Advertisement

June 19, 2013

Has the Nuclear Renaissance Finally Begun?

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) voted 4-1 on February 9 to issue Combined Operating Licenses (COL) for two new nuclear units at the Southern Company’s Vogtle site in Georgia.  The two new reactors are the first to be approved since 1978.  Their approval is the culmination of years of effort by the Federal government to reinvigorate the country’s nuclear industry.  Environmental groups have promised to file a lawsuit challenging the permits.

A COL authorizes the licensee to construct and operate a nuclear power plant at a specific site.  Seventeen COL applications are currently pending before the NRC, although four applicants have asked the NRC to suspend further consideration at this time.  Most of the applicant projects are based in states whose laws and regulations guarantee recovery of the reactor’s multi-billion dollar construction cost in the sponsoring utility’s rate-base.

The NRC received the Vogtle application in March 2008, and the review process included assessments of environmental impacts, operational programs, and site safety.  Like the new Vogtle reactors, nearly all of the proposed reactors in the U.S. are to be located at sites that already have at least one nuclear facility.  Applicants hope that colocating reactors at existing sites will speed the approval processes.  

The renewed interest in building nuclear reactors is partially due to the Department of Energy’s Nuclear Power 2010 program and the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPAct).  Under the 2010 program, DOE provided funding for companies to submit COL applications.  EPAct created a loan guarantee program, authorized a tax credit for nuclear electricity, funded research and development, and extended the Price-Anderson Act, which indemnifies the industry against damage claims arising from nuclear incidents.  The owners of the new unit are benefitting from an $8.3 billion loan guarantee and may earn up to $250 million annually in federal tax credits if the reactors generate power by 2021. In addition, as the first licensee using an advanced reactor design, Vogtle can receive up to $500 million under EPAct to cover the cost of litigation or regulatory delays.    

Environmental groups have already announced their intention to challenge the licenses.  The Southern Alliance for Clean Energy (SACE) and eight other groups will claim that the Vogtle applicants must prepare a new environmental impact statement (EIS) that accounts for the lessons learned from the 2011 nuclear accident at Fukushima.  The lawsuit will argue that the new EIS should include how the cooling systems and spent fuel storage pools will be designed to protect against floods, earthquakes and prolonged losses of power, as well as updated emergency plans for accidents affecting multiple reactors at the site.  SACE is also involved in a Freedom of Information Act proceeding to obtain documents relating to the Vogtle loan guarantee.

© 2013 McDermott Will & Emery

About the Author

Associate

Ari Peskoe is an associate in the law firm of McDermott Will & Emery LLP and is based in the Firm’s Washington, D.C., office. He focuses his practice on regulatory, legislative, compliance and transactional issues related to energy and commodities markets.

202-756-8094

Boost: AJAX core statistics

Legal Disclaimer

You are responsible for reading, understanding and agreeing to the National Law Review's (NLR’s) and the National Law Forum LLC's  Terms of Use and Privacy Policy before using the National Law Review website. The National Law Review is a free to use, no-log in database of legal and business articles. The content and links on www.NatLawReview.com are intended for general information purposes only. Any legal analysis, legislative updates or other content and links should not be construed as legal or professional advice or a substitute for such advice. No attorney-client or confidential relationship is formed by the transmission of information between you and the National Law Review website or any of the law firms, attorneys or other professionals or organizations who include content on the National Law Review website. If you require legal or professional advice, kindly contact an attorney or other suitable professional advisor.  

Some states have laws and ethical rules regarding solicitation and advertisement practices by attorneys and/or other professionals. NLR does not accept advertising from attorneys or law firms. The National Law Review is not a law firm nor is www.NatLawReview.com  intended to be an advertisement or a referral service for attorneys and/or other professionals. The NLR does not wish, nor does it intend, to solicit the business of anyone or to refer anyone to an attorney or other professional.  NLR does not answer legal questions nor will we refer you to an attorney or other professional if you request such information from us. 

Under certain state laws the following statements may be required on this website and we have included them in order to be in full compliance with these rules. The choice of a lawyer or other professional is an important decision and should not be based solely upon advertisements. Attorney Advertising Notice: Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Statement in compliance with Texas Rules of Professional Conduct. Unless otherwise noted, attorneys are not certified by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, nor can NLR attest to the accuracy of any notation of Legal Specialization or other Professional Credentials.