Secretary Moniz Looks Ahead:

A Five-Year Window

This week, the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) sponsored an event on "Nuclear Energy at a Crossroads."  (A video from the meeting is on their website.)

The meeting featured an opening keynote presentation by Secretary of Energy Ernie Moniz, followed by three panel sessions:  1) Global and U.S. Outlooks for Nuclear Power, 2) Key Developments in the Global Nuclear Industry, and 3) Nuclear Retirements: Policy, Economic and Climate Implications.  The panelists in the sessions that followed included:

Laszlo Varro, Chief Economist, International Energy Agency
Frank Graves, Principal and Utility Practice Area Leader, Brattle Group
Tina Taylor, Director, Nuclear Sector, Electric Power Research Institute
Jonathan Hinze, Executive Vice President, International, UxC
Shoichi Itoh, Senior Analyst, Global Energy, Institute for Energy Economics - Japan
The Hon. Allison Macfarlane, Director, Center for International Science and Technology Policy, Elliott School of International Affairs, George Washington University
Eric Knox, Senior Project Director, Nuclear & Environment, AECOM
and Whitney Herndon, Research Analyst, Rhodium Group.

While it is difficult to summarize such a meeting succinctly, this diverse and distinguished group was able to address a variety of issues associated with the US and global nuclear power programs and prospects.  Collectively, this group represented international, Japanese, and American perspectives, as well as different sectors in the nuclear field.  In addition to their current titles, some of the speakers have previous affiliations that were relevant for the discussions.  For example, Allison Macfarlane, of course, is a former chair of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and Eric Knox was formerly at the U.S. Department of Energy in the office of waste management.  

The stage was set very nicely by Secretary Moniz, when he opened the meeting by commenting that he sees a 5-year window for a number of decisions affecting longer-term nuclear developments.  He named 8 important developments that he saw would reach pivotal points in the next 5 years.  Many of the subsequent presentations addressed issues in some of those 8 areas.

On a personal level, I was particularly interested that Sec. Moniz said that electricity and telecom are key elements to all our infrastructure.  This was important to me because my career has been on the energy side, while my husband's has been in telecom, and more than once over the years, we've noted just what Sec. Moniz said about the importance of the two sectors.  It was nice to see that importance recognized by the Secretary of Energy as well.

Obviously, this would be a very long blog if I tried to summarize the presentations of all the speakers, as well as of the Q&A.  I will simply urge interested readers to take advantage of the material CSIS has posted on their website, and to read the link summarizing the points Sec. Moniz made.  The video of the conference (about 6 hours) can be accessed by clicking on the photograph at the top of the page.   

***

Nuclear Power and Election 2014:

What Lies Ahead?

The 2014 election results are in, with a big win for Republicans, so the speculation has already started about a number of issues, nuclear power among them.  While I don't usually publish blogposts two days in a row, as a long-term "Inside the Beltway" resident, I feel compelled to weigh in.

First, as everyone knows by now, the election put the Republicans in the majority in the Senate, so, for the last two years of Obama's presidency, he will face a Republican majority in both the House and Senate.  Many people see Republicans as stronger supporters of nuclear power than Democrats and therefore are anticipating a number of positive actions from Congress for the nuclear industry.

However, it is not clear how much of a change the new Republican majority will really bring to the nuclear industry.  For one thing, nuclear power isn't the only issue on Congress's agenda.  In fact, it isn't even the main issue.  Some of the favored causes of the Republican majority are likely to be trumped by an even greater favorite cause--the budget.  Therefore, it is not clear whether the Republican support for nuclear power will really translate into more funding for advanced nuclear R&D or more loan guarantees for new projects.  I wouldn't rule out some boost, but under the current fiscal environment, I wouldn't count on it either.

Another issue we often forget is that many Republicans come from states with very strong fossil fuel interests.  These states have been chafing under the increasing pressure to implement measures to reduce carbon emissions--the so-called "War on Coal."  Nuclear power has already been suffering from the current low prices of fossil fuels, and the new congressional lineup is unlikely to do anything that would favor any technologies over coal, oil and gas.  In fact, as Jim Conca points out in his blog at Forbes, nuclear power doesn't have any significant constituency.  It doesn't have a state leading the charge for uranium, like West Virginia, Texas, and Pennsylvania do for coal, oil and natural gas, and it has a much smaller total number of employees than the fossil industry has.

The Republican majority may have more influence on the regulatory side than on the operational or R&D sides, but even there, the crystal ball is still a bit foggy.  Sen. Harry Reid certainly loses his position as Senate Majority Leader.  Whether or not he can snag the position as Senate Minority Leader is still up in the air.  If he does get that position, he can still exert some influence over White House nominations.  However, there is a good chance that he will not get that position.  If the Senate Democratic membership sees his political stance as contributing to their downfall, they may turn to someone else who they think can rally more support in the next election.  That decision remains to be made.

