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

Making Clouds for a Living

Donell Banks works at Southern Nuclear’s Plant Vogtle units 3 and 4 as a shift supervisor in Operations, but is in the process of transitioning to his newly appointed role as the daily work controls manager. He has been in the nuclear energy industry for about 11 years.

I love what I do because I have the unique opportunity to help shape the direction and influence the culture for the future of nuclear power in the United States. Every single day presents a new challenge, but I wouldn't have it any other way. As a shift supervisor, I was primarily responsible for managing the development of procedures and programs to support operation of the first new nuclear units in the United States in more than 30 years. As the daily work controls manager, I will be responsible for oversight of the execution and scheduling of daily work to ensure organizational readiness to operate the new units.

I envision a nuclear energy industry that leverages the technology of today to improve efficiency…

Nuclear: Energy for All Political Seasons

The electoral college will soon confirm a surprise election result, Donald Trump. However, in the electricity world, there are fewer surprises – physics and economics will continue to apply, and Republicans and Democrats are going to find a lot to like about nuclear energy over the next four years.

In a Trump administration, the carbon conversation is going to be less prominent. But the nuclear value proposition is still there. We bring steady jobs to rural areas, including in the Rust Belt, which put Donald Trump in office. Nuclear plants keep the surrounding communities vibrant.

We hold down electricity costs for the whole economy. We provide energy diversity, reducing the risk of disruption. We are a critical part of America’s industrial infrastructure, and the importance of infrastructure is something that President-Elect Trump has stressed.

One of our infrastructure challenges is natural gas pipelines, which have gotten more congested as extremely low gas prices have pulled m…

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 …