Senators Blackburn and Hagerty’s call for a new “interim CEO” at TVA to “lead the way in our nation’s nuclear energy revival” through a reckless push for SMRs puts ratepayers at risk.

Last Thursday, March 20, Senators Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) and Bill Hagerty (R-TN) published an op-ed in Power Magazine arguing that the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) should:

• Immediately file an SMR construction application with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
• Seek funding from the Department of Energy Generation III+ Small Modular Reactor Program.
• Stop “analysis paralysis” from getting in the way of producing a first-in-class SMR.
• Articulate a plan, and the resources necessary, for the nation’s largest public utility to command a lead in the provision of energy for the country’s technological innovations that will ensure American leadership throughout this century and beyond.

In doing so, the Senators have recklessly engaged in attempted micromanagement of TVA’s leadership and are putting taxpayers and TVA customers at risk of financial disaster.

Reckless Attempt at Micromanaging TVA

Although we at SACE have a laundry list of criticisms of TVA’s decision-making and its current leadership, we do not agree that U.S. Senators, lacking understanding and experience in energy related issues, have the authority nor the knowledge needed to step in and make decisions on the utility’s behalf. Increasing accountability and transparency at TVA remain top priorities for SACE – and we will continue to ask questions and fact-check TVA’s assumptions at every crossroads – but micromanagement by elected officials without subject matter expertise is not the answer.

The Senators’ claim that “analysis paralysis” is getting in the way of TVA leading a nuclear renaissance shows a complete disregard for protocols surrounding cost and analytics that TVA is under a clear directive to undertake. The Senators seem to be suggesting that TVA should pursue expensive new nuclear construction without evaluating the costs or how long new nuclear resources would take to come online; and that ratepayers should willingly be on the hook to shoulder the billions of dollars without considering the alternatives. Reports continue to show that SMRs are not cost effective, which is a primary reason TVA did not prioritize this technology in its most recent IRP. And while we do have criticisms of the recent IRP, we believe TVA’s particular decision to avoid endangering ratepayers is sound.

We’ve Seen This Before – It Wasn’t Pretty Then. And It Would Be Even Uglier Today if We Allow History to Repeat Itself

This isn’t the first time nuclear power has been touted as the future of the Tennessee Valley. In the 1970s TVA went on a binge of nuclear, proposing 17 new nuclear plants across Alabama, Tennessee, and Mississippi. Of these 17, only 7 were completed: 3 units at Browns Ferry (Alabama); 2 at Sequoyah (Tennessee); and 2 at Watts Bar (Tennessee), although Watts Bar 2 wasn’t completed until 2016. The other 10 were never completed but contributed to a whopping $20+ billion debt that TVA customers are still paying down. In fact, TVA’s nuclear power program in the 1960s and 1970s became one of the most dramatic — and troubled — nuclear expansions in U.S. history. The financial burden of this shortsighted plan is still impacting families and businesses in the region. Do we have amnesia?

The planned TVA reactors were spread across several sites:

• Browns Ferry (Alabama) – 3 units
• Sequoyah (Tennessee) – 2 units
• Watts Bar (Tennessee) – 2 units
• Bellefonte (Alabama) – 2 units (never completed)
• Phipps Bend (Tennessee) – 2 units (never completed)
• Hartsville (Tennessee) – 4 units (never completed)
• Yellow Creek (Mississippi) – 2 units (never completed)

The Senators last week made an analogy in their op-ed comparing their proposed nuclear expansion to NASA’s going to the moon: “TVA could be to the nuclear race what NASA was to the space race.” The multi-billion dollar pricetag that applies to both projects in this comparison is analogous, but where the NASA mission was taxpayer funded, TVA’s budget is shouldered ultimately by the electric customers throughout the Tennessee Valley in seven states. The ultimate question with unproven technology is who carries the risk of delays, cost overruns, and failure to complete. TVA billpayers have already learned this hard lesson, but Senators Blackburn and Hagerty would have us repeat the mistakes of the past.

The sad irony of this reckless proposal is that of the seven nuclear units TVA currently has operational, three units (42% of TVA’s nuclear capacity) are offline as we post this and have been unreliable through this winter’s demand, causing significant increases in costly imported power and outages leading to major interruptions like closing schools to save power (as explained in this voicemail from Hamilton County Schools). If TVA is facing power shortfalls today and its existing nuclear fleet is unreliable, it is absolute folly to propose increasing its reliance on nuclear by focusing on resources that will take 10, 15, or even 20 years to come online.

Former TN Senator Bill Frist restructured the TVA Board in the Energy Policy Act of 2005, changing it from a three member full-time board to a nine member part-time Board with a CEO. He did this in an attempt to make TVA decision-making less politically driven. In their state of amnesia, the current Senators are appearing to completely discount this history. Their proposal to make TVA leadership hyperpartisan in the pursuit of a one-dimensional commitment to unproven SMR technology is misguided and potentially very dangerous.

TVA Needs Reforms, Not Recklessness

Does TVA need reform and potential serious restructuring? Yes. Is the reckless op-ed by Tennessee’s current ill-informed Senators a serious proposal? Not even close. SACE has challenged TVA’s leadership to lead on 21st century technology that is cost-effective and financially responsible and solves both near-term and long-term energy challenges. We have also supported serious proposals to explore expanding TVA generation and transmission. So far TVA’s current leadership and Board have fallen short.

We welcome serious debate and thoughtful proposals, but this op-ed represents the opposite of what is needed at this moment.