エネルギーの今 ― CSIS より

Nuclear Remains Unclear
under Trump―― トランプ政権下の原子力政策 ――
Jane Nakano
Senior Fellow, Energy and National Security Program, CSIS
米国戦略国際問題研究所（CSIS）エネルギー・国家安全保障部シニアフェロー Jane Nakano 氏による連載第 3回のテーマは「トランプ政権下の原子力政策」。3月に発表された2018 会計年度予算案骨子から見える方向性や、米ウェスチングハウスの破産法申請が政策に与える影響、州政府の動向などについて考察する。

In the American politics, the “First 100 Days” isthe period when a newly elected president has
the highest level of political capital to undertake
key agenda that will define his/her presidency. AsPresident Trump’s “First 100 Days” has come to aclose, there is one source of energy that the Trumpadministration’s thinking remains unclear; that isnuclear energy. President Trump during thecampaign was generically positive towards nuclear
energy. His administration, however, has neither
articulated its vision for nuclear energy nor
introduced policy measures by which nuclear
energy may be sustained or expanded.
As it stands today, the United States has 99 nuclear
power reactors, most of which were built in the
1970s and 1980s. Eighty-four reactors have had
operational licenses extended for an additional 20years to operate for a total of 60 years, and severalof them plan to apply for an additional extension tooperate for a total of 80 years.
However, many nuclear power plants face steep
economic competition from a steady growth ofnatural gas power generation, combined with thegrowing deployment of renewable energy. Five
nuclear power plants with a combined capacity of4,664 megawatts have been driven to closure since2013 even if their operational license remained
valid for many years to come. Moreover, utilities
have announced decision to close five additionalnuclear power plants, with a combined capacity of6,406 megawatts.
New construction has not been robust, either. As
capital and construction costs have risen over theperiod of half a century, only four reactors—two in36

2017.5South Carolina and two in Georgia—have been
approved for construction and operation since thesignificant overhaul of the nuclear regulatory
framework following the Three Mile Island
accident in 1979.

T

here are several key signposts as we seek toascertain the Trump administration’s position
on nuclear energy and they can be found in thepreliminary federal budget proposal for Fiscal Year2018 (October 2017 to September 2018), called
America First—A Budget Blueprint to Make America
Great Again, which was released in March.
First, the budget blueprint stresses theadministration’s focus on “early-stage research anddevelopment (R&D)” over “later-stage R&D andcommercialization” of energy technologies. The
basic political philosophy behind this is that
taxpayer money is better spent where the private
sector funding is less likely or available. Many ofthe ongoing nuclear science and technology
programs, such as advanced reactor programs, maybe deemed to fall in the category of later-stage
R&D, and thus could see reduced level of federal
funding under the Trump administration. In
particular, the level of future government support
for the commercialization of small modular
reactors (SMRs), which proponents believe
promises a more economic approach and will help
revitalize the U.S. nuclear industry, warrants close
attention as the budget details become available.
Moreover, the proposed budget indicates thetermination of the Innovative Technology Loan
Guarantee Program, for nuclear or otherwise.

■ エネルギーの今 ― CSIS よりAlthough there has been only one nuclear project
the federal loan guarantee has been used for, themonetary value was significant, at $8.3 billion.
Lastly, the budget blueprint indicates the Trumpadministration’s support to restore the high-level
spent fuel repository at Yucca Mountain in Nevada.
The administration is requesting $120 million torestart licensing activities for the project. The
actual budget rarely ends up looking like a proposed
budget as the power of purse rests with theCongress. It thus warrants close attention as to howmuch the members of Congress may push back onsuch shift once the administration submits moredetailed budget request later this spring.

Developments beyond the presidential power
can also influence the administration’s stanceon nuclear energy. The biggest such development
may be the bankruptcy filing by Westinghouse
Electric Co. in late March that stemmed largely fromthe significant delays and cost overruns at the two
U.S. nuclear projects in the United States. The
challenges at the Vogtle site in Georgia and at theV.C. Summer site in South Carolina can be attributed
to several factors, such as additional regulatory
requirements post Fukushima, multiple financial andlegal disputes, and fixed-price contracts with theproject owners. The projects, which were originallyplanned to come online 2016-2018, are already three
to four years delayed and billions of dollars over the
initial estimates of $4.8 billion per unit for Vogtle
and $5.7 billion per unit for V.C.Summer. The
bankruptcy and the underlying troubles at the twoU.S. nuclear project sites are a major discouragement
to the already weak appetite for new builds in theUnited States, at least for large-scale reactors.
The situation may also imperil future politicalsupport for nuclear power generation. It has become
highly uncertain whether the projects can enter into
service before the federal deadline of December
31, 2020, to qualify for the nuclear energy
production tax credit, which was a key support for
nuclear energy out of the Energy Policy Act of2005. Also, if the Vogtle project is abandoned,
future political willingness to issue loan guarantees
to a nuclear project may severely wane as the threemain members of the project ownership consortium
received the aforementioned $8.3 billion federal
guarantee. Congressional concern seems to be on
rise that the Westinghouse bankruptcy and thepotential termination of Vogtle project can place
taxpayers at risk for the loan guarantees. Moreover,electricity customers in this area are highly
concerned about a rise in electricity price in case of
Vogtle termination as the borrower utilities who areobligated to repay the outstanding loan amount
could shift the burden to their ratepayers.

All things considered, the role of federal
government is quite limited in the affairs ofelectric power sector in the United States not only
because the country is under the federal system, butalso because about two-thirds of the electricity
consumption in the United States today occurs in
non-regulated markets under an independent system
operator and with retail competition.
Indeed, initiatives and movements are underway atan individual state level to preserve nuclear power
generation capacity. Most notably, New York andIllinoi have introduced measures to essentiallyshield existing nuclear plants from premature
retirements by recognizing their non-carbon
emitting attribute. A similar measure is being
pursued—although it is in a much earlier phase—in Ohio and Connecticut, while consideration topursue a similar approach seems to be justbeginning in several other states, including
Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, and New Jersey.
Telling the fortune for the U.S. nuclear sector may
continue to require looking outside the nation’s
capital for some time rather than to the presidency.

※著者略歴：Jane Nakano is a senior fellow at the Center for
Strategic and International Studies. Her areas of expertise
include U.S. energy policy, energy security issues in Asia,
global gas market dynamics, and global nuclear energy trends.
She frequently writes and speaks on these issues at conferences
and to the media. Also, she has testified before Congress onenergy issues in Asia. Prior to joining CSIS in 2010, Ms. Nakano
was with the U.S. Department of Energy and served as the lead
staff on energy engagements with China and Japan.
2017.537