Endorsements of Nuclear Energy (from www.NEI.org 11/11/04)

Overall Benefits

"Shocking as the statement may sound after all the years of misrepresentation, nuclear power is demonstrably the greatest form of large-scale energy generation at hand. France, by generating 80 percent of its electricity with nuclear power, has reduced its air pollution by a factor of five. The U.S. nuclear power industry, by improving capacity and performance alone, has already made the largest contribution of any American industry to meeting the U.S. Kyoto commitment to limiting CO2 releases into the atmosphere. The U.S. nuclear power industry has an extraordinary record of safe operation across the past forty years, and I would submit to you that disposal of civilian nuclear waste is a political, not a technical, problem. Nuclear power is much safer than fossil-fuel systems in terms of industrial accidents, environmental damage, health effects and long-term risk."

Richard Rhodes, journalist and historian, author of 18 books and winner of the Pulitzer Prize in Nonfiction, Testimony before the Subcommittee on Energy and Environment, Committee on Science, U.S. House of Representatives, July 2000

"We are, in Illinois, the center of the nuclear energy universe. . . .The first commercial nuclear energy plant [was begun] in 1958 at ComEdıs Dresden station, near Morris, Illinois. Today there are 11 operating reactors in our state, and they can meet about half the demand for electricity throughout our region. I was governor during the period when many of these reactors were licensed and placed into service. No cleaner, no better, no safer, no more protected form of energy generation exists. The nuclear industry is leading change in the world. In fact, in the high-tech industries across our country, I canıt think of any that have improved, and continue to improve, the way you have, with extraordinary productivity and safety changes."

James Thompson, former Governor of Illinois, Keynote Address, NEI Nuclear Energy Assembly, May 2000

"Now, the benefits, environmental and otherwise, [of nuclear energy] are enormous. Nuclear power is a strong component of our overall energy mix, and most importantly an environmentally friendly component. Every congressional district features some nuclear-age technology at work: a national laboratory, a university research program, a grocery store with food that has been protected with nuclear technology, a DOE facility, a nuclear power plant, a hospital, spray-pained cars, flat-screen televisions, fluorescent lights, etc. Nuclear technology affects all of us, and we should all be involved with improving our understanding of things nuclear. Nuclear science has great promise, and only sufficient R&D investments will help us realize that promise."

Rep. Joe Knollenberg (R-Mich.), in an interview with Nuclear Energy Insight, April 2000

"It is a foregone conclusion that up to 2020 global reliance on fossil fuels and large hydro will remain strong, albeit with special emphasis on the role of natural gas and efficient cleaner fossil fuel systems. However, total reliance on these energy sources to satisfy the growing electricity demand of the world, especially in the context of two billion additional people who will need it by 2020, is not sustainable. The role of nuclear power therefore needs to be stabilised with the aim of possible future extensions. In parallel, efforts to develop intrinsically safe, affordable nuclear technology need to be encouraged."

World Energy Council/Conseil Mondial de LıEnergie, Energy for Tomorrowıs World‹ Acting Now!, April 2000

"In America and around the globe, nuclear safety and efficiency have improved significantly since 1990. Despite the massive investment, conservation and nonhydro renewables remain stubbornly uncompetitive and contribute only marginally to U.S. energy supplies. The great advantage of nuclear power is its ability to wrest enormous energy from a small volume of fuel. Thanks to its small volume and the fact that it is not released into the environment, the high-level waste can be meticulously sequestered behind multiple barriers. Substituting small, properly contained volumes of nuclear waste for vast, dispersed amounts of toxic wastes from fossil fuels would produce so obvious an improvement in public health that it is astonishing that physicians have not already demanded such a conversion. Because diversity and redundancy are important for safety and security, renewable energy sources ought to retain a place in the energy economy of the century to come. But nuclear should be central. Nuclear power is environmentally safe, practical, and affordable. It is not the problem‹ it is one of the best solutions."

