interim storage, you'd have to amend the nuclear waste policying a to do that. there are any number of things you can do leading up to that including beginning the transportation planning, identifying the routes for moving this material. i mean, if you're not sure where it's going, you pretty much know the sites -- the routes going out of the sites. yes, we think it's imminently feasible to get started on this. >> in the proposal, in the appropriations bill, of course, any site that's chosen even as a pilot site would have to be approved by the congress. in other words, a law would have to be passed. so -- so i would guess that the law that would be passed would be the comprehensive next step forward. from your company's point of view, how would such moving ahead with such a consolidation site affect the yank cee

companies? >> well, as i indicated, there are any number of steps that need to take place. for example, a transportation task doesn't yet exist, for example. the department of energy would need to provide a transportation cask to move our material. all of this -- there are years of lead time to do this. and so our -- i mean, our sense is that there are things that can be done within existing authority of the department of energy to get started on this track with the hope that congress, in fact, will make the needed changes to the nuclear waste policy act to allow this to move forward. >> mr. wright, do you -- do you agree or disagree that if we, in the congress, try to move as aggressively as we can to pass a comprehensive piece of legislation that it's prudent to go ahead with the language in the appropriations bill that

allows the department of energy to begin the process of identifying a consolidation site? >> yes, i believe -- we're in favor of -- >> i know. i just wanted to get you to say that. >> absolutely. yeah. absolutely. >> what are the advantages of it if you're in favor of it? >> well, i think it does a number of things. one, it proves you can move it. and number two, you know, the government's on the hook for a lot of money liability wise, and this may start to reduce their exposure to some of that. >> mr. fettus, you're not in favor of that? >> no. >> and your reason? >> the reason, quite simply, senator alexander, is that we think that not treating the storage process -- and by the way, as was cited here today by mr. howes, we don't have objection to the stranded fuel potentially going to an operating reactor site as a consolidated storage. we think that makes imminent

sense. we've said that repeatedly for years. that said, within the structure of where we are now and after the 20-some years of gridlock, if you don't set the chess board properly for the next set of steps going forward, we think you could prematurely choose sites that either may not be suitable, will not fall into the consent-based process that congress is going to have to very arduously try and build. >> thank you. sometimes we do things better step by step than we do comprehensively. henry clay nearly killed himself trying to pass his compromise and went to nantucket to recover and senator douglass from illinois picked up the compromise and offered each piece of it separately and they all passed with senator houston being the only senator to vote for each piece. so we don't want to go so fast

in identifying a consolidation site that we don't do an appropriate job on the second repository, but we've been stuck so long on the yucca stalemate that my hope, mr. chairman, is we can find prudent ways to move ahead on the consolidation site while at the same time being very careful as we work through the authorization legislation to go aggressively for a repository and let the processes learn from one another and eventually be the same process. and that will not be derailed by the yucca debate. it's a -- you know, we have conclusively demonstrated that we have a big difference of opinion over yucca mountain. and i don't think we need 25 more years to do that. so we also, i think, have everybody here, and if anyone disagrees with that, i hope you say so, that even if we opened

yucca mountain, we'll soon need, or maybe immediately need, a second repository for the material we already have. and so we need consolidation sites and we need a second repository or more and so we're looking for a prudent way to get on with it. so that -- this hearing is a good help to that and the testimony today has been very useful. >> i agree. i agree. senator udall? >> thank you, senator carper. this question is to mr. orrell and mr. fettus. i'm trying to drill down a little bit because the brc on this issue of parallel versus what we have in the law now, as you know d.o.e. can't enter an interim site unless a permanent site is already open. so the brc talks about parallel.

