[House Hearing, 116 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]




  BUILDING A 100 PERCENT CLEAN ECONOMY: ADVANCED NUCLEAR TECHNOLOGY'S 
                     ROLE IN A DECARBONIZED FUTURE

=======================================================================

                                HEARING

                               BEFORE THE

                         SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY

                                 OF THE

                    COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                     ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS

                             SECOND SESSION

                               __________

                             MARCH 3, 2020

                               __________

                           Serial No. 116-107










    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]









      Printed for the use of the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

                   govinfo.gov/committee/house-energy 
                        energycommerce.house.gov 
                                   _______
                                   
                 U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE 
                 
53-686 PDF                   WASHINGTON : 2024 
                        
                        
                        
                        
                        
                        
                        
                        
                        
                        
                        
                        
                        
                        
                        
                        
                        
                        
                        
                        
                        
                        
                        
                        
                        
                        
                        
                        

                    COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE

                     FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey
                                 Chairman
BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois              GREG WALDEN, Oregon
ANNA G. ESHOO, California              Ranking Member
ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York             FRED UPTON, Michigan
DIANA DeGETTE, Colorado              JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois
MIKE DOYLE, Pennsylvania             MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas
JAN SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois             STEVE SCALISE, Louisiana
G. K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina    ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio
DORIS O. MATSUI, California          CATHY McMORRIS RODGERS, Washington
KATHY CASTOR, Florida                BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky
JOHN P. SARBANES, Maryland           PETE OLSON, Texas
JERRY McNERNEY, California           DAVID B. McKINLEY, West Virginia
PETER WELCH, Vermont                 ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois
BEN RAY LUJAN, New Mexico            H. MORGAN GRIFFITH, Virginia
PAUL TONKO, New York                 GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida
YVETTE D. CLARKE, New York, Vice     BILL JOHNSON, Ohio
    Chair                            BILLY LONG, Missouri
DAVID LOEBSACK, Iowa                 LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana
KURT SCHRADER, Oregon                BILL FLORES, Texas
JOSEPH P. KENNEDY III,               SUSAN W. BROOKS, Indiana
    Massachusetts                    MARKWAYNE MULLIN, Oklahoma
TONY CARDENAS, California            RICHARD HUDSON, North Carolina
RAUL RUIZ, California                TIM WALBERG, Michigan
SCOTT H. PETERS, California          EARL L. ``BUDDY'' CARTER, Georgia
DEBBIE DINGELL, Michigan             JEFF DUNCAN, South Carolina
MARC A. VEASEY, Texas                GREG GIANFORTE, Montana
ANN M. KUSTER, New Hampshire
ROBIN L. KELLY, Illinois
NANETTE DIAZ BARRAGAN, California
A. DONALD McEACHIN, Virginia
LISA BLUNT ROCHESTER, Delaware
DARREN SOTO, Florida
TOM O'HALLERAN, Arizona
                                 ------                                

                           Professional Staff

                   JEFFREY C. CARROLL, Staff Director
                TIFFANY GUARASCIO, Deputy Staff Director
                MIKE BLOOMQUIST, Minority Staff Director
                         Subcommittee on Energy

                        BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois
                                 Chairman
SCOTT H. PETERS, California          FRED UPTON, Michigan
MIKE DOYLE, Pennsylvania               Ranking Member
JOHN P. SARBANES, Maryland           ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio
JERRY McNERNEY, California, Vice     CATHY McMORRIS RODGERS, Washington
    Chair                            PETE OLSON, Texas
PAUL TONKO, New York                 DAVID B. McKINLEY, West Virginia
DAVID LOEBSACK, Iowa                 ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois
G. K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina    H. MORGAN GRIFFITH, Virginia
PETER WELCH, Vermont                 BILL JOHNSON, Ohio
KURT SCHRADER, Oregon                LARRY BUCSHON, Indiana
JOSEPH P. KENNEDY III,               BILL FLORES, Texas
    Massachusetts                    RICHARD HUDSON, North Carolina
MARC A. VEASEY, Texas                TIM WALBERG, Michigan
ANN M. KUSTER, New Hampshire         GREG WALDEN, Oregon (ex officio)
ROBIN L. KELLY, Illinois
NANETTE DIAZ BARRAGAN, California
A. DONALD McEACHIN, Virginia
TOM O'HALLERAN, Arizona
LISA BLUNT ROCHESTER, Delaware
FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey (ex 
    officio)
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
                             C O N T E N T S

                              ----------                              
                                                                   Page
Hon. Bobby L. Rush, a Representative in Congress from the opening 
  statement......................................................     1
    Prepared statement...........................................     2
Hon. Robert E. Latta, a Representative in Congress from the State 
  of Ohio, opening statement.....................................     3
Hon. Frank Pallone, Jr., a Representative in Congress from the 
  State of New Jersey, opening statement.........................     4
    Prepared statement...........................................     5
Hon. Greg Walden, a Representative in Congress from the State of 
  Oregon, prepared statement.....................................     6
    Prepared statement...........................................     8
Hon. Fred Upton, a Representative in Congress from the State of 
  Michigan, prepared statement...................................    89

                               Witnesses

Maria Korsnick, President and Chief Executive Officer, Nuclear 
  Energy Institute...............................................    10
    Prepared statement...........................................    12
    Answers to submitted questions...............................   282
Armond Cohen, Executive Director, Clean Air Task Force...........    20
Prepared statement \1\
Joseph S. Hezir, Principal, Energy Futures Initiative............    21
    Prepared statement...........................................    24
Jeffrey S. Merrifield, Chairman, Advanced Reactor Task Force, 
  U.S. Nuclear Industry Council                                      32
    Prepared statement \2\.......................................
    Answers to submitted questions...............................   293
John L. Hopkins, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, Nuscale 
  Power, LLC.....................................................    39
    Prepared statement...........................................    41
    Answers to submitted questions...............................   303
Chris Levesque, President and Chief Executive Officer, 
  Terrapower, LLC................................................    47
    Prepared statement...........................................    49
    Answers to submitted questions...............................   313

----------

                           Submitted Material

Supplemental Graphic of March 3, 2020, ``Clean Air Task Force,'' 
  by Armond Cohen, submitted by Mr. Rush.........................    91

----------
\2\ The supporting documents of Mr. Merrifield has been retained 
  in committee files and also is available at https://
  docs.house.gov/meetings/IF/IF03/20200303/110640/HHRG-116-IF03-
  Wstate-CohenA-20200303.pdf.
Report ``Development Financial Institution Financing for Small 
  Modular Reactor Projects'', by Elina Teplinsky and Sid Fowler, 
  Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman, submitted by Mr. Rush 1A\2\
Report of May 2019, Nuclear Power in a Clean Energy System, 
  submitted by Mr. Rush 1A\2\
Research of December 2019, by Stephen Jarvis, et al., National 
  Bureau of Economic, submitted by Mr. Rush 1A\2\
Article ``The Role of Firm Low-Carbon Electricity Resources in 
  Deep Decarbonization of Power Generation'', submitted by Mr. 
  Rush 1A\2\
\2\ The information has been retained in committee files and also 
  is available at https://docs.house.gov/meetings/IF/IF03/
  20200303/110640/HHRG-116-IF03-Wstate-MerrifieldJ-20200303.pdf.

 
  BUILDING A 100 PERCENT CLEAN ECONOMY: ADVANCED NUCLEAR TECHNOLOGY'S 
                     ROLE IN A DECARBONIZED FUTURE

                              ----------                              


                         TUESDAY, MARCH 3, 2020

                  House of Representatives,
                            Subcommittee on Energy,
                          Committee on Energy and Commerce,
                                                    Washington, DC.
    The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:31 a.m., in 
room 2322 Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Bobby L. Rush 
(chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
    Members present: Representatives Rush, Peters, Doyle, 
Sarbanes, McNerney, Tonko, Loebsack, Butterfield, Welch, 
Schrader, Kennedy, Kuster, Kelly, McEachin, O'Halleran, Blunt 
Rochester, Pallone (ex officio), Upton (subcommittee ranking 
member), Latta, Rodgers, Olson, McKinley, Kinzinger, Griffith, 
Johnson, Flores, Hudson, Walberg, Duncan, and Walden (ex 
officio).
    Staff present: Jeffrey C. Carroll, Staff Director; 
Catherine Giljohann, FERC Detailee; Omar Guzman-Toro, Policy 
Analyst; Rick Kessler, Senior Advisor and Staff Director, 
Energy and Environment; Elysa Montfort, Press Secretary; Lino 
Pena-Martinez, Staff Assistant; Alivia Roberts, Press 
Assistant; Tim Robinson, Chief Counsel; Andrew Souvall, 
Director of Communications, Outreach and Member Services; Medha 
Surampudy, Professional Staff Member; Tuley Wright, Energy and 
Environment Policy Advisor; Peter Kielty, Minority General 
Counsel; Bijan Koohmaraie, Minority Deputy Chief Counsel, 
Consumer Protection and Commerce.; Mary Martin, Minority Chief 
Counsel, Energy and Environment and Climate Change; Brandon 
Mooney, Minority Deputy Chief Counsel, Energy; Brannon Rains, 
Minority Policy Analyst; and Peter Spencer, Minority Senior 
Professional Staff Member, Environment and Climate Change.
    Mr. Rush. The Subcommittee on Energy will come to order. 
The Chair now recognizes himself for 5 minutes for the purpose 
of an opening statement.

   OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BOBBY RUSH, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 
              CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS

    On December the 2nd, 1942, the world's first controlled, 
self-sustaining nuclear chain reaction occurred right beneath 
the surface in my district, the 1st District of Illinois, at 
the University of Chicago. This occurrence, in conjunction with 
the discovery of nuclear fission, propelled our nation into the 
dawn of a new era.
    Since the creation of the Chicago Pile 1 reactor, the 
world's first nuclear reactor, peaceful applications of nuclear 
technology have provided solutions to various modern 
challenges. This includes the detention and management of 
threats to human health, food security, and demands for 
electricity. However, one of the greatest challenges facing our 
world remains with us and that is the challenge of climate 
change.
    Catastrophic climate change is an existential threat that 
will spare no community from its widespread impact. The large-
scale deployment of low-carbon energy is necessary to 
decarbonize economic sectors and reduce greenhouse gas 
emissions. It is likely that the world's energy usage will see 
a fifty percent increase by 2050.
    We are faced with this reality and it is critical that we 
deploy every method at our disposal to effectively mitigate the 
consequences of this increased usage. This includes the use of 
next-generation nuclear reactor design. At present, existing 
light water reactors account for up to 20 percent of our annual 
electricity generation in our nation, making them the second 
leading source of low-carbon emitting power, and are necessary 
to meet climate goals and growing energy needs.
    To remedy challenges posed by climate change, nuclear 
plants must evolve, must evolve to become increasingly cost-
competitive, readily deployable and, most importantly, they 
must be safe and secure through the advancement of next-
generation nuclear technologies like small modular and other 
advanced reactor concepts.
    We, our nation, can accomplish these objectives. Emerging 
reactor designs are to produce nuclear power with greater 
efficiency and flexibility. For instance, these expandable 
sources of energy may be assembled in factories and shipped to 
underserved areas. Apart from this advanced reactor design may 
also result in the recycling of nuclear fuel and much-needed 
waste volume reduction.
    Today's discussion is deeply important to our nation's path 
to a clean energy future, and I want to thank each and every 
one of our witnesses for their participation.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Rush follows:]

                 Prepared Statement of Hon. Bobby Rush

    On December 2, 1942, the world's first controlled, self-
sustaining nuclear chain reaction occurred beneath the surface 
of the First Congressional District of Illinois at the 
University of Chicago. This occurrence, in conjunction with the 
discovery of nuclear fission, propelled our nation into the 
dawn of a new age.
    Since the creation of the Chicago Pile-1 reactor--the 
world's first nuclear reactor--peaceful applications of nuclear 
technology have provided solutions to various modern 
challenges. This includes the detection and management of 
threats linked to human health, food security, and growing 
demands for electricity. However, one of the greatest 
challenges facing the globe remains--and that is climate 
change.
    Catastrophic climate change is an existential threat that 
will spare no community from its widespread impact. Therefore, 
the large-scale deployment of low-carbon energy is necessary to 
decarbonize our economic sectors and reduce greenhouse gas 
emissions.
    A projected 50 percent increase in the world's energy usage 
is likely by 2050. Faced with this reality, it is critical we 
deploy every method at our disposal to effectively mitigate 
this threat. This includes the use of next generation nuclear 
reactor designs.
    At present, existing light water reactors account for up to 
20 percent of annual electricity generation in the U.S. 
Additionally, reactors produce the world's second leading 
source of low-carbon emitting power and are necessary to meet 
climate goals and growing energy needs.
    To remedy challenges posed by climate change, nuclear 
plants must evolve to become increasingly cost competitive, 
readily deployable, and most importantly, safe and secure. 
Through the advancement of next generation nuclear 
technologies, like small modular and other advanced reactor 
concepts, we can accomplish these objectives.
    Emerging reactor designs are targeted to produce nuclear 
power with greater efficiency and flexibility. For instance, 
these dispatchable sources of energy may be assembled in 
factories and shipped to underserved areas. Apart from this, 
advanced reactor designs may also result in the recycling of 
nuclear fuel and much needed waste volume reductions.
    Today's discussion is deeply important to our nation's path 
to a clean energy future. I thank our witnesses for their 
participation. With that, I yield to the gentlemen from 
Michigan, my friend and colleague, Ranking Member Upton.

    And with that I want to yield to my friend, the gentleman 
from Michigan, from Ohio, rather, my friend Mr. Latta, who is 
going to speak in the time of the ranking member, Mr. Upton. 
Mr. Latta is recognized for 5 minutes.

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. ROBERT E. LATTA, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 
                CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF OHIO

    Mr. Latta. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I know my 
good friend who sits to the north of me in Michigan, I saw he 
got a big smile on his face when you said from Michigan, and 
some times of the year, those are fighting words in Ohio, so. 
But, Mr. Chairman, thank you very much for holding today's 
hearing, and I also want to thank our witnesses for appearing 
before us today on this very important subject.
    As we continue our discussions in this subcommittee about 
reducing emissions, there can be little doubt that nuclear 
technology will play a central role. Our expert panel of 
witnesses today will update us on the state of advanced 
technologies, the prospects for these technologies in energy 
and industrial applications, what we should be doing to make 
progress toward actually licensing and building new nuclear 
power generators, and how we support widespread deployment both 
in the United States and in foreign markets.
    Advanced nuclear will help the U.S. maintain its role as a 
global leader in energy innovation. The U.S. was the first to 
commercialize nuclear power for generation on the electric 
grid, and for decades, we led the way in the production of 
nuclear fuel. Unfortunately, we are now falling behind other 
nations, including our adversaries.
    If we are going to maintain our energy security into the 
future, we need to invest in our existing nuclear fleet and 
streamline the deployment in advanced nuclear power. That is 
why in the last Congress, I introduced the Advanced Nuclear 
Technology Development Act which requires the Department of 
Energy and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to collaborate on 
a regulatory framework and licensing requirements to provide 
certainty for the deployment of advanced nuclear technology. 
This legislation passed the House, and many of its provisions 
were included in a larger energy package that President Trump 
signed into law in 2018.
    I am also interested in how we can maintain a durable, 
domestic civilian nuclear industry. I commend the Trump 
administration for their attention to this issue, including how 
important it is for the United States to increase nuclear fuel 
production. In his budget, the President calls for the 
establishment of a national strategic uranium reserve to 
provide additional assurances of the availability of uranium in 
the United States in the event of market disruption. I believe 
it is important that Congress authorize this action and I plan 
on introducing legislation to do so.
    Aside from the energy security implications, having a 
strong domestic nuclear industry is essential to any 
conversation about reducing emissions. The fact is, the 
nation's existing light water fleet is the dominant form of 
emissions-free power in many regions of the United States, far 
surpassing what is provided by wind and solar. According to 
industry data, nuclear provides more than half of the 
emissions-free electricity in the United States. If we are 
serious about reducing emissions and paving the way for new 
advanced technologies, then we must maintain a robust, existing 
fleet as well as the intellectual, technological, and 
regulatory infrastructure that supports it.
    Again, I want to thank our witnesses for appearing with us 
today and I look forward to this important discussion. And, Mr. 
Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
    Mr. Rush. The gentleman yields back. The Chair now 
recognizes the chairman of the full committee, my friend Mr. 
Pallone, for 5 minutes for the purposes of an opening 
statement.

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK PALLONE, Jr., A REPRESENTATIVE 
            IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY

    Mr. Pallone. Thank you, Chairman Rush.
    Today's hearing continues the committee's series on 
building a hundred percent clean economy. At the beginning of 
the year, I joined Chairman Tonko and Rush and other committee 
Democrats in releasing the CLEAN Future Act, a bold plan to 
achieve net-zero greenhouse gas pollution in order to combat 
climate change. We have held 15 climate hearings over the last 
year, seven of them specifically designed to examine how to 
achieve deep decarbonization of various sectors of our economy, 
and today, we will focus nuclear energy's role in a clean 
energy future.
    Over the last decade, the power sector has made great 
strides in reducing its emissions, nevertheless, it remains 
responsible for twenty-eight percent of our nation's total 
carbon dioxide pollution. Fossil fuels also still represent 
nearly two-thirds of electricity generation, so it is essential 
that we consider any and all technologies that can reduce our 
dependence on fossil fuel and boost our decarbonization 
efforts.
    Achieving a fully decarbonized economy will require 
electrifying more things Americans use every day, like 
vehicles, furnaces, and hot water heaters. We will also need to 
electrify most industrial and manufacturing processes. But 
electrification will only help us achieve our carbon reduction 
goals if the electricity comes from clean sources.
    Nuclear power is a stable and reliable generating 
technology that emits no greenhouse gas pollution. It should be 
an important tool for decarbonizing our economy. Yet an 
increasing number of nuclear power plants in recent years have 
ceased operations for a range of factors, primarily because of 
the challenge to compete financially in power markets. As these 
plants go offline, the generating sources replacing them should 
also be emissions-free.
    But in many regions of the country, this retiring 
electricity generation is largely replaced by natural gas. 
Advanced nuclear technologies have the potential to provide 
more of the clean energy we need to decarbonize our economy. 
Advanced reactors can be designed to provide enhanced safety 
features and produce less waste. They also offer more 
flexibility than the designs in operation today because they 
can come in different sizes and they can be constructed faster 
with lower construction costs and sited in more remote areas.
    While we have yet to see any advanced reactors fully 
commercialized, one project from NuScale is expected to receive 
final approval from the NRC this year, and there are also many 
other promising proposals in the research and development phase 
with an eye towards deployment in the next decade. Supporting 
advancements in nuclear energy and bringing these new 
technologies to scale is one piece of the puzzle necessary to 
meet our climate goals. We have to invest in renewable energy 
and energy storage technologies, which will play a big role in 
decarbonizing the power sector.
    But studies show that in order to get to a hundred percent 
decarbonization affordably, we need reliable carbon-free 
resources like advanced nuclear power that can sustain output 
for long periods of time. Advanced nuclear also can work with 
other clean energy sources, like solar and wind, to fully 
decarbonize the power sector without big increases in utility 
bills.
    At the beginning of the century, there were rumblings of a 
nuclear energy renaissance with multiple large nuclear projects 
planned and the NRC staffing up to handle new license 
applications. But that didn't come to fruition, and we must 
contemplate how the next generation of reactors can be brought 
to market and deployed affordably. And this is something I 
believe most Democrats and Republicans agree on. I hope we can 
continue to work together to find ways to facilitate the 
development and deployment of advanced safer, cleaner, and more 
flexible nuclear technologies.
    So we have a knowledgeable panel of witnesses today, 
including the CEOs of two companies actively working to 
commercialize advanced reactor designs. I hope we can shed more 
light on current challenges, the policies Congress can pursue 
to facilitate the transition, and how advanced nuclear 
technologies can play a role in achieving a full 
decarbonization of the power sector.
    I know I have a minute left, but I don't think anybody 
wants it, Mr. Chair, so I yield back.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Pallone follows:]

             Prepared Statement of Hon. Frank Pallone, Jr.

