Subscribe today to the Washington Examiner magazine and get Washington Briefing: politics and policy stories that will keep you up to date with what’s going on in Washington. SUBSCRIBE NOW: Just $1.00 an issue!
NUCLEAR IS AN OVERRATED CLIMATE TOOL, NEW REPORT ARGUES: Nuclear power is not the tool for combating climate change that many policymakers think it is, according to a new report.
The authors of the World Nuclear Industry Status Report call into question the wisdom of both subsidizing uneconomic existing nuclear plants, as a number of states have done, and investing in new nuclear technologies.
More on the report below.
Welcome to Daily on Energy, written by Washington Examiner Energy and Environment Writers Josh Siegel (@SiegelScribe) and Abby Smith (@AbbySmithDC). Email [email protected] or [email protected] for tips, suggestions, calendar items, and anything else. If a friend sent this to you and you’d like to sign up, click here. If signing up doesn’t work, shoot us an email, and we’ll add you to our list.
The World Nuclear Industry Status Report argument: The money to keep plants operating would be better spent expanding the use of renewables and investing in energy efficiency.
“There is absolutely no doubt the most expensive reactors are not competitive anymore with efficiency and increasingly with renewables including solar and wind,” Mycle Schneider, the lead writer of the report and a Paris-based independent consultant, told Josh. “If you keep them going, you actually block a rapid transition to a different system.”
Schneider presented the findings of the Sept. 27 report Monday in Washington, D.C., at the Natural Resources Defense Council. NRDC did not commission the report, but the environmental group is also skeptical of nuclear power, mostly for concerns around safety, waste storage, and the risk of proliferation.
Matthew McKinzie, the director of the nuclear program at NRDC, told Josh the report’s findings also showcase the shortfalls of nuclear power in addressing climate change.
“The findings in the report should make policymakers consider nuclear in a different light,” McKinzie said. “The report calls into question the continued operation of nuclear plants and whether that’s the best climate strategy.”
Nuclear divides Democrats: The proper treatment of nuclear power has perplexed the Democratic presidential field.
Most candidates recognize that nuclear provides more than half of the nation’s zero-carbon electricity, and generally support keeping existing plants online while investing R&D into smaller advanced reactors that haven’t been commercialized yet.
Bernie Sanders is the strongest exception to that, saying he wants to impose a moratorium on licence renewals for existing power plants, along with stopping the building of new plants.
Elizabeth Warren has also said she opposes new nuclear plants and wants “to start weaning ourselves off nuclear and replace it with renewables.”
We are asking the wrong questions about nuclear: The report argues that new renewable energy sources can compete economically today with existing nuclear power plants. Closing uneconomic reactors can lead to overall reductions in carbon pollution if a nuclear plant’s operating costs are instead invested into efficiency and solar and wind.
“It’s not simply the mass of greenhouse gas emissions you avert by running nuclear,” McKinzie said. “It’s also the cost and the time required for nuclear to do so. There are more cost effective and more rapid approaches to reducing emissions. Time is essence because climate change is a terrifying and fast approaching disaster and there are limited resources to address it.”
This cuts against the argument from nuclear proponents, who argue retiring plants would be replaced by fossil fuels in the short-term until renewables and storage become more widely available.
That contention has driven states such as Illinois and New York to provide subsidies to nuclear plants to avoid their early closure.
Also skeptical of advanced reactors: The Trump administration and members of both parties also support R&D for advanced reactors, which are designed for greater safety and easier construction than today’s massive plants. NuScale, an Oregon-based nuclear technology firm, is hoping by 2020 to be the first company to obtain a license to operate a small reactor design in the U.S. for commercial use.
However, the report is also less bullish on these reactors, concluding “there is no sign of any major breakthroughs for SMRs, either with regard to the technology or with regard to the commercial side.”
PERRY DENIES HE’S RESIGNING, DEFENDS WORK WITH UKRAINE: Energy Secretary Rick Perry denied Monday that he plans to resign soon.
“They’ve been writing the story for at least nine months now. One of these days they will probably get it right, but it’s not today, it’s not tomorrow, it’s not next month. Keep saying it and one day you’ll be right,” Perry said a news conference in Vilnius, Lithuania.
Perry also defended his work to push Eastern European countries, including Ukraine, to diversify their energy sources away from a dependence on Russian natural gas. He has faced questions about his role on issues relevant to the impeachment inquiry into President Trump focused on the administration’s diplomacy in Ukraine.
“I have had multiple conversations with the men and women in Ukraine of how the United States can help them become more energy independent and here are the things you need to do so a person like me can recommend energy experts that should come and invest in Ukraine,” Perry said.
He also denied discussing the Biden family with Ukranian officials.
Perry’s role in Ukraine: The energy secretary confirmed he asked Trump “multiple times’ to hold a phone call with Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky, but said he sought the conversations as part of efforts to curb corruption in Ukraine’s energy sector and encourage energy investment opportunities.
