NATIONAL ENERGY POLICY: THE FUTURE OF NUCLEAR AND COAL POWER IN THE UNITED STATES HEARING BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND POWER OF THE COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ONE HUNDRED SIXTH CONGRESS SECOND SESSION JUNE 8, 2000 Serial No. 106±131 Printed for the use of the Committee on Commerce ( U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 66±466CC WASHINGTON : 2000 VerDate 11-MAY-2000 09:18 Nov 27, 2000 Jkt 067251 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 5011 Sfmt 5011 E:\HEARINGS\66466 pfrm01 PsN: 66466 COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE TOM BLILEY, Virginia, Chairman W.J. ``BILLY'' TAUZIN, Louisiana JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan MICHAEL G. OXLEY, Ohio HENRY A. WAXMAN, California MICHAEL BILIRAKIS, Florida EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts JOE BARTON, Texas RALPH M. HALL, Texas FRED UPTON, Michigan RICK BOUCHER, Virginia CLIFF STEARNS, Florida EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York PAUL E. GILLMOR, Ohio FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey Vice Chairman SHERROD BROWN, Ohio JAMES C. GREENWOOD, Pennsylvania BART GORDON, Tennessee CHRISTOPHER COX, California PETER DEUTSCH, Florida NATHAN DEAL, Georgia BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois STEVE LARGENT, Oklahoma ANNA G. ESHOO, California RICHARD BURR, North Carolina RON KLINK, Pennsylvania BRIAN P. BILBRAY, California BART STUPAK, Michigan ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York GREG GANSKE, Iowa TOM SAWYER, Ohio CHARLIE NORWOOD, Georgia ALBERT R. WYNN, Maryland TOM A. COBURN, Oklahoma GENE GREEN, Texas RICK LAZIO, New York KAREN MCCARTHY, Missouri BARBARA CUBIN, Wyoming TED STRICKLAND, Ohio JAMES E. ROGAN, California DIANA DEGETTE, Colorado JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois THOMAS M. BARRETT, Wisconsin BILL LUTHER, Minnesota LOIS CAPPS, California JAMES E. DERDERIAN, Chief of Staff JAMES D. BARNETTE, General Counsel REID P.F. STUNTZ, Minority Staff Director and Chief Counsel SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND POWER JOE BARTON, Texas, Chairman MICHAEL BILIRAKIS, Florida RICK BOUCHER, Virginia CLIFF STEARNS, Florida KAREN MCCARTHY, Missouri Vice Chairman TOM SAWYER, Ohio STEVE LARGENT, Oklahoma EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts RICHARD BURR, North Carolina RALPH M. HALL, Texas ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey CHARLIE NORWOOD, Georgia SHERROD BROWN, Ohio TOM A. COBURN, Oklahoma BART GORDON, Tennessee JAMES E. ROGAN, California BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois ALBERT R. WYNN, Maryland HEATHER WILSON, New Mexico TED STRICKLAND, Ohio JOHN B. SHADEGG, Arizona PETER DEUTSCH, Florida CHARLES W. ``CHIP'' PICKERING, RON KLINK, Pennsylvania Mississippi JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan, VITO FOSSELLA, New York (Ex Officio) ED BRYANT, Tennessee ROBERT L. EHRLICH, Jr., Maryland TOM BLILEY, Virginia, (Ex Officio) (II) 2 VerDate 11-MAY-2000 09:18 Nov 27, 2000 Jkt 067251 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 0486 Sfmt 0486 E:\HEARINGS\66466 pfrm01 PsN: 66466 C O N T E N T S Page Testimony of: Bailey, Paul C., Vice President, Environment, Edison Electric Institute .... 77 Ebel, Robert E., Director, Energy and National Security, Center for Stra- tegic and International Studies ................................................................... 43 Gehl, Stephen M., Director of Strategic Technology Alliances, Electric Power Research Institute ............................................................................. 84 Graham, James J., President and CEO, Converdyn ..................................... 27 Klein, Dale E., Vice Chancellor for Special Engineering Programs, Uni- versity of Texas System ................................................................................ 22 Kripowicz, Robert S., Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary, Office of Fos- sil Energy, U.S. Department of Energy ...................................................... 62 Lawson, Richard L., President and CEO, National Mining Association ...... 69 Lochbaum, David, Nuclear Safety Engineer, Union of Concerned Sci- entists ............................................................................................................ 40 Magwood, William D., IV, Director, Office of Nuclear Energy, Science and Technology, U.S. Department of Energy ............................................. 6 McNeill, Corbin A., Jr., Chairman, President, and CEO, Peco Energy Generation ..................................................................................................... 14 Schobert, Harold, Director, the Energy Institute, Pennsylvania State Uni- versity ............................................................................................................ 89 Material submitted for the record by: Uranium Producers of America, prepared statement of ............................... 