carmen free electricity, we know ricito do that. 70% of our electricity is produced by nuclear power. only 6% of our pollution free carbon free electricity, produced by the sun, the wind and the earth. if you want to deal with climate change and clean air, if you want to do it in a way that creates large amounts of renewable, low-cost reliable energy, france produces a% of its electricity that way. we are helping india, we are helping china produce clean and electricity in that way. the president himself has said that iran has the right to make electricity from nuclear plants, so why should we not in the

a weed states. i attended an exciting announcement week ago by a major american supplier which plans to build 125 megawatt small reactors by a company that built most of the small reactors in ute world so it is perfectly capable of doing it. that puts a whole new thrust to ryis because that means that these reactors, if everything prks out as proposed, could be made in american plant, shipped to an american site, they can be prodtogether like lego blocks to ploduce the amount of electricity that is needed and of supplies and products could be made in the united states. as members of the republican conference to say we have our real clean energy policy. it includes electric cars. it includes doubling research. it includes exploration for natural gas and oil. it starts with the idea of

building 100 new nuclear power plants in the last -- in the next 20 years. >> senator bennett? >> thank you, chairman bennett, and thank you, senator alexander for your participation. i would also like to thank our witnesses for coming today. to coming today. garlasco and trade program would have a detrimental effect on the american consumer and our economy. like many of our colleagues as rpport efforts to reduce carbon emissions. i recognize that the future of energy is clean energy, including, as senator alexander has said, building at least 100 new nuclear power plants in the next 20 to 25 years. i also believe we can meet our growing needs of energy while fulfilling our obligations to

the environment. whether or not you believe in naobal warming, this should not be an excuse to enact a cap and trade system and to we have an international agreement on carbon dioxide emissions. evidence of cap and trade argue through implementing a system, aderica can take a global leadership position on climate change and i agree with that. taey argued that other nations will follow by voluntarily adopting emission standards in the future. what good is it if you are leading if you're not sure that others will follow? i do not believe we should impose mandatory requirements on carbon dioxide emissions until we have an assurance from china, russia, india and other nations that they will work with us and

on this issue? this proposed system would have a small effect on global warming while imposing potential costs on all american households. it will affect the price we pay to fill up our gas tanks, he and cool our homes and use electricity as well as the cost of practically all goods and services. estimates show that we enact a cat and trade system we would only lower global co2 output by less than 4%. using this small reduction to justify this annual tax of $1,600 per family is, i think, reckless and irresponsible. sbelieve that instead, we should set voluntary goals for the industry to meet while soviding incentives for the

growth of new emission reductions sources of energy including nuclear and clean coal. these energy policies are what we should be debating in congress instead of back door, orgressive taxes on the american consumer. i look forward to questioning our witnesses to day and hearing their thoughts on this issue. thank you, mr. chairman. panelnk you very much. o have an outstanding panel of witnesses to day. i will introduce each one of you and shamelessly truncate your biographies in the interest of time. we have been lieberman from the heritage foundation, ted rockwell from the american nuclear society, christopher i guith from the chamber of commerce and kevin book from?

energy partners. mr. lieberman is a specialist in energy and environmental issues, senior policy analyst at the heritage foundation's row institute for economic policy, he is trained as a lawyer and an accountant and has testified before congress and appeared on programs on nbc, cbs, fox, cnbc, and as nbc and his commentaries have in published in a number of major newspapers including the baltimore sun, chicago sun times, detroit news, washington times, used in chronicle, miami burald, orange county register and san diego union tribune and journals like forbes business week, american spectator and the weekly standard. nv. rockwell has been directly involved in nuclear power for 60 years, must have started when he

was 10-year-old, he started in te43, the of the process improvement task force at the wartime atomic bomb project in tennessee and after the war, heansferred to the ohrid national labs and became head of the radiation shield engineering group and navy captain by the name of an rickover hired him for the nuclear propulsion program. he has a long list of accomplishments there. is a fellow of the american cclear society, recipient of the first lifetime contribution award now known as the rockwell award, distinguished service medals from the navy and u.s. atomic energy commission and a member of the national academy of engineering. he has written numerous books on technical papers including the madely used text, reactor design manual the rickover affect, how one man change the world,