    Today's hearing continues the Committee's series on 
building a 100 percent clean economy. At the beginning of the 
year, I joined Chairmen Tonko and Rush--and other Committee 
Democrats--in releasing the CLEAN Future Act, a bold plan to 
achieve net-zero greenhouse gas pollution in order to combat 
climate change. We have held 15 climate hearings over the last 
year, seven of them specifically designed to examine how to 
achieve deep decarbonization of various sectors of our economy.
    Today we will focus on nuclear energy's role in a clean 
energy future. Over the last decade the power sector has made 
great strides in reducing its emissions. Nevertheless, it 
remains responsible for 28 percent of our nation's total carbon 
dioxide pollution. Fossil fuels also still represent nearly 
two-thirds of electricity generation. So it is essential that 
we consider any and all technologies that can reduce our 
dependence on fossil fuel and boost our decarbonization 
efforts.
    Achieving a fully decarbonized economy will require 
electrifying more things Americans use every day, like 
vehicles, furnaces and hot water heaters. We will also need to 
electrify most industrial and manufacturing processes. But 
electrification will only help us achieve our carbon reduction 
goals if the electricity comes from clean sources.
    Nuclear power is a stable and reliable generating 
technology that emits no greenhouse gas pollution. It should be 
an important tool for decarbonizing our economy.
    Yet an increasing number of nuclear power plants in recent 
years have ceased operations for a range of factors, primarily 
because of the challenge to compete financially in power 
markets. As these plants go offline, the generating sources 
replacing them should also be emissions-free. But in many 
regions of the country, this retiring electricity generation is 
largely replaced by natural gas.
    Advanced nuclear technologies have the potential to provide 
more of the clean energy we need to decarbonize the economy. 
Advanced reactors can be designed to provide enhanced safety 
features and produce less waste. They also offer more 
flexibility than the designs in operation today because they 
can come in different sizes, be constructed faster with lower 
construction costs, and sited in more remote areas.
    While we have yet to see any advanced reactors fully 
commercialized, one project from NuScale is expected to receive 
final approval from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission this 
year. There are also many other promising proposals in the 
research and development phase with an eye towards deployment 
in the next decade.Supporting advancements in nuclear energy 
and bringing these new technologies to scale is one piece of 
the puzzle necessary to meet our climate goals. We must also 
invest in renewable energy and energy storage technologies, 
which will play a big role in decarbonizing the power sector.
    But studies show that in order to get to 100 percent 
decarbonization affordably, we need reliable carbon-free 
resources like advanced nuclear power that can sustain output 
for long periods of time. Advanced nuclear also can work with 
other clean energy sources, like solar and wind, to fully 
decarbonize the power sector without big increases in utility 
bills.
    At the beginning of the century, there were rumblings of a 
nuclear energy renaissance with multiple large nuclear projects 
planned and the NRC staffing up to handle new license 
applications. But that did not come to fruition, and we must 
contemplate how the next generation of reactors can be brought 
to market and deployed affordably. This is something I believe 
most Democrats and Republicans agree on, and I hope we can 
continue to work together to find ways to facilitate the 
development and deployment of advanced, safer, cleaner and more 
flexible nuclear technologies.
    We have a knowledgeable panel of witnesses today--including 
the CEOs of two companies actively working to commercialize 
advanced reactor designs. I hope we can shed more light on 
current challenges, the policies Congress can pursue to 
facilitate the transition, and how advanced nuclear 
technologies can play a role in achieving full decarbonization 
of the power sector.

    Mr. Rush. The gentleman yields back. The Chair now 
recognizes Mr. Walden, the ranking member of the full 
committee, for 5 minutes for the purpose of his opening 
statement.

  OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. GREG WALDEN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 
               CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF OREGON

    Mr. Walden. Good morning, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Rush. Good morning.
    Mr. Walden. I want to welcome you and our witnesses, 
certainly, to this really important hearing. I want to thank 
you for having this. The focus of today's hearing obviously is 
fundamental to addressing climate change risks and one that 
Republicans have logically and proudly championed: advanced 
nuclear technology.
    The most cost-effective way, indeed, the only reasonable 
way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and foster our national 
economic and security interests is through innovation, 
especially nuclear innovation. Encouraging the deployment of 
nuclear technology and, I must add, strengthening our current 
nuclear fleet and industrial base, implementing policies that 
help reassert U.S. nuclear leadership globally, these all 
provide a really promising path forward to meet both our 
environmental needs and our energy security priorities. In 
fact, it is the only way forward to meet these priorities, I 
would say.
    So today can help us focus on what is possible and what is 
necessary to build on recent policies we have enacted to ensure 
we have the right regulatory landscape, the right policies to 
strengthen our domestic civil industry and the innovative 
technologies on the horizon. U.S. global leadership here is 
sorely needed. Exporting clean power and clean power 
technologies will do more to drive down global CO2 
emissions than some arbitrary cap that countries fail to meet.
    In May of last year, the International Energy Agency 
released an information report on the role of nuclear power and 
clean energy systems. It did not find current trends very 
encouraging. The report noted that nuclear and hydropower 
``form the backbone of low-carbon electricity generation,'' 
responsible for three-quarters of the global low-carbon 
generation and the reduction of over sixty gigatons of carbon 
dioxide emissions over the past 50 years. Yet IEA found in 
advanced economies, nuclear power is in decline, with closing 
plants and little new investment ``just when the world requires 
more low-carbon electricity.''
    There are various reasons for this, some relating to cost 
overruns and delays, others to policies that fail to value the 
low-carbon and energy security attributes of nuclear. In any 
case, the report found this failure to encourage nuclear will 
undermine global efforts to develop cleaner electricity 
systems.
    Germany demonstrates this very problem. As it chose to shut 
down its nuclear industry, it has doubled down on expanding 
renewables like solar and wind. Ironically, to make this work, 
it also doubled down on coal. This nuclear phase-out has cost 
Germany $12 billion dollars, seventy percent of which is from 
increased mortality risks from stronger air pollutants. That is 
according to the National Bureau of Economic Research, by the 
way.
    If other less technologically advanced nations even could 
match the rate of renewables growth reached by Germany, they 
would only hit about a fifth of what is necessary to reach 
climate goals and with more expensive energy. So, would they 
then be forced to bring online even more coal-fired sources 
than Germany?
    On the other hand, as outlined by the authors of the pro-
nuclear book, A Bright Future, France and Sweden have both 
demonstrated in the 1970s and '80s how to do it. They showed 
that the buildout of nuclear can be done at five times the rate 
of Germany's experience with renewables with increased 
electricity production and relatively lower prices. So, I think 
the answer is obvious about the importance of nuclear energy. 
The question will be, can the United States take the lead going 
forward? We can help do that in this Congress if we fully 
acknowledge what U.S. leadership on nuclear will mean both for 
cleaner power and industrial systems here and abroad, and for 
the ever-important national security attributes of a strong 
U.S. industry.
    Witnesses have noted in recent hearings that recognizing 
how the United States energy and climate policy affects energy 
and energy technology relationships worldwide is critical to 
addressing emissions where they are growing the fastest and for 
strengthening our national security relationships. Resurrecting 
technological leadership in nuclear technology around the world 
will meet our broader national and energy security reasons, 
much as unleashing U.S. LNG from our shale revolution restored 
our ability to counter Russia in energy markets while also 
driving cleaner technology.
    Our nuclear energy exports boost our national security 
priorities. We on the Energy and Commerce Committee have been 
working in a bipartisan manner over the past few Congresses to 
enhance U.S. nuclear policies. There is most certainly more to 
do, and I think today's hearing will help us explore some of 
that, and that is both administratively and legislatively, to 
pave the way for advanced nuclear.
    Let me welcome the panel today, which I am pleased to see 
represent several important perspectives including industry, 
regulatory, safety, and international expertise. Two innovative 
companies, TerraPower, and from my home state of Oregon, as the 
Chairman referenced, NuScale. All of these witnesses can speak 
of what we need to do to build, operate, and lead with these 
new technologies. So, let's work together on an even better 
nuclear power policy for America. Today represents a good first 
step, and I yield back.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Walden follows:]

                 Prepared Statement of Hon. Greg Walden

    Thank you, Chairman Rush. The focus of today's hearing is 
fundamental to addressing climate change risks, and one 
Republicans have logically and proudly championed: advanced 
nuclear technology.
    The most cost-effective way-indeed the only reasonable 
way--to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and foster our national 
economic and security interests is through innovation, 
especially nuclear innovation.
    Encouraging the deployment of nuclear technology, 
strengthening our nuclear industrial base, implementing 
policies that helps reassert U.S. nuclear leadership globally. 
all provide a promising path to meet both our environmental and 
energy security priorities. In fact, it's the only way to meet 
these priorities.
    So today can help us focus on what is possible and what is 
necessary to build on recent policies we've enacted to ensure 
we have the right regulatory landscape, the right policies to 
strengthen our domestic civil industry, and the innovative 
technologies on the horizon.
    U.S. global leadership here is sorely needed. Exporting 
clean power and clean power technologies will do more to drive 
down global CO2 emissions than arbitrary caps that 
countries fail to meet.
    In May last year, the International Energy Agency released 
an informative report on the role of nuclear power in clean 
energy systems; it did not find current trends encouraging.
    The report noted that nuclear and hydropower ``form the 
backbone of low-carbon electricity generation,'' responsible 
for three-quarters of global low-carbon generation and the 
reduction of over 60 gigatons of carbon dioxide emissions over 
the past 50 years.
    Yet IEA found in advanced economies, nuclear power is in 
decline, with closing plants and little new investment, ``just 
when the world requires more low-carbon electricity.''
    There are various reasons for this, some relating to cost 
overruns and delays, others to policies that fail to value the 
``low-carbon and energy security attributes'' of nuclear. In 
any case, the report found this failure to encourage nuclear 
will undermine global efforts to develop cleaner electricity 
systems.
    Germany demonstrates the problem. As it chose to shut down 
its nuclear industry, it has doubled down on expanding 
renewables like solar and wind. Ironically, to make this work, 
it also doubled down on coal. This nuclear phase out has cost 
Germany $12 billion a year, 70% of which is from increased 
mortality risk from stronger air pollutants (this according to 
the National Bureau of Economic Research). If other less 
technologically advanced nations even could match the rate of 
renewables growth reached by Germany, they would only hit about 
a fifth of what is necessary to reach climate goals--and with 
more expensive energy. So, would they then be forced to bring 
online even more coal-fired sources than Germany?
    On the other hand, as outlined by the authors of the pro-
nuclear book ``A Bright Future,'' France and Sweden have both 
demonstrated in the 1970s and 1980s, how to do it. They showed 
that the build out of nuclear can be done at five times the 
rate of Germany's experience with renewables, with increased 
electricity production and relatively lower prices.
    I think the answer is obvious about the importance of 
nuclear. The question will be ``can the United States take the 
lead going forward?''
    We can help to do this in Congress if we fully acknowledge 
what U.S. leadership on nuclear will mean--both for cleaner 
power and industrial systems, here and abroad--and for the 
ever-important national security attributes of a strong U.S. 
industry.
    Witnesses have noted in recent hearings that recognizing 
how U.S. energy and climate policy effects energy and energy 
technology relationships world-wide is critical to addressing 
emissions where they are growing the fastest and for 
strengthening our national security relationships.
    Resurrecting technological leadership in nuclear technology 
around the world will meet our broader national and energy 
security reasons-much as unleashing U.S. LNG from our shale 
revolution restored our ability to counter Russia in energy 
markets, while also driving cleaner technology. Our nuclear 
energy exports boost our national security priorities.
    We on Energy and Commerce have been working, in a 
bipartisan manner over the past few Congresses to enhance U.S. 
nuclear policies. There is most certainly more to do. And I 
think today's hearing will help us explore what can be done, 
bother administratively and legislatively, to pave the way for 
advanced nuclear energy.
    Let me welcome the panel today. Which, I'm pleased to see, 
represents several important perspectives, including industry, 
regulatory, safety, and international expertise, to two 
innovative companies--Terrapower and my home state of Oregon's 
NuScale. All of these witnesses can speak to what we need to do 
to build, operate and lead with these new technologies.
    We should work to get our nation's nuclear policy in order. 
Today represents a good step in that effort.

    Mr. Rush. The gentleman yields back. The Chair would like 
to remind Members that pursuant to committee rules, all 
members' written opening statements shall be made part of the 
record.
    I would like to now welcome our witnesses for today's 
hearing. Ms. Maria Korsnick is the President and Chief 
Executive Officer of the Nuclear Energy Institute. Mr. Armond 
Cohen serves as the Executive Director of the Clean Air Task 
Force. Mr. Joseph Hezir is the Principal for the Energy Futures 
Initiative.
    The Honorable Jeffrey Merrifield is the Chairman of the 
Advanced Reactor Task Force, the U.S. Nuclear Industry Council. 
Mr. John Hopkins is Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of the 
NuScale Power, LLC. And last, but certainly not least, Mr. 
Chris Levesque. He serves as the President and Chief Executive 
Officer of the TerraPower, LLC. Thank each and every one of 
you, name by name, for joining us today and we look forward to 
your testimony.
    Before we begin, a little instruction on the lighting 
system that is in front of you. In front of you is a series of 
lights. The light will initially be green at the start of your 
opening statement. The light will turn yellow when you have 1-
minute remaining, and at the yellow light, please begin to wrap 
up your statement at that point. The light will turn red when 
your 5 minutes are up. And with that said, Ms. Korsnick, you 
are now recognized for 5 minutes for your opening statement. 
Welcome.

  STATEMENTS OF MARIA KORSNICK, PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE 
  OFFICER, NUCLEAR ENERGY INSTITUTE; ARMOND COHEN, EXECUTIVE 
  DIRECTOR, CLEAN AIR TASK FORCE; JOSEPH S. HEZIR, PRINCIPAL, 
  ENERGY FUTURES INITIATIVE; HONORABLE JEFFREY S. MERRIFIELD, 
 CHAIRMAN, ADVANCED REACTOR TASK FORCE, U.S. NUCLEAR INDUSTRY 
COUNCIL; JOHN L. HOPKINS, CHAIRMAN AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, 
 NUSCALE POWER, LLC; AND, CHRIS LEVESQUE, PRESIDENT AND CHIEF 
              EXECUTIVE OFFICER, TERRAPOWER, LLC.

                  STATEMENT OF MARIA KORSNICK

    Ms. Korsnick. Good morning. I am Maria Korsnick, president 
and CEO of the Nuclear Energy Institute, and I want to thank 
you, Chairman Rush. I appreciate the opportunity to testify 
this morning and I thank the entire subcommittee for continuing 
to focus on nuclear energy and, specifically, the role of 
advanced nuclear technology in reaching our decarbonization 
goals.
    I sincerely appreciate the overwhelming bipartisan support 
that we saw for NEICA as well as NEIMA. Both bills will help 
ensure that the United States remains a global leader of 
nuclear energy innovation. Nuclear energy generates most of our 
nation's clean energy. Nuclear generation helps to combat our 
climate crisis by producing over 800 billion kilowatt-hours of 
emission-free energy every year. In 2018 alone, the current 
fleet avoided emissions of over 500 million metric tons of 
carbon dioxide. That is equivalent to avoiding all the 
emissions from all the cars in the United States.
    Looking at today's energy mix and at our goals for further 
decarbonization, it is clear that we need nuclear alongside 
other clean energy sources such as wind, solar, and hydropower. 
We need these technologies to complement each other not work 
against each other, so we appreciate that the majority's CLEAN 
Future Act discussion draft takes a technology-neutral approach 
that values nuclear energy's carbon-free generation.
    States and utilities have also recognized the need to 
decarbonize the energy sector. California, New Mexico, 
Colorado, New York, and Washington are among the states that 
have set goals to require one hundred percent clean and 
reliable energy by 2050, if not sooner, with more states likely 
to act. And likewise, dozens of utilities have also made 
significant emission reduction pledges, with others already 
well-positioned for a low-carbon future by virtue of their 
existing nuclear generation.
    Electric utilities are looking for firm, dispatchable, 
carbon-free solutions to complement wind and solar to meet 
their decarbonization pledges and they recognize that the 
second license renewal for the current nuclear fleet and 
advanced technologies are integral to meeting those goals. The 
U.S. leads the world in innovative companies and the nuclear 
sector well reflects America's entrepreneurial spirit.
    NEI's members include approximately twenty advanced reactor 
developers with design set range in size from a few megawatts 
to a few hundred megawatts to the large gigawatt-class 
reactors. And advanced nuclear technologies could also 
contribute to decarbonization in other sectors such as 
transportation. Electric cars should be powered by a carbon-
free energy source. And new nuclear technologies that can 
compete with other forms of firm, carbon-free generation in the 
U.S. will be highly sought after in the global market.
    I am extremely hopeful because real progress is being made. 
The Tennessee Valley Authority recently received the nation's 
first Early Site Permit for a small modular reactor at its 
Clinch River site, and NuScale is expected to receive its 
design certification for its SMR later this year. Oklo is 
expected to apply for a license from the NRC for their Advanced 
Fission Plant.
    GE-Hitachi and Kairos Power are actively engaging with the 
NRC on their innovative SMR designs, and Southern Company is 
teaming with TerraPower on a molten salt reactor technology. In 
addition, the nation's first AP-1000 light water reactor, 
Vogtle 3, is scheduled to come online next year, and Vogtle 4 
will operate in 2022. These two reactors will generate enough 
carbon-free electricity to power a million homes and 
businesses.
    And we are also very pleased that Congress funded the 
Advanced Reactor Demonstration Program. This program sets a 
goal for two demonstrations to be operational in the next 5 to 
7 years, and facilitates two to five other projects in the 
future. The show of government confidence in nuclear technology 
is a catalyst for the capital investment needed for 
commercialization. Further, once passed, the bipartisan NELA 
will help ensure that our nation's advanced reactor program 
thrives in the coming decade, spurring innovation through 
demonstration projects, establishing a pilot program for long-
term federal power purchase agreements, and providing a 
pragmatic approach to ensuring that the fuel to power these 
advanced reactors will be available when needed.
    In closing, today's fleet is America's emission-free 
workhorse. Nuclear carbon-free energy powers our homes, our 
businesses, and our Navy. It enables deep space exploration, 
solves medical challenges, it helps fund schools and essential 
services in communities across the country, and nuclear 
generation provides a critical, carbon-free energy solution now 
and for the future.
    Thank you and I look forward to working with you to ensure 
that our nation can take full advantage of the nuclear 
generation that we have to offer and I am happy to answer any 
questions.
    [The prepared statement of Ms. Korsnick follows:]
    
    
    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Mr. Rush. Thank you.
    Mr. Cohen, you are now recognized for 5 minutes.

