“It is no longer a matter of debate whether there will be new nuclear plants in the industry’s future. Now, the discussion has shifted to predictions of how many, where and when. … The most likely and receptive sites for new nuclear plant construction are in the Southeast and Midwest. New nuclear plants and baseload power plants using new coal technologies are least likely to appear in the populous and energy-hungry Northeast or in California, regions that already have significantly higher energy prices than the Southeast and Midwest. For political or geological reasons, these regions are likely to rely either on gas-fired power facilities or costly investments for other resources, such as wind or solar. These differences will tend to favor lower energy prices in the Southeast and Midwest to the disadvantage of the Northeast and California.”

—Fitch Ratings Ltd.
“Wholesale Power Market Update”
March 13, 2006


The Energy Policy Act of 2005 “provides meaningful incentives for the construction of new nuclear plants and advanced coal generation facilities. … Fitch views EPACT’s provisions to spur development of a handful of new nuclear and coal-based facilities as an effective way to mitigate the risks relating to commercialization of the targeted new technologies. Demonstration of successful commercial performance of several such facilities will likely reduce investment costs, shorten the construction cycle for subsequent plants and avoid the need for extraordinary subsidies for follow-on facilities. Thus, these incentives could have far-reaching consequences in the 2015–2020 period, despite few immediate investment effects.”

—Fitch Ratings Ltd.
“Energy Policy Act of 2005”
Aug. 2, 2005


“Utilities will likely spend more than $40 billion by the end of the decade to meet more stringent environmental requirements. Most of this will be for scrubbers on coal plants. We also believe that carbon-reduction legislation to address global warming will get much more attention in 2006. We view large nuclear utilities as beneficiaries of the rising cost profile of coal generation and potential future carbon reduction. For nuclear utilities, the benefits of these environmental costs are already having an impact. Because the costs of nuclear power are relatively stable, these higher prices lead to higher margins for the nuclear plants (which run all hours that they are available). Beyond these near-term trends, we believe that nuclear utilities represent a free option on potential future carbon-reduction legislation, … which should be all added margin for a nuclear plant.”

—Merrill Lynch
“Cleaning the Environment”
Dec. 6, 2005


“We see a convergence of powerful economic and political forces … that should lead to a renaissance of nuclear power. The momentum for new nuclear construction has been building quietly over several years, sustained not only by the industry but also by federal officials who believe strongly in the future of nuclear power as an emission-free and secure source of electricity. Nuclear has an increasingly strong case to make.”

—Prudential Equity Group LLC
“Back On Line: U.S. Nuclear Power Generation Set For Resurgence”
January 2005


“The favorable trend for all these measures of plant performance can be attributed in part to changes in the way that the NRC measures plant performance, as well as the sector’s proactive response to meeting much stricter inspection requirements imposed by the NRC.”

—Moody’s Investors Service
“Nuclear Power Trends in the United States”
February 2004