Richard Rhodes and Denis Beller, "The Need for Nuclear Power," Foreign Affairs, January/February 2000

The International Atomic Energy Agency, "considering . . . the peaceful use of nuclear energy will contribute to the well-being and help enrich the quality of life of the peoples of the world, . . . conscious of the great potential of nuclear power for meeting energy requirements in many countries and the need to protect the environment and recognizing that many countries consider nuclear power, being a climactically benign source of energy, to be an eligible option under the Clean Development Mechanism of the Kyoto Protocol, . . . requests the Director General to pursue . . . efforts to strengthen the technical cooperation activities of the Agency . . . aimed at improving the scientific, technological and regulatory capabilities of developing countries . . . by continuing to assist them in their (a) peaceful applications of atomic energy and nuclear techniques in the field of inter alia food and agriculture, human health, industry, water resource management, environment and (b) nuclear energy production for those states pursuing it as a component of their energy mix in the 21st century."

International Atomic Energy Agency, Strengthening of the Activities of the Agencyıs Technical Cooperation Activities, Resolution adopted at the General Conference, October 1999

"We therefore endorse the 1998 recommendation of the House of Commons Trade and Industry Committee that 'a formal presumption be made now, for the purpose of long term planning, that new nuclear plant may be required in the course of the next two decades.' We would further urge that the timetable for such considerations should allow a decision to be taken early enough to enable nuclear to play its full, long-term role in national energy policy . . . if a damaging decline in the role of nuclear is to be avoided. . . . The total global energy requirement will increase throughout the next century. The emission of CO2 will be progressively restricted, perhaps with some help from carbon sequestration. Part of the growing energy need will be filled by renewables. Nuclear energy will continue to play a role for at least fifty years. . . . The potential problems for humanity during the next century are too serious to permit of a relaxed attitude. The development both of renewables and of the nuclear option should be pursued with vigour. Only by so doing will future generations have appropriate choices available‹some of which might be needed to avoid catastrophe."

The Royal Society and The Royal Academy of Engineering, United Kingdom, Nuclear Energy‹The Future Climate, June 1999

"We are committed to maintaining a viable nuclear energy sector and a cleaner, more prosperous future for the U.S."

T.J. Glauthier, Deputy Secretary of Energy, U.S. Department of Energy, May 1999

"It is an exciting time to be part of this industry. There was great enthusiasm coming out of the '50s and the early '60s, when nuclear energy's potential seemed to be boundless. And since then, we've spent more than three decades gaining a better understanding of the technology‹indeed, improving it‹and we're now again poised for a bright future. However, today's optimism‹rather than being based on a starry-eyed attraction to a new technology‹is founded on the environmental contributions and the economic potential of well-run nuclear power plants in a competitive environment."

Christian Poindexter, Chairman and President, Constellation Energy Group, State of the Industry address, NEI Nuclear Energy Assembly, May 1999

"Nuclear power, designed well, regulated properly, cared for meticulously, has a place in the world's energy supply."

Vice President Al Gore, speaking at the Chernobyl museum, Kiev, Ukraine, July 1998

"I am a supporter of nuclear energy. I believe it can be part of the solution to solving the world's energy, environment and global warming problems."

Sen. Joe Lieberman (D-Conn.), U.S. Senate hearing on the Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act of 1999, June 1998

"The most important responsibility of this atomic energy agency would be to devise methods whereby this fissionable material would be allocated to serve the needs of mankind. Experts would be mobilized to apply atomic energy to the needs of agriculture, medicine, and other peaceful uses. A special purpose would be to provide abundant electrical energy in the power-starved areas of the world."

President Dwight Eisenhower, address to the United Nations General Assembly on the creation of the International Atomic Energy Agency, December 1953

Protecting the Environment

"Nuclear energy is clean and should be part of the country's energy mix to combat global climate change."

Bill Richardson, Secretary, U.S. Department of Energy, National Press Club, Washington, D.C., October 2000

"Unless closure of nuclear power stations is offset by construction of new generating plants which do not emit carbon dioxide, there will be a direct conflict with any strategy to counter climate change, in that electricity generation will become more carbon-intensive."

Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution, United Kingdom, Energy‹The Changing Climate, June 2000

"Nuclear power can play a significant role in mitigating climate change. There are no insurmountable technical barriers to nuclear expansion, but the expansion must be performed under very high safety standards. Additionally, capital cost reductions from advanced designs and production methods will be required. It is therefore important to maintain and intensify current programs of research and development on power reactors, waste disposal, and nuclear safeguards to assure that safe nuclear power is available when it is needed."

William Sailor, David Bodansky, Chaim Braun, Steve Fetter, Bob van der Zwaan, "A Nuclear Solution to Climate Change?," Science, May 19, 2000

"Nuclear power is of fundamental importance for most World Energy Council members because it is the only energy supply which already has a very large and well-diversified resource (and potentially unlimited resource if breeders are used), is quasi-indigenous, does not emit greenhouse gases, and has either favourable or at most slightly unfavourable economics. In fact should the climate change threat become a reality, nuclear is the only existing power technology which could replace coal in baseload."

World Energy Council/Conseil Mondial de LıEnergie, Energy for Tomorrowıs World‹ Acting Now!, April 2000

"The real challenge is to convince America and the world that nuclear power is not only desirable, but essential if we are ever to realize the promise of a clean environment. We simply must guard against the possibility that we might lose it."

Sen. Howard Baker, Jr. (R-Tenn), November 1999

"If we're going to meet our clean air standards, we don't want to abandon nuclear power. I don't see how we can possibly meet those standards without nuclear power. Nuclear power emits no pollution into the atmosphere, [an important point] when you're talking about clean air and how to meet an increased electric demand."

Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.), October, 1999, after the radiation accident in Tokaimura, Japan

"As we enter the 21st century, it is imperative that our national energy supplies come from a variety of sources. . . . Over the past quarter century, nuclear energy has done more to prevent air pollution than any other form of electricity generation."

Sen. Bob Graham (D-Fla.), August 1999

"Nuclear power should continue to play a strong role in reducing all forms of emissions and contribute to a diverse national energy supply. There is no other zero-emissions generation source that could supply as much electricity as nuclear power supplies today. Even under the most optimistic scenario, nonhydro renewables cannot contribute a major share of either the growth in supply or the absolute supply of electricity for the next several decades. Currently, the average generation cost from nonhydro renewables is two to three times that of electric generation from conventional sources. Just as technology can create a new generation of fossil-based electricity sources, so too could technology bring a new generation of nuclear fission reactors over the long term. New designs for nuclear reactors already are available, with a wide range of technologies promising ongoing efficiency and cost improvements."

The Business Roundtable, The Role of Technology in Responding to Concerns About Climate Change, July 1999

"The major conclusions from the study are as follows. In 1995, the 125 GWe of nuclear capacity accounted for 23 percent of the European Unionıs capacity of 554 GWe. The Base scenario assumes that nuclear plant is retired after a life-time of 40 years. By 2025, half of the EUıs existing capacity will have been retired. In the main Kyoto target year of 2010, the Base scenario [CO2] emissions are projected to be 1000 Mtonnes, 4 percent above the 1990 value. The Kyoto target for all sectors is a reduction of 8 percent. Supporting nuclear generators reduces excess CO2 emissions to 70 Mtonnes in 2010 (8 percent), then targets are very nearly met in 2015, 2020, and 2025. The major problems of limiting carbon dioxide emissions in the EU and its Member States are not in 2010, but in later years and it is in this later period that any decline of the nuclear industry will have its greatest impact. Retiring nuclear plant early gives emissions of 1349 Mtonnes [in 2025], 15 percent above the base scenario and 40 percent above the 1990 level."

ERM Energy, Study of the Contribution of Nuclear Power to the Reduction of Carbon Dioxide Emissions from Electricity Generation, commissioned by the European Commission, Transport and Energy Directorate, July 1999

"Nuclear power can deliver large quantities of energy without emissions of conventional air pollutants and greenhouse gases. Its potential for mitigating climate change concerns is illustrated by a comparison of the carbon intensities of primary energy among countries that have made varying commitments to nuclear power‹for France, where nuclear power provided 75 percent of total electricity in 1990, the carbon intensity was two thirds of that in the United States, where 20 percent of electricity was provided by nuclear power."