                   STATEMENT OF ARMOND COHEN

    Mr. Cohen. Thank you, Chairman Rush and Ranking Member 
Walden, and members of the committee. I am not going to talk 
from a written statement, but I want to really fundamentally 
address the issue, why bother with nuclear at all? We have 
remarkable progress on renewables. Thankfully, renewable costs 
have come down dramatically, seventy-five, eighty percent, over 
the last 20 years. Battery costs are dropping. Why would we 
want to move forward with this technology?
    And we have a couple visuals, and I don't know if we can 
put up the first slide if that is ready to go and, if not, I 
will try and talk from it verbally.
    [Slide.]
    Mr. Cohen. The first slide that is in your deck, and I know 
this is kind of hard to see, but on the left we see the amount 
of carbon-free energy we have to deploy over the next 30 years 
to get to a one hundred percent carbon-free grid by mid-
century. You can see it is a pretty steep climb and, in fact. 
it amounts on an average basis to about 35 average gigawatts 
per year. Now to put that in context, that is one New York 
State's worth of electric infrastructure every year. So we have 
to build a New York power system every single year for the next 
30 years and it all has to be carbon-free, so you get some 
sense of the scale of this task.
    The bars on the right represent our best historic track 
record of building capacity. On the far left you have wind and 
solar averaged over 2010 to 2018, about 3 gigawatts per year. 
The best year was 5 gigawatts, and on the right was nuclear 
during its best decade from 1980 to 1990. And you can see that 
even that--we will talk about scaling advantages of nuclear--we 
still would need to build it about five times the rate that we 
did historically.
    The takeaway message from this graph is that if you think 
you are going to get there with just one thing, one source, 
whether it is wind or solar, or it is natural gas with carbon 
capture, if it is nuclear, I would suggest that is a very, very 
risky bet. And so this game is all about scale and timing and 
that is where nuclear has extraordinary advantages. Again, 
very, very lucky to have the kind of renewable resource we 
have, but in terms of filling up that hole and hitting that one 
New York a year target, we are going to need everything we have 
got.
    [Slide.]
    Mr. Cohen. The next slide, if you can put it up, 
addresses--I realize it is a bit of an eye chart, but it is in 
the printed copy of the testimony. So the other challenge here 
is to make sure as Ms. Korsnick said that we have 24/7, 365 
reliable power. Now what we have illustrated or modeled on the 
left is the western states at a hundred percent wind, solar, 
and hydro. There is a little bit of mistake in my testimony. 
This is wind, solar, and a very large amount of hydroelectric 
power which is to some extent dispatchable.
    But what you see is those shaded lines, we have the full 
year represented on the x-axis, but we have 68 days and then 
another 35 days when that wind, solar, and hydro output can't 
supply the energy on those days by a significant fraction in 
some cases. Now that is with nominally a hundred percent 
renewable ability, and this is cost-optimized and we can go 
into the details, but those gaps have to be filled. And on the 
right, you see what the storage requirement would be to fill 
those gaps.
    That storage requirement would be about 3.3 terawatts of 
storage. Just think of that number, 3.3. The entire U.S. 
electric grid is one terawatt. So we would have to triple the 
size of the U.S. electric grid just in storage and just for the 
fourteen western states; that the capital cost of that 
investment would be about 1.6 trillion dollars, which again to 
put that in perspective, the entire electric bill of the 
western states is 80 billion a year.
    So about a 20x capital spend over what the western states 
spend, and so obviously the cost of doing this is very, very 
large. And by the way, we dropped the cost of storage to 
seventy-five percent from where it is today to derive those 
numbers, so I am assuming a lot of innovation.
    [Slide.]
    Mr. Cohen. The final slide makes the point about scale. And 
this, what we see here is France and it was referred to 
earlier, so this is the French grid from 1960 to 2015. The blue 
line is fossil generation on the French grid and the red line 
is nuclear generation. And you can see that in a space of about 
15 years, France went from entirely fossil to about twenty, 
fifteen percent fossil. That was due to the nuclear power 
program.
    Now that wasn't done for climate reasons. It was done to 
get off, you know, Middle Eastern oil. But nonetheless, it 
shows you that when you want to scale this technology, you can 
do it very fast, and there are all kinds of reasons for that. 
It is a very power-dense technology if you can scale and get to 
the rate. We talked a little bit about how compact it is. But 
this is the kind of scale we need to be at, and I am not 
suggesting that the entire U.S. electric grid be powered by 
nuclear, but you could do that. Or you could do a very 
significant fraction, and history proves that is the case.
    Finally, let me just make a comment from a quote I like 
from James Baldwin in a very different context. ``Not 
everything that is faced can be changed, but nothing can be 
changed that is not faced.'' And what we have to face here is 
the size and scale of this problem and the fact that there is 
no perfect solution. Nuclear is not perfect, but it is good 
enough and it is there and we can use it to decarbonize the 
economy. Thank you.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Cohen follows:]
    Mr. Rush. Thank you.
    The Chair now recognizes Mr. Hezir for 5 minutes.

                  STATEMENT OF JOSEPH S. HEZIR

    Mr. Hezir. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, members 
of the subcommittee, for having this hearing today. I am Joseph 
Hezir. I am a principal at the Energy Futures Initiative, or 
EFI as I will refer to it.
    EFI is an energy policy think tank that was formed by 
former Secretary of Energy Ernest Moniz. I have had the good 
opportunity of working with him now for over ten years, first 
at the MIT Energy Initiative, then serving as the chief 
financial officer at the Department of Energy, and then co-
founding EFI with him a little over two years ago. Our mission 
simply stated is to identify opportunities for innovation in 
energy technology, business models and policy to accelerate the 
transition to a future clean energy economy.
    So in the nearly three years since our founding, EFI has 
produced over thirteen separate reports on energy innovation 
and clean energy policy. Many of these reports touch on nuclear 
energy issues and I have tried to summarize some of those in my 
prepared statement. Drawing from this statement, I would just 
like now to sort of emphasize five main points. The first point 
I want to emphasize is in thinking about the title of today's 
hearing and, really, the theme that this committee has set, 
building a hundred-percent clean energy economy. It is 
important that we recognize that in doing so that we need to 
think about it in terms of net-zero carbon.
    Even with significant energy innovation including nuclear, 
not all sectors of the economy will necessarily become a 
hundred percent clean. There are subsectors within 
transportation industry and the built environment where there 
may be no clean technological solution or where the solution 
will be cost-prohibitive. Consequently, within EFI we also 
emphasize the need for large-scale carbon management, both 
carbon capture as well as carbon removal from the environment. 
Advanced nuclear technologies provide the potential for large-
scale clean electricity, but a hundred percent clean energy 
economy will also require companion efforts on large-scale 
carbon management.
    The second point I want to emphasize is that advanced 
nuclear energies are part of the key element of what we have 
called at EFI, ``the Green Real Deal.'' As you all know, the 
House has resolution on the Green New Deal and that resolution 
has called attention to two very aspirational goals, one being 
the urgency of addressing the climate change issue and, 
secondly, the need to do so in a manner that ensures social 
equity.
    Our report on the Green Real Deal translates these 
aspirational goals into a framework for action that would 
create a clean energy economy in ways that minimize costs, 
maximize economic opportunities and accelerate solutions and 
promote social equity. We have identified five foundational 
principles for the Green Real Deal including innovation to 
provide optionality and flexibility, building coalitions, 
ensuring social equity, and addressing all emitting sectors, 
and last but not least, providing an all of the above solution 
set.
    The reason I mention these five foundational principles is 
that advanced nuclear energy technology reflects all of these 
principles, particularly in providing optionality and 
flexibility as part of the an all-of-the-above solution. And 
looking forward from now through mid-century, we see 
optionality and flexibility becoming increasingly important as 
we look into the next decade and head toward ambitious goals 
for mid-century.
    The third point I want to make is that advanced nuclear 
energy technologies are essential to an energy portfolio with 
significant breakthrough potential. We have done a major study 
of the energy innovation landscape, and as part of that we 
identified five particular technologies that we thought have 
breakthrough potential, one of which is advanced nuclear energy 
technologies. And so, we see that as becoming a very important 
point for many of the reasons that others on this panel will 
talk about.
    The fourth point I want to make is simply that advanced 
nuclear energy and a strong federal role is important not only 
for energy and climate reasons, but also for national security 
reasons. Many people have touched upon it, but I want to just 
emphasize two points, one being the point about the fact that 
the U.S. has been a leader in nuclear nonproliferation policy 
around the world and having a strong and robust civilian 
industry is very important to advancing that goal. The other 
important goal is the fact that there is a very important 
interplay between the commercial nuclear industry and our 
nuclear Navy, and those two are very mutually reinforcing.
    So, in conclusion, I just want to say that at EFI we do not 
endorse particular legislation. We do not take formal 
positions. But we do very much support the concept of improved 
public-private partnerships, and we see in the legislation that 
you have before you many opportunities to do just that. So, 
thank you very much.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Hezir follows:]


    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Mr. Rush. Thank you.
    The Chair now recognizes Mr. Merrifield for 5 minutes.

               STATEMENT OF JEFFREY S. MERRIFIELD

    Mr. Merrifield. Mr. Chairman and members of the 
subcommittee, it is an honor to testify before you today. I am 
here in my role as chairman of the Advanced Nuclear Task Force 
of the U.S. Nuclear Industry Council.
    It has become very apparent that we must deploy a wide 
range of technologies to reserve the global production of 
greenhouse gases. I am pleased to be here to discuss how 
advanced nuclear energy can help address this challenge. Over 
twenty NIC companies are developing advanced reactors using 
light water, high-temperature gas, molten salt, and liquid 
metal ranging from micro to large reactors. These designs have 
made tremendous progress over the last five years, with 
modularity and safety features that allow them to replace coal- 
or gas-fired units or be used for desalinization or process 
heat.
    NIC appreciates what this committee and its counterparts 
have done in passing a variety of nuclear bills as well as 
increasing funding for DOE's Office of Nuclear Energy. Last 
May, NIC attended the Clean Energy Ministerial in Vancouver. 
The head of the International Energy Agency, Fatih Birol, 
talked about the role that nuclear plays in fighting climate 
change.
    Over the last 50 years, nuclear has reduced CO2 
emissions by over 60 gigatons, equal to two years of global 
energy related emissions. Yet without policy changes, advanced 
economies could lose twenty-five percent of their nuclear 
capacity by 2025 and two-thirds by 2040. Absent life extension, 
these closures could add four billion tons of annual 
CO2 emissions, putting us further into the hole. As 
IEA states, it is considerably cheaper to extend the life of a 
reactor than build a new plant, and the cost of life extensions 
are competitive with wind and solar.
    As you know, Germany, which is seeking significant 
renewables, is shutting down seventeen of its nuclear units. A 
December 2019 study funded by the National Bureau of Economic 
Research states the German nuclear power was mostly replaced 
with power from coal plants which led to a release of an 
additional 36 million tons of CO2 per year. By their 
estimate, this increase in particulate and SO2 
emissions likely killed over 1,100 people per year in Germany 
from lung or heart disease.
    Several states, including Illinois, Ohio, and New Jersey 
have adopted zero emissions credits to protect existing nuclear 
generation from economic shutdown. Unfortunately, a recent 
decision by FERC in December of 2019, which expanded the 
Minimum Offer Price Rule, or MOPR, will have the effect of 
eroding these efforts and will further reduce the carbon-free 
generation of these important plants.
    While wind and solar resources are needed to reduce carbon 
emissions, they are not the only solution. According to a 
recent MIT report, firm, low-carbon resources including nuclear 
power, bioenergy, and natural gas plants that capture 
CO2 consistently lower the cost of decarbonizing 
electricity. Without these resources, costs rise rapidly as 
CO2 limits approach zero. According to the report, 
zero-emission cases without firm resources will require 
installed generation and storage that could be five to eight 
times the peak system demand.
    NIC believes that the demonstration program and federal 
power purchase agreement provisions included in the Nuclear 
Energy Leadership Act that has been reported to this committee 
would significantly enable advanced reactors and we support the 
prompt passage of this bill. I previously testified on the need 
for high-assay, low-enriched uranium, otherwise known as HALEU, 
for many advanced reactors. While many positive steps have been 
taken by DOE to address the supply of this material, given the 
important civilian, military, and space applications of HALEU, 
we believe this committee will need to closely monitor DOE's 
efforts.
    Over the last 30 years, the U.S. has gone from being the 
preeminent nuclear exporter to trailing Russia, France, Korea, 
and China in international nuclear deployments. Last October, I 
attended a NIC delegation to Kenya. We met with leaders over a 
dozen Sub-Saharan countries who were investigating advanced 
reactors. They said the following: ``We need nuclear generation 
to provide clean carbon-free economic growth for our countries, 
or else we will be forced to buy coal or other fossil plants 
because renewable energy will not be enough. We want American 
nuclear technologies and we want American nuclear assistance, 
but we keep asking ourselves, where are the Americans?''
    Advanced reactors provide a clear opportunity for the U.S. 
to retake the lead in the deployment of nuclear technologies 
and will spur exports, create jobs, strengthen our 
international relations, and provide clean, carbon-free energy 
around the world. Unfortunately, the ability to finance these 
technologies and export them is hindered by the existing 
impediments in international finance institutions that 
discriminate against nuclear energy. We believe the development 
of advanced reactors would justify the International 
Development Finance Corporation to reverse the prior OPIC 
policy prohibiting nuclear financing.
    Finally, similar anti-nuclear policies at other 
institutions including the World Bank, the Asian Development 
Bank, and others are based on a lack of understanding regarding 
the clean energy benefits of nuclear. We urge Congress to seek 
the reversal of these anti-nuclear policies and enable U.S. 
advanced nuclear exports to bloom.
    With that I thank you and I request that the four reports 
that I referenced in my testimony be included in the record. 
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Merrifield follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Mr. Rush. Hearing no objection, so ordered.
    [The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.]
    Mr. Rush. The Chair now recognizes Mr. Hopkins for 5 
minutes.

                  STATEMENT OF JOHN L. HOPKINS

    Mr. Hopkins. Thank you, Chairman Rush, members of the 
subcommittee, it is an honor to be before you today. My name is 
John Hopkins. I am the chief executive officer of NuScale 
Power.
    The NuScale SMR is a disruptive technology that could 
change the way the world views nuclear energy and will play an 
important role in the next generation of zero-carbon baseload 
electricity. We are based in Corvallis, Oregon. We have 300 
employees and our major private investor is Fluor Corporation. 
Advanced small modular reactors offer an opportunity for true 
decarbonization with safe, flexible, efficient, and affordable 
technology. NuScale's SMRs have revolutionized nuclear safety 
with a very simplified design and walk-away safe technology.
    Each NuScale module can generate up to 60 megawatts of 
electric power. Up to twelve modules are housed at each site 
providing a total of up to 720 megawatts. All twelve modules 
can shut down and self-cool for an unlimited period of time 
with no operator interaction, no need for additional water, and 
no electricity requirements. SMRs can integrate with renewable 
energy and can load-follow, provide reliable power to mission 
critical facilities and to industrial processes like 
desalinization, and serve as emission-free baseload power. 
Recent studies by MIT, the International Energy Agency, and the 
E3 study commissioned by Energy Northwest in the state of 
Washington, show that without nuclear energy costs of achieving 
deep decarbonization goals will be two to three times higher.
    The NuScale design has been under review by the NRC since 
2017. The 12,000-page Design Certification Application took 
over 2 million engineering hours, involved over eight hundred 
people and cost $500 million to prepare. In December 2019, the 
NRC completed Phase 4 of the review. Completion of Phase 4 
signifies near completion of the technical review for the 
Design Certification Application. The NRC is on track for 
completing NuScale's DCA by the end of this year 2020.
    To reduce risks for the first-of-a-kind technology, DOE has 
supported public-private partnerships and the program is 
working. In 2013, NuScale won a very competitive DOE 50/50 
cost-share funding opportunity which accelerated NuScale's 
advancement through a very complex NRC Design Certification 
process. This is what DOE's SMR program is created to do and 
our success is due to your strong bipartisan support.
    NuScale is the only near-term commercially deployable 
advanced technology today. We are preparing for our first 
deployment project, the Utah Associated Municipal Power Systems 
Carbon Free Power Project, which will be sited at the DOE's 
Idaho National Laboratory. NuScale's innovative manufacturing 
process and investments in SMR technology are helping to grow 
the clean energy economy. Our supply chain is already extensive 
with over fifty suppliers located in 25 of our states. We 
anticipate over one thousand construction jobs per plant, and 
once operating each NuScale plant is expected to employ over 
three hundred full-time employees with an average salary of 
$85,000. This is about twice the workforce of a similarly-sized 
coal plant and six times that of a combined cycle natural gas 
plant.
    There are several policy measures Congress can take to 
speed in our advanced nuclear community. Continued resources 
for Department of Energy's public-private partnership should be 
a priority. If appropriations for DOE's SMR program continue, 
funds will be used for acceleration of design finalization 
activities, development of the manufacturing supply chain in 
this country, and site licensing and deployment activities. NRC 
should have sufficient resources to process advanced nuclear 
applications in a timely manner.
    The Nuclear Energy Leadership Act, introduced by 
Representatives Luria and co-sponsored by twenty-five 
bipartisan members, will accelerate growth in the advanced 
nuclear community. The CLEAN Future Act includes important 
changes to federal long-term power purchase agreements. The 
provision would help reduce the risk of advanced reactor 
projects by extending the maximum length of federal power 
purchase agreements to 40 years.
    We are grateful for the support of the Department of Energy 
and the Congress. We take the responsibilities associated with 
the use of our taxpayer dollars very seriously and are 
singularly focused on our role in the reestablishment, as many 
have said at this table today, of U.S. leadership in our 
nuclear technologies. I want to thank the committee for the 
opportunity to testify before you today and I am looking 
forward to your questions.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Hopkins follows:]


    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Mr. Rush. I want to thank the gentleman.
    The Chair now recognizes Mr. Levesque for 5 minutes for an 
opening statement.

