I have worked virtually my entire professional life at the intersection of environmental and energy issues. I worked at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency where, among other things, I was assistant administrator for air and radiation. I had primary responsibility for the development, implementation and enforcement of regulations under the Clean Air Act. For example, I played a primary role in eliminating lead from gasoline, was deeply involved in the regulation of acid-rain-causing chemicals, the tightening of national ambient air quality standards and played a significant role in what has become known as the emissions trading policy. More than two decades ago I was a founding member of the Climate Institute.

As a lawyer, I represented clients involved in virtually every area of energy production and distribution, from coal-fired power plants, oil production and refining companies, natural gas production and distribution companies to companies involved in nearly all aspects of nuclear power (including EnergySolutions) and alternative energy. (I own a very small interest in a coal-to-liquid company and have more significant involvement and ownership in a company devoted to the development of tidal energy.) In corporate life, for many years I was the CEO of Geneva Steel, one of the largest consumers of electricity and natural gas in the state of Utah.

I apologize for this brief disclaimer, but I wanted to disclose my engagement in energy and environmental policy. One of the liberating aspects of my present job is that I can give my opinion without encumbrance of employment or representation of groups that have a particular stake in environmental and energy policy.
Most countries in the world, including our country and state, are committed to reducing greenhouse gases. Unhappily, this comes at a time when demand for electricity continues to increase. According to energy specialist Peter Huber, about 60 percent of our domestic economy comes from industries and services that run on electricity (in 1950 that figure was only 20 percent). All the fastest growth sectors of the economy depend entirely on electricity. In order to meet this increased demand in the United States over the next 25 years, we will need to build the equivalent of 300 new 1,000-megawatt power plants.

Many hope that this demand can be met by conservation and the use of renewable fuels. There is no plausible scenario by which this is possible. Even the most enthusiastic wind energy supporters, for example, believe that only 6 percent of our electricity will come from wind by 2025. Other observers think that number is much lower.

Base load electrical generation capacity of the required magnitude can come only from coal-fired power plants or nuclear power plants. Right now about 50 percent of U.S. electricity comes from coal and 20 percent from nuclear. In Utah, roughly 90 percent of our electricity comes from coal and another 8 percent from natural gas, not quite 1 percent comes from renewable sources.

We should do all we can to promote energy conservation and the development of renewable energy sources. But we would be imprudent to gamble our future on such a strategy.

That leaves coal and nuclear. We must not, and should not, opt for more coal-fired generation. I would believe this even if climate change were not an issue. Some day, technology may exist to separate or eliminate CO2 from coal combustion, but when the entire cost of coal combustion is taken into account, from mining hazards, to mercury, sulphur, nitrogen oxide and other emissions, it is clear that nuclear power is much more benign to our health and the planet's health.

We are running out of time. And by not choosing to aggressively build nuclear power plants, we are deciding either to embrace a high-cost, economy-debilitating and less-reliable energy future or we will default to what we know best, coal-fired power plants. In Utah, one of the states most heavily dependent on coal, and where renewable resources are less available, this decision is even more critical. I very much hope that Gov. Jon Huntsman Jr. and our Legislature are giving more than lip service to the need for nuclear power in Utah.

In the United States as a whole, there may be as many as 30 new nuclear power plants in various planning stages. While these plants are subject to the jurisdiction of the Federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission, whether the projects are successful is heavily dependent on the support of the states in which they will be located.

In Britain, where 20 percent of electricity also comes from nuclear power, the government committed just days ago to a new generation of nuclear power plants. It took this action in order to meet both its climate change concerns and its increased thirst for electricity. According to the British newspaper The Guardian, the government was confident in its decision given that "nuclear power stations have provided safe and secure supplies of electricity for half a century."

Are there issues with respect to cost and waste disposal? Yes. Nevertheless, our government and the governments of many nations have, however imperfectly, dealt with these challenges for decades.

Last year, Gwyneth Cravens, novelist and editor at The New Yorker magazine, wrote a book ("Power to Save the World, The Truth About Nuclear Energy") about her odyssey from anti-nuclear protester to pro-nuclear power advocate. She writes, "Our world does not have to continue in this way. We do not have to pollute the earth in order to have modern civilization. America must make decisions soon about nuclear power. As the biggest single producer of greenhouse gases (we have) an ethical obligation to the rest of humanity. Because of general ignorance and misinformation about rays and particles and the realities about the risks and benefits of large-scale energy generation, we are in danger of making poor choices and blindly accepting energy policies that harm the planet and darken prospects for our children and grandchildren."