Challenging Nuclear Power in the States Policy and Organizing Tools for Slowing the “Nuclear Renaissance”

National Association of State PIRGs

Spring 2006 Challenging Nuclear Power in the States Policy and Organizing Tools for Slowing the “Nuclear Renaissance”

Tony Dutzik Rob Sargent

National Association of State PIRGs

Spring 2006

The State PIRGs: AkPIRG, Arizona PIRG, CALPIRG, CoPIRG, ConnPIRG, Florida PIRG, Georgia PIRG, Illinois PIRG, Iowa PIRG, INPIRG, Maryland PIRG, MASSPIRG, MoPIRG, MontPIRG, NCPIRG, NHPIRG, NJPIRG, NMPIRG, NYPIRG, Ohio PIRG, OSPIRG, PennPIRG, PIRGIM, RIPIRG, TexPIRG, U.S. PIRG (national advocacy office), VPIRG, WashPIRG, WISPIRG. In partnership with: Environment California, Environment Colorado, Environment Georgia, Environment Illinois, Environment Maine, Environment Maryland, Environment Michigan, Environment North Carolina, PennEnvironment, Environment Texas. Acknowledgments

The authors wish to thank the many people who shared perspectives and information or provided review for this report, including Sara Barczak, Peter Bradford, Scott Cullen, Suzanne Leta, David Lochbaum, Pete McDowell and Jim Warren. Thanks also to Susan Rakov and Elizabeth Ridlington of Frontier Group for their editorial assistance.

The views and opinions expressed here are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of those who provided review. Any factual errors are strictly the responsi- bility of the authors.

© Copyright 2006 National Association of State PIRGs

With public debate around important issues often dominated by special interests pursuing their own narrow agendas, the state Public Interest Research Groups (PIRGs) offer an independent voice that works on behalf of the public interest. The National Association of State PIRGs assists PIRGs nationwide in their work to preserve the environment, protect consumers and promote good government.

For additional copies of this paper, please send $20 (including shipping) to: National Association of State PIRGs 44 Winter St., 4th Floor Boston, MA 02108

For more information about the state PIRGs, visit www.pirg.org.

Cover photo: Trojan nuclear power plant, Oregon. (istockphoto.com/Richard Foote) Table of Contents

Executive Summary 4 Introduction 7 Nuclear Power: Reasons for Concern 9 Cost 9 Toxic Waste 12 Safety and Security 13 Water Consumption and Local Environmental Impacts 15 The Nuclear Regulatory Commission: An Ineffective Watchdog 15 “New” Nuclear Facility Designs: Are They the Solution? 16 Conclusion 17 Challenging Nuclear Power in the States 18 Outright or Conditional Bans 18 Environmental and Land Use Permitting 19 Energy Facility Siting Processes 22 Public Utilities Commission Processes 23 Energy Policy Decisions 27 Climate Policy and Market-Based Environmental Regulations 31 Organizing Opportunities 33 Conclusion 37 Notes 38 Executive Summary

apitalizing on rising energy prices, relicensing and new reactor licensing pro- growing concern about global warm- cesses are essentially of the nuclear C ing, and a favorable political climate, industry’s own design. For example, the the nuclear industry is working to achieve NRC’s relicensing procedures for existing a “nuclear renaissance.” After 30 years with- plants forbid the consideration of the ad- out a single new order for a nuclear power equacy of evacuation plans in determining plant in the U.S., several companies are now whether a plant should be allowed to con- in the early stages of proposing new nuclear tinue to operate for another 20 years. In power plants. Meanwhile, federal officials addition, the U.S. Congress and the Bush have begun routinely approving requests to administration have staked out an aggres- run existing nuclear plants harder and sively pro-nuclear stance, providing billions longer than ever. of dollars of additional taxpayer subsidies A “nuclear renaissance” would be a bad to the nuclear industry through the Energy deal for American consumers, the environ- Policy Act enacted in 2005. ment, public safety and national security. Citizens concerned about nuclear power Nuclear power is an expensive and risky do have other forums in which to raise their way to address global warming—especially concerns: local and state governments. when compared to alternatives such as im- While the power to license and regulate the proved energy efficiency and the expansion operation of nuclear power plants is exclu- of renewable energy production. Moreover, sively in the hands of the federal govern- the nuclear industry’s shoddy safety record ment, state governments have many and insufficient response to the growing opportunities to influence whether, when threat of terrorism suggest that new nuclear and how nuclear power plants may operate. power plants—or the continued operation Among these opportunities are the fol- of aging plants—could cause more prob- lowing: lems than they solve. Citizens who attempt to raise these con- Legislative Moratoriums cerns about nuclear power face increasing difficulty in getting their voices heard. The • At least six states—California, Ken- Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s (NRC) tucky, Montana, Maine, Oregon and