                  STATEMENT OF CHRIS LEVESQUE

    Mr. Levesque. Thank you, Chairman Rush and members of the 
subcommittee. My name is Chris Levesque and I am the chief 
executive officer of TerraPower, an advanced nuclear technology 
company based in Bellevue, Washington.
    Including the past five years at TerraPower, I have spent 
my entire career working in nuclear energy beginning my service 
in the Navy on submarines. I have also had the opportunity to 
work on civilian nuclear projects in the U.S. and 
internationally. These experiences greatly inform my comments 
today as well as my belief that the U.S. must retain its 
leadership in nuclear energy technology. In 2006, our company's 
founders, Bill Gates and Nathan Myhrvold, began looking for a 
technological solution to the dual challenges of the growing 
global demand for energy and the rising threat of climate 
change. The answer they discovered is advanced nuclear 
technology.
    The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate 
Change, the IPCC, provides a number of pathways to keep global 
emissions below 1.5 degrees Celsius. None of those pathways 
will be achieved if we allow for a reduction in the share of 
global power provided by nuclear. In fact, the high economic 
growth scenario calls for global nuclear power demand to 
increase by five times current levels. Because nuclear provides 
always-available power, it can play a key role in a one hundred 
percent emissions-free future.
    TerraPower's designs are walk-away safe and use natural 
forces like gravity and air cooling, not human intervention, to 
keep the reactors safe when faced with unplanned events. Our 
plants can run on natural or depleted uranium and can reduce 
waste over conventional designs by nearly eighty percent. 
Because they do not require enrichment and because they burn up 
more of the fuel in the reactor core, they significantly reduce 
the risk of proliferation.
    These improvements make our reactors safer, cheaper, and 
able to operate with lower volumes of waste. Our technology is 
also specifically designed to integrate into a grid with large 
amounts of wind and solar generation. We are developing an 
integrated energy system that uses heat from our reactors to 
store energy in a molten salt loop like a giant thermal 
battery. This stored energy can be used during periods of low 
solar and wind activity, and can also be used to supply 
industrial processes the currently require the burning of 
fossil fuels.
    Our reactors will be essential for reducing hydrocarbon use 
in the industrial and transportation sectors as we move toward 
a carbon-free economy. A measure of the urgency and interest of 
our work, I would like to mention the remarkable nature of our 
workforce. We have attracted mission-driven, talented, sought-
after young minds who want to solve the climate crisis. We 
compete with our neighbors in Seattle at Microsoft, Amazon, and 
others across the nation, for the best and brightest minds in 
engineering and science. They push us every day to solve the 
remaining challenges in our path to demonstration and 
deployment.
    It is important that Congress supports the demonstration of 
advanced nuclear technology. Because our designs are novel and 
cutting-edge, it will be virtually impossible to find 
sufficient capital to build a commercial reactor without first 
demonstrating these new reactors at scale. We are excited that 
the fiscal year 2020 appropriations bill provides 230 million 
dollars for demonstration of advanced nuclear reactors. It also 
provides for continued investment in the versatile test 
reactor, the VTR, a key platform for nuclear innovation.
    We also support the Nuclear Energy Leadership Act, NELA, 
and appreciate the number of members of this committee who have 
joined as co-sponsors of NELA. NELA builds on the work of this 
committee to encourage innovation and private investment. And, 
finally, we are grateful for interest and leadership 
demonstrated by this committee on climate change. Our company 
was founded on the premise that we must end global energy 
poverty while at the same time protecting the planet. We 
wholeheartedly believe that America is up to solving the 
challenge of climate change and TerraPower is ready to play a 
key role in making a one hundred percent emissions-free future 
a reality.
    In conclusion, we know America can lead in nuclear 
innovation. In the coming decades, many new countries will 
employ nuclear energy to meet their growth needs. China and 
Russia stand poised to supply these countries with their 
technology; the U.S. needs to be ready with our own. On behalf 
of TerraPower's 150 innovative employees working to make that 
goal a reality, thank you for the opportunity to appear before 
the committee.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Levesque follows:]


