Page 5

Page 6

Nuclear Power

Q6.

A6.

Q7.

A7.

Demand for electricity is predicted to rise steadily into the next century. Given the current contribution of nuclear energy to our energy supply and that technology's lack of greenhouse gas emissions, shouldn't the Administration pay more attention to what nuclear generation can do with respect to Clean Air Act and other emissions reduction requirements?

Yes, and it is doing so. The Energy Research and Development Panel of the President's Committee of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST), in its November 1997 report, "Federal Energy Research and Development for the Challenges of the Twenty-First Century," stated that the Federal government's role is to "ensure that long-term problems with nuclear power are addressed so that nuclear can become, if possible, a realistic and acceptable energy option, as well as a hedge in case renewables and efficiency cannot reach the performance levels and market share necessary to meet emission reduction targets." The Department's Strategic Plan, issued by Secretary Peña in September 1997, discusses energy resources as one of our four main business lines. Our Energy Resources strategic goal is to "promote secure, competitive, and environmentally responsible energy systems that serve the needs of the public." To ensure the availability of adequate and affordable electricity supplies with reduced environmental impact, the Department has developed several strategies, including one to "maintain a viable nuclear option for future, carbon-free baseload electricity through cooperative technical development activities with the U.S. electric industry that would facilitate a U.S. order of an advanced nuclear power plant by 2010."

The Department has proposed two new initiatives in its budget request for FY 1999. The proposed Nuclear Plant Optimization Program (NEPO) would partner with industry to develop technologies to address problems that may prevent the continued operation of current nuclear power plants. To this end the Department and industry, through the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI), together have developed a "Joint DOE-EPRI Strategic Nuclear Energy Research and Development Plan to Optimize U.S. Nuclear Power Plants" to guide the program. The purpose of this strategic plan is to jointly develop and prioritize the essential R&D needs of the commercial nuclear energy industry for the next five to ten years, and to ensure that there is no duplication of effort.

The second program is the proposed Nuclear Energy Research Initiative (NERI) which will sponsor peer-reviewed, competitive R&D to find solutions to those concerns that affect the long term future and expanded use of nuclear energy. Specifically, NERI will develop innovative technologies and reactor concepts to address proliferation, reactor safety, waste and economic

concerns.

What is the Department of Energy's explanation for the fact that several other nations are aggressively pursuing construction of civilian nuclear power plants while no such effort is underway here in the U.S.?

There are several reasons that explain the aggressive pursuit of commercial nuclear energy in some countries as compared to the U.S. First and foremost is the demand for electricity. Electricity demand is growing fast in countries with expanding or developing economies, such as South Korea, China and India. Nations with rapidly increasing electricity demand are attracted to nuclear energy by the security and independence from oil imports, the lack of greenhouse gas emissions associated with fossil fuels, and the ability of nuclear energy to provide large amounts of reliable

declined from an annual rate of 7+ percent in the 1950s and 1960s to an average annual rate of 1.5 to 2 percent over the last 20 years. This relatively small increase in U.S. electricity demand during this 20 year period has not required significant new additions to baseload generation capacity. The new demand has been met through completion of nuclear and fossil plants ordered in the 1960s and 1970s, utilization of excess capacity, electricity imports, and existing plant efficiency improvements.

The second reason relates to the availability of natural resources. Countries such as France, Japan, South Korea, India do not have large indigenous supplies, or cheap sources, of coal, natural gas or oil to produce electricity. China has large quantities of coal but lacks the infrastructure to economically mine and transport the coal to the population centers where the power plants are located. The U.S., on the other hand, has vast supplies of cheap coal which currently provide over 50 percent of our nation's electricity generation. In addition, U.S. natural gas supplies have proven much larger than previously realized, resulting in higher production and competitive prices. As a result, gas-fired combined cycle power plants have become the most cost effective new electricity generation option in the U.S.

The third factor is public opinion. Groups opposed to nuclear power have heightened public concerns about proliferation, reactor safety, waste and radiation. In many countries, particularly France and Japan, public opinion has been and continues to be supportive of nuclear energy, although the support in some countries appears to be waning.

The fourth reason nuclear energy is more aggressively pursued overseas than in the U.S. involves the disposition of spent fuel. The lack of a government facility to accept and dispose of spent nuclear fuel has caused additional capital and licensing costs for U.S. nuclear utilities for on-site spent fuel storage facilities. Many foreign countries do not share the U.S. government's policy on reprocessing of spent fuel. As a result, many countries are moving ahead with the reprocessing of spent fuel while the U.S. explores the policy and technical issues regarding the viability of geologic disposal.

The last factor hindering expanded use of nuclear energy in the U.S. involves the deregulation of the electric utility industry. In this environment, utilities and other electricity producers will openly compete for electricity sales with one another. As a result, U.S. utilities are eliminating or, at the very least, minimizing major capital outlays for new power plant construction, and evaluating the cost effectiveness of their current electrical generating assets in order to ensure future competitiveness.

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Hearing

on

The Road from Kyoto—Part 2:

Kyoto and the Administration's Fiscal Year 1999 Budget Request

Thursday, February 12, 1998

Post-Hearing Questions
Submitted to

The Honorable David M. Gardiner

Assistant Administrator for Policy, Planning and Evaluation
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency

Post-Hearing Questions Submitted by Chairman Sensenbrenner

Global Warming and American's Health

Q1.

Al.

On page 2 of your written testimony, you state:

“According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, representing 2,000 leading scientific experts from around the world: 'Climate change is likely to have wide ranging and mostly adverse impacts on human health, with significant loss of life.'"

Please document this statement.

IPCC provides an assessment of this topic in Chapter 18 (Human Population Health) of it's report Climate Change 1995: Impacts, Adaptations and Mitigation of Climate Change: Scientific-Technical Analyses (1995 IPCC Working Group II Report). The chapter includes evaluation of a wide range of health impacts of climate change and references to the most important research on this topic that was available at the time of publication. The quote "Climate change is likely to have wide ranging and mostly adverse impacts on human health, with significant loss of life," is taken from page 13 of the Summary for Policy makers of the 1995 IPCC Working Group II Report and reflects the