“Absolutely I asked the president multiple times, ‘Mr. President we think it is in the United States’ and in Ukraine’s best interest that you and the president of Ukraine have conversations’,” Perry said. “For the president of the United States to be comfortable that this country is moving in the right direction.”
Perry also acknowledged he recommended members to serve on the board of Ukraine’s state-run gas firm Naftogaz, but said he did so at the request of the country’s government.
“The idea that the AP story basically said that we said, ‘you put these people on there’ is just not correct. That was a totally dreamed-up story, best I can tell,” Perry said. “We gave recommendations at the request of the Ukrainian government and will continue to.”
MEET THE JAY INSLEE STAFFERS WHO WROTE THE ‘NEXT PRESIDENT’S’ CLIMATE PLAN: Sam Ricketts and Bracken Hendricks, a pair of low-profile former staffers to Jay Inslee, may have written the next president’s climate change plan.
Josh recently profiled the duo, who authored Inslee’s six-part, 218-page climate change agenda, aspects of which have been adopted by Democratic candidates such as Warren and Kamala Harris.
“Gov. Inslee ran for president for a reason,” said Ricketts, who was climate director for the Inslee campaign. “He felt the next president needed to be a climate president. We all felt, win or lose, we could still win. From the outset, this was about how to actually write the plan the next White House can meaningfully implement. That’s been borne out.”
Inslee declared his climate agenda to be an “open-source” resource after dropping out in August and announcing a run for reelection as Washington’s governor.
Warren quickly accepted Inslee’s offer, declaring in September that she was “adopting and building upon” his 10-year plan to achieve 100% clean energy by decarbonizing electricity, transportation, and buildings.
Ricketts and Hendricks say almost every remaining campaign has reached out to them, or Inslee himself, for advice on climate policy, including Joe Biden.
“We are encouraged candidates are continuing to put forward ambitious plans to show they are serious about the climate crisis, and we hope that continues,” Ricketts said.
Read more in this week’s Washington Examiner magazine.
COME TOGETHER ON COOLANT CLIMATE BILL, CEOS URGE CONGRESS: The CEOs of more than 30 major appliance makers and chemical producers are turning up the heat on lawmakers, urging them to push forward bipartisan legislation reducing potent greenhouse gas refrigerants.
U.S inaction could allow foreign companies to step in and displace American companies in a global refrigerant market “expected to reach $1 trillion in size,” the CEOs wrote in a letter sent today to the top lawmakers on the Senate environment committee and the House energy committee. The list of companies includes Carrier, Daikin, Honeywell, and Chemours.
The legislation would help the companies comply with a 2016 global deal to phase down hydrofluorocarbons, or HFCs. HFCs warm the atmosphere hundreds of times faster than carbon dioxide. U.S. appliance and chemical companies helped negotiate the international agreement, known as the Kigali Amendment, during the Obama administration.
The Kigali deal is a rarity in Washington: It’s supported strongly by both industry and environmentalists, and by lawmakers in both parties. More than a dozen Republican senators have been on record urging Trump to back the deal.
But that hasn’t convinced the Trump administration to sign on. The White House still hasn’t taken a position on the deal, despite a steady stream of lobbying by industry. Companies are hoping bipartisan legislation could help fill the gap and keep the U.S. industry in a leadership role.
ARE CALIFORNIA’S CLIMATE GOALS OUT OF REACH? The Golden State wouldn’t meet its 2030 climate targets until 2061 if it doesn’t speed up the rate its emissions fall each year, according to the latest California Green Innovation Index.
In fact, California would need to increase its average emissions reduction rate to 4.51% per year — up from 1.15% between 2016 and 2017 — in order to meet its 2030 goal of 40% below 1990 levels, said the report released today by the nonprofit Next 10. The Golden State would have to do even more to reach its mid-century goals, which Next 10 finds it currently could be more than 100 years late in meeting.
The report is a reminder that even though California has some of the most ambitious climate programs in the country, the state still has difficult questions to grapple with as it looks to cut emissions from hard-to-reach sectors like transportation, industry, and residential buildings.
MORE OIL AND GAS LEASE SALES ON THE HORIZON IN THE GULF: The Interior Department wants to offer around 78 million acres in the Gulf of Mexico for a lease sale in March 2020, agency officials announced Monday.
That 78 million includes all the available unleased areas in the Gulf’s federal waters not subject to drilling prohibitions imposed by Congress, the department said in a press release.
The upcoming sale, however, is likely to bring challenge from environmental groups, who have consistently sought the court’s help to stymie Trump administration efforts to expand fossil fuel development. And the sale comes as the Interior Department’s broader plans to expand oil and gas leasing even further are largely in limbo due to legal setbacks.
The Rundown
Reuters Biggest US index funds oppose most climate proposals in shareholder votes
New York Times Pipelines from Russia cross political lines
Wall Street Journal PG&E warns it may cut power for 600,000 customers due to wildfire risk
Bloomberg: Big oil’s renewable shift seen flooding shareholders with cash
Casper Star-Tribune: Federal government investigating bankrupt Wyoming coal mine operator for fraud
Calendar
TUESDAY | OCTOBER 8
House and Senate are out
