Senator James Inhofe in the Politico

Listen carefully in Washington, and almost everyone agrees that nuclear energy must be a part of our future domestic energy mix, and for good reason: Nuclear energy is the world’s largest source of carbon-free energy, generating over 70 percent of our emission-free electricity here in the U.S. Nuclear energy is a clean, safe, reliable and domestic source of affordable energy that has created 15,000 new jobs in the last year.

The need to grow our domestic energy supply is clear. The Energy Information Administration projects that our demand for electricity will increase by 26 percent by the year 2030, requiring nearly 260 gigawatts of new electricity generation. Every source will need to grow and produce more energy to meet that demand. Curtis Frasier, executive vice president of Americas Shell Gas & Power, recently warned that the recession could be masking a global energy shortage: “When the economy returns, we’re going to be back to the energy crisis,” he said. “Nothing has been done to solve that crisis. We’ve got a huge mountain to climb.”

Frasier voices a very real concern. Electricity and total energy use are closely tied to economic growth. When our economy grows, so does the demand for energy. One way our energy policy can provide a solid foundation for economic growth is by supporting increased development of nuclear energy.

Not only will nuclear energy give a boost to our economy, it will also produce new jobs. Mark Ayers, president of the AFL-CIO Building and Construction Trades Department, has stated: “We will work closely with the nuclear energy industry to help pursue the adoption of a diverse American energy portfolio that places a high priority on the re-emergence of nuclear power.” Why is Ayers so supportive of nuclear energy? He knows the number of high-quality jobs that just one new nuclear plant would provide, including 1,400 to 1,800 jobs during construction; 400 to 700 permanent jobs when the plant begins operating, with salaries percent higher than the local average; and 400 to 700 additional jobs providing goods and services.

Ensuring nuclear energy continues to play an increasing role in our nation’s energy mix requires a commitment from Capitol Hill. My commitment is rooted in oversight, which I initiated over 12 years ago through my leadership position on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has since been transformed into a more safety-focused, objective and efficient regulator capable of executing its responsibilities in a timely fashion. As such, I expect the NRC to maintain the high level of safety of the existing fleet while managing the additional challenge of new plant licensing.

So far, the NRC has done a good job coping with the onslaught of licensing activity. Reviews are proceeding simultaneously on four designs, one site permit and 18 license applications representing 28 new reactors. But, despite significant efforts on the part of NRC staff, this process hasn’t unfolded as smoothly as it could. In fact, there appear to be no actual dates when any of the new plant licenses will be issued. The commission must take responsibility for managing the licensing process and set detailed schedules, which are critical to ensuring that the process is safety-focused and efficient.

Companies will make decisions on whether to start construction based on future economics and perceived political risk. If the NRC becomes an unpredictable regulator, financial risk will escalate. How can a utility prepare for construction without a firm date on which they can expect to receive their license? How can an investor judge the risk of a project without being able to evaluate progress in the regulatory process?

My hope is to see the NRC issue the first new license for a reactor before the end of 2011, and eight more before 2013. Given construction estimates of four to five years, the first two reactors could be operational in 2016, with 14 more potentially operational by 2018. Sixteen new reactors will be a good start toward rejuvenating an industry that has been stagnant for over 30 years. These efforts to develop new plants are critical to meeting our energy needs, and I’m committed to doing what I can to help build these new plants.

Finally, if President Barack Obama is serious about creating jobs, cutting carbon emissions and producing more clean, domestic energy, it’s time for him to unambiguously support nuclear energy. There is one action more important than any other that he alone can take: nominating qualified, safety-focused and fair people to serve on the NRC. Our nation is best served by commissioners who are focused on protecting public health and safety and the environment. However, if Obama’s nominations reflect the desires of anti-nuclear ideologues, one thing will become clear: He’s willing to strangle the nuclear renaissance along with energy security and job creation. If that’s the case, then all his talk about the need to cut carbon emissions is just blowing smoke. See the op ed here.
Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.) is the ranking member of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee.