BILL ANALYSIS �
AB 1891
Page 1
Date of Hearing: April 23, 2012
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES
Wesley Chesbro, Chair
AB 1891 (Wagner) - As Introduced: February 22, 2012
SUBJECT : Energy: nuclear energy: study
SUMMARY : Requires the California Energy Commission (CEC) to
prepare a report on how electric utilities can meet consumer
demand for electricity consistent with applicable greenhouse gas
(GHG) emission standards, including recommendations on the role
nuclear energy may serve in meeting those GHG emission
standards.
EXISTING LAW :
1)Requires the CEC to assess electricity infrastructure trends
and issues facing California and develop and recommend energy
policies for the state to address and resolve such issues as
part of its biennial Integrated Energy Policy Report (IEPR).
2)Requires the Air Resources Board (ARB) to adopt a statewide
GHG emissions limit equivalent to 1990 levels by 2020 and
adopt regulations to achieve maximum technologically feasible
and cost-effective GHG emission reductions.
3)Requires the CEC and the Public Utilities Commission to
establish and enforce GHG emission performance standards for
power plants, and prohibits electric utilities from entering
long-term financial commitments with power plants that do not
meet the emission performance standards.
4)Grants the CEC exclusive authority to certify thermal power
plants 50 megawatts and larger and prohibits any new nuclear
fission power plant until the CEC has determined that
technologies exist for the reprocessing of nuclear fuel rods
and the disposal of high-level nuclear waste.
FISCAL EFFECT : Unknown
COMMENTS :
1)Climate change and nuclear energy. The terms "global warming"
and "global climate change" refer to the rise in the average
AB 1891
Page 2
temperature of the earth's climate due to an accumulation of
"greenhouse gases" in the atmosphere. Greenhouse gases
include carbon dioxide (CO2), methane, nitrous oxide,
hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons and sulfur hexafluoride.
California has seen a modest increase in greenhouse gas
emissions over the last decade. This increase is the
consequence of several divergent forces within California,
some leading to increases in greenhouse gas emissions, and
others negating those increases.
Several key California industries emit only moderate amounts
of carbon dioxide. With a relatively temperate climate,
California uses relatively less heating and cooling energy
than other states. As a leader in implementing aggressive
efficiency and environmental programs, California has been
able to reduce CO2 emission rates in all sectors, as well as
reducing energy demand and air pollution emissions. However,
California leads the nation in vehicle miles traveled. As a
result, CO2 emissions from the transportation sector
relatively high.
California uses fossil fuels differently than the United
States as a whole. Compared to most other states, California
uses less fossil energy to generate electricity. This lower
reliance on fossil fuels is due to the availability of
hydroelectric and nuclear power, and the continuing and
growing use of renewable energy. The predominant fossil fuel
for electricity generation in California is natural gas, which
emits relatively less greenhouse gases than oil or coal, the
predominant fuel in many other parts of the country. As a
fraction of its total fossil fuel use, California uses more
fossil fuels (primarily gasoline) in the transportation
sector.
Although it would curb growth in CO2 emissions compared to
natural gas, additional nuclear generation has not figured
into California's plans to reduce GHG emissions. In 1976, the
Legislature enacted a moratorium on new nuclear fission power
plants until the CEC determined that technologies exist for
the reprocessing of nuclear fuel rods and the disposal of
high-level nuclear waste.
2)Status of nuclear power in California. Of the four nuclear
power plants developed in California by electric utilities,
AB 1891
Page 3
two continue to operate. The two in operation, PG&E's Diablo
Canyon plant and the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station
(SONGS) jointly owned by Southern California Edison and San
Diego Gas and Electric, supply a total of over 4000 megawatts
of electricity, about 8% of statewide peak electricity demand.
SONGS is currently off-line due to safety concerns related to
worn and leaking steam generator tubes.
The other two, PG&E's Humboldt Bay plant and SMUD's Rancho
Seco plant, have been decommissioned (shut down). Developed
in the early 1960's, Humboldt Bay was shut down in 1976 for
refueling and never restarted due to seismic and cost issues.
Developed in the early 1970's, Rancho Seco was shut down in
1989 in response to voter referendum. Like Diablo and SONGS,
the high-level waste from the decommissioned plants' operation
is still stored on site.
3)Status of high-level nuclear waste disposal solution.
According to the CEC, the federal government is responsible
for providing for the permanent disposal of high-level
radioactive waste and spent nuclear fuel and was required to
begin accepting spent nuclear fuel from nuclear power plants
by January 31, 1998. However, although Congress selected the
Yucca Mountain site in Nevada for a permanent deep geologic
repository for the disposal of spent nuclear fuel, the federal
waste disposal program has been plagued with technical and
legal challenges, managerial problems, licensing delays,
persistent weaknesses in quality assurance for the program,
and increasing costs.
The CEC's 2005 Integrated Energy Policy Report (IEPR)
reaffirmed the CEC's findings made in 1978 that a high-level
waste disposal technology has been neither demonstrated nor
approved. The CEC also found that reprocessing (the
separation of spent fuel into high-level wastes and reusable
fuel) remains substantially more expensive than waste storage
and disposal and has substantial adverse implications for the
U.S. effort to halt the proliferation of nuclear weapons.
The 2005 IEPR concluded that, given the high-level of
uncertainty surrounding the federal waste disposal program,
California's utilities will likely be forced to indefinitely
retain spent fuel in storage facilities at currently operating
nuclear plant sites. The report recommended that the state
should evaluate the long-term implications of the continuing
AB 1891
Page 4
accumulation of spent fuel at California's operating plants,
including a case-by-case evaluation of public safety and
ratepayer costs.
The federal waste disposal program is paid for by the nuclear
electricity generators and waste owners. Under the provisions
of the federal Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, as amended in
1987, utilities pay regular fees to the Nuclear Waste Fund to
pay for siting, construction and operating a federal waste
repository. Utilities have paid over $28.9 billion into this
Nuclear Waste Fund, of which California ratepayers have paid
over $1.3 billion. The 2005 IEPR recommended that some
portion of these funds paid by California ratepayers be
returned to the state to defray the cost of long-term onsite
spent fuel storage resulting from the lack of a permanent
disposal solution.
4)Purpose of this bill . According to the author:
The bill is attempting to answer any questions the state
might have about how electric utilities can meet the
consumer demand for electricity consistent with (GHG)
emission standards. It also requires the (CEC) to consider
and make recommendations on the role nuclear energy may
serve in meeting these standards. This is among the first
of administrative avenues to be used in addressing the
state's clean energy and electricity issues. Currently, a
majority of electrical power comes from sources other than
nuclear energy. This would create an opportunity to better
utilize nuclear energy in meeting (GHG) emission standards.
No other background or support has been offered to
substantiate the need for this bill. As part of the IEPR, the
CEC has on multiple occasions examined the impact of
electricity production on GHG emissions, the impact of climate
change on the energy system, and the future role of nuclear
energy. The next example of regular CEC activity in this area
is an April 30 IEPR workshop to explore the impacts of climate
change on the California energy system.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
None on file
AB 1891
Page 5
Opposition
Alliance for Nuclear Responsibility
Analysis Prepared by : Lawrence Lingbloom / NAT. RES. / (916)
319-2092