Current Access Level “I” – ID Only: CUID holders and approved guests only. Building Access: Normal building operating hours with exceptions. Read more about the campus status level system and campus access information. See the latest updates to the community regarding campus planning.
Get the latest as our experts share their insights on global energy policy.
This year’s Conference of the Parties (COP-29) broke new ground with the Baku Initiative for Climate Finance, Investment, and Trade (BICFIT)—the first high-profile COP initiative to place trade...
Hear in-depth conversations with the world’s top energy and climate leaders from government, business, academia, and civil society.
This week host Jason Bordoff talks with Cheryl LaFleur and David Hill about the incoming Trump administration, its impact on FERC, and the status of permitting reform measures.
Find out more about our upcoming and past events.
Please join the Center on Global Energy Policy (CGEP) at Columbia University's School of International and Public Affairs for a special webinar "Can AI Help Reduce Emissions of...
Reports by Matt Bowen • September 11, 2024
This report represents the research and views of the author. It does not necessarily represent the views of the Center on Global Energy Policy. The piece may be subject to further revision. Contributions to SIPA for the benefit of CGEP are general use gifts, which gives the Center discretion in how it allocates these funds. Rare cases of sponsored projects are clearly indicated.
For a full list of financial supporters of the Center on Global Energy Policy at Columbia University SIPA, please visit our website at Our Partners. See below a list of members that are currently in CGEP’s Visionary Annual Circle. This list is updated periodically.
Corporate Partnerships
Occidental Petroleum Corporation
Tellurian Inc.
Foundations and Individual Donors
Anonymous
Anonymous
the bedari collective
Jay Bernstein
Breakthrough Energy LLC
Children’s Investment Fund Foundation (CIFF)
Arjun Murti
Ray Rothrock
Kimberly and Scott Sheffield
Nuclear power is being weighed in energy transition plans around the world, as countries seek to replace fossil fuels with low-carbon alternatives while also meeting growing energy demand and maintaining reliability and affordability. When considering extension of existing nuclear reactor licenses as well as approving new ones, there is an ethical obligation for today’s users to develop plans for long-term management of the resulting nuclear waste and not defer its disposition to future generations. In the United States, the federal government is contractually obligated to take ownership of the spent nuclear fuel (SNF) produced at power plants, but this has not happened. The one deep geologic repository project named in law by Congress for potential disposal of SNF—Yucca Mountain in Nevada—has reached a stalemate, with Congress appropriating no money to move the project forward since 2010 due to Nevada’s opposition.
Negotiations with US states and tribes to host storage and disposal facilities have been sensitive in the past due to both a stigma around nuclear waste and a perception of risk associated with such facilities. A federal “nuclear waste negotiator” role existed in the early 1990s to overcome these difficulties and find a state or tribe willing to host a repository or interim storage facility, though this short-lived, volunteer-based program did not lead to deployment of either.
This report, part of a series of publications on nuclear waste policy at the Center on Global Energy Policy at Columbia University SIPA, reveals lessons learned from the experiences of the two prior negotiators that could benefit a recent, congressionally directed effort at the Department of Energy (DOE) to begin a “consent-based” siting program for nuclear waste. Those individuals were authorized to negotiate terms and conditions—including financial and institutional arrangements—with a state or tribe in a written agreement that would then have to be approved by Congress. Importantly, a state or tribe was assured it could explore the potential of hosting a site while retaining the right to withdraw at any time, and if it did proceed, would have a measure of power in setting terms for the project.
Additional insights from the prior nuclear waste negotiator role for similar efforts today include the following:
Microsoft’s plan to restart Three Mile Island points to the way forward.
While the United States (US) has facilities that can and do dispose of most low-level nuclear waste (LLW), it does not yet have a viable disposal pathway for two categories of waste: so-called greater-than-class-c (GTCC) nuclear waste, and nuclear waste with characteristics similar to it, or “GTCC-like.”
Full report
Reports by Matt Bowen • September 11, 2024