The President's Committee of Advisors on Science and Technology, Powerful Partnerships: The Federal Role in International Cooperation on Energy Innovation, June 1999

"Most Americans want cleaner air, and I believe that nuclear energy has a major selling point in this regard‹now and in the future.... People donıt seem to understand the [environmental] costs of replacing nuclear energy were it to suddenly go away."

Sen. Pete Domenici (R-N.M.), May 1999

"One canıt favor environmental protection and not acknowledge that nuclear energy is a big part of the picture. If governments are going to comply with clean air initiatives and the Kyoto Protocol, they will not be able to do it without nuclear energy."

Peter Kostmeyer, Policy Counselor, Zero Population Growth, former Congressman, and long-time environmentalist, May 1999

"The reality is that, of all energy forms capable of meeting the world's expanding needs, nuclear power yields the least and most easily managed waste."

John Ritch, U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Organizations in Vienna, Austria, Prospect, March 1999.

"I believe very firmly that nuclear has to be a significant part of our energy future and a large part of the Western world, if we're going to meet these [emission reduction] targets. Those who think we can accomplish these goals without a significant nuclear industry are simply mistaken."

Stuart Eizenstat‹Undersecretary of State for Economic, Business and Agricultural Affairs and lead U.S. envoy at the U.N. summits on global climate change in Kyoto and Buenos Aires‹addressing the International Climate Change Partnership in October 1998.

"In the 1970s the world believed it was running out of oil and natural gas. The logical answer, at least for electricity generation, was to beef up the deployment of nuclear power. Today, the world is obsessed with global warming and, again, a turn to nuclear would seem logical. If nuclear was substituted for coal and gas in electricity generation in the industrialized world, these nations would meet the goals of the Kyoto Treaty effortlessly."

Publisher Llewellyn King in the Oct. 22, 1998, issue of The Energy Daily

"Nuclear power is a carbon-free source of electricity. Retaining as much as possible of its current power generation would therefore be an important carbon mitigation strategy.... An effort to maintain the viability of this capacity could result in a very large contribution to carbon reductions over the next quarter century."

U.S. Department of Energyıs Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Scenarios of U.S. Carbon Reductions, September 1997

"Another advantage of nuclear power plants is that there has been a growing awareness of their advantage as a clean source of power because they do not contribute to the current burden of air pollution. . . . In fact, some utilities have chosen to pursue nuclear power . . . [because] they wish to reduce air pollution."

Joseph Lieberman, Commissioner, U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, in testimony before the U.S. Congress, February 1968


Energy Security

"Europe cannot renounce nuclear energy, not only for strategic reasons but also because of our commitments at Kyoto."

Loyola de Palacio, Vice President, Energy Policy, European Commission, June 2000

"What do we do in the long run? Reduce our dependence on oil. Nuclear is both more efficient and cleaner than fossil fuels. A 1,000 megawatt oil-powered plant produces 300,000 tons of solid waste; a nuclear plant about 20 cubic meters. Nuclear produces almost no atmospheric pollutants. Oil spews huge amounts of particulates and toxic gases into the atmosphere, including carbon dioxide, a major cause of global warming. Nuclear is safer, too. A European Union and International Atomic Energy Agency study concludes that oil kills 32 times as many people through exposure to its pollutants."

Charles Krauthammer, "A Nation of Oil Addicts," The Washington Post, March 17, 2000

"[We must] ensure that nuclear energy remains part of our nationıs energy portfolio. Nuclear energy is a vital ingredient for providing U.S. base load capacity based on economic, environmental and electricity needs. Ensuring diversity and reliability in our nationıs future energy portfolio is a critical national security concern. Nuclear powerıs advantage is the ability to generate a vast amount of energy from a minute quantity of fuel. Nuclear safety and efficiency have improved dramatically in the last decade. In brief, we need nuclear. Our economic growth and security depend on it. We must not fail to ensure that nuclear is part of our energy mix. Our nationıs energy future must include nuclear in order to be sufficiently diverse, reliable and adequate to meet future energy needs."

