Skip to main content

NARUC's View on Suspension of the Nuclear Waste Fee

Over at our main website, we've just published a Q&A with the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners on what might happen next with the Nuclear Waste Fee. Among the takeaways:
  • As of Dec. 31, 2013, consumers have paid more than $20 billion into fund
  • While fee is no longer being collected, interest accrues on the balance
  • NARUC believes once program "gets back on its feet," collection of the fee would resume
The fee totaled about $750 million a year industrywide and, since its inception, more than $20 billion has been paid into the fund by nuclear energy consumers. See map for totals by state:


Our readers will recall that the fee was suspended last month after an appellate court ruled last November that in light of the department’s termination of the Yucca Mountain repository program, DOE could not continue to collect the surcharge of one-tenth of a cent per kilowatt-hour on consumers of nuclear-generated electricity. Here's what NEI's Marv Fertel had to say last month when the fee was finally suspended.



For more details on nuclear waste management, see our website.

Comments

The nuclear waste fund should be used to finance:

1. The building of temporary Federal spent fuel repositories located in every State that produces spent fuel.

2. The building of spent fuel reprocessing plants to gradually introduce reprocessed fuel into current reactors and eventually into next generation thorium reactors.

Treating spent fuel like hazardous waste instead of as a reusable source of clean energy only helps to demonize the commercial nuclear industry, IMO.

Marcel
Joffan said…
A $20 billion fund has power to change things without even spending it. This could be used as assurance to justify widespread low-interest loans for nuclear construction without any fees or claims of subsidy - it's the nuclear industry that is subsidizing the government right now, after all.
Anonymous said…
The waste fee is/was paid by electricity consumers, not "the nuclear industry." That fee is for management and disposal of spent nuclear fuel from commercial power reactors, not development of the nuclear power industry.
Mitch said…
Marcel F. Williams said...>Treating spent fuel like hazardous waste instead of as a reusable source of clean energy only helps to demonize the commercial nuclear industry, IMO.<

Can't be shouted hard enough!
Anonymous said…
NEI is thumping its chest over Harry Reid smirking while you filed suit to stop the collection of financial resources needed to review an active license application, close the fuel cycle and regain waste confidence? Guys, your lawyers are myopic, you've won a lawsuit this is going to lose you the war. It isn't just about resuming NWF contributions (BTW, that is such a shallow analysis that it hurts my head just reading it) because the momentum and critical mass for the entire program has been obliterated. Stopping the contributions was a totally wasted effort. You guys were duped and diverted. The focus should have been on the Mandamus, contempt of the court with some jail time to think about it, no confidence votes in Congress, and investigations of malfeasance in the Senate ML office and White House, and misfeasance in the Jaczko, MacFarlane, Chu and Moniz regiemes.

Popular posts from this blog

How Nanomaterials Can Make Nuclear Reactors Safer and More Efficient

The following is a guest post from Matt Wald, senior communications advisor at NEI. Follow Matt on Twitter at @MattLWald.

From the batteries in our cell phones to the clothes on our backs, "nanomaterials" that are designed molecule by molecule are working their way into our economy and our lives. Now there’s some promising work on new materials for nuclear reactors.

Reactors are a tough environment. The sub atomic particles that sustain the chain reaction, neutrons, are great for splitting additional uranium atoms, but not all of them hit a uranium atom; some of them end up in various metal components of the reactor. The metal is usually a crystalline structure, meaning it is as orderly as a ladder or a sheet of graph paper, but the neutrons rearrange the atoms, leaving some infinitesimal voids in the structure and some areas of extra density. The components literally grow, getting longer and thicker. The phenomenon is well understood and designers compensate for it with a …

Why America Needs the MOX Facility

If Isaiah had been a nuclear engineer, he’d have loved this project. And the Trump Administration should too, despite the proposal to eliminate it in the FY 2018 budget.

The project is a massive factory near Aiken, S.C., that will take plutonium from the government’s arsenal and turn it into fuel for civilian power reactors. The plutonium, made by the United States during the Cold War in a competition with the Soviet Union, is now surplus, and the United States and the Russian Federation jointly agreed to reduce their stocks, to reduce the chance of its use in weapons. Over two thousand construction workers, technicians and engineers are at work to enable the transformation.

Carrying Isaiah’s “swords into plowshares” vision into the nuclear field did not originate with plutonium. In 1993, the United States and Russia began a 20-year program to take weapons-grade uranium out of the Russian inventory, dilute it to levels appropriate for civilian power plants, and then use it to produce…

Nuclear Is a Long-Term Investment for Ohio that Will Pay Big

With 50 different state legislative calendars, more than half of them adjourn by June, and those still in session throughout the year usually take a recess in the summer. So springtime is prime time for state legislative activity. In the next few weeks, legislatures are hosting hearings and calling for votes on bills that have been battered back and forth in the capital halls.

On Tuesday, The Ohio Public Utilities Committee hosted its third round of hearings on the Zero Emissions Nuclear Resources Program, House Bill 178, and NEI’s Maria Korsnick testified before a jam-packed room of legislators.


Washingtonians parachuting into state debates can be a tricky platform, but in this case, Maria’s remarks provided national perspective that put the Ohio conundrum into context. At the heart of this debate is the impact nuclear plants have on local jobs and the local economy, and that nuclear assets should be viewed as “long-term investments” for the state. Of course, clean air and electrons …