Research Briefing

Continuing “Main Street Tour” In Georgia, Will Obama Stand Up For More Nuclear Energy For Main Street Or Cave In To His Liberal Environmentalist Friends?

“As President Obama Prepares For A Visit To Savannah On Tuesday, An Environmental Group Is Protesting His Stance On Nuclear Energy With Television Advertisements … Obama Recently Announced $8 Billion In Federal Loan Guarantees For An Expansion Of The Vogtle Nuclear Power Plant In Waynesboro, [GA].” (Mary Ellen Cheatham, “Group Protests Obama And Nuclear Energy,” Georgia Public Broadcasting, 2/28/10)

WILL OBAMA FIGHT HIS LIBERAL ENVIRONMENTALIST FRIENDS  WHO OPPOSE HIS PLANS FOR MORE NUCLEAR ENERGY?

League Of Conservation Voters Backed Obama For President, Spent $132,144 Supporting His Campaign. “‘Senator Obama’s proven record and his commitment to a clean, renewable energy future make him the best choice for President,’ LCV President Gene Karpinski said.   ‘At a time when this country must reinvent itself for a new energy future, we can imagine no better steward than Barack Obama. Under his leadership, America will finally achieve the economic growth, environmental protection, and national security that are possible with a new, clean energy economy.’” (“New Hope. New Energy,” League of Conservation Voters, 7/21/08; “League of Conservation Voters Independent Expenditures,” OpenSecrets, Accessed 3/1/10)

• Sierra Club Also Endorsed Obama, Spent $420,675 Supporting His Campaign. Carl Pope, Executive Director of the Sierra Club: “We believe Senator Obama is the change our nation needs – he is the change we need, the leader who will put America on the path to a clean energy economy that will create and keep millions of jobs, spur innovation and opportunity, make us a more secure nation, and help us solve global warming…” (“Sierra Club Endorses Obama For President,” Sierra Club, 6/19/08; “Sierra Club Independent Expenditures,” OpenSecrets, Accessed 3/1/10)

But Same Environmentalist Groups Campaigning Against Obama’s Nuclear Loan Guarantees For Nuclear Power In Georgia. “A campaign is already underway to oppose the tripling of loan guarantees for new nuclear power plants, included in President Obama’s 2011 budget unveiled today … A bevy of environmental … and scientific groups …  are criticizing Obama’s proposal to increase loan guarantees for new nuclear plants from $18.5 billiion to $54.5 billion.” (“Obama’s Nuclear Loan Guarantees Draw Opposition” USA Today’s “Green House” Blog, 2/1/10)

• “Friends Of The Earth” Running TV Ads In Georgia This Week Protesting Obama’s Plans For More Nuclear Energy. “In honor of President Barack Obama’s visit to Georgia next week, the environmental group Friends of the Earth launched two TV ads in Atlanta and Columbia, S.C., protesting $55 billion in loan guarantees for nuclear plants … ‘We’re aware that [Obama] is focusing on the reactor project in Georgia,’ said Nick Berning, director of public advocacy for Friends of the Earth. The ads went up today on Atlanta cable TV, centered around MSNBC, CNN and Fox News. They’ll run a week, Berning said.” (Jim Galloway, “Anti-Nuke Group Takes Aim At Obama’s Visit To Georgia,” The Atlanta Journal-Constitution’s “Political Insider” Blog, 2/25/10)
  
  
• Sierra Club Executive Director: “[T]here Are Areas Of Disagreement [With President Obama] And Loan Guarantees For New Nuclear Power Plants Are One Of Them.” (“Obama Is Throwing Support Behind Nuclear Energy,” Sierra Club, 2/16/10)

OR WILL OBAMA LET THEM CONTINUE THEIR AGENDA OF “OVERREGULATION” AND LITIGATION THAT HAS PREVENTED MORE NUCLEAR ENERGY PRODUCTION?