Sen. Pete Domenici (R-N.M.), January 2000

"If we [Europe] gave up on nuclear power, the increase in dependency [on imports] would be spectacular and we would never meet our climate change objectives."

Loyola de Palacio, Vice President, Energy Policy, European Commission, August 1999

"A sustainable society must plan for the eventual transition to non-fossil energy sources that are more plentiful and environmentally more attractive. Nuclear power is the second largest energy source, after fossil fuels, at present . . . that emits no greenhouse gases. Nuclear energy, having an indigenous fuel source, provides increased energy security by offering an option to avoid dependence on foreign energy sources. Nuclear technology can also be the basis for new commerce with areas in the world . . . that have contributed to a large negative U.S. trade balance in recent years."

The Nuclear Engineering Department Heads Organization, Nuclear Engineering In Transition: A Vision for the 21st Century, December 1998


Safety and Regulation

"The present generation of nuclear reactors has had a good safety record, with the major exception of the Chernobyl-type reactors. Outside the former Soviet Union, about 8500 reactor-years of commercial nuclear power-plant operation have been realized until now, with no accident involving a large external release of radioactivity and only one accident with fuel melting: the 1979 accident at Three Mile Island. However, changes in equipment and operating procedures since TMI suggest considerably improved safety. Analyses of actual U.S. reactor performance show a drop of roughly a factor of 100 in the inferred core damage probability, when comparing the 1994-1998 record with that for the pre-TMI period of 1974-1978."

William Sailor, David Bodansky, Chaim Braun, Steve Fetter, Bob van der Zwaan, "A Nuclear Solution to Climate Change?," Science, May 19, 2000

"The NRC has had to deal with the issue of managing and mastering change since its creation as an independent agency in 1975. The predictions of numerous early license terminations now seems very unlikely. In fact, we see the probability that the NRC will receive a large number of applications for renewal‹a change in focus that would have been unexpected just a few years ago. The nuclear industry is not old. The Atomic Energy Act of 1954 is only 45 years old, and the median age of our operating nuclear power plants is about half that age. In a relatively brief period, we have seen monumental changes, from the early days of optimism about the promise of nuclear energy, to the depths of discouragement following Three Mile Island and Chernobyl, and now to the development of a mature technology that is once again beginning to generate cautious optimism in the United States."

Richard Meserve, Chairman, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, "Regulating in a Time of Change," NEI Nuclear Energy Assembly, May 2000

"The nuclear industry has worked hard to improve plant performance and trim costs, and in fact safety has been enhanced. It is clear that there is a positive correlation between high safety performance and good economics. At the international conference of nuclear engineers in April, NRC Commissioner Nils Diaz . . . used a chart that showed a rising trend in capacity factors transposed on the declining incidence of significant occurrences. Indeed, all the safety indicators are showing dramatic improvement in safety, as evidenced by INPO and NRC data. Last month, the NRC began implementation of a new process for nuclear plant oversight. The industryıs high level of performance sets the stage for these dramatic improvements. Given the high safety performance and solid economics of U.S. nuclear plants, both Congress and the NRC recognize that this technology is here to stay."

Erle Nye, Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive, TXU, State of the Industry address, NEI Nuclear Energy Assembly, May 2000

"I used to oppose nuclear plants . . . . I donıt oppose nuclear any more. [It was a] bias unsupported by the facts." [Rep. James] Moran [(D-Va.)] said he changed his mind after attending a conference on nuclear power put on by the Aspen Institute, a nonpartisan organization that tries to facilitate frank discussions and consensus-building on controversial issues. Moran now believes the U.S. should increase its use of nuclear energy. Virginia Powerıs nuclear plants are not in Moranıs district, but in a neighboring district. "Iıve gone down to North Anna," he said. "Virginia Power, they do a good job. Theyıve got a beautiful lake down there. Iım convinced itıs plenty safe." Environmental concerns about nuclear power are "something of an anachronism" these days, based on advances in technology and improved performance.

