This morning, the House Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming held a hearing entitled “Nuclear Power in a Warming World: Solution or Illusion?” Representative Markey, the Committee’s Chair, made his feelings known from the opening words, noting that “Americans from Wall Street to Main Street rejected nuclear power” decades before the recent resurgence in interest. Three of the four witnesses called to the hearing were also strongly anti-nuclear in their testimony, while the fourth came from the Nuclear Energy Institute.

If there was any doubt before, it is clear that Rep. Markey is not a supporter of an expanded role for nuclear power in any future climate change legislation. He decried the $145 billion in subsidies that have been given to the nuclear industry since 1950, and noted that renewable energy has only received a fraction of that amount. Renewables are also being deployed more rapidly, he argued, noting that worldwide, “the 20,000 megawatts of wind energy capacity built in 2007 was more than 10 times that of nuclear.”

Markey’s position is at odds with the current administration and other powerful Congressional leaders. President Bush has made nuclear energy a centerpiece of his energy policy. The Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 provides over $18 billion in loan guarantees for nuclear plants. In his remarks on the day he signed the bill into law, President Bush noted that “[I]f we’re serious about making sure we grow our economy and deal with greenhouse gases, we have got to expand nuclear power.”

Similarly, Senator John McCain, the Republican nominee for president, has been one of the biggest supporters of the nuclear industry. Despite having sponsored an early version of a cap-and-trade program, Senator McCain has thus far refused to endorse the Lieberman-Warner bill now awaiting debate in the Senate. According to McCain’s spokeswoman, this is “because it doesn’t include the nuclear issue by name . . . . We can’t effectively reduce our emissions without including nuclear energy, which is more efficient than the technologies in the bill.”

This is not a strictly partisan issue, as Democratic presidential candidates Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have both shown a willingness to at least explore an expanded role for nuclear power, according to statements made during presidential debates.

The role for nuclear power, and whether the industry should continue to receive subsidies going forward, is likely to be one of the most contentious issues as climate change negotiations heat up in Congress. It is not unreasonable to think that the fate of Lieberman-Warner and other competing climate change bills may hinge on how they approach nuclear power.

For further information about this topic, please contact Akin Gump.