Even if Reid does become Senate Minority Leader, though, the Republican control of the Senate means that it will be much more difficult to appoint someone to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) who has a strong agenda on a particular issue, such as Yucca Mountain.

Whoever becomes Senate Minority Leader, we will still face the fact that there will be two Democratic Commission positions to be filled during the coming two years.  Indeed, action on these positions should start almost immediately.  Chairman Allison Macfarlane just announced that she will step down from her position on January 1, and the recent appointment of Commissioner Jeffrey Baran expires on June 30, 2015.  (That appointment was only to the remaining term of the position vacated by Commissioner Bill Magwood.)

(When Baran was appointed, I remember thinking that it was curious that he was appointed for a term of less than a year.  In the past, when such short time periods were involved, individuals were often nominated and confirmed for the following term at the same time.  I wondered at the time whether there were factions that wanted to see Baran in action before agreeing to a longer appointment.)

Historically, the positions on the NRC have not been the President's or the Senate's highest priority.  However, if neither position is filled, on July 1, the NRC will operate with a 3-member Commission, 2 of whom are Republicans.  Normally, the Administration would be likely to try to avoid such a lineup, but if there are no real "hot-button" issues before the Commission, the Administration may not want to expend its political capital on the NRC.  And since the two vacancies are both for Democratic slots, it would not be possible to "pair" the appointments (i.e., nominate a Democrat and a Republican together) as has become the practice in recent years.

The next position of a Republican to be filled will be that of Commissioner Bill Ostendorff.  His term ends June 30, 2016.  It is possible that all appointments could be delayed until then, but that would introduce a serious risk of the NRC having to operate with a 2-member Commission.  While that has happened before, it is an undesirable situation, and there will be some pressure not to allow that to happen.  I believe that Ostendorff is well respected.  However, the presidential election will be looming by that time, and that has often slowed appointments in the past, especially if a change in the party controlling the White House is anticipated. 

I should also note the impact of all of this on the position of NRC Chairman.  Most readers will know that the designation of the Chairman is at the sole discretion of the President.  However, the President can select only among the Commissioners who have been confirmed by the Senate.  Thus, presuming that no new Commissioner is nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate before January 1 (and I think it would be almost impossible for that to happen), the President may only select from among the sitting Commissioners.  He may name the individual Chairman or Acting Chairman.  Although he can appoint any of the four Commissioners (Stephen Burns was just sworn in as Commissioner as I was writing this the morning of November 5), the likelihood is that he will turn to one of the two Democrats.  Most people feel that Commissioner Burns will get the nod because of his greater experience, but it is not yet clear whether he will become Chairman or Acting Chairman.

So, as usual in Washington, despite the decisiveness of this election, we are still faced with a number of uncertainties in how significant the election will prove to the nuclear industry.  The election seems to promise some changes, but to what extent they will be realized will depend on decisions still to be made and on external factors that are not yet completely clear.  Things may become a little clearer as the consequences of the election begin to play out in the Senate leadership positions and in other actions.

***

Reid, Magwood, Jaczko:

The Saga Continues

Those of us who live and work "inside the Beltway" can sometimes get a little smug in our conviction that we really understand how things work around here.  Recent events, however, are leading me to question my own sense of certainty about my understanding.

The first blow to my feeling that I "know the ropes" came last December, when the news went public that four of the Commissioners at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission had written a letter to the White House complaining about the behavior of its then-Chairman, Gregory Jaczko.  I don't want to go so far as to assert that this event is unique in the history of the Republic, but in the more than six months since that incident, I have not been able to find anyone who can point to a comparable incident.  After all, this letter was endorsed by all of Jaczko's peers on the Commission, by both Democrats and Republicans, and was not a closed-door intervention, but rather, was a message to the very top of the Administration. 

With the departure of Jaczko at the end of June and his replacement by Dr. Allison Macfarlane as Chairman, I would have thought that the story had come to a logical conclusion.  Not so.  In recent days, I see that the issue is still simmering.  In the first place, Jaczko's friends and former Senate colleagues put on a farewell-cum-fundraising party for Jaczko, to help him pay off the legal expenses he incurred defending himself against the charges brought against him, and have now established a website to collect additional funds.

For those who may wonder why he needed legal support, since he was not sued and had no court appearances, I know from my own past, when I worked for the government, that I frequently got advertisements for insurance that would cover legal costs that might be incurred in defending oneself against accusations of wrong-doing.  (And in fact, agency guidance always recommended hiring legal counsel in such cases.)  Therefore, the fact that he had an attorney was probably prudent of him.  The fact that he did not carry the insurance was surely a mistake.  The fact that his colleagues are publicly raising money for this purpose is an unseemly postscript to this unfortunate affair.