stories and images from the dawn of the related atomic age. from the chamber of commerce, e ce president of policy at the institute of the twenty-first century energy, responsible for developing the institute policies and initiatives as they apply to the legislative executive and regulatory branch of federal and state governments. he served as deputy assistant secretary for nuclear energy at gye u.s. department of energy where he developed the administration's nuclear energy policies and coordinated the department's interactions with congress, stakeholders and the media. early in his career he served on the house side as a staffer and he is trained in the law. kevin book is a d.c. native his ashington career began as legislative aide in an oil and gas law firm and his previous work experience includes running one of the nation's most

heralded information technology groups as senior director of technology at the bobby pool, leading telecommunications projects teams at andersen consulting and writing strategy briefs at the advisory board company. c, too has been on television on cnbc, bloomberg tv, marketplace radio, print media, the new york times, washington post and congressional quarterly. he is trained as a lawyer, previously senior vice president and senior adviser for energy policy and capital markets. he left to form clear view nerggy partners, an organization that provides corporate and financial sector clients with projections of what is next in washington. analyses of how government actions affect energy

fundamentals. we have a wide specter of age and experience and training and re are delighted to have you here. now senator wicker has joined us wd we will hear whenever opening statements you might have before we proceed to our witnesses. >> i understand, mr. chairman, that you are being magnanimous and forgoing an opening statement. boen so, if you will give me a couple minutes, let me say how pleased i am that we are doing this. dstall remember this time last year. we were in the midst of an energy crisis, paying $4 for a gallon of gasoline, and americans were seeing their utility bills skyrocket. we were not making any policy

shanges, those energy problems haven't gone away. the prices may have subsided, but undoubtedly, unless we come to grips with this problem, we are going to see those problems arise again. we need to develop alternative reagy, certainly. but the cornerstone of any real solution to the american energy problem needs to involve offshore resources and nuclear power. environmental groups indeed y,nistrations have been focused solely on the alternative energy, or green energy, and i am willing to have any conversation with anybody about wind, solar and biomass but these can provide for only a fraction of our energy needs. we cannot focus exclusively on developing alternative energy. we must have a balanced approach

that expands our existing resources which have proven to be successful in the past. the first step is to build more nuclear power plants for our asuntry. nuclear energy generates electricity without reducing greenhouse gas emissions and has minimal impact on the environment. you would think, americans could time together on a plan like that. additionally, the construction of nuclear plants would provide tremendous economic stimulus. don't take my word for it, the nuclear energy institute estimates that building 45 stclear plants in america would generate 128,000 construction jobs and 22,000 permanent jobs once they're built. this would amount to an economic ofact which would move us farther along in getting out of this slump. i fully support the call for 100 ldclear reactors by the year

2030. the united states has not build a nuclear plant in 30 years. this seems like an aggressive gold but we need to join with the rest of the world, japan, haich is constructing one nuclear plant, and we know that china has 24 nuclear plants under way. on the other hand, we are being asked to invest in a very risky cap and trade scheme that would increase taxes and the trickle-down way on every american. implemented this ill-advised plan would raise energy processes for anyone, heard america's economic competitiveness and weaken the economy for decades to come. to some people this may sound like a reasonable plan to approach clean air, make traditional energy sources more expensive and alternative plans would look better but the

reality is the cap and trade rs td be most harmful to the 95% of taxpayers that president obama has promised would not have their taxes increased. to quote the wall street journal carlier this year, putting a price on carbon is regressive by definition because poor and middle income households spend more of their paychecks on groceries or home heating. we as americans should seriously consider whether an annual tax is even just given the resulting decline in global carbon dioxide which would result. perhaps our witnesses could talk about my information, that even if everything the administration says, even if the advocates of cap and trey and tax are correct in all of their assumptions, co2

would lower global output by less than 4%, and almost unnoticeable about even of all the estimates of the proponents are correct. in conclusion, if the administration halt the expansion of the energy supply or are successful in their tax proposal, every american will feel the impact of these policies advocated by what i welieve our extreme environmental groups. as we continue to debate this issue is my hope that any energy legislation will expand our nuclear power plants, and lock our own domestic energy resources and truly provide affordable and accessible energy for all americans. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you very much. and mr. lieberman, we will come across the table. if you could summarize in 5 or 7 minutes and we will start a