how far along, in your opinion, do we need to be toward a permanent site before you start opening an interim site or a consolidated site? >> i'm very happy to begin. a lot farther along than we are now. i'll start with that. i think, and as i outlined extensively in my written testimony, there's a long and, i think it's safe to say, torturous history of the repository program as well as sputtering attempts at an interim storage program. and as dr. metlay, i think, effectively outlined today, it's the countries that are having any progress are countries that have resolved the allocations of power. and if we don't do that, and i have a set of suggestions in my testimony as to how we begin to do that in a more thoughtful way

that avoids the mistakes of the pass, i think we could do it. but congress has a significant amount of work to do before we do anything remotely related to site selections or moving forward on that front. and that includes storage or that includes final -- >> mr. orrell? >> as noted earlier, this hinges on the definition of consent and how you would secure that. if a host community needs consent on allowing interim storage or consolidated storage facility and it would like to have a knowledge that there is a repository program behind it, it would probably define what the level of progress would be. but one other measure might be simply an uncontested waste confidence decision. we have a recent waste confidence decision from the nrc that unfortunately has been legally contested and that

brings at least to suspect whether or not we have a sufficient progress on a repository program. >> thank you. mr. fettus, you recommend removing the exemptions of radioactive pollutants from state environmental authority. why would giving states more authority over a nuclear waste site making consent-based siting more likely? and what does the wipp experience tell us about state authority? >> first, in answering this question, i want to respond briefly to senator carper's admonition that these things are seen as dumps. they are. this is some of the most toxic and dangerous waste that will be raid wrote adio radioactive for a million years. this is a difficult thing to manage. it's why the scientific consensus for over half a century has been deep geological disposal. this is a difficult matter with

extraordinarily dangerous waste. that said, i am informed by my work for senator udall when he was attorney general of new mexico. the only meaningful time that states felt in any measure comfortable in terms of accepting this kind of facility within their borders, no matter the incentives. i mean, if it were simply a matter of financial or monetary incentives or structural, then yucca mountain would have been built a long time ago or built and actually operating a long time ago. what it is is when states essentially have a measure of skin in the game. and a governor and attorney general, his congressional delegation, can say, we can make a deal here because we have control with, of course, the federal floor that i'm quite sure epa, whatever new entity can harmonize their standards. when states have a measure of

control to say we can regulate this according to the most strict and protective standards that we see fit, and when that's the case, there's a potential for this kind of very complicated, difficult decision to go forward. without that, it's not going to happen in our federal system, and i think -- i think the evidence bears me out on that. >> thank you. >> to my panel, i ask senator barrasso if he feels prepared to bring us home and be our last questioner. he's up to it. take me home. do you want some music? >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> the guy from nashville, from tennessee. >> thanks, mr. chairman. mr. howes, i'm concerned about how long it's taken to address the long-term storage of nuclear waste. its process began three decades ago. we're no closer to a solution. with regard to interim storage, you talk about wanting to see that timely implementation of

the blue ribbon commission's recommendation -- i keep saying blue river which is where people go skiing in the -- it's a great place to do a number of digit thi different things. blue ribbon's recommendations. what would be timely? you talk about time lly to see these recommendations itch letted. >> we recognize nothing proceeds quickly when we're talking about nuclear waste. i think the brc, the blue ribbon commission, recognize there are long lead times for developing any of the consolidated storage options including looking at transportation and other issues. the blue ribbon commission, i believe, said that this might be able to be done in a decade or so. i think that that would be a wonderful thing. i think it may be optimistic.

we're prepared to, wrouyou know work with other stakeholders to get this done as rapidly as possible. we're not naive enough to think it's going to happen overnight. >> and mr. wright, you said in your testimony you have long favored consolidated interim storage but find the report vague as to the quantity, the duration and the cost. so, i mean, these are very big issues to solve, so could you elaborate a little more on that point, what details we have on this committee and the public at large need to see here. what do we need to see from this commission and the administration before signing off on a plan? >> well, i do believe that you do see things better now than maybe what has been in, i guess, mentioned in years past. you really are starting to focus on it and i've been very gratified with what i've heard here today. you know, it's still -- and i agree with mr. howes -- it's going to take lead time.