4 Challenging Nuclear Power in the States Wisconsin—have placed conditional states with traditional regulatory bans on the construction of new structures, PUCs pass judgment on nuclear power plants. Most of the whether a power plant is needed to moratoriums expire when and if a serve local energy demand, whether it permanent solution for the storage of is a reasonable expenditure of rate- nuclear waste is discovered. payer dollars, and how a utility may recover construction funds from ratepayers. These decisions effectively Environmental and Land Use determine whether a regulated utility Permitting can build a nuclear power plant. • Nuclear power plants are copious • PUCs in states that have “restruc- consumers of water. Plants using tured” their electric industries can “once-through” cooling systems have a shape the power purchasing practices massive impact on the environment— of utilities that distribute power to trapping fish and other marine animals consumers in order to protect consum- in their intakes and changing the ers from excessive risk. California’s temperature of local waterways PUC, for example, requires utilities to through the discharge of heated water. prioritize energy efficiency and The Clean Water Act provides states renewable sources of energy over new with the opportunity to require that fossil fuel power plants in planning to nuclear power plants use cooling serve these customers. systems that are more protective of waterways and wildlife. • PUCs and regional bodies also engage in planning for the future of the power • States also regulate the use of land, grid and set policies regarding how particularly in the coastal zone, where alternative sources of energy—such as federal actions (including the licensing renewable energy and distributed of nuclear power plants) must be generation—will be treated in the consistent with states’ coastal zone marketplace. Policies that treat renew- plans. able energy and other alternatives fairly, and that factor in the true costs of nuclear power, can reduce the Energy Facility Siting attractiveness of nuclear power plants as an energy source. • In most states, energy facility siting boards determine whether power plants may be built in a particular location. In addition to considerations Energy Policy such as environmental impact, these • State governments have the power to boards often consider whether a given establish energy policies that serve power plant is needed and sometimes their citizens’ needs. Renewable whether other alternatives can serve energy standards, efficiency standards local energy needs at a lower cost. for appliances, financial support for energy efficiency and renewables, and other clean energy policies can reduce Public Utilities Commissions (PUCs) the demand for power from new sources and allow for the shutdown of • PUCs and their equivalents regulate existing nuclear power plants without the electric industry in the states. In economic disruption.

Executive Summary 5 Climate Policy and Market-Based environmental impacts should not Environmental Regulation benefit from environmental programs.

• The nuclear industry has pushed to Organizing Opportunities allow nuclear power plants to obtain credits under a variety of state-admin- • Citizens seeking to challenge nuclear istered, market-based programs power also can direct their efforts at designed to reduce air pollution and nuclear power companies themselves, global warming emissions. These using tools such as shareholder resolu- credits represent a financial windfall to tions, organizing of power consumers, the nuclear industry and should be and publicity drives to educate the opposed on the grounds that technolo- public about nuclear power and build gies like nuclear power that have major broader coalitions around more sensible energy policies.

6 Challenging Nuclear Power in the States Introduction

ising energy prices, instability in oil role of nuclear power in serving America’s and natural gas markets, and increas- future energy needs. Before new nuclear R ing concerns about global warming power plants are built in the United States, all point to one conclusion: America must Americans must be convinced that: transition to a new energy future that is less a) nuclear power plants are the most reliant on fossil fuels and that reduces emis- economical way to achieve the goals of sions that cause global warming. energy independence and reduced Proponents of nuclear power claim that impact on the global climate; their technology can meet these challenges— an echo of the claims of 50 years ago that b) new nuclear power plants will be built nuclear power would meet America’s grow- and regulated in such a fashion as to ing demand for energy at prices that were make the possibility of a catastrophic “too cheap to meter.” accident or serious environmental America’s first experiment with nuclear harm vanishingly small; power has been a disaster. Tens of billions c) the long-term storage problem of of dollars were spent on the construction nuclear waste is resolved in a perma- of nuclear power plants, some of which nent and environmentally sustainable were cancelled in mid-stream and never way; generated a kilowatt of electricity. Serious accidents at Three Mile Island and later d) there are solid safeguards in place to Chernobyl caused many Americans to have protect the public against the prolif- serious (and justified) concerns about the eration of nuclear material resulting safety of the nuclear reactors in their midst. from commercial nuclear activities. And the nation’s nuclear power plants have generated tens of thousands of tons of haz- Unfortunately, proposals for new nuclear ardous nuclear waste, which still does not power plants (or the relicensing of existing have a permanent and safe home. plants) are unlikely to receive this level of In the wake of this experience, citizens critical scrutiny from the federal govern- are right to be skeptical about the potential ment, which holds primary authority for the

Introduction 7 licensing and regulation of nuclear power. regulation, this would be the SEC in the As demonstrated by the 2005 federal En- years before Enron.”1 ergy Policy Act, Congress has singled out Citizens who are concerned about the nuclear power for “go to the head of the impacts of a “nuclear renaissance” do have class” treatment, lavishing generous subsi- options other than relying on a special in- dies on the nuclear industry at the expense terest-dominated Congress and a moribund of cleaner, more sustainable alternatives. NRC to protect the public interest. State The Nuclear Regulatory Commission and local governments hold much of the (NRC) has altered its licensing and power to determine when, and under what relicensing procedures so as to provide the circumstances, nuclear power plants may nuclear industry with a fast track to ap- be built. That power may be exerted di- proval, while squelching legitimate public rectly—in areas of permitting and land-use concerns about safety and terrorism. And regulation—or indirectly through the set- the NRC has continually fallen short in its ting of energy policies that give preference efforts to ensure that the nation’s current to cleaner, less expensive alternatives to fleet of nuclear reactors operates safely—a nuclear power. conclusion shared by the federal This paper describes some of the tools government’s chief watchdog, the Govern- that citizens and state and local govern- ment Accountability Office, and the NRC’s ments may use to challenge the construc- own Inspector General. tion of nuclear power plants. With the Former NRC commissioner Peter nuclear industry already seeking approval Bradford puts it succinctly: “The NRC for sites for new reactors and pushing for never errs on the side of safety, of environ- relicensing of its existing, aging reactors, mental protection, or of public involve- the time for citizens to become acquainted ment. If we were discussing accounting with these tools is now.

