Obama recently appointed, as Chairman of the 
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Joe Wellinghoff, who stated his 
belief that we won't need any more nuclear plants ever. This isn't 
right, and it is totally inconsistent.
  These mixed messages will soon become clear. President Obama has 
recently designated a new Chairman of the NRC and is expected to 
propose two additional nominees soon. Time will tell whether the NRC is 
an effective and efficient regulator.

[[Page S5994]]

  In his Senate confirmation hearing, DOE Secretary Steven Chu said:

       Nuclear power . . . is going to be an important part of the 
     energy mix. It is 20 percent of our electricity generated 
     today, but it is 70 percent of the carbon-free portion of 
     electricity today. And it is baseload. So I think it is very 
     important that we push ahead.

  For that reason and every other reason, for the economy and for the 
environment and for our ability to provide our own energy in this 
country and lower our reliance upon foreign countries, I believe we 
need to move forward rapidly. We intend to do so with nuclear energy.
  I yield the floor.

                          ____________________