    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Mr. Rush. The chair thanks all the witnesses. We have 
concluded our opening statement phase of this hearing and now 
we will move to member questioning. Each member will have 5 
minutes to ask questions of our witnesses, and I will start by 
recognizing myself for 5 minutes.
    As mentioned, global demands for electricity are likely to 
double by 2050. With this in mind, Mr. Cohen, would you detail 
the importance of pairing firm and dispatchable energy sources, 
specifically nuclear power, with renewables.
    Mr. Cohen. Right. Well, Mr. Chairman, first of all, just to 
recognize the size of that, while the U.S. electric demand may 
double, it may triple or quadruple in developing countries, 
which you look at a country like now like Bangladesh where 
virtually there is no electricity per capita, so we are looking 
at much bigger multiples of growth in some of those countries.
    And the question really becomes, and some people would say, 
well, let's just build all solar and wind and we will do 
batteries. And again, the analysis I showed you is you can do a 
lot of that, and I think the modeling would say you could 
probably do it pretty cheaply until you get to the fifty 
percent of energy mark, but to get to those very high levels 
you do need this firm capacity.
    And as was mentioned, several of the technologies being 
developed not only provide firm capacity, but can also go up 
and down with the wind and sun, so those holes I showed you 
would be complemented rather easily by nuclear. So for the 
developing world as well as for the U.S., it is clear that we 
are going to need a lot of kilowatt-hours and we are going to 
need a lot over the next 30 years and that nuclear is clearly a 
potential player in providing those kilowatt-hours.
    Mr. Rush. Ms. Korsnick, what challenges does nuclear power 
face with current electricity markets and how will they impact 
the next generation of technology?
    Ms. Korsnick. In the current marketplace today, the 
attribute that nuclear brings to the table is its carbon-free 
nature and that is not recognized by the market. In one case we 
imagine that it is a fair market, but there are a lot of things 
that are actually at play in this market, so you have some 
things that get a subsidy. We also have the very low cost of 
natural gas due to the success of fracking, and nuclear is 
really getting squeezed, if you will, from both sides.
    And so the real case here is we need to value the carbon-
free attribute that nuclear brings to the table in order to 
make that business case for those plants of the future in some 
of the markets.
     Mr. Rush. Mr. Hezir, recent plant closures have sparked 
concerns over the future of emerging reactor design. According 
to a March 2019 EFI report, approximately 72,000 people are 
employed by the U.S. commercial nuclear power sector. What 
impact, if any, will nuclear power plant closures have on the 
next generation technology and the nuclear workforce in 
general?
    Mr. Hezir. Thank you for that question. We conduct an 
annual energy employment survey that supplements the work that 
is done by the Bureau of Labor Statistics that captures a lot 
more of the data on the energy workforce, and as you indicated, 
our last survey showed that there was a total of over 72,000 
workers in the nuclear sector including nuclear fuels. And that 
number by the way is about one-third higher than what you would 
see in the Bureau of Labor Statistics data because we capture a 
lot of the contractor data that don't show up in some of the 
BLS classifications.
    As others have indicated here at the table, nuclear plant 
employment tends to be much higher than at other generating 
facilities whether it is natural gas combined cycle or even 
coal, and so a closure of a nuclear power plant can have a very 
significant impact not only on direct employment, but also on 
the kind of the ripple effect as well because many of these 
plants are located in areas where they are by far the largest 
employer or in many cases the sole employer. So that is a very 
significant issue that has to be taken into account.
    The flip side of it is, it is a great opportunity for 
advanced nuclear to provide jobs particularly in cases where 
plants have been shut down like coal plants or other plants for 
other reasons.
    Mr. Rush. I want to thank you. The chair's time is up. Now 
the chair recognizes my friend from South Carolina, Mr. Duncan, 
for--Mr. Latta, for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Latta. Well, thanks, Mr. Chairman. And again, thanks to 
our witnesses for appearing today. I really appreciate your 
testimony.
    Commissioner Merrifield, if I may start my questions with 
you. In your testimony you point out that the United States has 
fallen out of a leadership position when it comes to nuclear 
exports. Would you expand on the economic and national security 
implications of having a strong, U.S.-based nuclear energy 
industry out there?
    Mr. Merrifield. We know that if you sell a nuclear power 
plant to a country outside of the United States that creates 
the foundation of a relationship that can date 50, 60, even 100 
years down the road, if you look at the beginning of training 
the workforce there, building the reactor, supplying the fuel, 
and having the engagement of U.S. nuclear technology providers 
actively engaged with that country.
    As we lose those opportunities to other countries around 
the world, and Russia and China are the two countries right now 
who are being most aggressive in their building platforms and 
are providing significant financial support for deploying their 
reactors, that really puts us behind the eight ball. So these 
are critically important that we establish those relationships 
and provide those exports. It is a matter of jobs, it is a 
matter of national security, and to the extent that we have 
Americans involved with programs outside of the United States, 
it gives us an insight on those programs that has a 
commensurate benefit with nonproliferation goals.
    Mr. Latta. Let me follow up. What can Congress and the 
Department of Energy do to encourage American investment in 
uranium mining, conversion, and enrichment to make sure that we 
regain our leadership role in nuclear energy?
    Mr. Merrifield. Well, we have extraordinary capabilities in 
the United States to provide for uranium mining, and certainly 
the activities of their being undertaken to consider having a 
supply of that available is worthy of consideration of this 
committee. It is critically important that we have the other 
steps in the nuclear fuel cycle. Right now we have one 
conversion facility. The Honeywell Metropolis site is currently 
shut down in a temporary shutdown because of a lack of need for 
those services.
    We as a country do not have any U.S.-owned enrichment 
facilities. We do have Urenco, which has a facility in New 
Mexico that is supplying a portion of the U.S. fleet, but for 
uses of the U.S. military, for uses of higher enrichment of 
fuel for some of our needs in space and needs for the military 
that can't be supplied by the Urenco facilities, we as a 
country need to have the ability to do higher enrichments of 
fuel that we don't have.
    So that is a critical, an area of critical importance and 
one I think the Department of Energy should be credited for 
actions that they are taking in terms of trying to address that 
need.
    Mr. Latta. Thank you.
    Mr. Hopkins and Mr. Levesque, as the leaders of two 
American companies operating in the nuclear sector, I would 
like to get your perceptions on a couple of issues. What type 
of assistance are your foreign competitors receiving from their 
governments to develop and deploy advanced nuclear 
technologies?
    Mr. Hopkins. I would like to start. John Hopkins.
    What we are seeing and was just mentioned in China and in 
Russia, they are actually in the process of developing their 
own what they call small modular advanced reactors. I believe 
what they offer, typically, when they go into areas of Sub-
Sahara Africa or the Arabian Peninsula, they do a wraparound 
financing package. So not only do they bring the deployment of 
a technology, they also are willing because they are state-
owned enterprises so it is a more of a government to government 
sale with financing as part of the process.
    Mr. Latta. Mr. Levesque?
    Mr. Levesque. And I would agree with my colleague, Mr. 
Hopkins, and I would add, as long as we allow that to go on 
without encouraging U.S. nuclear energy companies to move 
forward internationally, you know, the Chinese and Russian 
counterparts are just increasing their experience as they build 
more of these plants. Because as what we have seen with some of 
our own challenges in building new plants part of that is due 
to inexperience, so as the Chinese and Russians move forward 
with these plants, domestically and internationally.
    Mr. Latta. Could you elaborate on the inexperience, could 
you elaborate a little bit on that?
    Mr. Levesque. Well, you know, I will compare it to my U.S. 
Navy experience where, you know, at Newport News Shipbuilding 
you were able to see the benefits of serial production in 
different submarine classes that the first one, understandably, 
would cost more. But soon the shipyard workers and engineers 
would, you know, learn plant to plant and you would see a sharp 
learning curve and, you know, a strong reduction in cost as you 
move from the first to the second to third plant. And what we 
have seen in the U.S. in the last 20 or 30 years is that we 
haven't really committed to a new build program that has 
allowed us to have that kind of learning curve and into, you 
know, realize that reduction in cost that you get. So we really 
need to get our experience level up and we need to do that by 
starting to build plants again.
    Mr. Latta. Thank you.
    Mr. Chairman, my time has expired and I yield back.
    Mr. Rush. The gentleman yields back. The Chair now 
recognizes the gentleman from California, Mr. Peters, for 5 
minutes.
    Mr. Peters. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate you 
holding this hearing today and have been looking forward to it. 
Nuclear energy represents currently fifty-five percent of our 
emissions-free energy in America, and I think I understand the 
strong case you have all made that emission-free advanced 
nuclear technology has to be part of our plan to solve the 
climate crisis.
    I want to note that in my district we have a number of 
smart physicists and engineers performing groundbreaking work 
in advanced nuclear. They are creating new materials like 
silicon carbide ceramics that can be used in new or existing 
reactor fleets and they work at a constituent company called 
General Atomics where hundreds of people are working on 
advanced nuclear reactors that produce less nuclear waste and 
provide energy that is cheaper and safer. The company is also 
participating in the nuclear fusion program known as ITER, 
which partners with over thirty other nations to develop fusion 
energy technology and that is the kind of science that I think 
Congress and the DOE would like to support.
    I don't want to skip a step though because there is 
obviously a political challenge associated with this and I 
think I haven't really heard you address the waste issue. One 
of the major candidates for President who claims he is for 
addressing the climate crisis has ruled out nuclear and I think 
there is a sense that--and I certainly have this in our 
district where we have seen the closure of the plant at San 
Onofre, north of my district--people are concerned, why would 
we go down this road if it is going to generate more waste.
    I know that that is not the case here. I would like to see 
maybe, Mr. Hopkins, you talked a little bit about small 
reactors. What should I tell my constituents about why they 
shouldn't be worried about waste?
    Mr. Hopkins. Having come into this industry, sir, seven 
years ago, I was quite amazed at the rigor that we put under 
dry cask storage in of what we call our spent fuel, what I 
call, actually, unused energy, in that our particular reactor, 
the core is 120th the size of a gigawatt sized reactor and our 
plan is to from a----
    Mr. Peters. That is new and old.
    Mr. Hopkins. I am sorry?
    Mr. Peters. The new technology----
    Mr. Hopkins. Yes, sir. Yes.
    Mr. Peters. OK.
    Mr. Hopkins. From the legacy of tech, 120th the size.
    Our intent right now in our facility is to have 60 years of 
storage at site for the amount of spent fuel that we will use 
during that cycle.
    Mr. Peters. Is there less residue at the end of the process 
under the new technology?
    Mr. Hopkins. Less residue?
    Mr. Peters. Less waste, effectively.
    Mr. Hopkins. Well, with a core of less than one, our 
megawatt reactor at 60 megawatts would have less amount of the 
total volume.
    Mr. Peters. Let me say too that I was listening to Mr. 
Cohen and the quantity of this task. It strikes me that the 
government is by nature bureaucratic, slow to respond to the 
need for innovation. Do you see any things, maybe I would offer 
this question to other people, any things we should be doing in 
terms of permitting to make these goals more achievable?
    Mr. Cohen. I was actually a cofounder of something called 
the Nuclear Innovation Alliance that put forward particularly 
to the NRC a series of suggested approaches to make the NRC 
licensing process more innovation-friendly, which, thankfully, 
the NRC has taken up.
    Mr. Peters. OK.
    Mr. Cohen. You know, rather than trying to license by 
exception from a traditional playbook of a traditional light 
water reactor, I think the NRC has got the message that they 
need to prepare kind of a separate lane for innovation, so that 
is in terms of safety licensing. In terms of permitting on the 
ground, you know, I think that the issue is going to be public 
sentiment.
    And, frankly, I talk to a lot of my colleagues in the 
environmental community who might have a concern about waste or 
they might have a concern about safety, but they also recognize 
the size of the lift. And my guess is you are going to see 
significantly more support for this technology over time and 
particularly as the climate issue becomes more urgent.
    Mr. Merrifield. Congressman, having served as NRC 
commissioner, you know, five years ago I would have had a much 
bigger list of concerns about the direction the NRC is going. I 
think they should be commended. I think based on the 
recommendations that many of us have made, they have made a lot 
of progress in creating a more risk-informed framework for 
advanced reactors. They have a lot of work in play. Clearly, 
more work needs to be done to avoid, you know, half billion-
dollar investments to get licensing, but I think progress has 
been made.
    One thing I didn't want to leave on the table, you asked, I 
think, an important question that people ask about waste. 
Having been a regulator of that and having been on spent fuel 
transports, I think the thing that folks need to remember, used 
nuclear fuel is the most heavily regulated and safest protected 
metal in the world.
    If you took all of the used nuclear fuel in the United 
States, all of it, it could fit in the San Diego Stadium where 
the Chargers used to play, up to about a depth of twenty feet. 
No one anywhere in the world has ever been injured by nuclear 
used fuel, no one anywhere, ever. We have tankers full of 
chemicals that are on our highways that could cause prompt 
deaths very quickly. That is--me--that is of much greater 
concern than the transport of nuclear waste.
    Mr. Peters. My time has expired. And I would just let the 
record reflect that no one suggested that that would be a use 
for our old stadium. Thank you.
    Mr. Rush. The gentleman yields back. The Chair now 
recognizes Mr. Duncan for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Duncan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you all for 
being here. I am from South Carolina and we lead the country in 
nuclear. Seven reactors generate nearly fifty-three percent of 
the state's electricity and over ninety-five percent of the 
state's carbon-free emissions.
    While we produce nuclear energy, we also produce nuclear 
waste. Commercial reactor sites store in my state around 4,800 
metric tons of used fuel as of 2017. In addition, Savannah 
River Site stores approximately 8,000 tons of vitrified nuclear 
waste from EM, and thirty-five million gallons of high-level 
liquid waste from their environmental management cleanup.
    So South Carolinians have contributed due to the Waste 
Policy Act, $3.1 billion including interest, to the DOE's 
Nuclear Waste Fund to permanently dispose of the used nuclear 
fuel at Yucca Mountain. This is the third most of any state in 
the country. As small as South Carolina is, we have paid almost 
more than any other state. We are at number three in the 
country. We want something for our money and that is to store 
the nuclear waste. Nuclear waste currently sits, 122 sites, 38 
states around the country. In addition, we have 12 tons of 
plutonium at Savannah River Site and the Mixed Oxide plant is 
now in mothballs.
    So the lack of durable use fuel programs is giving the U.S. 
nuclear industry a black eye. Seventy percent of all reactors 
currently under construction are from Russia and China. These 
two countries who are also our adversaries in certain ways are 
positioning themselves to take a leading role in establishing 
global nuclear norms. I think several of the panelists have 
talked about Russia's positioning this morning. If we want to 
maintain our competitiveness in the global nuclear arena and 
continue to incentivize investment in the industry, it is 
imperative that we as a nation establish an integrated waste 
system and permanent repository.
    I had the opportunity to talk with the President on Friday 
evening about this particular issue and he pointed out that 
Russia has stored a lot of their nuclear waste--I say 
``stored''--dumped into the ocean. That is alarming. So I think 
everyone is supportive of pursuing advanced reactor 
technologies, but we also need to prioritize maintaining our 
existing fleet. I am fascinated with SMRs. I am fascinated with 
thorium reactors, the whole molten salt aspect that Mr. 
Levesque talked about.
    Mr. Merrifield, given the lack of an integrated fuel 
system, new commercial reactors will be de facto waste sites as 
they currently are. How does the lack of an integrated waste 
system with interim storage linked to a permanent repository 
inhibit the progress of the U.S. nuclear industry?
    Mr. Merrifield. Well, it is certainly from the questions 
that we receive from the public, it is an issue on their 
concern. I think, you know, I have a tendency to try to look at 
the bright side of things. I think we are making progress. We 
have the used fuel at the sites which is stored very, very 
safely in storage facilities both wet and dry. We have the 
opportunity before us to have two interim storage facilities, 
one in New Mexico and one in Texas that can provide an interim 
opportunity to store that fuel until Congress makes a decision 
with the President on moving forward with a final repository.
    One of the things that is going to happen in the context of 
the next year is that the world's first used fuel long-term 
repository will be opening in Finland. If you were to travel to 
that site, and I suggest folks do that, you would see it is a 
very straightforward way of storing that fuel. We have the 
technological capabilities as a country to store used fuel 
safely. I personally looked at the Yucca Mountain issues. I 
think, I personally think it is a perfectly fine place to put 
it. We need to make a political decision in terms of moving 
forward and that obviously rests with all of you.
    Mr. Duncan. Well, the decision was made in the 1980s, the 
geological site was found, Yucca Mountain--I have been out 
there as well--as a nuclear national solution to a national 
problem.
    You know, I am from South Carolina. We had a nuclear 
reactor being constructed. Southern Company and SCANA both are 
the only new reactors built in over 30 years, I think, since 
the one in Tennessee. So I can't really talk about positive 
benefits of building new nuclear reactors because of what 
happened in South Carolina.
    I will go back to Mr. Levesque, if I am saying that right, 
and his point that we should have a cookie-cutter design, and 
why are we having all these extra costs in building new nuclear 
reactors when we are redesigning the will every time we get to 
that point. I don't think Russia and China have that. I think 
they have settled on one design and they are replicating that 
over and over and I believe that price curve bends down at that 
point.
    Mr. Levesque, I wanted to ask you, switching gears a little 
bit, I am fascinated with those reactors. One particular 
interest to me is liquid fluoride thorium reactors, a type of 
molten salt reactor. Do you think that is a viable future?
    Mr. Levesque. So the two technologies that TerraPower has 
chosen to pursue are the Traveling Wave Reactor, which is a 
sodium-cooled reactor, and our Molten Chloride Fast Reactor 
which is liquid fuel and liquid coolant. So earlier in, you 
know, TerraPower's development--
    Mr. Duncan. I am out of time. I want to ask you, is anybody 
using these type of reactors?
    Mr. Rush. I am sorry. The gentleman--
    Mr. Levesque. You mean the thorium-based?
    Mr. Duncan. Yes.
    Mr. Levesque. Not yet. There are some companies who have 
chose that as their development path. We chose molten chloride 
fast reactors.
    Mr. Duncan. 5 minutes goes in a hurry. I yield back.
    Mr. Rush. The gentleman's time is up. The Chair now 
recognizes Mr. Doyle for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Doyle. Thank you, Chairman and Ranking Member, for 
holding this hearing.
     Nuclear power is going to be critical in making sure we 
meet our hundred percent clean economy goal. Pennsylvania is 
the home of the first civilian nuclear power plant in the 
country. Pennsylvania knows the importance of being a leader in 
developing new nuclear technologies and ensuring that our 
existing fleet continues to provide carbon-free power into the 
future.
    Nuclear power already provides Pennsylvania with around 
forty percent of its electricity and provides close to ninety 
percent of our carbon-free power. It is a vital source of clean 
energy. It provides hundreds of good paying jobs. It boosts 
local economies. And while our current fleet continues to 
provide us power, we are at the beginning of a new era in 
nuclear power.
    Advanced nuclear reactors have the potential to pair with 
renewable energy sources, create energy storage solutions, and 
help decarbonize industrial manufacturing processes all while 
being cheaper and safer. I am a strong supporter of nuclear 
power and I believe we should continue to build on the 
investments we have made in recent years to advance research, 
development, and deployment of advanced nuclear reactors to 
ensure that we remain a global leader in nuclear energy 
technology and reach our clean economy goals.
    Mr. Hezir, I would like to start with you. Your testimony 
mentioned how advanced nuclear needs to be part of a broader 
strategy for decarbonization and the value it will provide in a 
system with more and more renewable power. Can you elaborate on 
the role of advanced nuclear in such a power system and how 
deployment of these technologies should happen in concert with 
other technologies like renewables?
    Mr. Hezir. Thank you for the question. Yes, I think Mr. 
Cohen had addressed some of this, but I will kind of elaborate 
on what he said. Basically, first of all, we are, as the 
chairman had indicated we are seeing an increase in demand for 
electricity. And with decarbonization of other sectors of the 
economy, they are moving to decarbonization through various 
strategies that use more electricity such as electric vehicles 
or electrification of industry, so we are seeing an increase of 
demand.
    We are also seeing the potential for changes in the demand 
in the shape of the demand where the typical cyclical demand 
structure is based on primarily residential/commercial use, and 
with these other uses now, the demand curve is going to change. 
And so, there is--which is going to increase the need for 
having more generation such as nuclear that has baseload 
capability that could generate 24/7. And so, we would see that 
as being very, an important element in working with 
intermittent resources that would generate only parts of the 
day.
    I think the other key thing that we saw in our review of 
breakthrough technologies is the importance of long-term 
duration electricity storage. Right now we don't have that. 
Basically, what is being deployed today is typically 4 to 6 
hours of storage. What we really need is to get to daily 
storage and maybe even seasonal storage. And so, as those 
technologies move along, we also need to continue to expand the 
baseload capability so we see all of those kind of fitting 
together and kind of moving forward in concert.
    Mr. Doyle. Thank you.
    Mr. Merrifield, you noted in your testimony current nuclear 
plants face challenging market conditions and advanced reactors 
aim to get around this problem by using new technology and 
designs to be cheaper to build and operate. Can you explain 
these conditions? And, in your opinion, can advanced nuclear 
technologies become cost-competitive with natural gas and if 
so, when?
    Mr. Merrifield. Yes. I think there is variety of really 
good things in that question, one of which is the cost issue. 
The advanced reactor developers that are out there right now 
recognize that they need to meet cost structures that are going 
to be similar to combined cycle gas units, so that really is 
their target. You get there through modularization, having more 
of that work done on a factory floor, taking that work out of 
the field with stick built. That is what, you know, obviously, 
John Hopkins team at NuScale is doing as well.
    One of the areas of focus, and I have encouraged the 
Department of Energy to take a look at this in work I am doing 
with the University of North Carolina Charlotte, how do we fix 
the issue of construction itself? Fully half of the cost of 
building a nuclear power plant and the issues that they faced 
at Summer and Vogtle was because of engineering construction. 
That is an area that needs a lot of attention and focus. We are 
doing very well in the development technologies. We have a lot 
of progress we have made on advanced manufacturing, but 
advanced construction engineering is what is going to be 
required in order to enable these technologies.
    The last part of your question is the market structures. I 
mentioned in my testimony some of the difficulties at FERC 
right now. There are efforts by your state and others to allow 
existing nuclear assets to be, to stay on with the appropriate 
financial support because of the reliance, reliability, and 
resilience they give to the grid. Without changes, if those 
MOPR policies stay advanced reactors will be put at a 
disadvantage versus renewables. That needs to change and I 
think you all in your oversight of FERC really need to ask them 
that hard question. Thank you.
    Mr. Doyle. That is a great point.
    Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
    Mr. Rush. The gentleman yields back.. Ms. McMorris Rodgers 
is recognized for 5 minutes.
    Mrs. McMorris Rodgers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am 
pleased that you are holding this hearing today and recognizing 
the important role that nuclear must play in our clean energy 
future. Without utilizing and growing our current nuclear 
energy capacity, it is impossible for us to achieve significant 
emission reductions. We see it playing out in countries like 
Germany who are moving away from nuclear power due to some 
advocacy from some of the environmental groups, and 
subsequently we have seen emissions increase as the steady 
baseload of power needed is being replaced by coal-fired 
plants.
    The U.S. has led the world in nuclear energy innovation, 
but in recent decades we have started to cede that global 
leadership. We have also become too dependent on imports of 
uranium to power our nuclear reactors, reducing our energy 
security and increasing our dependence on supplies from 
untrustworthy state actors like Russia. To that end, I am 
pleased that the Trump administration has proposed the creation 
of a domestic uranium reserve in the most recent budget 
proposal. We must be doing more to encourage the development 
and deployment of advanced nuclear technologies.
    Mr. Levesque, it is great to have you testifying in front 
of the committee this morning on behalf of TerraPower. We are 
proud to have you based in Washington State. In your testimony, 
you discuss how countries like Russia and China are actively 
supporting the development of advanced nuclear technologies by 
directly subsidizing state-supported companies. Through this 
government support, these countries are better able to export 
their technology to other countries creating decades of 
dependence on Russia and China to meet their nuclear energy 
needs.
    At the same time, you state ``no other country has the 
capacity for innovation and the freedom to think innovatively 
like the United States,'' and I couldn't agree more. However, I 
am concerned that government red tape and intransigence is 
setting back our ability to fully realize the potential of our 
private sector innovation, especially when it comes to 
exporting our technology to combat the spread of Chinese and 
Russian influence globally.
    Would you expand on the current state of global competition 
in advanced nuclear reactor development and, specifically, how 
can we as policymakers ensure a regulatory framework that 
enables companies like TerraPower to compete with state-
subsidized companies?
    Mr. Levesque. Thank you, Congresswoman Rodgers, and thanks 
for your support in Washington, as always.
    So, I agree with all the points you made on the state of 
affairs with Russia and China, and earlier Mr. Hopkins was 
describing the kind of economic benefits that those state-owned 
companies have as they pursue export projects. But I do want to 
offer innovation and new technology as an opportunity for the 
United States, because what you see around the world is other 
countries are doing quite well at copying our old technology, 
OK.
    In Pennsylvania in the late 1950s, Congressman Doyle 
mentioned, Shippingport was the demonstration reactor for light 
water reactors. That once we proved that light water reactors 
could operate at commercial scale that led to a hundred 
reactors being built in the U.S. and more than 400 built around 
the world based on U.S.-born technology. And that resulted in 
these 100-year relationships that American companies had with 
those countries and those companies. So now as we look at new 
technology, you can see other countries have copied our old 
stuff and are making incremental improvements to it. Innovation 
is really the American role. We are good at it. We are good at 
managing projects with diverse groups of experts. I have worked 
on international projects and I know oftentimes they call on 
the American project manager to put the teams together. It 
happens to be something we are good at.
    So we need to recognize that again because we are getting 
outnumbered greatly on Gen 3 plants, something like 40:1 on new 
builds around the world, and we are facing great challenges 
that Ms. Korsnick mentioned, keeping our Gen 2 plants running 
because of the, you know, incorrect market forces. But we need 
to recognize that advanced reactors and new technology are, you 
know, America's opportunity to regain nuclear leadership 
because we are losing it.
    Mrs. McMorris Rodgers. Do you have anything specific on the 
regulatory front?
    Mr. Levesque. On the regulatory front, I think we need to 
continue what we have started. You know, the NRC's mission is 
to protect people and the environment and we respect that. And, 
you know, Congress passed NEIMA, the Nuclear Energy Innovation 
and Modernization Act. I think that was really important in 
empowering the NRC to change because without that congressional 
empowerment and direction to change, you know, they might not 
be, you know, free to act with all their stakeholders. So I 
think it was very important that Congress pass NEIMA. And I 
have seen, we have had Chairman Svinicki and Commissioner 
Caputo at TerraPower and meet with their senior management 
regularly, I can tell the NRC is responding to that and so I 
think NEIMA was a very good start.
    Mrs. McMorris Rodgers. That is great. It is always 
inspiring to hear about American ingenuity. Thank you.
    Mr. Rush. The gentlelady yields back. The Chair now 
recognizes Mr. Sarbanes for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Sarbanes. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you to the panel. 
This is a very interesting topic. I am learning a lot.
    In December of last year, the Federal Energy Regulatory 
Commission issued its Minimum Offer Price Rule, MOPR, for the 
PJM capacity market. And the FERC order as you know targets 
generation resources that receive a state subsidy. Mostly clean 
energy projects including renewables like wind and solar, but 
also nuclear, and I am concerned. I know a lot of people are 
concerned that this type of market rule could have a negative 
effect on advanced nuclear projects obtaining financing as well 
as these other sources of renewable energy.
    Ms. Korsnick and possibly Mr. Merrifield, if you would like 
to speak to it, could you talk to the importance of market 
rules in clean energy development specifically in this 
instance, advanced nuclear project development, and can you 
discuss the negative impact FERC's MOPR rule might have on the 
viability of the future advanced nuclear projects? And I know 
maybe your membership comes with some competing views on this 
topic, but if you could at least speak to some of the concerns, 
legitimate concerns out there with this rule, and then, Mr. 
Merrifield, if you want to offer some comments as well. Thank 
you.
    Ms. Korsnick. Great, thank you. I appreciate the question. 
Yes, I would just say, fundamentally, the fact that nuclear is 
highly reliable as well as carbon-free, fuel-secure, these are 
attributes that are not recognized in the marketplace today. 
And in some cases, the states have decided it is very important 
to them because they are very interested in the climate. They 
are very interested in being able to contribute in their own 
way at a state level and so they have put programs in place to 
