| Energy |
 |
 |
 |
|
Nuclear Power and Our Energy Future
By Darrell Issa Recently, President Barack Obama pledged more than $8 billion in loan guarantees that could help give the United States its first license for a new reactor since the Carter Administration. Yet the first glimmer of hope for America’s nuclear industry faces both new and familiar challenges. Despite a commitment for increasing loan guarantees to ramp up the development of new nuclear plants, the administration’s determination to shutter the proposed nuclear waste repository at Yucca Mountain effectively jeopardizes this goal. In recent years, Washington’s concerns about environmental quality, climate change and energy security have led it to spend billion of dollars to promote renewables like wind and solar power. And while their contribution to the nation’s electricity generation has increased, it is at this time unrealistic to believe we can depend on these resources for more than a small fraction of our total energy needs. According to a 2007 study by the Energy Information Administration (EIA), wind and solar, which satisfy a mere 3 percent of U.S. electricity needs, require a hefty $23 to $30 per megawatt-hour taxpayer subsidy. Moreover, the U.S. would need to install a wind turbine every 600 feet over 15.5 million acres – roughly enough land to equal the entire state of West Virginia – before we could begin replacing the current generating capacity of our existing nuclear plants. Even if we wanted to take that route, the staggering cost to implement such a policy renders it impractical. Loan guarantees for new nuclear power plants, on the other hand, won’t actually cost taxpayers if we can successfully break through the regulatory gridlock and endless litigation that have frustrated our nuclear energy program for thirty years. The history of nuclear power in this country, however, makes loan guarantees necessary. Environmental and anti-nuclear extremists have long stonewalled nuclear development by pursuing strategies of litigation and obstruction that has made new plants prohibitively expensive. Between 1973 and 2006, liberal advocacy groups wrapped up the Nuclear Regulatory Commission in over 200 court cases concerning nuclear plant licensing, contributing to the stagnation of new plant development for thirty years. Similar pressures from the Left have now succeeded in getting the Obama Administration to reverse course on decades of scientific research and broad bipartisan congressional action to build the site at Yucca Mountain, despite more than $10 billion already invested in the project. The concern that this kind of political obstruction could again end up destroying investments in nuclear power makes it necessary for federal loan guarantees to backstop potential private sector investments to restart nuclear energy development. A generation ago, America was the world’s leader in energy production because of innovative technologies and a regulatory structure that recognized the importance and economic advantage of our domestic resources. But as these commitments gave way to fear-mongering from the Left, we slowly lost our technological edge to foreign competitors like Japan and France. Today, these countries lead the world in the production of clean, safe and reliable nuclear energy, but it’s not too late for us to catch up. By completing the storage site at Yucca Mountain, streamlining the application process at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, clearing once and for all the litigious atmosphere that has stymied new plant construction, adapting our tax structure to incentivize investments in nuclear technologies and using the guarantee of the federal government to jump-start a robust nuclear energy program, we can reclaim our place in the world and reduce our dependence on carbon-rich fossil fuels. Indeed, America will never reach its goals of energy independence and reducing carbon emissions without a sustainable nuclear industry. It’s long past time for the United States to adopt sensible energy policies that embrace every available resource and realize the promise that nuclear technology holds for our energy future. Issa, a Republican, represents the 49th District Congressional District, which includes Oceanside, Vista, Fallbrook, a portion of San Diego and a portion of Riverside County. He is the ranking minority member of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.
EPA: Regulatory Mess, Economic Massacrre
The Environmental Protection Agency announced on December 7, 2009, that greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide emissions, contribute to air pollution that may reasonably be anticipated to “pose a threat to our health and welfare.” If this finding is allowed to become law, the Obama Administration will succeed in gaining greater control over everyday life in America, at a time when small businesses are already struggling.
After the endangerment finding was announced, an unnamed White House official prophesied that if Congress failed to pass climate change legislation “the EPA is going to have to regulate in this area.” The source went on to say, “[The EPA] is not going to be able to regulate on a market-based way, so it’s going to have to regulate in a command-and-control way.”
The pattern is becoming clear. The Obama Administration – unsatisfied with the process of representative democracy – disregards the Constitution and forces upon the American people an agenda that Congress would not pass and the majority of Americans do not want. So how did we get here?