And yesterday, I discovered that the saga has still not ended.  In a piece published in Huffington Post, Senator Reid made a strong attack on Commissioner Magwood, accusing him of lying and calling him various unflattering names.  Again, I can't confirm that this is completely unprecedented--and I do know that Senators and Congressmen sometimes resort to name-calling--but this incident certainly has some unusual overtones.  Name-calling is usually reserved for members of the opposite Party; Senator Reid and Commissioner Magwood are both Democrats.  Name-calling usually occurs in the heat of the battle; this battle would seem to be over, with Jaczko ousted and a new Chairman--in fact, one who was Reid's choice--installed.

In fact, the biggest question my friends and I have been debating in the past day or so is:  Why now?  The end of the article suggests that Reid "wasn't looking to eviscerate Magwood and would have kept his concerns private if he hadn't been asked."  That seems disingenuous to me.  Surely, a Senator could respond to such a question by saying that this chapter is closed.  After all, it is hard to imagine a likely scenario where Magwood could be appointed Chairman of the NRC.  If Romney wins the election, he will appoint a Republican.  If Obama wins, Macfarlane will most likely stay in her position.  There is a hint in the final sentence of the article that Reid might be trying to assure that Magwood is not nominated for any other position.  One wonders if that means that something along those lines has been floated?  Or if he is posturing to help Obama in the State of Nevada? 

So this whole episode appears to be lingering long beyond what we'd all expected.  At this point, I don't suppose it is any special "inside the Beltway" wisdom or insight to say that it seems that the saga is not yet over, but the only thing most of us can do now is to stay tuned. 

***

Selecting NRC Commissioners:

What are the Job Requirements?

It may seem somewhat of an irony that the rules for selecting the leadership of the NRC are different from the rules for selecting staff.  While the NRC prides itself on the academic qualifications of its staff and the high level of experience of those in line management, Commissioners are not selected by the same rules.

With the nomination of Dr. Allison Macfarlane to be an NRC Commissioner and Chairman of the Commission, the discussion of qualifications has been opened once again.  Concerns have been expressed because her doctorate is in geology, not in nuclear engineering, and because she has no management experience.

Are these valid criticisms?  What should the academic and experience requirements be to be an NRC Commissioner?  To be the Chairman of the NRC?

Let's look first at the technical qualifications.  If you look back over the history of the NRC, we have had Commissioners from a variety of backgrounds.  Some, but not a majority, have been nuclear engineers.  Many, but not all, have been scientists.  Some have been attorneys.   Some of the Commissioners who were not trained as nuclear engineers worked on nuclear issues on Capitol Hill.  Others did not.  A few Commissioners have been businessmen from totally outside the nuclear field.  Most Chairmen have had management experience, but some have had none.   

Most of us who have watched the Commission for many years can probably point to the Commissioners and the Chairmen we thought did a great job and the ones who we thought weren't so great.  I daresay if we each looked honestly at our own lists, the names on them would not all be nuclear engineers.  They would likely be a mix.

What is it that has distinguished the ones we thought were great?  It is that they were smart and thoughtful.  They were objective and open-minded.  They were safety-focused and realistic.  They took the trouble to develop an understanding of the technical issues, they listened to all points of view, and they were willing to work with the staff and the other Commissioners to arrive at sound decisions. 

A nuclear engineer can do those things, but so can a physicist, a chemist, an attorney, or an English major.  Or a geologist.

As a nuclear engineer myself, I do, of course, like to think that nuclear engineers can do a better job than others.  Certainly, it has to be helpful.  But I am hard pressed to say it is necessary.  NRC's work spans many technical disciplines, not all of them reactor-related.

What is more relevant than her academic discipline is whether Dr. Macfarlane has the ability to review all issues before the Commission fairly and objectively.  She comes into the job with positions on several issues that may not be in line with those of the other Commissioners.  What is relevant is how she is likely to handle those issues. 

The other issue that has been raised is Dr. Macfarlane's lack of management experience.  This certainly is a valid concern, but it may not be the make-or-break issue.  What may be more important, particularly in the current environment, is her interpersonal skills.  Since I do not know Dr. Macfarlane personally, I can't comment on those.

I have deliberately chosen not to take a public position on this nomination because I do not believe that I have all the facts.  While there are certainly other individuals who could have been selected for this position and who would not arouse the same degree of concern, that is a moot point.

The focus at this point should be on assessing whether Dr. Macfarlane can act fairly and impartially on all issues that may come before the Commission.  A geologist should be able to do that.  The question is--Can this geologist do that?

***