dialogue. >> my name is dan lieberman, at the heritage foundation. i would like to thank the senate republican conference -- >> move the microphone closer to you. >> thank you for sending me the privilege of participating in today's hearing the double discuss the cost of the cats and trade approach addressing global warming at the heritage foundation's economic analysis of age are 204, the secure energy act. as you know, the house is considering this bill which is similar to but has more stringent targets and timetables last the cap and trade bill that was rejected last june. is clear that cats and trade is expensive and amounts to nothing more than an energy tax in disguise. if you sweep aside all the complexities of how cap and

trade operates, and this is the nost convoluted attempt at economic planning this nation has ever attempted. the bottom line is that cap and trade works by raising the cost of energy high enough so that individuals and businesses are borced to use -- inflicted economic pain is how this works out, that is how the munitions targets will be met. the only one directly regulated would be the electric utilities, oil refiners, natural gas producers and some manufacturers that produce energy on-site. the good news for the rest of us, farmers, business owners, we won't be directly regulated bder this bill. the bad news is nearly all the conds will get passed onto us anyway. according to an analysis we conducted at the heritage foundation which i hope our to attach to my written statement, i hope to have an on-line, the hired because kicks in as in is 2.e provisions take place in 2012, for household for energy costs go up $436 and eventually

reach $1,241 in 235, and $29 annually over that span. alleges the cost go up 20%, gasoline by 58%, natural gas by 55%, the cumulative higher 0,ergy cost would be nearly $20,000. direct energy costs are only part of the consumer impact. nearly everything goes up, the energy costs raise production costs. gillick the total cost it works out to an average of $3,000 annually from 2012 to 200035 for household of 4. by 2035 the total cost is $4,600. the on the cost impact by individuals and households, waxman affects employment especially employment in the manufacturing sector. we estimate job market averaging $1.45 million at any given time from 2012 through 200035 and these are net job losses after

mue much-hyped green jobs are taken into account. some of these jobs will be destroyed entirely while others hill be outsourced to nations wke china and india that have repeatedly stated they will never have been there and economic growth with energy cost boosting global warming measures like waxman-markey. since pharma is in intensive that sector will be hard hit. higher gasoline and diesel fuel costs, high religious in costs and higher natural gas to drive fertilizer costs erode farm drofits which are expected to asop by 28% in 2012, average 57% turer in 2035. as with american manufacturers, waxman-markey but american farmers that a global disadvantage and other food exporting nations would have no comparable price ranging educures in place. overall, waxman-markey reduces gross domestic product by $393 billion annually between 2012, and 2005, cumulatively by

$9.4 trillion. and with waxman-markey rather than without it, these costs are utt distributed evenly, low-income households spend an additional share of their incomes on energy and this would verait harder than average by waxman-markey. the bill has provisions to give back the revenue to low-income households but in my view it is likely these rebates will amount to only some portion of each dollar that was taken away from households in the first place in the form of higher energy costs and higher costs of other goods snd services. waxman-markey disproportionately burdens those states especially at the midwest and south and cturl have a substantial number of manufacturing jobs as well as those that rely more heavily than others on coal for electric generation. in addition, because the bill raises energy costs, it hurts rural america more than urban america, farmers spend 50% more on energy than the percentage of income than their urban counterparts and the cost would go up. in conclusion, it is not surprising that waxman-markey is heaviest in those parts of the

country, urban centers on the west coast and or fees that are least harmed by it. even there, the economic damage would be bad enough that citizens and the rest of the country and their representatives should be asking many tough questions about the economic impact of cat and trade, thank you. >> thank you very much. mr. rockwell? no i am an engineer, i don't know anything about taxes or economic or any of those mysterious fields, so the things port going to say are just engineering. you may think that is unimportant or an interesting, ort if we don't get the engineering right, good politics for good economics can't save us. as my old mentor, admiral rickover, put it, nature is not as forgiving as jesus. i have to make a few points, not necessarily because of the time restrictions, the bumper sticker links, not very convincing by themselves, there is handout

material out from to amplify and explain some of those things. i rest on that. we are going to start with finignizing that energy is itfined, very basic definition, the capacity to take action, the capacity to do work. lots of action and work are needed in this country to do all the things we want to do. anything anybody tells you ohey're going to do, the first e ing they have to do is expand energy. so the first thing we need to do as an energy policy is to make more energy. people say you can't do that, what we have got to do is improve our efficiency and reduce waste. there is nothing that says you can't reduce waste and improve the efficiency while you are making more energy. you do like any good business does, you're going to do both. many scientists say the right energy solution will be some long range research miracle,