ten years is what's been thrown out on some of that stuff. you have reports to go through. there are hoops that have to be jumped through. the bottom line i think for the confidence of states and util y utilities we serve and regulate is the money. making sure that the money is used for what it's supposed to be used for. and that trust that needs to be built with any partnership with the federal government and states and communities that you're going to be dealing with. i think that's huge. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> i'm going to ask one more, just one more question. if my colleagues want to ask another question, they're welcome to. sometimes when we have a panel -- this has been a real good hearing. i appreciate all you all being here and appreciate our colleagues being here. here's my question. one of the things my colleagues may recall, i like to look for consensus. and from a panel. and you all agree on some things and disagree on some things. maybe just start with you, mr.

orrell, one major point you think there's consensus from this entire panel. what might that be? >> well, i would say that the general feeling of the time has come to take action. >> okay. dr. metlay? >> my board has written in one of its publications, it would be a shame if we temporize. >> okay. mr. howes? >> the federal government needs to fulfill its obligations. >> mr. wright? >> it's probably time to move the decommissioned plant site waste and get that moved to a consolidated place. >> all right. thank you. mr. fettus. >> there's an acknowledge ment

that a on seconsent-based proces to be first. >> senator alexander, anything else? >> no, i hope you'll stay, i hope we'll have more of these when it's appropriate. i hope the other hearings are as usful as this one. >> i would echo that. i think our colleagues have -- how much time? two weeks. our colleagues, some of whom are not able to be here, would like to ask questions of you and i think they have two weeks to do that. we simply ask if you receive those questions that you just respond to them in proper manner. great to be with all of you. thank you for your participation today and for your help. thanks. with

coming up here on c-span3, at 3:00 p.m. eastern, general keith alexander, director of the national security agency, will deliver the keynote address at an american enterprise institute event looking at cyber security threats. that will be live at 3:00 p.m. eastern here on c-span3. and at 5:00, live to capitol hill where the house rules committee will hold a meeting on repealing president obama's health care law. republican house majority leader eric cantor introduced legislation to repeal the health care law with a vote set for this wednesday, july 11th. last month, the supreme court in a 5-4 vote upheld the health care law. we'll have that rules committee meeting beginning at 5:00 p.m. eastern here on c-span3. i don't mean to sound like i want to go crazy and, quote,

regulate the internet. on the other hand, i don't believe the internet should exist as a place outside the law. >> co-executive editor of the "wall street journal's" online "all things d" walt osberg. tonight at 8:00 eastern on "the communicators" on c-span2. shreveport in march. april in little rock. oklahoma city, may. wichita in june. and this past weekend in jefferson city. watch for the continuing travels of c-span's local content vehicles every month on "book tv" and "american history tv." and next month, look for the history and literary culture of our next stop. louisville, kentucky. the weekend of august 4th and 5th on c-span2 and c-span3. now, a look at improving the nation's electrical grid from this morning's "washington journal."

>> every monday morning we take a look at your money. how it's spent on federal programs, what the program's mission is, and what you get as a benefit. here to talk with us today about the electric power grid is matthew wald, energy reporter for "the new york times." thanks for coming in this morning. >> thanks. good morning, libby. >> when we talk about the power grid, explain for us what makes that up. what are we actually referring to no. >> the north american continent is twhal divided into three grids. they're connections among the utilities which grew up separately. the utilities connected themselves to each other in the '60s, in the '70s for the purpose of reliability and trading energy when one had a cheaper supply than the other. it's a network of about 172,000 circuit miles. that's not actual miles, because some corridors have more than one circuit. we spend about $10 billion a year on it. it doesn't really do what we want it to do now because we've moved to a more deregulated

system where anybody can build a generating station or wind farm, but you have trouble getting on the grid because the grid was built by the utilities for a different purpose. >> we hear about the smart grid and upgrading, updating to smart grid technology. what does that mean? >> the smart grid is a really loose term. a lot of different things in there. one is a meter you're going to have in your home that varies the price by the hour which could be useful in the state utility commissions allow charging by the hour. it would also let the utility know whether you had service or not. if you didn't pay your bill, the utility could turn you off without ever -- without ever stepping foot on your premises. they can lay off all the meter readers. it's also some gadgets that sit on the high voltage grid that give the operators much better picture of what the grid is doing and they can load it more fully get a little more work out of it. >> as we look at this map of the united states and see the transmission grid, this is courtesy of fema.

