Senate Republicans: Give Us Nuclear, Offshore Drilling, We’ll Consider Cap-and-Trade

By Jeff St. John

Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham is making Senate Democrats an offer - give us support for nuclear power and offshore oil and gas drilling, and we'll consider supporting a cap-and-trade program.

The South Carolina senator told the Houston Chronicle on Tuesday that he and "more than a handful" of Republican senators might throw their support behind climate and energy legislation now before Congress - but only with concessions on the nuclear and offshore drilling fronts.

It's the latest development in the fight over climate and energy legislation. The American Clean Energy and Security Act passed by the House in June would aim to cut the nation's greenhouse-gas emissions by 17 percent by 2020 and by about 83 percent by 2050 through a cap-and-trade program (see Energy-Climate Bill Could Boost Electricity Costs 20% by 2030).

But cap-and-trade faces a tougher battle in the senate, where backers including Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) have questioned whether it can be passed this year (see Green Light post).

Sens. John Kerry (D-Mass.) and Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) have introduced a bill that includes a more aggressive program to reduce carbon emissions by 20 percent by 2020, though the bill has dropped the cap-and-trade term in favor of "pollution reduction and investment," the Associated Press reports (see Green Light post).

But the Senate bill leaves open a key question also unanswered by the House bill - just how allowances for emitting industries will be allocated. That's important, since utilities, oil and gas companies and other big emitters want at least a portion of their emission permits for free to ease the costs of compliance (see House Energy Bill Draft: Cap-and-Trade Included).

Sen. Kerry has said he's willing to talk with Republicans on the nuclear and offshore drilling fronts, the New York Times reported Wednesday.

Graham told the Times that he wants nuclear power to be counted for proposed national renewable power standards and given similar tax credits to those now enjoyed by wind and solar power. As for offshore drilling, he pointed to a proposal that would expand drilling in the Gulf of Mexico and off the coasts of Virginia, North and South Carolina and Georgia.

The Kerry-Boxer bill offers the nuclear power industry only minor changes in the form of incentives for worker training and lengthening the licensing of power plants, and doesn't mention offshore drilling. House Republicans in June failed to gain support for an energy bill that boosted nuclear power and offshore drilling (see Green Light post).

Comments

[tripleblack:]

Interesting offer. Old fashioned, hard boiled political horse trading.

I will be astonished if the Democrats go for it, even to get something as cherished as Cap and Trade.

Offshore drilling is anathema to their power base.

Oct 07 08:43 PM

[pockyclips ...:]

Trading terrorist oil for commie nukes isn't in America's best interest.
Over 90% of uranium is from Russia and former Soviet republic
Kazakhstan. What little that is produced is already heavily subsidized
from initial dig to power plant decommission. If wind and solar would have been subsidized in the past as much as oil and nukes, we'd
be on the home stretch for energy independence.

Oct 08 08:24 AM

[jerrydd:]

Pockyclips, Nuke fuel from Russia only peaked because we were using their old nuke warheads which I think is a extremely smart move on all sides. Soon we'll be doing more that way.

Uranium is not rare and we have plenty in the US, not mined now because until recently, there was little market for it. They are thinking of extracting it again from the phosphate mines here in Fla even.

To say nukes need more subsidies is a hoot as nukes are the most subsidized fuel already!! I say stop all subsidies and make indirect subsidies in fuels to pay their full cost then we would have a fair, free market in which fossil fuels will be tamed as far less expensive RE is the low cost source then. Until the Nuke, Oil, coal direct and socialized cost is in them, a free market will not be..

Cap and Trade needs to be changed to Obama's Cap and Tax starting low but ramping up fast to encourage emitters to change their ways and stop wasting energy.

With some additional equipment many powerplants could make 50-100% more power from the same fuel. To cut fuel costs it should be done now but unless the corporate welfare subsidies to fossil fuels stop, it's going to be far slower. They did this here in Tampa/TECO and our electric bill only went up 1%. Fuel is your large cost, far cheaper is more eff equipment.

Nukes now cost $8.5k/kw which is double or more of wind, solar CSP, tidal/river, biomass power. Until their price drops, it;'s far better to go RE, faster, far more jobs too.

So Repubs are saying more subsidies, corporate welfare for losing tech, so typical. The party of the corporation, by the corporation and for the corporation.

If they want nuke, they would be better off forcing DOE to allow new nuke tech instead of hindering it. But they are paid by present nuke interest that don't want competition. Smaller reactors, Heat modules, ect are the real future of nuke, not the huge plants of today.

Oct 08 09:01 AM

[Jimbo:]

I understand the U.S. has 25% of the worlds' supply of thorium which is supposed to be much safer for power generation. If this is correct, we need a crash program to build thorium reactors to enlarge the electric grid. Then Jerrydd can have his EVs.

Oct 08 12:24 PM

[GimliJan:]

Jimbo and jerrydd both make excellent points about the need for more free market pricing and less government subsidies and regulation of pricing. I also live in Fla. (jax.) but am working in the middle east. It amazes me that we have so much renewable energy sources and that the U.S and state governments are stuck in a 1900 mindset about energy generation. Big Industrial plants burning coal or oil to make energy should no longer be the "norm". FPL is bringing a 25 megawatt solar generation plant online according to another article here. They are also building a parabolic mirror co-generation plant. DOW just announced solar roofing shingles. I am not saying we can get all of our energy from renewable clean sources like solar, wind, wave, geothermal, etc. but we could greatly reduce our dependence on oil by diversifying and maximizing our energy generation and transmission technologies. Thorium is a very clean, safe fuel for nuclear reactors and has been in use in Europe for at least 20 years. And you can't use it for nuclear warheads (Iran and N. Korea....hmmm we help you build thorium plants and take all your enriched uranium to use in our older nuclear plants. win, win)

Oct 08 12:46 PM

[Midwest guy:]

Thanks guys
Nice insight.

Oct 08 05:01 PM

[William Dav...:]

The Nuclear industry must of had more subsidies over the years than any other industry, but "its different this time".

From an investors point of view its never going to be a great investment if it relies on tax payers. Its a far from ideal energy source and I am not talking safety. Its either on or off and so needs significant backup. The capital costs are very high and while the fuel is relatively cheap, the running costs are not. Then there are the decommissoning costs that add that extra bit of uncertainty for the investor. Probably the best nuclear investment is with those that build it, owning one long term is a liablity.

Oct 10 12:47 PM