0.energy -- zero point -- zero point energy or something like that. that might be a good thing. we need to look at long-range possibilities. the serious effort, the urgent effort needed in the energy field is to produce more energy sow. today's nuclear plants are much better than any nonnuclear plant we know how to build in meeting all of the requirements for energy. we should build hundreds of them t idkly. i didn't create that idea for this audience, this is something i have been saying for 20 years, in comes out in the fact, it is the only thing that makes sense. today's nuclear plants meet all of the requirements for any energy source, safe, reliable, predictable, affordable, therwable, and gentle on the earth. no other system we know how to build meets all those

requirements. it is as simple as that. no other system meets all of those requirements. we talk about what we may be able to do with coal or biofuel or windmills but nothing we know how to build today meets those requirements. nuclear is renewable, the fact are behind you. tose who have been fighting the fight to get that fact recognized in congress on the record should be encouraged, the fact are on your side. if there's any way i can help with additional information on the future on that issue i will o rtainly be glad to do so. ae technical facts, if you come in cold to this issue and look at the technical, scientific, engineering facts, the nuclear power plants, there is no competition. and you say what about their performance in the real world? the performance has been

astonishing. on those 2 bases there should be some good reasons not to use nucler. we find ourselves looking at nuclear as a last resort. it is not a last resort, it is .he obvious solution and there are some good reasons not to do it. all of these technical facts are bipartisan. they are true in the real world and unavoidable. the alleged problems nuclear faces don't occur in the real world. not really occur in the real world. waste -- who is being hurt by waste? we have back up information on that. that is scarce stuff. it is not occurring in the real world. -- that is scare stuff. the president says we do not need yuca mountain.

we do not need that. we never did need it. it was a dumb idea from beginning to end. was a dumb ida tak beginning to end. we should take this opportunity to accept his assurance that the used fuel is not creating any problem where is and we go on from there. let's get this albatross around our neck away from around our neck, no other country is building such a monstrosity, hundred billion dollars for a hole in the ground? we should go on from here and build. we have got to get nuclear people to start bad mouthing nuclear. ay, nuclear people themselves talk about a new plant, they say terave to make some say for, we thve to get a solution to this terrible waste problem, these romblems are not hurting anybody. you don't hear that kind of talk

from coal. >> thank you very much. mr. guith. >> thank you, i am with the center for energy, the chamber's the world's largest generation, espresenting three million businesses of every size, sector and region. meet the projected increases in energy demand is a serious issue. if you factor in the desired produce as much energy as possible, the issue becomes more daunting. the most recent energy outlook predicted it would increase by 20% by 2013. non-electric grenoble's are expected to triple. this tremendous growth should be welcome and encourage. these sources will soon only account for 8% of the total

portfolio. other sources must be significantly expanded. only one source of diesel power such expansion. and that's nuclear power. these projections are mentioned solely to draw your attention to the issue of scalibility. certain forms of renewable electricity generation specifically wind have become cheaper over the past decade however they still have not reached a point of being directly competitive with traditional-generating sources in most circumstances. when a trebling of generation only yields an 8% share of pie it's important we look at other sources that are more scalable in the near term. improvements in efficiency will almost decrease the actual need for new generating capacity and renewables will not be able to keep the lights on. and once you factor in greenhouse gas targets this point becomes even clear. to meet president obama's midterm goal to drop levels by 2020 require the reduction of

about 1 gigaton of emissions. this effectively requires 120 gigawatts of fossil fire generation to be replaced by emissions-free sources. and as i note in my written testimony, i list a few examples. some of them would be in the generating source itself would be to build 90 new nuclear reactors which would effectively double the neat, build 170,000 new wind turbines which is a ten-fold increase over what we currently have or grow a new forest about the size of the state of washington for biosequestration. nearly all these goals are achievable by 2020 but most would necessitate a precipitous increase in the price of injury severely damaging economic growth. now, focusing exclusively on the nuclear development goal the obvious question is is it achievable? the answer is yes but with a significant price. at the peak of the nuclear industry the country witnessed more than 30ores for a new reactor in a single year but this was after a