Published on
The Washington Post

A Nuclear Power Boost for Senate Bill

Tax incentives offered with climate measure

Steven Mufson

Years after Three Mile Island, bill would put nuclear power on even footing with wind and solar. (Carolyn Kaster/associated Press)

Will a heaping spoonful of nuclear power help Congress swallow a climate bill?

The Obama administration and leading congressional Democrats are wooing
wavering Democrats and Republicans to back a climate bill by dangling
federal tax incentives and new loan guarantees for nuclear power plant
construction, even though financial analysts warn that huge capital
needs and a history of cost overruns would constrain what many
lawmakers hope will be a "nuclear renaissance."

The elements of a nuclear package under discussion include
investment tax credits, a doubling or more of the existing $18.5
billion in federal loan guarantees for new plants, giving nuclear
plants access to a new clean energy development bank, federally
financed training for nuclear plant workers, a new look at reprocessing
nuclear fuel, and a streamlining of the regulatory approval process,
according to corporate, congressional and administration sources.

Designed to put nuclear power on an even footing with wind and
solar, the package comes on top of existing incentives, such as the
production tax credit.

"It seems to me that when talking about ways to reduce emissions . . . that nuclear comes first," said Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), ranking Republican on the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee. Some GOP leaders like Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.) want any climate bill to include plans for 100 new nuclear plants -- doubling the current fleet -- by 2030.

Even relatively liberal lawmakers such as Sen. Mark Udall
(D-Colo.) are talking about the need to insert nuclear power incentives
into a climate bill. President Obama has said he is open to new nuclear
plants. And Energy Secretary Steven Chu has said that the country
should "not stop at three or four, but should get tens of [new]

Asked how many Republicans could be won over to a climate bill with a substantial nuclear power provision, Sen. Lindsey O. Graham
(R-S.C.) said: "At least half a dozen, depending on how this issue
comes out. Maybe more." And, he added, "you're not going to get a bill
without meaningful Republican participation."

Graham, who recently joined Sen. John F. Kerry
(D-Mass.) to list common principles for a bill, including new nuclear
incentives, said "people who are involved in writing this bill need to
grasp the fact that America's turned the corner on nuclear power."

A few plants, not 100

But financial analysts and utility executives warn that while a
package of federal tax and regulatory incentives might jump-start a few
new nuclear plants, it will be nowhere near enough to lead to 100

"That's $1 trillion," said Aneesh Prabhu, a credit analyst for
nuclear utilities at Standard & Poor's. "Some people say that by
2030 you could have quite a few going, but 100 is not feasible . . .
The most optimistic number I've read is 50 of them by 2035 -- and
that's the most optimistic number . . . That's from the perspective of

The nuclear ambitions of GOP lawmakers exceed those of the nuclear
power industry itself. "Industry's expectations are colored perhaps by
knowing too much," said one utility executive, who spoke on the
condition of anonymity to preserve his relations with lawmakers.
Building 100 plants "would be extremely difficult, extremely
difficult," he said.


If you think a better world is possible, support our people-powered media model today

The corporate media puts the interests of the 1% ahead of all of us. That's wrong. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good.

If you believe the survival of independent media is vital to a healthy democracy, please step forward with a donation to nonprofit Common Dreams today:

In the United States, no one has begun construction of a nuclear
plant in more than 30 years. Nuclear firms say their technology is
better and safer than ever, but critics frequently point to delays and
cost overruns at a plant that France's Areva is building in Finland as
an example of persistent obstacles. Separately, on Oct. 15, the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission rejected a steel and concrete structure Toshiba's
Westinghouse Electric said would shield its reactor against extreme

Jacques Besnainou, president of Areva North America, said that the
Finnish reactor was "a difficult project" with "a very difficult
customer." He said that U.S. customers would benefit from its lessons.
"Nuclear is not the only solution for the U.S., but there's no solution
without nuclear energy," he said. Areva is investing $400 million in a
Virginia plant that will manufacture nuclear reactor components.

Another obstacle could be the price of natural gas, which offers a
cheaper alternative. Natural gas power plants produce only half the
carbon dioxide of coal-fired ones. With the discovery that vast shale
gas resources can be tapped with new technology, natural gas prices are
low and attractive for power producers.

Relying on subsidies

Analysts say nuclear plants will only be viable if natural gas
prices stay higher than $7 per one thousand cubic feet, but current
prices are less than half that level. As a result, utility plans for
new nuclear plants have lost momentum. Moody's said that more than half
of loan guarantee applicants were at a "low" level of activity.

Without subsidies from taxpayers, the expense of new plants would
abort the much ballyhooed "nuclear renaissance," analysts say. The new
plants are expected to cost $8 billion to $10 billion each. Moody's
analysts said it was a " 'bet the farm' endeavor for most companies."

Henry Sokolski, director of the Nonproliferation Policy Education
Center, lamented that Senate Republicans were "giving up their economic
principles in exchange for more federal subsidies for . . .
super-expensive, financially risky nuclear power."

Lobbyists say that even a generous package of nuclear power
subsidies might not attract the votes needed for a climate bill. A
nuclear package is "necessary but not sufficient for a lot of
Republicans," said an expert at one major utility.

Alexander said nuclear power subsidies would not win his vote
"because the economy-wide cap-and-trade [system] is so flawed." A
cap-and-trade system is the centerpiece of both Senate and House
climate bills; it would set a ceiling on greenhouse-gas emissions and
allow companies to trade emission permits.

The $18.5 billion of nuclear loan guarantees, included in
legislation adopted under former president George W. Bush, would cover
two or three nuclear plants. Administration officials have said that
they might try to stretch that money by combining it with loan
guarantees from Japan, home of some of the contractors seeking to build
U.S. plants.

Staff writer Juliet Eilperin contributed to this report.


This is the world we live in. This is the world we cover.

Because of people like you, another world is possible. There are many battles to be won, but we will battle them together—all of us. Common Dreams is not your normal news outlet. We don't survive on clicks. We don't want advertising dollars. We want the world to be a better place. But we can't do it alone. It doesn't work that way. We need you. If you can help today—because every gift of every size matters—please do. Without Your Support We Won't Exist.

Please select a donation method:

Share This Article