As the Obama administration moves to finalize its climate rule for power plants this summer, the nuclear industry is pushing for major changes to the components of the plan.
The proposed Clean Power Plan rule would allow states with nuclear power plants to take 6 percent of their nuclear output and credit it toward the emissions reduction goals regulators set for them. The industry says the 6 percent figure is arbitrary and creates a disincentive for states that might otherwise switch to nuclear sooner.
{mosads}The preliminary emissions reduction targets for some states also assume power is being generated today by nuclear plants that are still under construction, something the industry has argued contorts states’ existing emissions and makes it much tougher for them to bring down their carbon intensity in the future.
“The community doesn’t necessarily want preferential treatment, we just want equal treatment,” said Craig Piercy, the Washington representative of the American Nuclear Society.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Gina McCarthy acknowledged at a House hearing in February that “on the basis of the comments that came in,” the agency would “take a very close look” at its use of nuclear energy in the plan.
Final rules are due later this year, so an EPA spokeswoman couldn’t say much, except that “nuclear power is part of an all-of-the-above, diverse energy mix and provides reliable baseload power without contributing to carbon pollution. Nuclear power from current and future plants can help the U.S. meet its goals.”
Nuclear power is a zero-emission, high-output power source, and one of several “renewable or low-emission” options the administration says states can use to help meet the emissions reduction goals it will set in the final regulation. The overall goal of the plan is a 30 percent reduction in carbon emissions from U.S. power plants by 2030, and states have varying targets based on their current energy portfolios.
States can use 6 percent of their nuclear generation as credit toward their goals. That number is based on a government calculation that nearly 6 percent of U.S. nuclear plants are in danger of closing, primarily due to market pressures. The credit is meant to encourage states to keep those plants open, or replace nuclear output with other forms of clean energy.
“That was an attempt … to indicate that we are building those into the standard-setting process because we believe that they may be at risk,” McCarthy said in February. “But they should be staying in, all things being equal, because we are providing an incentive for a low-carbon future with this rule.”
The nuclear industry said the 6 percent plan could end up reversing climate gains, however: if a nuclear plant were to close, and a state only needed to replace 6 percent of its output with clean energy, the rest could come from higher-emission sources and the state would still be seen as achieving the goal.
The industry’s other major concern is related to the way the plan treats future nuclear plants. In states currently building new plants — Georgia, Tennessee and South Carolina — preliminary reduction targets are higher because the power from those nuclear plants is already assumed to be on the books.
Utilities companies have opposed the move. Jack Bonnikson, a spokesman for Georgia-based utility Southern Co., said the rule “penalizes these states for taking early action and leading in the expansion of new, carbon-free nuclear energy for America.
“If in the final rule EPA insists on setting binding statewide emission rate goals, then we believe under-construction nuclear units should be excluded from the calculation, with the full output available for compliance,” he said in a statement.
Pro-nuclear lawmakers have encouraged the EPA to look more closely at nuclear energy. At the February hearing, both Republicans and Democrats from Illinois pressed McCarthy to reconsider the plan’s strategy. Illinois has 11 nuclear reactors, the most in the nation.
“If the goal of the Clean Power Plan is to reduce carbon emissions while also ensuring that states can continue to provide reasonably-priced, safe, reliable electricity to its consumers, then nuclear power must play a central role in helping to achieve this objective,” Rep. Bobby Rush (D-Ill.) said.
Industry and lawmakers have different expectations for how the EPA’s review of the nuclear rules will shake out. Piercy said “it’s hard to imagine a scenario” where the EPA would finalize a rule with the nuclear concerns still on the books. But Rep. Adam Kinzinger (R-Ill.) said he worries McCarthy’s comments amount to “Washington-speak for ‘we’re not going to do anything.’ ”
McCarthy has said she is committed to incorporating nuclear into the final climate rule.
“I will certainly agree that nuclear power is zero-carbon,” she said earlier this year, “and it is an important part of the baseload for many of the states, and it should be considered by those states carefully in the development of their plans.”
This article is part of America’s Nuclear Energy Future series, sponsored by the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI). For more information about NEI, visit http://futureofenergy.nei.org