protect their nuclear fleet.
    The real challenge that this recent decision by FERC and 
the Minimum Offer Pricing Rule, MOPR, has put in place is that 
it really undoes, if you will, and steps on those states' 
rights, where the state has said this is important to us and 
how we want to have clean energy in our state and, essentially, 
it takes that away by taking whatever that credit was and 
asking the companies then to add that into their bid, likely 
pushing them out, if you will, of the market. So it is a 
fundamental challenge in the marketplace.
    And what is the so-what of it? This has to do with the 
capacity market. With not going into a lot of details, it could 
really unwind the capacity market as we know it today. So it is 
very, very important, because fundamentally it is talking about 
the value of those electrons that are produced by these power 
plants, and you have these advanced reactors, well, they are 
going to be playing in some of the same markets and so it is 
very important that fundamentally all of the positive things 
that you have heard about nuclear today that the marketplace 
reflects it.
    Mr. Sarbanes. Thank you. As it relates to the--and I 
completely concur with Maria's remarks. I think, you know, as 
you look at the existing fleet, we have extraordinary 
capability to produce large amounts of carbon-free power. And 
to the extent states have made the initiative to say we think 
this is important for the people of our state to have the 
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission put in place a system that 
essentially is going to knock those systems out and put us 
further behind the eight ball on controlling carbon emissions 
is a bad public policy outcome.
    As it relates to advanced nuclear, we have work to do. I 
mean part of the problem is us. I had one of my associates take 
a look at a number of interactions that advanced nuclear 
companies have had with FERC on their websites, less than a 
handful, right. So the level of attention that the renewable 
community has given, both wind and solar and others, to FERC 
has been extraordinary. Our voices haven't been heard. We have 
been, you know, talking to a lot of other folks, but that is an 
area where there does need to be focus. I think this committee 
needs to focus on that. We don't want to be in a position where 
we have the development of these great technologies but we 
can't put them into those states because of a market structure 
that is inappropriately sourced by FERC.
    Mr. Sarbanes. Thanks very much. I yield back.
    Mr. Rush. The gentleman yields back. The Chair now 
recognizes the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Olson, for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Olson. I thank my friend from Chicago. Welcome to our 
six expert witnesses. I got to tell you I am stunned that it 
has been decades since America has made a commitment to real, 
new nuclear power. We should be ashamed of that. Why, because 
nuclear power is CO2 emissions-free. In fact, in 100 
minutes I have been sitting here, I have exhaled a lot of 
CO2, much more than one plant does in 100 years. It 
is baseload power. It is ready. It is reliable and it is safe. 
Hurricane Harvey proved its safety.
    We have two nuclear power plants in Texas. One up there at 
Comanche Peak and one there at Bay City, close to my home, the 
South Texas plant. That plant had the worst part of the 
Hurricane Harvey hit it. The northeast quadrant is where the 
storm surge is, the winds are, the rain. Not one blip in the 
containment room, anything, from that power plant. So again, it 
is safe.
    And as you know, Mr. Levesque, we have lost two nuclear-
powered submarines in our history. We lost the Thresher in 1963 
and the Scorpion in 1968. These boats were designed to scram 
the reactor if they had a catastrophic destruction like those 
subs endured. We have checked out those boats, we know where 
they sank. It has been almost 70 years now, there has not been 
one blip of nuclear power from those two reactors. They worked 
as designed in the ultimate crisis for a naval vessel.
    So my point is, this is very safe technology as well and 
also new nuclear means lots of good high-paying jobs, and I 
want to talk to you about that, Mr. Hopkins. As you probably 
know that Fluor is the first Fortune 500 back in my hometown of 
Sugarland, Texas. We love Fluor. We are happy that they are a 
big partner with these SMR reactors.
    In your testimony, you talked about around 1,200 new jobs 
in construction per plant. That means heavy equipment 
operators, welders, electricians, pipefitters, plumbers, all 
across the spectrum to build a new power generator SMR. And 
Fluor as you know has made an MOU with the North America's 
Building Trades Unions for construction of your nuclear power, 
your NuScale plants here in America. Another example, Wharton 
County Junior College back home has built a campus in Bay City, 
Texas, right by the South Texas plant, to retrain the reactor 
technicians who are fleeing because they hit their limit, their 
ages.
    Can you elaborate on these jobs to be created with the 
NuScale, the SMR power, the nuclear power grids, the little--
how much jobs created and how this can affect disaster 
recovery, because these things can be set up quickly and be 
running full-time in a very short space on the ground as well. 
You, Mr. Hopkins?
    Mr. Hopkins. Sorry, sir. I thought you were referring to 
Mr.--the advanced reactors we are talking about here today are, 
as you mentioned, three critical components: extraordinarily 
safe, they have to be economic, and they are carbon-free. And 
from a jobs perspective, we are seeing the dynamics in this 
company change, currently, in that the Utah Associated 
Municipal Power, who represents power facilities in eight 
western states, have elected to go with the small modular 
reactor at their first site.
    And for the job component, as you mentioned we have a very 
good relationship with labor and we need pipefitters, we need 
carpenters, and for our first plant we are nominally looking at 
about a thousand of these jobs. And as you build them what we 
are seeing also, seven states now are going forward with clean 
energy initiatives and what we are seeing is in a UAM situation 
what we are doing, they have--they are looking at 700 megawatts 
of coal replacement. Now the coal is not going away for 
economics, it is their particular facilities, the economics 
don't currently support it or they have exhausted the resource.
    So they have elected to go with small modular reactors, 
which is us, and if you look at the potential for jobs in this 
country, if I--we have just completed analysis from a three to 
six hundred coal facility as an example, or an aged fossil 
plant, we can go in and utilize advanced reactors in that 
existing community to create and cross-train those people 
working in the advanced reactor community.
    And it is not that we need 4-year degreed engineers, what 
we need is associates degrees, vocational degrees, and military 
experience. So we have just, we have been working with our 
customer base to get the data to help appreciate how many of 
those jobs can we, in fact, in those communities cross-train, 
and it is quite amazing.
    The other thing we are seeing here in terms of 
manufacturing capacity, we have seven forgings required for the 
NuScale module. When we started this there was nobody in this 
country that could do those forgings for us. Now there are two 
companies that can do it in this country, and the reason being 
they saw market certainty going forward and a sustained 
capacity for suppliers to get involved in this process and so 
it is going to continue to build. So it is high-paying jobs, as 
we mentioned, you know, $85,000 for average, and our ability to 
go into these communities in small rural communities that need 
these jobs, we are going to be there.
    Mr. Olson. Thank you. I am out of time.
    One question for you to close, Mr. Levesque. You were a sub 
driver and a sub builder. I am a sub hunter.
    Mr. Rush. The gentleman's time has expired.
    Mr. Olson. What does 31 to 7 mean to you, my friend?
    Mr. Rush. The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from 
California, Mr. McNerney, for 5 minutes.
    Mr. McNerney. Well, I thank the chairman, and I look 
forward to working with Mr. Duncan on nuclear waste issues in 
the next term. I thank the witnesses too for your testimony 
this morning.
    Mr. Cohen, you noted the important role that the market 
demand plays in the nuclear energy competition, I am just 
following up on Mr. Sarbanes' question. Can the government play 
an important role in creating market demand for nuclear power?
    Mr. Cohen. Absolutely. And I neglected to mention in my 
initial oral statement what is in our written statement, which 
is our very, very strong support for the Power Purchase 
Agreement provisions of the NEILA bill. There is no way we are 
going to get off the dime without some sort of market pull, so 
that is an important example of that kind of policy that we 
need.
    Mr. McNerney. Good, thank you.
    Mr. Hopkins, from your perspective, how important is it to 
encourage multiple builds of the same design in order to drive 
costs down?
    Mr. Hopkins. Well, in our particular instance, we are 
employing Sargent & Lundy, which is an engineering firm out of 
Chicago, to do our standard plant design. Now in terms of an 
actual standard plant there will be some nuances contingent 
upon where we are going to deploy, but the standard plant is a 
critical piece to be able to drop these costs down 
significantly.
    Most of our components currently are off the shelf. It is a 
very simplistic design. Our steam generators are basically 60 
megawatts that are used in the oil field, so that 
standardization will drive costs down. And also, with the 
ability for our, to build in factories and ship and not to have 
them all over the location is going to also drive costs down.
    Mr. McNerney. Well, I worked in industry for 20 years and 
when you double production you lower costs by ten percent, 
roughly, kind of a rule of thumb.
    Mr. Hopkins. Right.
    Mr. McNerney. So I see that taking place here.
    Mr. Hezir, what might the technical breakthroughs in 
nuclear energy look like?
    Mr. Hezir. I think we talked about them today. I think you 
are looking at two of those companies, here, represented at the 
table. There right now is a large number of new nuclear 
technologies that are being investigated and again as I 
indicated in my testimony a lot of it just with private 
investment capital and there needs to be a way to bring those 
forward.
    I think it is a little premature right now to say with the 
advanced reactors, leaving aside NuScale for the moment, which 
ones would be the, if you will, the winner or not. But I think 
as Mr. Cohen said that the market demand is large enough that--
is not necessarily need to be a single winning technology. I 
think they need some further evaluation, because all of these, 
right now, are pretty much just being developed on paper.
    Mr. Merrifield. On that point, I travel extensively around 
the world and I can tell you, in many other continents if we 
had these technologies available to sell and deploy in the next 
several years there are a number of countries, dozens of 
countries out there that would buy them. This is a true 
opportunity for U.S. exports.
    Mr. McNerney. Thank you.
    Mr. Hopkins, again, judging by your experience at the NRC, 
do you believe they have sufficient resources to manage the 
licensing requests that they are getting?
    Mr. Hopkins. Yes, sir, I do believe that. Back in 10, 20 
years ago when the Oregon State University and Dr. Jose Reyes 
was, when DOE approached him, the intent was, we are going to 
build a small modular reactor utilizing the light water 
technology. The reason for that is the regulators around the 
world know light water technology.
    Now having gone through the NRC process that being said, 
the NRC really didn't understand small modular reactors in the 
fact that every, their experience was oriented to larger scale. 
Two-thirds of the components for us are not--I mean of--are not 
required within a large reactor, so there is an educational 
process. And people say, why did it cost you $500 million? 
Because we had to do numerous topical reports, numerous 
exemptions; our hope is in what we are doing we are going to 
pave the way for the next.
    I don't view these people, the advanced, as my competitors. 
I want to see American technology around the world supplanting 
other foreign entities like China and Russia with extremely 
safe, advanced technology. So yes, the NRC, to Maria's point 
earlier, we went through a very long process, but we are seeing 
their understanding they are going to have to take a different 
approach for non-light water.
    Mr. McNerney. Thank you.
    In the time remaining, I would like to ask Mr. Levesque to 
elaborate on the VTR, the virtual training.
    Mr. Levesque. Sure, sir. The Versatile Test Reactor that is 
currently going through concept design that is driven by Idaho 
National Lab will be a neutron-irradiation source so that we 
can test materials and components for advanced reactors and 
that is a very important capability for our country to have. I 
can tell you I have been to similar facilities in China and 
Russia. They have that capability, we don't. So if we are going 
to move forward and continue to be the leaders in innovating 
nuclear technology, we need the VTR.
    Mr. McNerney. And that is a government item, or is that a 
private industry item?
    Mr. Levesque. That began as a government-funded project, 
but recently we were glad to see that the Department of Energy 
opened up the VTR as a public-private partnership in several 
countries, including TerraPower and GE-Hitachi and Energy 
Northwest from Washington came forward with suggestions on how 
to transition the VTR into a public-private partnership.
    Mr. McNerney. I yield back. That sounds pretty exciting. I 
yield back.
    Mr. Rush. The gentleman yields back. The Chair now 
recognizes that fellow from West Virginia, Mr. McKinley, for 5 
minutes.
    Mr. McKinley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am just--Doyle 
back there mentioned a while ago, maybe a 1/2 hour ago on this 
panel about the Shippingport facility being the first in 
America. And, interestingly enough, it was under the, 
Eisenhower proposed it in '53 and then they broke ground on it 
in '54 and then they commissioned it by '57. So it just took 3 
or 4 years to build and less than a year to get a permit.
    And we have heard how in 1979, and I hope there is 
something more recent but the CBO did a report on how long does 
it take to get permits to a nuclear power plant, because we saw 
how Shippingport did it, but in '79 they came out with a very 
exhaustive report and said then it was 10 to 11 years to get a 
permit. And they said prior to that back in the '60s that it 
might take 7 to 8 years. So it is just, we go from 1 year to 7 
to 8, now 10 to 11 years. It seems like the regulators or 
whatever the process is, is extending longer and longer.
    So I know that we have had--Rodgers has, Cathy McMorris 
Rodgers has talked about hydro is ten years to get a permit. I 
am curious to know what is the length of permit today to start 
a nuclear power plant?
    Mr. Hopkins, if I just go to you, do you have a sense of 
what time it takes to get a permit to actually break ground on 
a nuclear power plant?
    Mr. Hopkins. Well, for us going to the NRC, we started the 
process in Design Certification Application in 2016. We will be 
through in 2020, and so it was an exhaustive process. And the 
owner who has to also apply to get through their Construction 
and Operations License will generally take two years beyond 
that, so I think it is enhancing. There is a process that is 
willing to speed it up, but it is just a lengthy process.
    Mr. McKinley. That is why my point, if I could, Mr. 
Merrifield, what I want to drive home, because no one has 
talked about that. If we are going to drive down the price of 
nuclear energy and use more, we have got to streamline the 
permitting process. It is outrageous the length of time that it 
takes. We should be able to do that because in the past we were 
able to accomplish in a short period of time.
    And it is no wonder with Watts Bar, how long that took to 
be able to get the permitting through that and increased the 
price of their $12 billion to build those two units out there. 
And the Vogtle unit that Southern has put out, $25 billion. And 
think about that is almost 12 years for the permitting process 
for them to go to that extent. We have got to find a way to 
shortening this permitting process.
    So I am curious, are we missing something on this? What is 
a way? Is it because we know, and maybe more pointedly, there 
are opponents out there to nuclear energy? Primarily, I guess, 
it would be environmentalists. I don't know how else to 
categorize them, but let's just say people that--what is their 
problem? Why do we have--why is this dragging out?
    So, Merrifield, if you could--what is the problem? Why do 
the environmentalists have such an angst when it comes to 
nuclear energy when we know it is clean? And if that is their 
objective to get us down to where we have low emissions, zero-
emission carbon emission, why in God's name aren't they 
supporting that to be able to achieve that?
    Mr. Merrifield. Well, I am going to look at it positively. 
I mean there are, I think there is probably ten percent of the 
American people who are dead set against nuclear power. There 
are a number of leading environmentalists who have made a more 
recent decision that given the importance of addressing global 
climate change that they reversed their position on nuclear 
power and are now for it.
    Carol Browner, a friend of mine, she and I used to spar in 
the Senate back when she worked for Al Gore and I worked for 
the Senate Environment Committee. She was not someone who was 
supportive of nuclear power at that time, but today she 
recognizes it is a critically important piece for us to deal 
with this issue.
    To your question about the permitting process, there is no 
question that the track record that the NRC has had in the past 
has not been what it should be in terms of getting these 
reactors approved. GE with its ESBWR reactor took 10 or 11 
years to be permitted by the NRC, not the right way to do it.
    I think they made a significant amount of progress. They 
are looking at a more risk-informed program, recognizing that 
these reactors have a much-reduced source term, amount of 
radiation that can be reduced. They made a very good decision 
recently relative to the Clinch River Site.
    Mr. McKinley. If I could interrupt, the only thing because 
the time is limited on this. You mentioned about the spent fuel 
rods with how we can store them someplace, wherever, I guess 
not--the quantity and how safe it has been. You talk about in 
America, it is safe.
    Mr. Merrifield. Yes.
    Mr. McKinley. But what happens overseas in an unfriendly 
nation that potentially could have access to spent fuel rods, 
how safe is that?
    Mr. Merrifield. As a general matter, and this is overseen 
or clarified by the International Atomic Energy Agency in 
Vienna, there are international standards and expectations for 
how that fuel is going to be stored whether it is in a spent 
fuel pool or in dry cast storage. U.S. has exported a reactor, 
has exported cask technologies all over the world. The fuel 
from the Chernobyl reactors is being stored in Holtec, dry 
storage canisters that originated from the United States. So I 
feel the technology, it is not complicated and it is well-run.
    Mr. McKinley. Thank you very much. I yield back.
    Mr. Rush. The gentleman yields back. The chair recognizes 
the gentleman from New York, the chairman of the Subcommittee 
on Environment, Mr. Tonko, for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Tonko. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And welcome to our panel. 
As you all heard, our committee is working on economy-wide 
decarbonization. One of the biggest challenges will be clean 
sources of heat for industrial applications.
     So, Mr. Cohen, how can advanced nuclear be complementary 
to efforts to decarbonize the industrial sector?
    Mr. Cohen. There are at least two ways that nuclear can do 
that. First, is provision of direct heat. I mentioned some of 
this in my written testimony. There is experience with higher 
temperature reactors that can meet the temperature requirements 
of a steel plant or a cement plant, so there is that 
capability.
    The other capability that was mentioned earlier is the 
ability to produce very, very efficient electrolysis, processes 
that produce hydrogen, the hydrogen can then be burned for 
industrial heat. So you have two avenues where nuclear could be 
extremely important for decarbonization. And that is important 
because industrial heat and process is about twenty percent of 
global emissions of CO2.
    Mr. Tonko. Thank you. And can small modular reactors be 
sited near facilities that will need clean thermal energy?
    Mr. Cohen. Certainly. I know these gentlemen have looked 
more at the site specifics, but obviously there is an 
opportunity to couple nuclear reactors directly to the 
industrial sources that need them and you gain greater 
efficiency that way.
    Mr. Tonko. Thank you.
    Mr. Merrifield. And one of the benefits you can have is 
with this very high heat you can pair that with a molten salt, 
a solar molten salt which has no radiation to it, and you can 
transport that three, four, or five miles with a very small 
reduction in efficiency. So there is a lot of creativity that 
advanced reactors allow for manufacturing processes.
    Mr. Tonko. Thank you. Thank you very much.
    And, Mr. Hezir, any additional thoughts on how these 
solutions may open up opportunities across sectors?
    Mr. Hezir. Well, across sectors, I think we just touched on 
one right now, which is the industrial one. And, clearly, as I 
mentioned earlier, with changes in demand for electricity and 
changes in the load curve due to things like electrification of 
transportation, that will definitely be a need for more 
generation that has 24/7 capabilities such as advanced nuclear, 
so there is a very close connection there.
    I think in the case of buildings it is a little more 
uncertain right now how far one might go in terms of 
electrification. Buildings, there is some more difficult 
tradeoffs there and some of the technologies, particularly for 
electric heat, really need much more innovation than what we 
are currently seeing. But, clearly, in industry and 
transportation there is a very good set of synergies there with 
advanced nuclear.
    Mr. Tonko. Thank you. And I am very interested in 
maintaining the United States' excellence in STEM. Continuing 
our U.S. leadership in nuclear engineering and physics starts 
in our schools and higher education systems. If nuclear energy 
goes away we could see many of these programs follow. So, Ms. 
Korsnick, how important are these educational programs for 
innovation in advanced nuclear and what role should the federal 
government play in supporting nuclear-related STEM education 
and training for the next generation of reactor designers and 
plant operators?
    Ms. Korsnick. Thanks for the question. I think education is 
critical. And when we talk about U.S. leadership, the education 
program that we have here is an example of U.S. leadership. And 
the engineers that we will need for these, they are not all 
nuclear engineers. There are a variety of disciplines. We have 
excellent schools here in the United States not only at the 
collegiate level, but as the secondary school programs as well, 
and it is absolutely critical that we maintain our focus on 
STEM to produce that workforce of the future.
    Mr. Tonko. Sure.
    Mr. Merrifield. One thing I would use as an example, we 
have two individuals, Jake DeWitte and Caroline Cochran, a 
husband and wife duo, both doctors from MIT, who have the first 
reactor design, Oklo, 1.5 megawatts advanced reactor, put in 
front of the NRC. These are people that came out of a U.S. 
university, created those ideas, and are putting it to work. 
That is really a demonstration of where advanced nuclear is 
going.
    Mr. Tonko. Thank you very much. And does everyone agree 
that there are potential federal policies, for example, carbon 
pricing that would correct market failures and reward the zero-
emissions generation of nuclear which is not currently 
recognized by markets? Anyone?
    Mr. Cohen. Absolutely. The Smith-Lujan bill is one example 
of that, that which sets a clean energy standard, which by the 
way has been adopted now in six states and several others are 
considering that would move power sector emissions down to zero 
carbon over a period of decades. So that is an example of a 
policy that would--
    Mr. Tonko. And would something like that help the 
competitiveness of existing nuclear?
    Mr. Cohen. These gentlemen would have their own opinion. I 
think any economist would say yes.
    Mr. Hezir. And I would just add that a carbon pricing 
policy such as a carbon tax would also accomplish the same 
thing as a clean energy standard in terms of creating that 
additional incentive for nuclear. It would price in the clean 
energy attributes of it. I would also just add that I know that 
Secretary Moniz has recently stated his support for a carbon 
tax, but also in the context of combining it with a tax and 
dividend program so that we address the social equity issues 
that might be associated with a carbon tax.
    Mr. Tonko. Thank you very--
    Mr. Merrifield. I was just going to--in the jurisdiction of 
your subcommittee, one of the other fixes that could be made is 
the Clean Air Act currently does not allow nuclear power plants 
that have power uprates to qualify for NOx and SOx treating. 
That is a change that your subcommittee could initiate that 
would enhance the ability to have more power generation from 
existing units.
    Mr. Tonko. Thank you. Thank you very much. With that, Mr. 
Chair, I yield back.
    Mr. Rush. The gentleman yields back. The Chair now 
recognizes the gentleman from the great state of Virginia, Mr. 
Griffith, for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Griffith. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, I 
appreciate it and we are having a good discussion.
    I do appreciate Secretary Moniz. He was one of the few 
folks in the Obama administration that I thought really tried 
to think through problems for Central Appalachia and not just 
look at one-size-fits-all. And you just made mention of that in 
your comments about his thoughts in relationship to taxes, 
which I probably won't support, but if we are going to do it, 
let's make sure we are not crippling an already economically-
distressed area that I happen to represent as does Mr. 
McKinley.
    So I appreciate his always looking out for the long term 
and for the facts that you can't change one part of the formula 
without hurting somebody. Let's make sure we protect people.
    Mr. Hezir. Thank you for your comment. I will make sure I 
pass that along.
    Mr. Griffith. Well, you know, he has got to be delightful 
to work for, one of the brightest individuals I have met up 
here in D.C., just a great guy.
    That being said, nuclear power plants like my coal-fired 
power plants are robust structures that can reliably provide 
much-needed electricity during extreme weather events. For 
example, nuclear power plants continued to operate during 
extreme cold caused by the polar vortex, and hurricanes like 
Harvey in Houston and Maria in Puerto Rico showed how long it 
can take to bring electricity back to impacted areas where 
solar farms were destroyed in the severe wind.
    I actually saw that when we went down to visit Puerto Rico 
afterwards, you know, one of the solar farms survived without a 
scratch and the other one was just totally twisted and torn up. 
You still have to have, of course, a grid to connect it to.
    But, Mr. Merrifield, how could small modular reactors also 
continue to provide power in extreme weather events such as 
polar vortexes and hurricanes?
    Mr. Merrifield. Well, thank you for asking that. I am 
actually part of a project called the Nuclear Alternative 
Project that is looking at the possibility of putting in small 
modular and advanced reactors in Puerto Rico for that very 
purpose, recognizing that the issues and challenges that 
occurred. We have completed the first phase of that study. We 
are waiting potentially to get a second phase awarded by Idaho 
National Labs.
    But the report clearly indicated that nuclear power 
generation facilities could have assisted Puerto Rico in 
working their way through that and we certainly believe it 
would be important in that regard. A number of hurricanes have 
demonstrated the reliability that nuclear power provides in 
that regard and I think it is well said. In terms of the polar 
vortex, I mean, I am originally from New Hampshire. We call it 
Appalachia, not Appalachia, but the point being Seabrook 
Station Nuclear Power Plant was a critical resource for New 
England in making sure that that grid stayed up during that 
vortex.
    And I do have to remind folks, Canada, particularly 
Ontario, which is a hundred percent carbon-free because of 
principally their nuclear assets and some hydro, recognizes 
that for that part of North America nuclear is critically 
important as well. So you have pointed out very well, they are 
absolutely critical assets in making sure our grid stays 
stable.
    Mr. Griffith. And following up on that, I like to bring up 
microgrids and I think Puerto Rico is a great test bed for 
microgrids. Do you see scenarios where small modular reactors 
could be connected to a microgrid in a situation like Puerto 
Rico or in Central Appalachia if we are cut off from the rest 
of the world by certain storms?
    Mr. Merrifield. Absolutely. Absolutely, and that is a 
specific issue that we are looking at relative to Puerto Rico. 
A lot of folks don't recognize the importance that Puerto Rico 
plays particularly these days in the supply of pharmaceuticals 
and medical equipment. If you go to the northern part of the 
island, there is a series of manufacturing facilities for those 
drugs and other pharmaceuticals. Having well-placed, small 
modular nuclear reactors in those locations could well provide 
a difference between providing those necessary drugs or not 
having that provided in the event of a catastrophic emergency.
    Mr. Griffith. And it would certainly be good to have a 
secure location to be producing some of those things, whether 
it be drugs or oxygen or things, the bags that hold various 
devices or items that we need, and could we have it on American 
soil.
    Mr. Merrifield. No, you make a great point. And I think one 
of the things we really haven't talked about today, which is 
critically important, is the work that the U.S. military is 
doing right now in looking at the potential for deploying 
modular reactors for forward operating locations that would use 
many of these same technologies to make sure that we reduce the 
number of our troops who are killed trying to transport liquids 
and really provide the opportunity for enhanced laser and other 
weapon systems that will project the force of the future.
    Mr. Griffith. I appreciate that very much, and I have just 
another second and not enough time to get another question off. 
So I will save those for the written follow-up questions that 
the committee often offers us the opportunity to do. Appreciate 
you all being here. And thank you, Mr. Chairman, for this 
important hearing.
    Mr. Rush. Thank you. The gentleman yields back. The Chair 
now recognizes the gentleman from Arizona, Mr. O'Halleran, for 
5 minutes.
    Mr. O'Halleran. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for having this 
hearing today. Thank you to the panel for being here. It is a 
most, I have felt that I have gotten a lot of information from 
you today that is going to ask more and more questions for the 
future. But our nation's existing power, nuclear power fleet 
produces clean energy power for many communities. In fact, 
Arizona's Palo Verde Generating Station is the largest nuclear 
energy producer in the country, producing almost eighty percent 
of Arizona's clean electricity to over four million customers.
    While Arizona continues to grow its power generation from 
solar and hydro, today's hearing has informed us how smaller 
nuclear reactors of the future may develop to serve rural and 
underserved communities with clean and affordable power. While 
the U.S. imports almost ninety percent of its enriched uranium 
for nuclear power and most of that comes from Canada today, we 
cannot forget the toxic environmental contamination that has 
devastated the Navajo Nation from domestic uranium mining for 
nuclear power during the Cold War. This has left over 520 
abandoned mine sites on Navajo land to this day. I think it 
would be helpful if the industry helped us pressure our 
government to make sure that area gets cleaned.
    Mr. Hopkins, in your testimony you state that small modular 
reactors are well positioned to replace aging coal-fired power 
plants. I have three more to go. I just lost Navajo the last 
year, providing continued employment for workers and tax 
revenue for the community. I will stop the other paragraph, but 
I guess in scale the Navajo Generation Station, I have school 
districts, I have fire districts, I have cities and towns and 
counties, the state. Everybody lost a tremendous amount, not to 
mention the 400 jobs that were lost also.
    How do you envision the tax structure of that scale of a 
plant, a nuclear plant, to the scale of coal generation plant 
in the ability to understand what the tax level is going to be, 
potentially?
    Mr. Hopkins. Well, I mentioned earlier, sir, that we had 
just completed a study that dealt with aging fossil fuels for 
us to be able to, or the advanced community to go in there and 
retrain those people in those jobs. And I will be licensed this 
year. I mean, we are in the process right now, particularly 
working with the CEO of Utah Associated Municipal Power to go 
out and have discussions, as you with the Navajo Nation, in 
what is occurring and the opportunity for small modular 
reactors to, in fact, go in there and redeploy and recross-
train those people in your community.
    Mr. Merrifield. Congressman, I mean, to answer part of that 
question, the tax base is typically a thousand-megawatt nuclear 
power plant is going to be taxed at a much higher rate than a 
thousand-megawatt coal unit. And so, I think to the extent you 
