Skip to main content

How U.S. Nuclear Energy Export Regulations Are Hindering American Business and Costing Jobs

Construction at the Sanmen Nuclear Power Station in China.
Earlier this week, the law firm of Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw LLP issued a report concerning the legal and regulatory obstacles that stand in the way of U.S. companies fully capitalizing on the international growth of the nuclear energy industry.

From the NEI press release:
To the detriment of U.S. national security interests and the economy, U.S. energy companies and manufacturers face impediments in capitalizing on the enormous market opportunities presented by the global growth of nuclear energy, business and industry leaders said today in unveiling a new report on nuclear export challenges.

The report comparing nuclear energy trade regimes in five leading supplier nations concludes that “the U.S. export control regime places (U.S. companies) at a serious disadvantage next to their competitors in the international export market.”
Following the release of the report, representatives from Pillsbury, NEI, Exelon Generation and the National Association of Manufacturers held a press conference to discuss the findings of the report in more detail (click here for the presentation slides). In the wake of the press conference, here's what BloombergBusiness Week had to report:
Regulations unchanged since the end of the Cold War impede U.S. companies in gaining export licenses, putting suppliers at a global disadvantage, according to a report released today by the Nuclear Energy Institute, a Washington-based group whose members include Exelon Corp. (EXC) and Southern Co. (SO)

U.S. rules are “more complex, restrictive and time- consuming to fulfill” than in France, Japan, Russia and South Korea, where competing suppliers are based, according to the report. The global market may be worth a quarter of a trillion dollars within a decade.
Given that we're in the midst of a Presidential election where job creation is the most pressing concern, these aren't exactly idle questions. Here's some coverage from E2 Wire at The Hill:
Specifically, the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) says DOE should change a rule, known as Part 810, to enhance exports to a list of restricted nations for products — such as consulting services and software — that it says do not pose a nuclear proliferation threat.

The rule change would allow U.S. commercial nuclear firms to discuss operations with foreign partners more freely, according to NEI.

The group said the rule change would remove a competitive disadvantage for U.S. firms in the global market.

Currently, the rule requires U.S. companies to obtain advance authorization to speak about nuclear plans with a list of restricted countries, out of concern for nuclear proliferation. On average in 2011, that clearance took a little less than one year, according to a NEI-commissioned report discussed Monday.

DOE issued a proposed update to the rule in September 2011, but that significantly increased the amount of technology subjected to agency authorization. The nuclear industry criticized the rule, and DOE decided to revise it once again — a process that is still ongoing.
So how much is at stake for American business? Here's Platts:
The US Department of Commerce estimates the world market for nuclear power technology, fuel and related services and equipment at "upwards of" $750 billion over the next 10 years, Richard Myers, vice president for policy development, planning and supplier programs at NEI, said at a press conference Monday in Washington to release a report the US nuclear power industry commissioned on the topic.

"It is a myth that the US nuclear supply chain has disappeared," Myers said. Most manufacturing of large "heavy metal" components for nuclear power plants, such as reactor vessels, is now done in Asia, but many US firms manufacture "precision components" for the nuclear industry and would stand to benefit from increased ability to compete with other countries, Myers said.
For additional coverage see Fuel Fix, Energy Biz, Nuclear Engineering International and NAM Shopfloor.

Comments

donb said…
I seems like there are still too many people in regulatory positions in the Federal Government who think that the United States can control who in the world can get access to nuclear technology. The truth is there are now multiple sources of such technology outside of the United States. Hanging on to regulations from the old control mindset only hinders the access of US-based manufacturers to international nuclear energy equipment markets without making any significant impact in the area of proliferation.

Popular posts from this blog

An Ohio School Board Is Working to Save Nuclear Plants

Ohio faces a decision soon about its two nuclear reactors, Davis-Besse and Perry, and on Wednesday, neighbors of one of those plants issued a cry for help. The reactors’ problem is that the price of electricity they sell on the high-voltage grid is depressed, mostly because of a surplus of natural gas. And the reactors do not get any revenue for the other benefits they provide. Some of those benefits are regional – emissions-free electricity, reliability with months of fuel on-site, and diversity in case of problems or price spikes with gas or coal, state and federal payroll taxes, and national economic stimulus as the plants buy fuel, supplies and services. Some of the benefits are highly localized, including employment and property taxes. One locality is already feeling the pinch: Oak Harbor on Lake Erie, home to Davis-Besse. The town has a middle school in a building that is 106 years old, and an elementary school from the 1950s, and on May 2 was scheduled to have a referendu

Why Ex-Im Bank Board Nominations Will Turn the Page on a Dysfunctional Chapter in Washington

In our present era of political discord, could Washington agree to support an agency that creates thousands of American jobs by enabling U.S. companies of all sizes to compete in foreign markets? What if that agency generated nearly billions of dollars more in revenue than the cost of its operations and returned that money – $7 billion over the past two decades – to U.S. taxpayers? In fact, that agency, the Export-Import Bank of the United States (Ex-Im Bank), was reauthorized by a large majority of Congress in 2015. To be sure, the matter was not without controversy. A bipartisan House coalition resorted to a rarely-used parliamentary maneuver in order to force a vote. But when Congress voted, Ex-Im Bank won a supermajority in the House and a large majority in the Senate. For almost two years, however, Ex-Im Bank has been unable to function fully because a single Senate committee chairman prevented the confirmation of nominees to its Board of Directors. Without a quorum

NEI Praises Connecticut Action in Support of Nuclear Energy

Earlier this week, Connecticut Gov. Dannel P. Malloy signed SB-1501 into law, legislation that puts nuclear energy on an equal footing with other non-emitting sources of energy in the state’s electricity marketplace. “Gov. Malloy and the state legislature deserve praise for their decision to support Dominion’s Millstone Power Station and the 1,500 Connecticut residents who work there," said NEI President and CEO Maria Korsnick. "By opening the door to Millstone having equal access to auctions open to other non-emitting sources of electricity, the state will help preserve $1.5 billion in economic activity, grid resiliency and reliability, and clean air that all residents of the state can enjoy," Korsnick said. Millstone Power Station Korsnick continued, "Connecticut is the third state to re-balance its electricity marketplace, joining New York and Illinois, which took their own legislative paths to preserving nuclear power plants in 2016. Now attention should