107 (III) 3 VerDate 11-MAY-2000 09:18 Nov 27, 2000 Jkt 067251 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 0486 Sfmt 0486 E:\HEARINGS\66466 pfrm01 PsN: 66466 VerDate 11-MAY-2000 09:18 Nov 27, 2000 Jkt 067251 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 0486 Sfmt 0486 E:\HEARINGS\66466 pfrm01 PsN: 66466 NATIONAL ENERGY POLICY: THE FUTURE OF NUCLEAR AND COAL POWER IN THE UNITED STATES THURSDAY, JUNE 8, 2000 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND POWER, Washington, DC. The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 1:07 p.m. in room 2123, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Joe Barton (chairman) presiding. Members present: Representatives Barton, Largent, Burr, Whitfield, Norwood, Shimkus, Wilson, Bryant, Boucher, Sawyer, and Strickland. Staff present: Kevin Cook, science advisor; Karine Alemian, pro- fessional staff member; Elizabeth Brennan, legislative clerk; Sue Sheridan, minority counsel; and Rick Kessler, minority counsel. Mr. BARTON. The subcommittee will come to order. We are going to go ahead and proceed. A number of members have indicated that they are on their way. Hopefully, if I give an extremely long-wind- ed opening statement, they will be here by the time I conclude. Today is the second in our series of subcommittee hearings exam- ining our national energy policy. On May 24, the first hearing ad- dressed the supply of oil and natural gas. Today's hearing will look in detail at nuclear power and coal. These two energy sources form the mainstay of our current elec- tricity generation capacity, with approximately 20 percent of our electricity coming from nuclear reactors, and a little over 50 per- cent coming from coal-fired power plants. In the near term, we can not afford to lose the generating capac- ity represented by coal and nuclear power. There is no ready re- placement for 70 percent of our electrical power. Yet, there are pressures from various directions to reduce our present reliance on nuclear and coal. The most significant impediment to nuclear power in the near term is the lack of a centralized facility for the permanent disposal of spent nuclear fuel. The Federal Government has failed to fulfill its legal obligation to dispose of spent nuclear fuel, beginning in 1998. The earliest that the Department of Energy says it can open a repository at Yucca Mountain is the year 2010, 12 years late. Yet, the Clinton Administration has blocked every attempt by Congress to accelerate that schedule. This delay in solving the disposal ques- (1) VerDate 11-MAY-2000 09:18 Nov 27, 2000 Jkt 067251 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 E:\HEARINGS\66466 pfrm01 PsN: 66466 2 tion impacts the continued operation of nuclear reactors in this country. It increases the price of electricity generated by nuclear power, and it delays the clean up of decommissioned reactor sites. Most damaging, perhaps, the government's inaction on the Yucca Mountain repository affects public confidence in nuclear power. It suggests that there is a major technical hurdle yet to be resolved, when the real problem is a lack of political will regarding the siting of the repository. Looking beyond the next decade, we have to ask what role nu- clear power should play in our future energy portfolio. As concerns increase about greenhouse gas emissions causing global climate change, we ought to rethink our assumptions about nuclear power in this country. Until fusion power becomes real, if ever, we may need to rely on the next generation of advanced reactor technologies for safe and climate friendly electrical power. Such advanced reactor tech- nologies may also represent a significant export market for the U.S. companies. The near term challenge for coal revolves around air quality, and controlling the emissions of sulphur dioxide, nitrogen oxides and particulates; all pollutants presently regulated under the Clean Air Act. The long term focus will also be on air quality that may shift, limiting the omission of greenhouse gases, particularly carbon diox- ide, from the combustion of coal. The answer to both the near-term and long-term challenges for coal may lie in advanced coal technologies that will enable a clean- er and more efficient use of coal in electrical power generation. However, we need to be sure that the Department of Energy is making the right policy decisions and technology investments today to support such a future for coal. The larger question here is how this country goes about estab- lishing and implementing a comprehensive, long-term national en- ergy policy. What is our energy policy today? Where do we go? Where do we want to go in the future, and what long-term policies will enable us to get there? What is the process we use to resolve conflicts and stay on course for our long-term objective? Some of these questions need to be addressed at the end of our series of hearings on energy policy, but some are very relevant to the particular challenges of nuclear and coal power. For both energy sources, it seems to me that the