we see a map of complex colors, a lot of routes. you explained to us how there are three main grids. >> right. >> overall. the eastern interconnected, western interconnected and texas interconnected. >> right. >> what was the big vision originally? as the grid started to get set up and transmission lines were put in, was there any thought given to the future and what it would look like today? >> there was a lot of thought given but not to the future we have now. the future we have now in most states is an auction system where every day buyers and sellers come together and agree on who's going to generate the electr electrici electricity. if used to be your favorite utility would be soup to nuts, they'd buy the coal, burn the coal, send you the power and charge you for it. now we have one party generating, a different party transmitting, a different party delivering it to your house and billing you for it. the grid has become an open marketplace. nobody really built it with that in mind. we're having trouble adapting it to that purpose. >> let's take a look at more

details about the power grid system that serves all lower 48 states, except in hawaii and alaska. >> well, it's not actually our grid. there's no -- >> yeah, that's an important distinction. >> there's an eastern interconnection with sort of runs from halifax to new orleans. there's a western interconnection which is west of the rockies. and texas, for political and economic reasons, wants to be off by itself. there are limited connections between those grids. >> other details about it, it's 10,000 generating units with over 3,200 electric distribution utilities and it has tens of thousands of miles of transmission and distribution lines. if you'd like to join the conversation, talking about the u.s. electric power grid and how tax money is spent on it, you can call 202-737-0001 if a democrat. republicans, 202-737-0002 if you're a republican. independents 202-628-0205.

how does the federal government work on the grid system? >> i should clarify something. the grid was mostly builtly private companies. at this point, it's still added to by private companies and it's added to by something called regional transmission organizations, which through a consensus process decide where they need a new line. the federal government decides somewhat how it's going to be paid for and the federal government has made some little investments here and there. generally it's a private enterprise. the federal government, of course, owns the tva, the bonneville power administration and those are grid operators. by in large, this is a heavily regulated but private industry. >> matt wald, an energy reporter at "the new york times,". regulating the grid. how does it work? >> the federal energy regulatory commission a few blocks from here issues rules of the road and tries to monitor that everything is done fairly. it has been really challenged. the enron situation in california a few years ago where

enron cornered the market and played games with electricity rates by booking transmission space that it didn't actually use, creating scarcity, raking in lots of money. the federal energy regulatory commission was kind of slow to pick up on that. right now, the big issue for the ferc, as they call it, is how to build a grid that would accept renewable energy. the trouble with renewable energy is you don't get to choose where you're going to build. you have to go where the sun is, the wind is, or the geothermal is. that is in obscure rural places that don't have very good connections. if we're going to shift over to renewables, it implies we're going to have a much bigger grid and there's arguments over who's going to pay for that. there's an argument over who wins and who loses. some incumbent companies on the grid, if we have new renewables will get to generate less. so you get all kinds of arguments about why to build or why not to build. it's a lot like a highway that

might, say, bypass the downtown of a small town. some people want it, some people don't want it. some people would likeless traffic in their neighborhood. some people think it brings in commerce. there are a lot of factors, deciding. >> jean in ohio tweets in, nationalize the power grid, put it under ground. >> those are actually two different issues. there's a trend recently in the grid to switch from alternating current, which is what comes out of the socket on your wall, to direct current, which is a lot better for long-distance transmission. and some of the direct current stuff does go underground but it's rather expensive and generally not necessary. he may, if he's in ohio and he suffered through the derecho a week ago, he may be referring no so much to the high voltage grid as the local distribution lines. there's some reasons to put those underground but those are really expensive also. >> here's a piece from the "baltimore sun" that says, it's not astrophysics, bury power lines. dan writes in and says, in a

