Nuclear Power Provisions Included in Congressional Appropriations Bill

Analysis provided by Tim Judson, NIRS:

From: Tim Judson <timj@nirs.org>

Date: December 23, 2020 at 4:06:31 PM EST
Subject: RE: approps bill nuclear inclusions

The funding to DOE for waste disposal was not the only funds for nuclear in the appropriations bill – that’s just what was in the “ordinary” part of the bill, along with funding for NRC, NNSA, and DOE’s labs and weapons complex activities.

But there was a huge omnibus energy bill that was appended to the appropriations bill, which authorizes over $11 billion in funding to specific DOE nuclear energy and waste R&D projects over the next five years. That is more than the total amount for all renewable energy R&D in the bill, and about one-third as much as for all renewables combined, including the extensions of the production tax credits.

Here are some more detailed notes on what happened:

The appropriations and COVID relief bill includes the Energy Act of 2020. Initially, that was to include three bad stand-alone nuclear bills we have been fighting in their entirety:

• Nuclear Energy Leadership Act (NELA) -- H.R.3306 / S.903
• Nuclear Energy Renewal Act (NERA) -- S.2368
• Integrated Energy Systems Act (IESA) -- S.2702

In the end, between the emails, phone calls, and a sign-on letter, we were able to get some of the worst provisions of those bills removed, so the final bill only includes parts the bills.

• The NELA provision authorizing DOE to enter into 40-year, above-market-price contracts to buy electricity from small modular reactors was taken out. That is key to stopping the NuScale SMR project in Idaho.
• Also, the Trump administration’s Nuclear Energy Strategic Plan was taken out. And the provision requiring DOE to construct the $6 billion versatile test reactor was also taken out.
• A provision from another bill that would have provided direct subsidies to existing nuclear reactors through an investment tax credit was also removed (the Nuclear Powers America Act – H.R. 2314 / S. 1134).

It does include a bunch of things we oppose, but most of them are not going to have a immediate impact on the construction of new reactors or preventing the closure of existing reactors:

• It obligates DOE to invest $435 million over the next 5 years in R&D on to cut operating costs and otherwise prop up old, uneconomical reactors instead of focusing on new, promising, economical energy sources that actually have a future:

•  
  • R&D on things that could cut costs on maintenance and safety, through “accident-tolerant fuels” and other measures
  • requires DOE to help streamline the 80-year relicensing process for old reactors (though NRC is actually in charge of relicensing)
  • provides $160 million for two demonstration projects for “cogeneration” applications, including producing hydrogen, desalination, district heating, industrial process heat, etc.

• The bill retains a modified version of the provision requiring DOE to support nuclear reactor demonstration projects, with $2.1 billion in funding over the next five years (2021-2025).

•  
  • It also includes $2.3 billion for R&D infrastructure, which I suspect could still be allocated to building the versatile test reactor (VTR). The bill requires DOE to do other R&D projects, as well, so the $2.3 billion will not go to constructing the VTR – it wouldn’t be enough funding for what is projected to be $6 billion project anyway.

• Overall, there is a danger that this bill could bind the Biden administration to pursuing a Trump-era nuclear energy agenda at DOE. Based on his transition team, it looks to me like Biden is interested in charting an ambitious path forward on climate, renewables, and energy innovation, with or without nuclear. This bill could gum that up by wasting more than $11 billion and tying up DOE’s capacity working on nuclear power.

• The bill promotes reprocessing through R&D, with over $925 million in appropriations:

•  
  • $300 million for “Used Nuclear Fuel Research, Demonstration, and Commercial Application”
  • $625 million for “Advanced Fuels.”

• It dials back support for commercialization of high-assay, low-enriched uranium (HA-LEU), by focusing on using existing feedstocks, such as downblending weapons-grade uranium. (HA-LEU is uranium enriched to 5.0-19.99% uranium-235, which would be used in certain types of new reactors.)

•  
  • It also has a provision that discourages acquisition of uranium for HA-LEU from mines that impact Indigenous peoples.
  • But it still promotes production of HA-LEU for commercial purposes. That has serious proliferation and safety concerns, including criticality accidents in enrichment, storage, and transport.

• It also spends $5 billion on fusion reactor R&D, including $4.7 billion in investments in the ITER fusion reactor project in Europe.

Tim Judson
Executive Director
Nuclear Information and Resource Service
6930 Carroll Ave., Suite 340
Takoma Park, MD 20912
O: 301-270-6477
E: TimJ@nirs.org
W: www.nirs.org