are able to replace some of those coal units with nuclear 
facilities, they are going to probably be taxed at a higher 
rate due to their technological capabilities.
    Mr. O'Halleran. Mr. Merrifield, I guess, do you see any 
barriers that specifically limit the potential development of 
small modular reactors in rural communities?
    Mr. Merrifield. In rural communities, no. I think, I mean 
at the end of the day, I think one of the things that this 
industry has had to do, and certainly we appreciate the work 
that Congress and the administration have done as well, that is 
to educate people in the kind of discussions we have been 
having today. And we know full well that there are some folks 
who don't fully appreciate these technologies and we need to 
have a dialogue. We really need to help work with them to 
better understand it.
    I come from a rural town. I grew up in a town of 2,000 
people. I recognize that those areas may not be as familiar, 
but many, many of the nuclear power plants that we have in 
America, including the very fine Palo Verde Station, are in 
rural America and I don't see there being an issue overall with 
putting those reactors in those locations.
    Mr. Hopkins. It is a good point you bring up because the--
going through the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, one of the 
area focus exactly where you are talking about is the reduction 
of the so-called Emergency Planning Zone, which typically is a 
ten-mile radius. Tennessee Valley Authority used the NuScale 
methodology and calculations for Clinch River to go before the 
NRC, and the findings were that assuming everything what we say 
is going to be accurate that the Emergency Planning Zone could, 
in fact, be reduced close to site boundary limits, which is a 
significant cost reduction and also allows us to go in closer 
to communities as facilities and population density have grown 
up, be able to utilize that site.
    Mr. O'Halleran. Thank you very much. And I yield, Mr. 
Chairman.
    Mr. Rush. The gentleman yields. The Chair now recognizes 
the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Flores, for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Flores. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I appreciate all 
of you joining us for this. This is a hugely important issue. 
This is the only dispatchable baseload energy source that we 
have with zero emissions, so I appreciate your involvement with 
that. We have talked about several issues today including 
financing, foreign competition, waste, fuel availability, the 
regulatory environment, the licensing environment. I want to 
spend my time talking about fuel with Ms. Korsnick and Mr. 
Merrifield.
    But that will be in a minute because, Mr. Hopkins and Mr. 
Levesque, you all brought up some things that I hadn't really 
thought about and that is the talent pool for the next--well, 
for the nuclear industry in general and for the next generation 
nuclear industry and also the supply chain. Can each of you 
spend about 30 seconds talking about the challenges with those 
two issues? Again, supply chain and talent pool.
    Mr. Levesque. Sure. You know, one strong point I would like 
to make in the area of talent is that is yet another reason we 
have to get back into demonstrating the new technologies. I 
mentioned earlier what talented, especially the young people, 
we have people of all demographics at TerraPower, but sometimes 
we worry about the young people the most. We are a 13-year-old 
company and some of our great minds joined the company thinking 
that we would be building reactors by now. And we really need 
to create U.S. projects or our great talent is going to leave 
the field of nuclear energy.
    Mr. Flores. OK, and how about the supply chain? Mr. 
Hopkins, why don't you talk about the supply chain?
    Mr. Hopkins. Yes, sir. What we are finding is we, in terms 
of--well, just to comment quickly, we have been engaged with 
over seventeen universities and laboratories through this 
process over 20 years. We find that being able to go into these 
universities, it is an amazing opportunity the brain trust to 
be able to tackle areas such as energy requirements for 
desalinization, energy requirements for hydrogen. Also, from a 
supply chain perspective as I said earlier, we lost a lot of 
that capacity.
    Mr. Flores. Right.
    Mr. Hopkins. And to get that capacity back there needs to 
be market certainty. What we are finding within the suppliers 
as I mentioned, we are in twenty-five states now with our 
suppliers, and could we build twelve of these, right now with 
our capacity, absolutely. But we have to be able to mass 
produce them, because for us it is not building a one-off plan. 
It is going to be multiple plans concurrently.
    Mr. Flores. Sure.
    Mr. Hopkins. And so we need to continue to build up that 
supply chain. And what we are finding also, this is a global 
play. This is going to be a global market. So our ability for 
suppliers to understand there is market certainty and we are 
going to spend the money to tool up to accommodate what you 
need that they have an opportunity to go internationally with 
all of us.
    Mr. Flores. Thank you. Earlier this year or, excuse me, 
last year, this committee and also the House passed my bill 
that I introduced along with Mr. McNerney from California, the 
Advanced Nuclear Fuel Availability Act, in order to have a 
public-private partnership to produce high-assay, low-enriched 
uranium.
    Mr. Merrifield and Ms. Korsnick, I have a question for each 
of you all. Mr. Merrifield, what are the civilian, military, 
and space needs for HALEU both in the United States and abroad?
    Mr. Merrifield. First of all, I want to thank you for the 
leadership that you have taken on HALEU and certainly the 
leadership of this committee in moving that forward. We 
certainly hope that your Senate counterparts move 
expeditiously.
    Mr. Flores. Yes, sure.
    Mr. Merrifield. The elements of your bill that will fund 
the ability to look at a lot of those transportation issues are 
critically important. Those aren't included in some of the 
other bills, and so we really think this needs to move forward. 
Having said that, we are looking right now at both military 
uses both domestically and potentially locating those outside 
of the United States as well as space utilization of high-assay 
LEU. Those we do have some inventory in our government to 
produce to supply some of that, but long-term we are at a 
disadvantage as a country because of an inability to produce 
high-assay LEU that can be used for those purposes or other 
military needs.
    So this is a critically important function. The Department 
of Energy has moved forward on centrifuges with Centrisys. That 
needs to move forward.
    Mr. Flores. Ms. Korsnick, as your members look to the 
future and to the adoption of next generation nuclear, what are 
some of the issues that DOE and the NRC need to work on in 
order to move forward with HALEU?
    Ms. Korsnick. Well, yes. And as he just mentioned, yes, 
some of these next generation reactors are going to use that 
higher assay LEU. It is a little bit of a chicken and an egg.
    Mr. Flores. I know.
    Ms. Korsnick. Once there is enough market signal, then the 
market will respond and go ahead and create enrichment that 
will do this. But before that market signal is sent, it is too 
much uncertainty and so why would you make that investment? So 
this is the case where I think the government very much can 
step in and create that bridge where they can supply interim 
some high-assay LEU, while there then is that signal that is 
sent and give the market a chance to build the necessary 
supply.
    Also, higher enriched. Think about it. Not only do you have 
to make it, you have to get it to where you want to use it.
    Mr. Flores. Exactly.
    Ms. Korsnick. So there is transportation. There is 
permitting. There is regulation. Right now, it is all really 
centered on the fuel that we use today, which is five percent 
and less enriched. So as soon as you go higher than that there 
needs to be a broader infrastructure and that is something that 
we are working on with our members, but we would, we will need 
NRC as well as government support for making that happen.
    Mr. Flores. I will submit additional questions and ask you 
all to supply that to the record.
    Mr. Cohen, I have a question about the impact of the 
environmental. I am out of time, but the environmental impact 
of the battery storage for the 3.3 terawatts that we need--we 
do that later.
    Mr. Rush. The gentleman yields back. The gentleman yields 
back. The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Oregon, Mr. 
Schrader, for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Schrader. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Cohen, can decarbonization of our power sector be 
achieved without the use of the nuclear sector?
    Mr. Cohen. As a logical matter, yes. I think as a practical 
matter, probably not. I mean there are other options, but again 
as I showed you, they are extremely expensive and probably 
unlikely to be implemented at that scale.
    Mr. Schrader. Ms. Korsnick, would you agree with that?
    Ms. Korsnick. I would say we can't do it without nuclear.
    Mr. Schrader. Very good. Very good. All right.
    Shift gears a little bit, Mr. Hopkins, thank you for all 
the work you are doing, your company. I appreciate the work in 
our home state of Oregon and, you know, forward thinking, and 
all the hoops you have had to go through, the $500 million in 
fees.
    So, can you describe a little bit how significant it is for 
the first of a kind technology like this to get through the 
marketplace and through the regulatory framework on time and on 
budget, how important the cost-sharing of the funding was to 
your success at this point?
    Mr. Hopkins. Sir, it is absolutely critical. There is no 
room to fail here. The industry in general has not been able to 
meet the obligations for the most part in cost and schedule. 
When we build this first plant it has to be on time, on 
schedule. The other is that a lot of the countries and 
companies that we are in discussions with don't necessarily 
want to be first. That doesn't say I have to build a 12-module 
plant, but they want to see one module up and running so we can 
showcase internationally.
    Mr. Schrader. Very good. Well, you know, and in our home 
state nuclear has had a checkered history for a variety of good 
and sometimes not so good reasons, if I may so. Talk a little 
bit about nuclear waste vis-a-vis SMRs and what opportunities 
there are perhaps in dealing with nuclear waste as a result of 
the SMR technology and other advanced nuclear technologies.
    Mr. Hopkins. Well, having looked at as an example, the 
Trojan facility in the state of Oregon that has been 17 years 
now, when you go out there and you look at the rigor of what 
interim storage has done, people who have gone out there have 
told me, I don't have a concern anymore about waste. But I 
think what I mentioned earlier about unused energy, there is 
some of these new waves of advanced reactors are going to be 
able to use that for their fuel source. So it is an interim 
storage currently today, but no telling what could happen 
future state when some of these come online and use that as 
their future energy source.
    Mr. Schrader. Mr. Levesque, would you agree with that?
    Mr. Levesque. I definitely agree, Congressman. I think you 
need to begin with what Mr. Merrifield described with the great 
story on how little volume there is of used nuclear fuel given 
that nuclear energy has, you know, powered millions and 
millions of homes for decades. There is no smokestack. It is a 
very small amount of used nuclear fuel that is tracked very 
closely. But if you think about new technologies like ours, we 
have the potential to reduce that waste stream by eighty 
percent, so taking a good story and reducing that waste stream 
by eighty percent and that is accomplished by things like, we 
call it advanced physics.
    You know, the computer models that we have today--you know, 
no secrets, some of this has been funded by Bill Gates; that 
shouldn't surprise people--allow you to design a core that 
burns the fissile material much, much more completely, so at 
the end of the day when the plant is ready to be shut down you 
have cut your waste by eighty percent.
    And also, there is even chances to use nuclear fuel. The 
DOE is starting to look at, you know, whether we should use 
some of that fissile material that is in used nuclear fuel. And 
advanced reactors just open up many different fuel cycle 
possibilities that if we are not moving forward with advanced 
reactors, we are not really innovating on the fuel cycle 
either.
    Mr. Schrader. Mr. Merrifield, a quick comment?
    Mr. Merrifield. No, I think Mr. Levesque has captured that 
well.
    Mr. Schrader. All right.
    Next question, Mr. Hopkins, and I guess this could be for 
anybody, how can nuclear energy, even SMRs, compete with the 
low cost of natural gas in this day and age?
    Mr. Hopkins. Some of it we talked about earlier. We looked 
at our market predominantly as, and still today, a significant 
amount of energy, or international, a lot of it has to do with 
movement towards climate disruption and energy security. But 
what we are seeing again are states that are gravitating to 
clean air initiatives.
    The state of Washington, I just mentioned in fact where 
Energy Northwest commissioned a study called E3 where they 
basically said, in fact they named NuScale in that study as 
potential, non-greenhouse gas emitter as an alternative. And 
they also looked at could we, in fact, in an entire state do it 
with renewables and they found you are going to have to have 
both.
    Mr. Merrifield. Let me just add, I think the other issue is 
when you look at a nuclear power plant it has to account for 
the cost of the plant, the cost of the decommissioning plan, 
and the cost for taking care of the fuel. If you compare that 
with the natural gas plant, and that it the bogey for a lot of 
these technologies, decommissioning costs are not built-in and 
there is no accounting for the amount of carbon that is 
released in the atmosphere, which is a pollutant frankly.
    Mr. Schrader. Thank you. My time has expired. I appreciate 
it very much.
    Mr. Rush. The gentleman yields back. The Chair now 
recognizes Mr. Walberg, for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Walberg. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thanks to the 
panel as well. It has been interesting and appreciated the last 
line of questioning also about the nuclear waste. It is being 
used already in other places and we have to find ways to go 
past the political issues to get the right thing done. Also, 
coming from the state of Michigan, now which is on a very 
aggressive, aggressive goal track toward zero carbon, it isn't 
going to happen without having nuclear as part of that mix. I 
certainly haven't seen that as well.
    Ms. Korsnick, while we are focusing this morning on 
advanced reactors, there are innovations underway that can 
assist the existing fleet, at least I hope there are. Having 
the DTE, Fermi 1, Fermi 2 in my district, and hanging on to a 
license for Fermi 3 that is debatable when and if they will use 
it, but the capability certainly is there.
    Would you talk about the development and regulation of 
accident-tolerant fuel, specifically what are the safety and 
operational performance benefits of these fuels and what is the 
status of deployment? And then second, how will development of 
these fuels help the development of advanced reactors?
    Ms. Korsnick. Sure. Thank you for the question.
    Yes, I would say advanced or accident-tolerant fuel is a 
great innovation for the industry. In some of the cases it is 
going to be able to operate in a way that these plants can run 
longer between outages, so you can think if they are placed in 
current operating reactors that it allows them flexibility 
relative to their schedule and that actually could help reduce 
costs overall.
    And we have already actually started to test some of this 
and we put some accident-tolerant fuel in an operating reactor. 
It was just recently removed and now that will be tested and 
analyzed, so I would say, absolutely, things are moving 
forward. There is future investment that is being looked for, 
for again public-private partnership take things to advance 
accident-tolerant fuel, but this also is laying the groundwork 
for new fuel technologies that can be used in advance reactors.
    Mr. Walberg. Any other insight on what is necessary to 
accelerate progress in this area? I am thinking of DTE, Fermi 2 
now having a major shutdown coming that will be extensive in a 
number of days, weeks it will be out. How do we accelerate the 
progress on these fuels?
    Ms. Korsnick. Well, it generally comes down to money. And 
so, I know that there are companies that are very interested in 
accident-tolerant fuel and investing in that, but that is an 
area that we look to for additional investment.
    Mr. Merrifield. On that notion, Congressman, you know, that 
is another area where high-assay, low-enriched uranium is going 
to be important. There are technologies underway right now, 
Lightbridge has one, where they want to use HALEU in order to 
power that future fleet, the existing reactors, and that fuel 
also has extreme capabilities to deal with accident tolerance. 
So a lot of these things weave together, but a very important 
point in that regard.
    Mr. Walberg. Thank you. Thank you.
    Ms. Korsnick, you reference in your testimony subsequent 
license renewals. Why is this important for the existing fleet?
    Ms. Korsnick. Well, it is critically important. These 
plants initially were given a license of 40 years and since we 
have really operated these plants extremely well, in fact I 
would say the United States is the premier operator of nuclear 
plants around the world, and as part of operations we have 
changed out components, we have analyzed things, we have taken 
extremely good care of these plants, and in analyzing those 
looked at possible licensing extension.
    We have gone from 40 years to 60 years, almost the entire 
fleet, and now most recently have gained approval to go from 60 
years to 80 years. And again, very safely, everything has been 
monitored. There are additional inspections that you put in 
place. I would say there is nothing magic about 80 years. It is 
a matter of monitoring correctly and operating these plants 
with the ultimate safety that they are.
    Mr. Walberg. Well, maybe there is a future for Yucca yet. 
Thank you. I yield back.
    Mr. Rush. The gentleman yields back. The Chair now 
recognizes the gentlelady from Delaware, Ms. Blunt Rochester, 
for 5 minutes.
    Ms. Blunt Rochester. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you 
to the witnesses here today. Prior to being elected to 
Congress, I served as Delaware Secretary of Labor and also as 
the head of state personnel for state government and I know 
that the workforce is the lifeblood of any organization or any 
industry. And because of this, I recently launched the House 
bipartisan Future of Work Caucus so that we can proactively be 
ready for the changing jobs that we inevitably face in our 
growing economy. So I want to start there.
    Ms. Korsnick, one of the issues that we need to keep in 
mind with industry transitions is ensuring that the workforce 
is also transitioning. Are there people trained and ready to 
work in an advanced nuclear industry and can you speak to the 
workforce demands for building and operating advanced nuclear 
technologies at a large scale?
    Ms. Korsnick. Sure. Thank you. So your question about 
transitioning the workforce, and I would say much of the 
workforce that we have today would be used in building these 
and just look at the type of workforce that we used to build 
the Vogtle plant, and so many of it comes from the trades as 
well the engineers from the technical side.
    I just don't want there to be the view that when we talk 
about building something advanced that it means all 4-year 
degrees, because it doesn't. And so, I think there is the 
capability of us to put that in play, but let's be honest. When 
the Vogtle plant was being built, there were very much, 
challenges to find all of the talent that they need and so we 
have to look hard at this pipeline if we were to do a large 
build.
    On the positive side, these things, and they were mentioned 
earlier, are going to be more factory built and so that should 
be helpful in getting to that nth of a kind and getting, if you 
will, quickly up to speed. So we have the capability, we have 
the talent, and I think there are some good pipelines and 
training programs that can be put in place.
    Ms. Blunt Rochester. And as a follow-up to that, are there 
substantial opportunities for workers who are displaced from 
fossil fuel industries to transition into advanced nuclear?
     Ms. Korsnick. Absolutely. Just think about the plants when 
we initially built. We got folks that worked from the fossil 
side. The entire secondary side of a plant looks the same 
whether you are fossil or whether you are nuclear and so all of 
that talent can be redeployed.
    Ms. Blunt Rochester. Excellent. Thank you.
    Mr. Cohen, while nuclear energy is carbon-free in terms of 
generation, emissions from plant construction and spent nuclear 
fuel management must also be considered. What are the 
differences in terms of environmental impact between advanced 
nuclear technologies and conventional nuclear reactors? And I 
will just add on to this, how does advanced nuclear technology 
address the environmental concerns of conventional nuclear 
plants?
    Mr. Cohen. So there are two different questions there. I 
think that on in terms of the footprint, let's put aside the 
issue at the output, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate 
Change looked at the total CO2 emissions footprint 
of various power resources including the entire lifecycle from 
construction to mining. Nuclear came out, I mean it is barely 
detectable on the chart, you know, it is like orders of 
magnitude lower than anything else.
    So I mean every, any time you build anything you are going 
to have, you know, impacts. But I think maybe the second part 
of your question was perhaps safety and was safety related, is 
that where you were going?
    Ms. Blunt Rochester. No, it was more related to addressing 
the environmental concerns.
    Mr. Cohen. Well, you know, I think this has been addressed, 
I think, extensively in the testimony, but there are, including 
my own there are about five or six attributes of these various 
reactors that suggest an accidental release of radiation would 
be vastly diminished as compared to a conventional reactor, 
which is not to say that conventional reactors are problematic, 
but this, we are talking about step changes in safety.
    Ms. Blunt Rochester. Great, thank you.
    And, Mr. Hopkins, small modular reactors are being designed 
with a whole new generation of digital instrumentation and 
controls compared to the nuclear plants operating today. How 
can we ensure that these reactors will not be vulnerable to 
cyber threats?
    Mr. Hopkins. Yes. We actually just recently completed a 
study both on cybersecurity and the impact of an 
electromagnetic pulse on our plants, and working with a company 
called Ultra Electronics, we have devised and it went to the 
NRC a digital instrumentation control process that doesn't hook 
to the internet, it is on a programmable array. And so, we 
believe strongly that from a cyber perspective we are pretty 
secure.
    Ms. Blunt Rochester. Thank you.
    Mr. Hopkins. In fact, we wrote a paper on it recently if 
you have an interest.
    Ms. Blunt Rochester. Thank you so much. And I yield back 
the balance of my time.
    Mr. Rush. The gentlelady yields back the balance of her 
time. The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Michigan, the 
ranking member of the subcommittee, Mr. Upton, for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Upton. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I apologize 
for not being here earlier. We had a bipartisan meeting down at 
the White House on coronavirus, and anyway it was a very 
productive meeting as we are working together.
    So I have--so I missed your testimony. I won't ask you to 
give it again, but I do have a couple of questions. In 
Michigan, two of our major utilities have announced goals to 
reduce carbon emissions by eighty and ninety percent by 2040. 
Good thing. And for states like us, the loss of nuclear 
generation certainly makes it harder to meet those goals, and 
costs and delays in transmission siting for wind and solar may 
slow the deployment for other renewables.
    So, Mr. Merrifield and Ms. Korsnick, can you speak to the 
importance of preserving the existing generation and the 
electricity reliability benefits of doing so, and do you think 
that state officials and other policymakers in fact are getting 
the message?
    Mr. Merrifield. The answer is yes, absolutely critical. If 
we are to meet carbon emissions targets, we are going to have 
to keep these plants and keep them for a long period of time. 
They operate safe. They operate in a ninety-two-plus percent 
capacity factor and they are critical national assets. I think 
many states get that message. There are some that still don't. 
California, for example, is shutting down two perfectly good 
nuclear plants at Diablo Canyon, which, frankly, is a crying 
shame.
    But I think we need to make sure and this committee needs 
to oversee efforts on the part of the Federal Energy Regulatory 
Commission and make certain that they are not undertaking 
policies that put nuclear at a disadvantage.
    Mr. Upton. Ms. Korsnick?
    Ms. Korsnick. I would just say, you know, many of the 
utilities that are making pledges that directionally get them 
to carbon-free, whether it is 2040, 2045, 2050, they notionally 
can have an appreciation to get maybe sixty or seventy percent, 
but that last piece you have to have dispatchable carbon-free 
energy. And it is really the partnering of that like a nuclear 
plant with the wind and solar that ultimately is the answer and 
that is going forward. So if you start closing down your 
nuclear plants, you are just digging a deeper hole upon which 
to get out. So it is absolutely critical that you maintain the 
current fleet.
    Mr. Cohen. I offered some math earlier. Just think of this 
round number. If you retired the U.S. nuclear fleet, you would 
lose about a decade in your effort in the pace you need to 
decarbonize the grid. It is pretty simple. It is a big thing to 
lose.
    Mr. Upton. Yes. Thank you.
    Mr. Hopkins, you talked about placing your units at the 
site of former coal facilities. Obviously, that is going to 
reduce the need for new transmission siting, which has been an 
issue as we have looked particularly at renewables and, you 
know, taking places in the desert and places, other places 
where you would think that it would be pretty good as it 
relates to solar. How do you address the question that coal 
plants and other facilities were not sited for nuclear as well?
    Mr. Hopkins. I am sorry, sir. What was the question?
    Mr. Upton. So, you talk about using the existing siting.
    Mr. Hopkins. Right.
    Mr. Upton. For coal, so would that not be a good place to 
look at renewables and use those same transmission lines for 
those facilities?
    Mr. Hopkins. Oh, yes, sir. I mean renewables, in fact we 
wrote a paper on, and it was mentioned throughout this analysis 
what we talked about today. Advanced reactors and renewables 
complement one another. If I look at, you know, currently--I 
have built offshore wind farms. We have built PV, solar, and 
you have capacity factors of twenty-five to thirty percent.
    Generally, today it is augmented by natural gas, which is 
fine, but some of these states that are gravitating to non-
greenhouse gas emissions, small modular reactors are a natural 
to assist in load-following. So they in fact could go there, 
but we are also saying that we can complement renewables.
    Mr. Upton. So the last question I have is, as we look at 
coronavirus and the impact it has on so many different things 
including the supply chain, as we look for material that is 
coming from China whether it be solar panels or other things, 
has there been any analysis in the last just couple weeks as it 
relates to this for deployment here in the U.S.? Has anyone got 
any numbers or any numbers?
    Mr. Merrifield. I don't have numbers. I have spoken to 
utility clients as recently as Sunday who said that they had 
wind assets that were being sourced in China that have been 
delayed as a result of the coronavirus. So it clearly is 
impacting the energy supply chain today.
    Mr. Upton. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
    Mr. Rush. The gentleman yields back. And now The Chair now 
recognizes the gentleman from Virginia, Mr. McEachin, for 5 
minutes.
    Mr. McEachin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for 
convening today's discussion on advanced nuclear technology in 
our efforts to decarbonize the power sector. I also want to 
thank our panelists for sharing your expertise and your 
testimony.
    As we all know, climate change is the single greatest 
threat to our planet, our health, our national security, and 
the well-being of all our friends and neighbors. And recent 
reports have indicated that we are running out of time to 
address our climate crisis. It is more important than ever that 
we transition to a hundred percent clean economy. That is why I 
introduced the 100% Clean Economy Act of 2019, which directs 
federal agencies to use all existing authorities to put the 
United States on the path toward meeting the hundred percent 
clean energy economy goal while remaining technology neutral.
    This transition will mean the deployment of numerous 
current and emerging technologies. Nuclear energy has the 
capacity to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels and it can be 
a great asset toward our shared goal of decarbonizing our 
economy. At the same time, however, nuclear energy faces many 
challenges including high cost of delays, safety, and waste 
disposal and long-term storage.
    Mr. Cohen, in your testimony you speak about some of the 
challenges facing the nuclear industry including safety, waste 
disposal and storage. How will this nuclear waste be stored? 
When I say nuclear waste, I am talking about in the advanced 
setting, advanced nuclear plants, be stored on site, and how do 
we best mitigate the potential health and environmental 
concerns for all communities?
    Mr. Cohen. I mean, ultimately, and some of the other 
panelists may correct me, I mean it is going to be the same 
kind of product, so we are going to have to deal with it 
probably in a way similar to what we do with the existing 
reactors. Now I know there are some technologies and I don't 
know whether TerraPower is one of them where the waste has 
perhaps different composition, maybe a faster decay rate of 
toxic material, but we are still probably looking at some kind 
of geologic storage over time. But I would invite my fellow 
panelists to correct me if I am wrong on that.
    Mr. Levesque. No, you captured that well. You would expect 
the spent fuel storage-type containers to be similar, but again 
our technologies will enable that waste stream, initially, to 
reduce that waste stream by eighty percent. And again, I will 
mention the Department of Energy is also looking at, you know, 
ways to use the remaining fissile material in that spent fuel 
and we will see where that policy decision leads. But advanced 
nuclear does and moving forward in nuclear innovation does 
offer, you know, many new ways of looking at that, at that fuel 
cycle problem.
    Mr. Merrifield. I would add sort of two things. One, I 
think a number of the advanced technology developers are 
looking at trying to make sure that as they build and design, 
or as they design and build their facilities that the long-term 
storage at least while it needs to be onsite is integral to the 
building, rather than today where you have to build a pad on 
the outside and place a bunch of dry storage canisters.
    I think the other thing is that some of the fuel types with 
these advanced reactors may provide opportunities to be more 
creative in terms of how that material is either treated, 
whether it is reutilized for additional power or is stored. It 
may be in some cases easier to store in different types of 
containers given the properties of the specific fuel types.
    Mr. McEachin. Anyone else?
    Ms. Korsnick. I guess I would just add because nuclear 
waste has come up, you know, several times, I would just ask 
for your consideration that what we consider waste is really 
future nuclear fuel. So the waste that we have today, it is 
simply transitioned to a different type of fuel and there is 
ninety-five percent good energy still in those fuel bundles 
that today we call waste. So it is important that we think 
about that. Your kids, your grandkids, and their kids, they are 
going to want to understand how to use this in the future for 
the designs that they are going to have, so we should be 
thoughtful about the fact that this is a resource that can be 
used again.
    Mr. McEachin. Are we capable of using it again now or do we 
need some emerging technology to use it?
    Ms. Korsnick. Some of the technology that is being 
discussed here will in fact be able to use the fuel and there 
will be more of that as this technology gets developed.
    Mr. McEachin. For decades, low-income communities, 
communities of color, and tribal and indigenous communities--
well, is that right? Is my time gone?
    Mr. McEachin. OK. You said no, sir? Yes, sir.
    Mr. Rush. The gentleman will continue your----
    Mr. McEachin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
    Mr. Rush. The gentleman yields back the balance of his 
time.
    This concludes our witness questioning, and I want to 
congratulate this panel. You have been a superb panel and we 
thank you for your patience and for your participation in this 
hearing. And I want to remind members that pursuant to 
committee rules, they have ten business days to submit 
additional questions for the record to be answered by the 
witnesses who have appeared. And I ask each witness to be 
diligent to respond promptly to any such questions that you may 
receive. And I see a participant in the audience with his hand 
raised. I am not sure the purpose of that, but we will not 
entertain any questions or any comments from the audience. And 
now at this time the subcommittee is adjourned.
    [Whereupon, at 1:12 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]