crisis they get grumbles about why power lines are stild overhead. as soon as the lights come back on the grumbles go away, the questions go away. we shouldn't let power companies off this time. people who experienced, as you talked about, the major power outage in washington, d.c., and other areas because of the intense storm more than a week ago. are we talking about local issues versus the larger grid? >> we're talking mostly about distribution which is a little bit difference from the high voltage grid. the federal government, for example, doesn't really regulate distribution. the states do to some extent and they'll do things like order the companies to do more tree trimming. but it's not as if we're going to get tough on the companies. if they trim more trees, if they bury lines, we're going to pay for it. another great force in utility economics is the public wants cheap rates. they'll sell you whatever you want but you may not want to pay for it. >> let's get to the phones and hear from june calling us from englewood, new jersey, on our democrats line.

hi. >> caller: hi. i wanted to, i mean, you kind of touch touched on the question i had. i was hoping you could explain on the energy deregulation we're having now in new jersey. a couple other states have it. basically i have all of these energy companies, middlemen, as i like to call them, calling me, asking me to switch, but telling me the major utility i'm used to is still going to continue to do what they're going to do but somehow i'll get lower rates. and the rates fluctuate. it's really confusing. i have no idea what to choose and i'm collecting the rate information but i'm afraid to pull the trigger on switching from pse&g. >> you have a perfect understanding of the situation. it's confusing. to my mind, somewhat useless. telephones, served by at&t then pick your long distance carrier. in the electric business, nobody is going to build a new distribution line to your door. nobody is going to put in a

different meter and then come and read it. it's still going to be, if you're in new jersey, public service electric & gas. or new jersey power and light, whoever your current provider. system but the wholesale business of buying those electrons and getting them to you would go through the same physical means but somebody else is going to buy them in bulk and sell them to you and your local utility is going to bill you for it. if you have a storm and a tree falls on a line up the street, the same line crews are going to come through and nix fix it. it becomes a marketing gamebut. they'll offer you frequent flier miles if you sign up with them. they'll offer you a fixed rate forson numb for a certain number of months or years. lately rates have gone down. you might get locked into a higher rate. it's not going to make a difference which one you sign up with. >> gary, caller.

penn valley, california. welcome. >> caller: hi. i wanted to ask the speakers about the effects of the emp on the entire power grid. what it would do and totally cause a great disruption. i don't want the speaker to hold back at all on the explanation of exactly what that means to every individual in this country, how devastating it would be and how it would be generated. how easily it could be generated. >> an electromagnetic pulse. >> i'm not going to hold back. i'm not sure you're correct. electromagnetic pulse from several means. if you explode a bomb, some energy is released as an electromagnetic pulse and also get geomagnetic effects from solar storms. you get large bursts of energy that find their way into the grid and they can overload transformers and make them overheat and burn. transformers are very large. it takes a long time to buy one, get it in place, et cetera.

and there is a theory that you could have an electromagnetic pulse that would cause a widespread blackout, would take a very long time to recover from. gary, if you recall major outages like the 2003 great eastern blackout, the utilities are very relieved. sure, we left tens of millions of people in the dark, but we didn't damage the system so we could put it back together in a few hours. the fear in an electromagnetic pulse is it wouldn't be a few hours, it would be a few months or years which is a problem because in this country you can't refine oil and ship it, you can't refrigerate food. you'd have a major problem. however, not everyone agrees that there is the potential for a catastrophic electromagnetic pulse. there are some recent studies by well-respected national organizations that say that the transformers are actually not all that vulnerable, especially the younger transformers, and although it is a -- it's a scary idea, there's not a lot behind it.