The Washington Times published a story September 1st by Amanda DeBard under the header: “Climate Change Bill To Boost Nuclear Plants” which starts out good:

Nearly half of the nation’s nuclear power plants stand to earn a windfall if the climate-change bill passed by the House becomes law.

But then DeBard goes on to report:

The bill will cause an “increase in revenues to carbon-free power sources like nuclear, and this is exactly what is supposed to happen,” said John Shelk, president of the Electric Power Supply Association (EPSA).
…
“The money isn’t really a ‘windfall profit,’ ” Mr. Shelk said. “Instead, it is money for businesses that produce low-carbon electricity for them to reinvest and expand their operations.”

And this is where DeBard’s reporting falls down. As Heritage fellow Jack Spencer details, the reality is that the United States has not ordered a new reactor since the mid-1970s and it does not have the industrial infrastructure to build even a single reactor today. In other words, unless something is down about current nuclear regulations, it is impossible for nuclear plant operators to “reinvest and expand their operations.” And the Waxman-Markey climate change bill dos nothing to address this problem.