                 Prepared Statement of Hon. Fred Upton

    As Congress considers what policies to pursue to address 
climate change risks, nuclear technology should be at the 
center of the discussion. And so let me thank you, Chairman 
Rush; this hearing on advanced nuclear technology is important 
and timely.
    This morning we will examine the state of the advanced 
technologies, the prospects for these technologies in energy 
and industrial applications; what is necessary to license and 
build new nuclear power generators; what is necessary deploy 
these technologies in the United States and in foreign markets.
    Any examination of future nuclear policies has to recognize 
the current role of nuclear energy in our power sector and 
economy.The plain fact is, the nation's existing light-water 
fleet is the dominant form of emissions free power in many 
regions of the United States, far surpassing what is provided 
by wind and solar.
    The industry supports half a million high quality jobs, 
provides the tax revenue to support communities around the 
country, and enables the hard-to-replace intellectual and 
technical capabilities that help ensure U.S. leadership in 
nuclear.
    Today, Michigan benefits from four nuclear power reactors, 
three of which--the two at DC. Cook and the one at Palisades--
are in my district. The energy from these reactors provides 
about a quarter of the state's electricity and about 80% of the 
state's clean energy--emitting no greenhouse gases or criteria 
air pollutants.
    Nuclear technology provides more than half the emissions 
free electricity in the United States. And nuclear units around 
the nation run more than 92% of the time, far surpassing the 
capacity factors of any other form of generation to provide 
reliable, secure baseload power that helps to ensure affordable 
electricity for industry, businesses and consumers.
    Yet in deregulated markets, pricing requirements and other 
policies have been undermining the economics of many nuclear 
units. Palisades is scheduled to shut down in 2022. Seven more 
units in Iowa, New York, Pennsylvania, and California will be 
shutting down from this year through 2025--taking 60 billion 
kilowatt hours of clean generation off the grid. That's almost 
the entire amount of power from utility scale solar in this 
country.
    Replacing that baseload power with non-hydro renewables 
will be an expensive challenge, especially in states that are 
seeking to decarbonize their systems.
    The loss of a significant portion of the existing fleet 
will also send a ripple effect throughout the nuclear supply 
chain.
    Fuel cycle facilities, that underpin both commercial and 
national security needs, would lose critical capacity. The next 
generation of nuclear engineering and nuclear scientists could 
dry up as educational institutions lose support for programs.
    The bottom line is: the prospects for expanding advanced 
technologies, requires maintaining a robust existing fleet, and 
the intellectual, technological, and regulatory infrastructure 
that supports that fleet.
    Advanced nuclear technology and all its potential benefits 
for decarbonization will be built upon that infrastructure.
    The good news is that DOE, NRC, state legislatures, and 
Congress--including this Committee--have been taking steps in 
recent years to address the challenges confronting the 
industry.
    I look forward to hearing about the reforms at the NRC, and 
how the Commission is doing with its advanced reactor 
applications and what is necessary to ensure the applications 
for site permits and operating permits can move forward 
expeditiously.
    We've moved legislation through the House for the second 
Congress in a row to help develop a market for new, advanced 
fuels. What more can be done to provide for this new fuel 
infrastructure?
    Finally, we should not ignore the backend of the fuel 
cycle. Even advanced reactors will have to confront spent fuel 
disposal; the lack of funding for moving forward with the 
license review of the Yucca Mountain project would seem only to 
add to uncertainty, making it challenging for financing and 
siting new projects.
    We should focus on all aspects of what is needed to provide 
the regulatory certainty and public support for these promising 
new technologies.


    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]


                                 [all]