Rep. James Moran (D-Va.), reported in Nucleonics Week, April 6, 2000

"[Completing construction of the Bellefonte nuclear plant, now 85 percent complete] would be great for the economy and it would allow TVA [Tennessee Valley Authority] to cut back on its fossil fuel production, which would cause great improvement in the air. Many of the problems which have hindered the development and increased use of nuclear power in the United States has not arisen from safety risks or inherent problems with the use of technology but from burdensome regulations and high economic risks associated with licensing and bringing a new plant on line."

Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.), March 2000

"[The new NRC regulatory oversight process] has a lot of potential. That the NRC is trying to focus on some of the more important safety issues and get away from just regulatory compliance is positive as we move into competition."

Steven Fetter, Managing Director, Global Power Group, Corporate Finance, Fitch IBCA, February 2000

"Maintaining safety is the NRCıs highest priority. The new oversight process will help define the agency in future years. The NRC heard the same issues from all stakeholders‹predictability, scrutability, and inconsistency‹in the old regulatory process. For example, plants with good SALP [Systematic Assessment of Licensee Performance, the former regulatory process] scores sometimes got greater inspection than plants with lesser SALP scores. In the past, the NRC budgeted for one plant decommissioning per year. Now, it is planning for license renewals‹22 full time equivalent positions and a big budget."

Sam Collins, Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, October 1999

"The NRC should continue to pursue and complete on a priority basis its proposed program to move to risk-informed regulations in parallel with the development of a clearly defined safety philosophy that can be consistently applied to all nuclear plants."

Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), The Regulatory Process for Nuclear Power Reactors, August 1999

"Nuclear regulation is changing rapidly and for the better. It seems there is a window of opportunity for the nuclear industry to get changes completed. This window has been created by the industryıs strong performance during the past few years. Improvements have been seen in all areas of plant performance."

Barry Abramson, Senior Utilities Analyst, PaineWebber, Electric Utilities: Research Note, February 1, 1999

"Nothing in life is to be feared. It is only to be understood."

Marie Curie, discoverer of radium and Nobel prize winner


Economics and Reliability

"Extending the service life of all the plants by 10% (from 41 to 45 years) results in a 6% saving of the average undiscounted cost of a kWh. . . . Under the '[fossil fuel price] stability' assumption, the discounted average cost of one nuclear KWh from 2000 to 2050 is still lower than or equal to the cost of the natural gas combined cycle (NGCC). In the 'tension [upward price pressure]' scenario, the average discounted cost of nuclear power is still competitive over the two periods in every scenario compared to the NGCC scenario. . . . For the same level of demand for electricity, CO2 emissions have a direct relationship to the use of nuclear power, in that the more nuclear energy used, the lower the CO2 emissions. Closing nuclear power plants in 30 years would lower the amount of actinides by 40%, but the price would be a nearly 65% increase in CO2 emissions."

Jean-Michel Charpin, Benjamin Dessus, and Rene Pellat, Etude economique prospective de la filiere electrique nucleaire / Prospective Economic Study of the Nuclear Electricity System, Report to the Prime Minister of France, July 2000

"As the stock market tells us, it all starts with the fundamentals. And the fundamentals of nuclear today are strong. Cash flow, safety, performance, reliability and output are all up. Our financials are solid. The business trends are moving in the right direction. And the relentless march of deregulation‹ I prefer to call it competition‹ is remaking our industry in some very positive ways. There is growing concern about the reliability of electric supply today. Demand is outstripping capacity in some areas. Thereıs also a growing recognition that large, baseload nuclear generation is indispensable in the nationıs total electric supply. We are seeing a growing recognition of nuclearıs role in preserving air quality and reducing emissions. Consolidation is giving us a safer, more reliable and cost efficient industry. And as the electric industry unbundles into a new competitive marketplace, the added value of nuclear will become more and more visible."