In 1999, Massachusetts and several other states began a campaign to force the EPA to regulate carbon emissions from motor vehicles, claiming that these gases contribute to man-made global warming. The Supreme Court, legislating from the bench, ruled in 2007, “The [EPA] Administrator must determine whether or not emissions of greenhouse gases…cause or contribute to air pollution.” Under the 1970 Clean Air Act (CAA), any source that emits an “air pollutant” above 250 tons per year will trigger additional taxes and onerous permit requirements levied directly on businesses – costs that are ultimately passed along to consumers. To fly this terribly expensive energy tax under the radar, the EPA contrived a clever “tailoring rule,” arbitrarily amending the CAA without Congressional authority by raising the CO2 emissions threshold from 250 to 250,000 tons per year so that only the largest polluters are regulated.
But according to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, this threshold would be reached by “one-fifth of all food services, one-third of those in health care, half of those in the lodging industry, [and] 10 percent of buildings used for religious worship” in America. Even the EPA’s own estimates project that small entities will incur more than $55 billion in costs under the endangerment finding absent the tailoring rule.
This small polluter exemption, however, rests on questionable legal footing, causing the usually EPA-friendly Center for Biological Diversity to object that “the EPA has no authority to weaken the requirements of the statute simply because its political appointees don’t like the law’s requirements.”
What can Americans expect if the EPA gets away with this? The EPA’s first step will be to regulate the auto industry. Once they have established control over automobile emissions standards, the EPA will be emboldened to continue controlling any carbon emitting source, imposing draconian measures on hospitals, schools, churches, farms, restaurants and malls. In fact, a recent study by the EPA found that more than 6 million businesses would be financially burdened by a full enforcement of the endangerment finding.
Additionally, a recent analysis by the Heritage Foundation estimates that EPA’s actions could result in a cumulative loss of nearly $7 trillion in GDP by 2029 (in inflation-adjusted 2008 dollars) and annual job losses could surpass 800,000 for several years.
Simply put, under the Obama Administration, the EPA is a wrecking ball that is destroying jobs, putting more businesses under water and increasing government control over our everyday lives.
With the U.S. already in a soft economy, many cash-strapped communities will face a tough choice – jump through another expensive regulatory hoop or cancel much needed community development projects. Compound this situation over many times around the nation and you have a crisis of economic gridlock.
While the EPA is expanding its regulatory jurisdiction, Congress has the sole right and responsibility to enact legislation nullifying any rogue determination they make – and we should do just that.
Bipartisan support is growing for legislation that will force the EPA to abandon this aggressive pursuit of more regulatory control and unbridled authority over our daily lives. Unless Congress acts fast, Americans will be forced to pay for the most expensive regulatory scheme in a generation. Guest Blogger: Congressman Darrell Issa on Energy Debate's Missed Nuclear Opportunity
Next month, global leaders will gather in Copenhagen to demonstrate their commitment to reducing carbon emissions and creating ecologically sustainable solutions to power our economy in the 21st century. Indeed, a moment has arrived when the world is looking to the United States to set the tone and serve as a model worthy of emulation – to be, as it were, a carbon-free city upon an ever-green hill. That is, if we can keep the lights on. America’s economic strength was forged on the back of abundant, affordable, carbon-intensive energy. Reducing our dependence on fossil fuels is undoubtedly important but it will take patience, prudence, and most important- money. Carbon-free energy, in all forms, comes with a significant cost. Congress has pursued a strategy of taxing fossil fuels in order to discourage their consumption and has heavily subsidized alternative energy sources like wind and solar in an effort to expand deployment of zero carbon energy sources. This strategy ignores an inconvenient truth - renewable energy cannot meet the nation’s everyday power demands. These resources must be developed but current technological, geographic and economic constraints limit their potential. The sad truth is that many of these resources are most abundant in remote regions, require massive amounts of land, and at present, generate variable and limited amounts of energy. In 2007, wind, geothermal and solar energy accounted for just a combined 2.5% of the nation’s electricity generation. The conspicuously missing link in the recent climate debate has been the most efficient and proven source of carbon-free energy – nuclear power. Any realistic climate change policy must include support for the only source of clean, dependable, and relatively inexpensive energy. In 2008, the 104 nuclear reactors operating in the United States produced more than 800 billion kilowatt-hours, equal to 19% of our total electricity output and representing nearly 75% of U.S. carbon-free electricity. For 30 years, economic and social constraints sidelined the development of nuclear power in the United States. Today, social and economic shifts have placed the nuclear industry on the cusp of a renaissance. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is currently reviewing applications for 26 new reactors that would provide an additional 34,000 megawatts of electricity. Even as our economy struggles and job losses mount, nuclear energy remains a sign of hope, creating almost 15,000 jobs in the last three years as communities anticipate new plant development. Yet clean, safe nuclear energy continues to stir fears that hearken to earlier times of environmental suspicion and political bias. In more than 50 years of operation, however, not a single American has lost his or her life as a result of commercial nuclear power. Building on decades of experience, new reactor designs are more efficient, affordable and safe. We have only scratched the surface of nuclear energy’s potential. Advanced reactor designs could revolutionize the auto industry with hydrogen fuel cells, or close the fuel cycle completely- turning the earth’s most volatile natural resources into electricity for millions. Yet it will take decades to completely close the fuel cycle- even longer if America continues to sit on the sidelines. In the late 1970s, fears of global proliferation prompted the Carter administration to abandon domestic reprocessing. Regrettably, America still lags behind other nations that are already producing safe, clean nuclear technologies and developing new methods to secure and reprocess nuclear waste. The American solution for waste disposal – a proposed geologic repository at Yucca Mountain – appears destined never to open its doors. Such delays are the unfortunate result of decades of bad policy, which, if unchanged, will only widen the energy gap, hinder carbon goals, and weaken our energy security. Still in its infancy, nuclear power is nonetheless a titan in the energy world. If the United States wants to fight the battle against carbon emissions and lead the global economy, we must build upon the innovation and entrepreneurial edge that nuclear technology has given us. Decisions today will reverberate for decades. It is time for us, as a nation, to reassert our commitment to this promising clean energy solution. --###-- Darrell Issa represents the 49th District of California in the U.S. House of Representatives. He is the Ranking Member of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. Americans Will Not Be Fooled
Democrats in Washington reflexively look to the government to provide solutions, evidenced by nationalizing Freddie Mac and General Motors, bailing out AIG and other institutions too-big-to-fail and offering myriad and complex proposals to socialize our healthcare system.
When it comes to the climate change debate, it is curious to hear Democrats tout the virtues of the invisible hand – the ability of the free market to discover the most efficient way to reduce domestic emissions of carbon dioxide. Yet this is the rhetoric around Cap-and-Trade as Congress prepares to vote this week.
Americans should not be fooled.
Democrats have not suddenly awakened to the principles of free market economics, adopted them wholesale, and incorporated them into an aggressive legislative agenda to reduce carbon emissions. On the contrary, the Democrats remain fully committed to market intervention, federal mandates and government subsidies.
The imposition of carbon caps and the creation of a carbon market – key components of the Democrats’ plan – are subtle attempts to raise taxes and increase government spending. Except with this scheme, new taxes and higher spending are disguised by terms like “allowance” and “offsets.” But don’t let the doublespeak fool you. Cap-and-Trade, like any other tax, takes money out of your pocket and gives it to politicians and bureaucrats in Washington to spend.
Basically, the scheme establishes a system whereby the Federal Government caps the maximum allowable emissions of carbon dioxide. Major emitters are then required to have allowances that account for their yearly emissions. If the emitters are not able to make the necessary reductions, they can purchase additional allowances and offsets on a newly created carbon market.
These allowances are very valuable. Initially, President Obama wanted private companies to pay the government for 100% of the value of the allowances in order to avoid windfall profits. However, there was very little appetite in Washington for a 100% auction. So Henry Waxman and Nancy Pelosi crafted a bill that would give away for free 85% of the allowances, subject to exclusive Congressional discretion.
Not surprisingly, the opportunity for more government handouts has increased the number of lobbyists representing affected industries by 14 % in the first four months of this Congress. In exchange for the allowances, these groups have agreed to support the legislation, which effectively carves out an environmentally-friendly pay-to-play system that gives politicians another way to earmark themselves into flush campaign coffers.
Several independent studies, by the Coalition for Affordable American Energy, the National Black Chamber of Commerce, and the Heritage Foundation, predict that the burden of cap-and-trade will range between $730 and $3,000 per household, no small burden for working families in this economy. For some families, paying the carbon tax means they will not be able to purchase a new car, for others it could mean holding off buying clothes for the school year or fewer groceries every week.
Ironically, this allowance market is not even necessary to achieve reductions in greenhouse gasses. In fact, America already possesses the innovative technologies – like nuclear energy – that promise to advance low-carbon energy alternatives, but Democrats in Congress aren’t interested in sensible solutions when a massive tax is in view.
