Russian nuclear fuel is keeping the lights on in California’s homes supplied by the Avila Beach and San Clemente nuclear power plants. Just less than 20 percent of all of the U.S. state’s electricity production comes from nuclear power. But California is not the only state in which Russian nuclear fuel is being widely used for power generation. According to the U.S. Energy Department, in 2007 about 40 percent of nuclear fuel used by the U.S. nuclear power sector came from Russia. In May, Chicago-based Exelon and other U.S. utilities signed a key new agreement with Moscow-based Techsnabexport, or TENEX, allowing direct commercial sales of Russian nuclear fuel to the U.S. market. Previously, U.S. anti-dumping laws only allowed the selling of the uranium recovered from dismantled Soviet nuclear weapons.

Presidents Barack Obama and Dmitry Medvedev confirmed their commitment to resetting the U.S.-Russian strategic partnership during the Moscow summit in July. A good place to jump-start this process is by strengthening cooperation in the nuclear power sector.

Russia and the United States should take a joint leadership role in supporting the global nuclear industry and managing a safer “nuclear renaissance.” For example, both countries should work more closely together to establish an international nuclear fuel bank. A fuel bank based on the proliferation-resistant, closed fuel-cycle solution for civil nuclear energy is a point on which both countries can agree. Moreover, both sides can bring to the partnership valuable expertise in nuclear power generation.

The United States and Russia should build on these foundations by promoting technical cooperation between their respective civil nuclear industries. This would significantly advance their national energy security and bring tangible commercial benefits. Both countries would benefit from demonstrating stronger joint leadership to promote multilateral civil nuclear energy frameworks.

Aside from the benefits for energy security, bilateral cooperation in this field could also help to rejuvenate stalled U.S.-Russian dialogue on other matters of global strategic importance.

Unfortunately, the civil nuclear agenda has often been held hostage, especially under the past administration, to serious divergences between Moscow and Washington over larger global strategic issues, including Iran. There are profound differences in opinion between Russian and Western security experts and elites as to the range of cooperative possibilities in the nuclear energy relationship.

But there is reason for optimism as the stage is already set for closer cooperation between the United States and Russia. In an April 1 joint statement by the Group of Eight, the U.S. and Russian presidents called for further bilateral nuclear cooperation. “Together, we seek to secure nuclear weapons and materials, while promoting the safe use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes,” Medvedev and Obama stressed in the statement.

The United States and Russia share a vision of a sustainable energy future less reliant on dwindling and environmentally damaging fossil fuels. A joint U.S.-Russian initiative on civil nuclear energy would be a step closer to this goal.

The two countries need to make commitments that go beyond their current strategies. For example, Washington and Moscow should resume the process of ratifying the United States-Russia Civil Nuclear Cooperation Agreement, also known as the 123 Agreement. In fact, ratification of the 123 Agreement is an indispensable precondition for conducting joint scientific experiments and developing a full-scale technological and commercial partnership.

Moscow and Washington should also create a bilateral intergovernmental commission to define technical parameters for civil nuclear cooperation and commit to a firm deadline — for example, by the end of 2010 — for making a joint proposal on an international fuel bank that effectively merges the existing national proposals.

They should also establish a firm framework for transferring affordable and proliferation-resistant technology to developing countries. This can be done through a multilateral nuclear technology knowledge bank based on public-private cooperation under the auspices of the International Atomic Energy Agency. Furthermore, the United States and Russia should use the knowledge bank to develop a set of political and business incentives that promote a clear and rapid move to new power-generation solutions, such as thermo-

nuclear fusion.

Civil nuclear energy can play the same role for U.S.-Russian relations that coal and steel played for German-French relations after World War II. A nuclear energy partnership can foster technical cooperation on a practical, functional and nonpoliticized basis, while simultaneously promoting global security.

Gregory Austin is vice president of program development and rapid response and Danila Bochkarev is associate for energy security at the EastWest Institute. The views expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the EastWest Institute, its staff or board.