( CNN ) If there was ever any doubt that the Obama administration 's Clean Power Plan is an energy policy plan , not a carbon reduction plan , all you have to do is look at how they treat nuclear energy . Nuclear is our largest source of carbon-free energy , generating over 60 % of our carbon-free electricity . Surely President Barack Obama 's climate plan , allegedly aimed at reducing the United States ' overall carbon emissions , would revitalize the nuclear industry , lead to increased plant construction and help meet aggressive carbon reduction targets . Well , think again . James Hansen , the former head of NASA 's Goddard Institute for Space Studies , said in 2013 that `` continued opposition to nuclear power threatens humanity 's ability to avoid dangerous climate change . '' Yet Wednesday , the White House will celebrate Earth Day and promote its work to fend off climate change , while strategically ignoring its largest tool to cut carbon emissions -- nuclear energy -- as well as the warning of one of the administration 's favorite climate scientists . Despite the fact that nuclear power is carbon-free , the Obama administration 's energy policy plan is biased against it . This bias is created by how Environmental Protection Agency credits nuclear power in its models of both current emissions and plan implementation . EPA 's modeling is divorced from reality . First , EPA 's `` Base Case for the Proposed Clean Power Plan '' purports to depict the current state of the industry as the future would unfold without the Clean Power Plan . This base case assumes no new nuclear construction and indicates the retirement of 96 of our 99 operating nuclear plants by 2050 . EPA 's implementation modeling , `` Option 1 -- State , '' shows exactly the same situation : no new construction and 96 retirements by 2050 . In other words , EPA assumes that the nuclear industry is essentially phased out by 2050 . These assumptions are tremendously important because they determine how emission targets are set and what state actions will receive credit toward those targets . A group of University of Tennessee graduate students made this point to EPA at a public hearing last summer . Using EPA 's own data , the graduate students showed that EPA 's energy policy plan creates incentives for states to shut down nuclear power plants and replace them with natural gas combined cycle plants . The students demonstrated that under this scenario , EPA 's model shows emission reductions while real world emissions actually increase . President Obama 's EPA has shifted its position on nuclear energy and hidden that policy shift in a model . For example , when EPA modeled the Lieberman-Warner bill in 2008 , the agency indicated 44 nuclear plants would need to be built by 2030 in order to achieve the carbon reductions mandated in the bill . EPA 's modeling of the 2009 Waxman-Markey bill showed the need to build 275 new nuclear plants by 2050 to meet the carbon reduction targets in the legislation . Where did this policy shift come from ? At a recent hearing in the Environment and Public Works Committee , Mary Nichols , chairman of the California Air Resources Board , told Congress that EPA looked at California 's California Global Warming Solutions Act when developing its so-called Clean Power Plan and that EPA 's plan adopts the same policy choices -- limited credit for either nuclear or hydropower -- both of which are carbon-free . Thus , EPA is assuming legislative powers and is making policy choices that favor some forms of carbon-free energy over others . Congress did not give EPA the authority to make these choices , so instead they have hidden them in the modeling . For example , the same modeling that assumes the nuclear energy phaseout coincidentally shows robust development of renewables without any retirements between now and 2050 . This is a very favorable assumption albeit unlikely considering wind turbines and solar panels are commonly believed to last only 20 to 30 years before needing replacement . This anti-nuclear bias also is evident in Obama 's recent executive order `` Planning for Federal Sustainability in the Next Decade , '' which directs agencies to reduce their carbon emissions . Even though existing nuclear plants generate carbon-free electricity , the executive order does not allow agencies to take credit for emission reduction from nuclear energy unless it is energy from small modular reactors . While I have long fought back on attempts for the federal government to tax carbon , I believe in an all-of-the-above energy strategy that provides our nation with energy security , and I have supported legislation that helps to clean the air . The administration says it shares these same interests , despite differing avenues to get there . The administration also believes in man-driven global warming , which should make nuclear energy its golden key . But the Clean Power Plan and the President 's recent executive order demonstrate that the Obama administration is neither serious about reducing carbon emissions nor pursuing an all-of-the-above energy strategy . If you think this administration supports nuclear energy , think again .
U.S. Sen. Mary Nichols : Nuclear is our largest source of carbon-free energy , generating over 60 % of our carbon-free electricity . So why does n't the President 's climate plan , allegedly aimed at reducing carbon emissions , do more with nuclear power ?