Even the degree to which cap-and-trade is able to address climate change is in question. David Sokol, Chairman of MidAmerica Energy Holdings Company recently explained to Congress, the Waxman/Markey trading mechanism “will not reduce greenhouse gas emissions by one ounce.” Instead, according to economist David Montgomery, “allocations do shift who bears the burden across industries, regions, and income groups.”
Establishing a mandatory carbon market merely enables politicians to obscure the cost of a back-breaking and complex new tax scheme, and Americans should not be fooled by the slick packaging. They won’t be fooled by the skyrocketing energy bill they’ll start receiving if Cap-and-Trade becomes law.
Congressman Issa represents California's 49th congressional district and serves on the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.
Alternative energy should include nuclear
Congress has pursued a strategy of taxing fossil fuels in order to discourage their consumption and has heavily subsidized alternative energy sources such as wind and solar. This strategy ignores an inconvenient truth – renewable energy cannot meet the nation's everyday power demands.
Often, however, the most efficient and proven source of carbon-free energy – nuclear power – has been the conspicuously missing link in the climate debate. This month, as the ranking member of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, I have co-sponsored the American Energy Act. It would establish a national goal of licensing 100 new nuclear reactors over the next 20 years by streamlining a burdensome regulatory process and ensuring safe storage and recycling of spent nuclear fuel.
In 2008, the 104 nuclear reactors operating in the United States produced more than 800 billion kilowatt-hours, equal to 19 percent of our total electricity output and representing nearly 75 percent of U.S. carbon-free electricity.
For 30 years, economic and social constraints sidelined the development of nuclear power in the United States. Today, social and economic shifts have placed the nuclear industry on the cusp of a renaissance. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is reviewing applications for 26 new reactors that would provide 34,000 more megawatts of electricity. Even as our economy struggles, nuclear energy has created almost 15,000 jobs in the last three years.
Regrettably, clean nuclear energy continues to stir fears that harken to earlier times of environmental suspicion and political bias. In more than 50 years of operation, however, not a single American has lost his or her life as a result of commercial nuclear power.
Regrettably, America still lags behind other nations that are already producing safe, clean nuclear technologies and developing new methods to secure and reprocess nuclear waste. Still in its infancy, nuclear power is nonetheless a titan in the energy world.
Nuclear Power Missing Link in Energy Debate
This December, global leaders will gather in Copenhagen to demonstrate their commitment in the fight against global warming, and the United States has a tremendous responsibility to help find a reasonable solution to climate change. Indeed, a moment has arrived where the world is looking to the United States to set the tone and serve as a model worthy of emulation – to be, as it were, a carbon-free city upon an ever-green hill.
That is, if we can keep the lights on.
America’s economic strength was forged on the back of abundant, affordable, carbon-intensive energy. Reducing our dependence on fossil fuels is undoubtedly important but it will take patience, prudence, and most important- money. Carbon-free energy, in all forms, comes with a significant cost.
Legislative efforts have emphasized reducing our use of fossil fuels through increased costs while escalating the funding and deployment of alternative and renewable resources (defined as wind, solar, and geothermal) to offset reductions in carbon sources. This noble objective neglects an inconvenient truth - renewable energy cannot meet the nation’s baseload power demands. These resources must be developed but current technological, geographic and economic constraints limit their potential. The sad truth is that many of these resources are most abundant in remote regions, require massive amounts of land, and at present, generate variable and limited amounts of energy. In 2007, wind, geothermal and solar energy accounted for just a combined 2.5% of the nation’s electricity generation.
The conspicuously missing link in the recent climate debate has been the most efficient and proven source of carbon-free energy – nuclear power. Any realistic climate change policy, based on sound science, must include support for the only source of clean, baseload energy. In 2008, the 104 nuclear reactors operating in the United States produced more than 800 billion kilowatt-hours, equal to 19% of our total electricity output and representing nearly 75 percent of U.S. carbon-free electricity.
For 30 years, economic and social constraints sidelined the development of nuclear power in the United States. Today, social and economic shifts have placed the nuclear industry on the cusp of a “renaissance.” The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is currently reviewing applications for 26 new reactors that would provide an additional 34,000 megawatts of electricity. Even as our economy struggles and job losses mount, nuclear energy remains a sign of hope, creating almost 15,000 jobs in the last three years as communities anticipate new plant development.
Yet clean, safe nuclear energy continues to stir baseless fears that hearken to earlier times of environmental suspicion and political bias. In more than 50 years of operation, not a single American citizen has lost their life as a result of commercial nuclear power. Building on decades of experience, new reactor designs are more efficient, affordable and safe.
