New Energy Solutions Reports
Search
•
RSS Feed
|
|
Challenging Nuclear Power in the States: Policy and Organizing Tools for Slowing the “Nuclear Renaissance”
6/1/2006
|
Executive Summary
As the new home of MASSPIRG's environmental work, Environment Massachusetts can be contacted regarding this report.
Capitalizing on rising energy prices,
growing concern about global warming,
and a favorable political climate,
the nuclear industry is working to achieve
a “nuclear renaissance.” After 30 years without
a single new order for a nuclear power
plant in the U.S., several companies are now
in the early stages of proposing new nuclear
power plants. Meanwhile, federal officials
have begun routinely approving requests to
run existing nuclear plants harder and
longer than ever.
A “nuclear renaissance” would be a bad
deal for American consumers, the environment,
public safety and national security.
Nuclear power is an expensive and risky
way to address global warming—especially
when compared to alternatives such as improved
energy efficiency and the expansion
of renewable energy production. Moreover,
the nuclear industry’s shoddy safety record
and insufficient response to the growing
threat of terrorism suggest that new nuclear
power plants—or the continued operation
of aging plants—could cause more problems
than they solve.
Citizens who attempt to raise these concerns
about nuclear power face increasing
difficulty in getting their voices heard. The
Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s (NRC)
relicensing and new reactor licensing processes
are essentially of the nuclear
industry’s own design. For example, the
NRC’s relicensing procedures for existing
plants forbid the consideration of the adequacy
of evacuation plans in determining
whether a plant should be allowed to continue
to operate for another 20 years. In
addition, the U.S. Congress and the Bush
administration have staked out an aggressively
pro-nuclear stance, providing billions
of dollars of additional taxpayer subsidies
to the nuclear industry through the Energy
Policy Act enacted in 2005.
Citizens concerned about nuclear power
do have other forums in which to raise their
concerns: local and state governments.
While the power to license and regulate the
operation of nuclear power plants is exclusively
in the hands of the federal government,
state governments have many
opportunities to influence whether, when
and how nuclear power plants may operate.
Among these opportunities are the following:
Legislative Moratoriums
• At least six states—California, Kentucky,
Montana, Maine, Oregon and
Wisconsin—have placed conditional
bans on the construction of new
nuclear power plants. Most of the
moratoriums expire when and if a
permanent solution for the storage of
nuclear waste is discovered.
Environmental and Land Use
Permitting
• Nuclear power plants are copious
consumers of water. Plants using
“once-through” cooling systems have a
massive impact on the environment— trapping fish and other marine animals
in their intakes and changing the
temperature of local waterways
through the discharge of heated water.
The Clean Water Act provides states
with the opportunity to require that
nuclear power plants use cooling
systems that are more protective of
waterways and wildlife.
• States also regulate the use of land,
particularly in the coastal zone, where
federal actions (including the licensing
of nuclear power plants) must be
consistent with states’ coastal zone
plans.
Energy Facility Siting
• In most states, energy facility siting
boards determine whether power
plants may be built in a particular
location. In addition to considerations
such as environmental impact, these
boards often consider whether a given
power plant is needed and sometimes
whether other alternatives can serve
local energy needs at a lower cost.
Public Utilities Commissions (PUCs)
• PUCs and their equivalents regulate
the electric industry in the states. In
states with traditional regulatory
structures, PUCs pass judgment on
whether a power plant is needed to
serve local energy demand, whether it
is a reasonable expenditure of ratepayer
dollars, and how a utility may
recover construction funds from
ratepayers. These decisions effectively
determine whether a regulated utility
can build a nuclear power plant.
• PUCs in states that have “restructured”
their electric industries can
shape the power purchasing practices
of utilities that distribute power to
consumers in order to protect consumers
from excessive risk. California’s
PUC, for example, requires utilities to
prioritize energy efficiency and
renewable sources of energy over new
fossil fuel power plants in planning to
serve these customers.
• PUCs and regional bodies also engage
in planning for the future of the power
grid and set policies regarding how
alternative sources of energy—such as
renewable energy and distributed
generation—will be treated in the
marketplace. Policies that treat renewable
energy and other alternatives
fairly, and that factor in the true costs
of nuclear power, can reduce the
attractiveness of nuclear power plants
as an energy source.
Energy Policy
• State governments have the power to
establish energy policies that serve
their citizens’ needs. Renewable
energy standards, efficiency standards
for appliances, financial support for
energy efficiency and renewables, and
other clean energy policies can reduce
the demand for power from new
sources and allow for the shutdown of
existing nuclear power plants without
economic disruption.
Climate Policy and Market-Based
Environmental Regulation
• The nuclear industry has pushed to
allow nuclear power plants to obtain
credits under a variety of state-administered,
market-based programs
designed to reduce air pollution and
global warming emissions. These
credits represent a financial windfall to
the nuclear industry and should be
opposed on the grounds that technologies
like nuclear power that have major
environmental impacts should not
benefit from environmental programs.
Organizing Opportunities
• Citizens seeking to challenge nuclear
power also can direct their efforts at
nuclear power companies themselves,
using tools such as shareholder resolutions,
organizing of power consumers,
and publicity drives to educate the
public about nuclear power and build
broader coalitions around more
sensible energy policies.
|
