Marty Gray, Vice President of Business Development, SEC-UK Nuclear Ltd

The US Senate failed to pass the Energy Bill last year, with fingers being pointed in both directions, Democrats and Republicans. This year, the Energy Bill is being resurrected, rewritten and resubmitted for approval. However, the criticism has already begun as Republicans are writing the revised Bill without the input of Senate Democrats.

Demolition of two large steel dry solid storage tanks. Oakridge National Labs, Tennessee

A sound policy for the future of America should give priority to increasing energy efficiency in every sector of our economy such as personal vehicles as well as household appliances including heating and air conditioning equipment. Estimated 10 year costs of the Bill have been whittled down from $31 billion to roughly $14 billion; some say the Bill is still overloaded and tax breaks for the coal, oil, nuclear and natural gas industries aren't needed or deserved. By continuing to subsidise mature energy producers with taxpayers' money, Congress makes it even more difficult for alternative technologies to emerge and flourish. Such innovation is critical in order to diversify our lopsided reliance on fossil fuels.

Some of the more important provisions of the Bill include:
<ul><li>Transmission interconnections - increased ease and efficiency is the goal of interconnectivity;</li>
<li>Creation of a "Renewable Portfolio Standard" - designed to set mandatory goals for renewable energy sources that could include requirements of 10% by 2010 and 20% by 2020;</li>
<li>Increased fuel efficiency - the Bill could include provisions that mandate increased vehicle fuel efficiency by 5% a year for ten years or at least 40 mpg by 2012;</li>
<li>Energy conservation standards for consumer and commercial products - with strong legislation and mandatory efficiency standards nearly 150 power plants could be eliminated, saving consumers $12.6 billion and reducing carbon emissions by 63.8 metric tonnes; and</li>
<li>Nuclear power (Price Anderson Act reauthorised) - the Bill relaxes the requirement for insurance in taking into account the level of risk. This is a point of contention for those that are not supporters of commercial nuclear power.</li></ul>

Potential problems with the Bill include delaying the implementation of tougher air pollution standards in smog prone areas as well as the toughening of laws for water polluters. In an apparent appeasement of big business, the teeth have been taken out of the Bill.

With regard to nuclear energy, the Bill reauthorises the Price Anderson Act, as amended, the long-standing liability insurance system for all nuclear operations in the country. This system has existed for more than 40 years and has never required payment from the federal government. The Bill also stipulates that an advanced nuclear reactor (a VHTR, see <a href="article_64.shtml">Gen IV article</a>) be built at the Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory to demonstrate new advancements in nuclear power with improved efficiency features as well as improved safety, reduced waste, higher efficiency, and increased proliferation resistance and physical security. This research project is an advanced reactor hydrogen generation project to move America toward an advanced energy and hydrogen economy. The Bill will also provide for nuclear security by ensuring that upgraded security measures are met.

How will the Energy Bill affect the environmental industry as we see it today?
For the most part, no major changes will be seen on the cleanup of nuclear legacy material. The accelerated clean-up program already underway will continue and will be accelerated to address necessary clean-up projects in the near term. Additional dollars will be directed toward the development of new technologies to reduce our dependence upon foreign fuel sources as well as to develop clean energy sources such as renewables.

In the United States, the environmental industry has grown from less than $20 billion in 1970 to $213 billion in 2000. It has recently been recognised as a valuable and vital part of the economy, responsible for almost 3% of the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) employing 1.3 million people in the United States.

In the future, society will face the tremendous challenge of reconciling environmental and economic concerns. Environmental conditions in the developed world have improved noticeably over the past 20 years, but these changes have come mostly as a result of negative pressure from the public and government regulatory bodies, not as a result of positive economic incentives. As environmental policy makers approach their task today, they are indirectly laying the foundation for environmental markets of the future, and these economic issues are increasingly influential in their decision making. The underlying quest is to bring external economic factors from of pollution, environmental degradation and waste resources into an economic system that values the environment rather than freely permitting its exploitation.

Resource delivery, highlighted by the size of the water and wastewater segments and energy markets, cannot be overemphasised. In a broad context, environmental providers must become resource managers as well as environmental managers if they are to fully integrate themselves with their industrial and government clients. And these resources are not limited to water and energy but include materials, property, people and information.

Excavation of contaminated soil to prepare for shipment off-site. Gloucester City, New Jersey

The US and the world will look on this legislation as an important step in the future of America's energy policy.