Former NRC Commissioner Admits “Unnecessary” Regulatory Barriers Were “Not Allowing People To Move Forward” With Nuclear Energy Expansion. “The new construction rule is only the latest such initiative. In 2004, the NRC limited the public’s ability to gather evidence and question witnesses during hearings… ‘We recognized that we did have these unnecessary barriers that were not allowing people to move forward,’ says former NRC Commissioner Jeffrey Merrifield, who voted for the change in the construction rule while seeking a new job under an unusual arrangement designed to avoid conflicts of interest.” (Elliot Blair Smith, “Nuclear Utilities Redefine One Word To Bulldoze For New Plants,” Bloomberg, 9/25/07)

“With Overregulation Driving Up The Cost Of Nuclear Power And The Government Unilaterally Banning Critical Commercial Technologies, The U.S. Nuclear Industry All But Died.” (Jack Spencer, “Competitive Nuclear Energy Investment: Avoiding Past Policy Mistakes,” Heritage Foundation, 10/15/07)

• Over 80 “Sources Of Regulation” And More Than 1,300 Pages Of “Laws, Treaties, Statutes, Authorizations, Executive Orders, And Other Documents” Governing Nuclear Industry. “In June 2006, the NRC listed over 80 sources of regulation, including over 1,300 pages of laws, treaties, statutes, authorizations, executive orders, and other documents. In addition to obvious legis­lative efforts, such at the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 and the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, nuclear activities in the United States must comply with the Inspector General Act, the Clean Air Act of 1977, the Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, and the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, to name a few of the other applicable laws.” (Jack Spencer, “Competitive Nuclear Energy Investment: Avoiding Past Policy Mistakes,” Heritage Foundation, 10/15/07)

Liberal Group “Mothers For Peace” Describes Itself As “Legal Intervenor For Over Three Decades” Of Nuclear Facility Construction. “Since 1973, the Mothers for Peace has focused much of its attention on the local dangers involving Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant. It has been the legal intervenor for over three decades of controversy concerning the construction, licensing, and operation of the Diablo Canyon facility.” (“About Us,” Mothers For Peace, accessed 3/1/10)

• And Sierra Club Opposes “Licensing, Construction And Operation Of New Nuclear Reactors” Unless Stronger Regulations Are Emplaced. “The Sierra Club opposes the licensing, construction and operation of new nuclear reactors utilizing the fission process, pending: Development of adequate national and global policies to curb energy over-use and unnecessary economic growth… Resolution of the significant safety problems inherent in reactor operation, disposal of spent fuels, and possible diversion of nuclear materials capable of use in weapons manufacture… Establishment of adequate regulatory machinery to guarantee adherence to the foregoing conditions. The above resolution does not apply to research reactors.” (“Sierra Club Conservation Policies: Nuclear Power,” Sierra Club, Accessed 3/1/10)

As A Result, No New Nuclear Plants Have Been Ordered Since 1977 And Since 1972. “Since 1972, over 120 nuclear units have been canceled by electric utilities; over $15 billion had been spent on these units. These cancellations represented over one-half of the total previously ordered nuclear generating capacity, and no new nuclear units have been ordered since 1977.” (Darryl E.J. Gurley, “Nuclear Power Plant Cancellations: Sunk Costs And Utility Stock Returns,” Quarterly Journal Of Business And Economics, 1/1/90)

• And Nuclear Industry Plagued By Construction Delays And Cost Overruns Due To Regulatory Uncertainty. “Finally, construction delays and cost overruns began to plague the industry. In addition, there was an increase in the uncertainty of regulatory treatment of plants about to be placed in service. The possibility of large rate increases led to regulatory actions, including prudence tests, rate base disallowances, and phase-ins of nuclear plants over a number of years.” (Darryl E.J. Gurley, “Nuclear Power Plant Cancellations: Sunk Costs And Utility Stock Returns,” Quarterly Journal Of Business And Economics, 1/1/90)