And we have only scratched the surface of nuclear energy’s potential. Advanced reactor designs could revolutionize the auto industry with hydrogen fuel cells, or close the fuel cycle completely- turning the earth’s most volatile natural resources into electricity for millions.
Still in its infancy, nuclear power remains a titan in the energy world. If the United States wants to fight the battle against climate change and lead the global economy, we must build upon the innovation and entrepreneurial edge that nuclear technology has given us. Decisions today will reverberate for decades. It is time for us, as a nation, to reassert our commitment to this promising clean energy solution.
Climate bill a pain in the gas
When Speaker Nancy Pelosi engineered the ouster of the House dean, Rep. John Dingell (D-Mich.), from his chairmanship of the Energy and Commerce Committee to install her chief environmental henchman, Henry Waxman (D-Calif.), we knew to expect a double dose of legislative toil and trouble.
Now reaching 1,000 pages — several hundred more than the erstwhile $787 billion stimulus — Waxman and Rep. Ed Markey’s energy plan belches from the caldron of liberal ideology, a potent potion of across-the-board tax hikes and job losses, putting the final choke on an already suffocating economy.
By creating a complex market system to regulate carbon emissions, this plan guarantees that energy prices will “necessarily skyrocket,” exactly what President Barack Obama promised last November.
Here’s how the Democrats’ plan would work: The federal government will establish a cap on carbon and other greenhouse gas emissions and then impose that cap on the nation’s energy producers — already among the most highly regulated industries in our economy — and other industries. A limited number of emission allowances will be distributed to favored industries for free. The remaining allowances will be sold at auction, and every five years the cap will be lowered to reach congressionally determined targets. Over time, companies that use less than their emission allowances will be allowed to sell the overage to competitors on an open carbon market. As businesses scrape up the shrinking number of allowances, the rising cost will assuredly be passed along in our monthly energy bills. That’s in addition to indirect energy costs — the price increase for everyday goods and services — that will hit low-income Americans the hardest.
And Waxman-Markey doesn’t stop there. In addition to putting the squeeze on carbon-based energy — which today produces nearly 70 percent of all electricity in the United States — the bill relies on expensive and unproven carbon capture and sequestration technologies to work. And while these technologies hold great promise, they are years away from widespread use in America.
Once energy costs start “skyrocketing” and businesses large and small are forced into government-subsidized renewable energy production, entire regions of coal-producing states will see their local economies tank and thousands of jobs lost. Of course, this doesn’t account for the manufacturers who will relocate to countries that don’t adopt business busting, draconian schemes like the one the Democrats now propose.
According to a recent Heritage Foundation analysis, Waxman-Markey will raise the average American family’s annual energy bill by $1,500 and kill approximately 1.1 million jobs by 2035. When all is said and done, there will be two certainties in Nancy Pelosi’s House: higher taxes and the death of jobs.
There is much collateral damage associated with Waxman-Markey. Once carbon trading begins, market speculators are almost certain to start leveraging their investment risks to blow up a carbon bubble in the same way the housing bubble overinflated and burst the American economy.
Moreover, Waxman-Markey promises to generate a new wave of lobbyists attempting to influence how Congress doles out emission allowances. For a president and a speaker who pledged to send Washington lobbyists scurrying from Capitol Hill like cockroaches, this bill creates an out-and-out lobbyist utopia. Just last week, the most prominent lobbyists for climate change legislation crowded into the Energy Committee’s markup session for the bill.
I represent the people of a state that claims the most aggressive and environmentally conscious energy policies in the nation. I’m all for the creation of “green jobs” — but not when the cost is the impulsive annihilation of hundreds of thousands of good-paying jobs in carbon-based industries. I’m in favor of funding the research and development of new technologies that can free us from dependence on carbon-rich fossil fuels, but only in a way that incentivizes innovation rather than punishing hardworking Americans.
Congress should pursue responsible steps to reduce our unsustainable fossil fuel dependence and improve our energy efficiency. What Pelosi and the Obama administration have offered us, however, are more political gamesmanship, higher taxes and fewer jobs.
While Waxman-Markey might serve the interests of lobbyists, liberal environmental elites and labor unions eager to corner the “green job” market, it does so with a great violation of the public trust that Congress was established to uphold.
Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) is the ranking member on the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform |
|
B350A RAYBURN HOUSE OFFICE BUILDING, WASHINGTON, DC 20515 PHONE: (202) 225-5074 FAX: (202) 225-3974 |
|
| STAY CONNECTED |     |
PRIVACY POLICY | SITEMAP |
|