Donald Hintz, President, Entergy Corporation, "The New Nuclear: Recognizing New Value," NEI Nuclear Energy Assembly, May 2000

"Nuclear now looks quite attractive compared to other generating assets. It has low fuel costs, is comparatively environmentally friendly, is less vulnerable to financial volatility, and has relatively fixed operating costs. If the [new regulatory] process does achieve these benefits [focus on safety issues, early warning signs], this should then enhance the value of nuclear assets and reduce premiums for companies with significant nuclear components in their generating mix. It should also enhance the availability of equity and debt capital for companies with nuclear generation assets."

James Asselstine, Managing Director, Fixed Income Research, and Head, High Grade Credit Research, Lehman Brothers, May 2000

"While it is clear that in most industrialised countries the short-term impact of regulatory reforms in a context of over capacity and/or cheap gas will be to lower electricity prices and to make new nuclear plants less attractive options, this is not the case in developing countries where additional capacity is needed, nor will it be so in industrialised countries 10 years from now. For that reason, the nuclear option should be kept open with the main stream of R&D devoted to evolutionary technologies which provide a sound economic and safety basis for use, but still with significant R&D devoted to new small size designs for markets with less concentrated electricity demand."

World Energy Council/Conseil Mondial de LıEnergie, Energy for Tomorrowıs World‹ Acting Now!, April 2000

"In order to produce electricity at the lower costs demanded by the new marketplace, utilities need a varied portfolio of generation assets. Theyıll look to having more nuclear, natural gas, and hydro plants, with some coal and oil-fired facilities. There are also environmental considerations in a portfolio centered on nuclear, natural gas and hydro. The publicıs concern for clean air and clean water continues to grow. The possibility of even stronger environmental restrictions on coal plants is very real. This could result in many coal plants becoming uncompetitive. This may lead utilities to reexamine the option of building nuclear plants."

Corbin McNeill, Jr., Chairman, President, and Chief Executive Officer, PECO Energy Company, Acceptance Remarks, Electric Light & Power Utility of the Year Award, March 2000

"License renewal efforts are moving forward at a much faster pace and at a dramatically lower cost than had first been anticipated. The lower cost is largely the result of the industry being able to demonstrate that the plants do not need to be overhauled in order to run an additional 20 years. Most of the plants, during their 30-40 year lives, have replaced the most important components. Furthermore, due to better maintenance practices and shared knowledge, the utility industry has been able to slow down the aging process that 10 years ago seemed like it would result in numerous premature plant retirements. The cost and the time to renew a nuclear plantıs license compares favorably with the cost to build new gas or coal fired generation."

Barry Abramson, Senior Utilities Analyst, PaineWebber, Electric Utilities: Research Note, March 27, 2000

"I actually am a very big believer in nuclear power. I believe that when the dust settles, this is going to be the cheaper form of generation. At the end of the day, when you have collected all of your stranded investments and made all of your calculations, this is going to be a cash-in, cash-out business."

Edward Tirello, Senior Utility Analyst and Managing Director, Deutsche Banc Alex. Brown, January 2000

"By extending the life of an efficient, well-performing nuclear plant, ... a company avoids building new capacity and purchasing potentially expensive power. For a fully depreciated nuclear unit with low-marginal production costs, license renewal may in fact enhance earnings power. Although the operating risk inherent in nuclear plants is a concern, the very modest prices paid for these assets and the favorable decommissioning cost recovery mechanisms offset the operational risks considerably."

Standard & Poorıs, Global Sector Review: Utilities, October 1999

"We are a big fan of nuclear these days. And what weıre seeing is that with a move toward more fossil emission regulations, the Kyoto Accord, that there is more and more concern in the future that coal-fired generation will get more expensive. And nuclear plants are running much better these days. Theyıre being operated much better."

Steven Fleishman, Managing Director and Head of Utility Research, Merrill Lynch & Co., on Wall Street Week, January 29, 1999

"It is difficult to envision a competitive electricity market without nuclear being a key element."

Steven Fetter, Managing Director, Global Power Group, Corporate Finance, Fitch IBCA, July 1998