8 Challenging Nuclear Power in the States Nuclear Power: Reasons for Concern

he original wave of nuclear power economic albatross. When restructuring of plant construction in the U.S. during the electric industry began in the early T the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s was an 1990s, it was widely assumed that many economic and environmental disaster, gen- nuclear power plants would be unable to erating more than 50,000 tons of toxic compete and would eventually shut down. nuclear waste and imposing billions of dol- In recent years, however, the nuclear lars in unnecessary costs on electricity industry has achieved a remarkable turn- ratepayers—costs that are still being paid around in the existing plants. The cost of off today.2 The nuclear power plants that power from existing nuclear reactors has were built during that period pose serious dipped to less than 2 cents per kilowatt- and continuing threats to public safety. hour—less expensive than most fossil fuel As a result, citizens have ample reason generated power.3 to be concerned about the impacts of a so- But the operating costs of nuclear power called “nuclear renaissance” in their plants are just the tip of the iceberg. Below communities. the surface lurk many hidden costs that saddle ratepayers and taxpayers with much of the total bill for nuclear power, making nuclear reactors of dubious economic value. Cost Capital Costs Nuclear power remains a very expensive op- tion for satisfying the nation’s energy needs. Proponents of nuclear power have pointed to the low cost of operating the current generation of nuclear plants as proof that Existing Nuclear Reactors nuclear power is not expensive.4 However, The nation’s existing fleet of nuclear reac- focusing on operating costs alone ignores tors was built between the 1960s and the the tens of billions of dollars that have been mid-1990s. For years, poor management, paid—and that continue to be paid—by frequent shutdowns, and operational electricity ratepayers to finance the capital difficulties made nuclear power plants an costs of building those plants.

Nuclear Power: Reasons for Concern 9 Under traditional regulatory systems, fire sale of plants at well below their book electricity ratepayers assume the full capi- value. Massachusetts’ Pilgrim nuclear tal cost (including financing costs) of build- power plant, for example, was sold by Bos- ing power plants, provided that investment ton Edison to Entergy for $81 million (in- in those plants was prudent and that the cluding the cost of the plant’s remaining facility is “used and useful.” (See “Public fuel)—less than 15 percent of its book value Utilities Commission Processes,” page 23.) of $700 million. Boston Edison was able to Today, however, most of the nation’s pass $500 million in stranded costs on to nuclear power plants are in states that have ratepayers.8 The Pilgrim experience was chosen to “restructure” their electricity in- repeated throughout the early years of re- dustries by deregulating the retail side of structuring: nuclear power plants were sold the electricity business and the generation for pennies on the dollar, with consumers, of power.5 This is not an accident: the mo- in most cases, picking up the stranded costs. mentum for restructuring during the 1990s Some analysts suggested that, when all the was greatest in states that had the highest financial conditions were taken into ac- electricity rates. These states were, not co- count, the initial wave of plants was sold incidentally, among those that had made the for zero or negative value.9 biggest and most costly gambles on nuclear Contrary to early expectations, nuclear power.6 power plants have proven to be quite valu- At the outset of restructuring, the archi- able. A combination of rising natural gas tects of the new electricity system were prices, improved plant performance and the faced with a problem: nuclear power plants NRC’s liberal granting of requests for were judged to be profoundly uneconomic. power uprates and license extensions have In a restructured market in which consum- made existing nuclear power plants a some- ers could buy power from any generator, what better investment than they seemed no one would pay enough for power to to be in the late 1990s. In 2004, New York’s cover the capital and operating costs of a R.E. Ginna nuclear plant was sold for $422 nuclear power plant—particularly when less million—the first time a nuclear power expensive natural gas-fired power plants plant has sold for above its book value and were free to enter the market and compete. a price more than 40 times higher on a per- Inevitably, it was thought, someone would megawatt basis than the price fetched by have to be saddled with the “stranded” share Pilgrim in 1999.10 of the plants’ capital costs—either the utili- Despite the recent increase in plant sale ties themselves or ratepayers. prices, many ratepayers in both tradition- The amount of money at stake ran to ally regulated and restructured states con- the billions of dollars—in the case of Cali- tinue to pay off the remaining capital costs fornia alone, more than $20 billion. 7 Most of nuclear reactors—in addition to the states allowed utilities to recover some or higher costs they’ve paid for electricity over all of these stranded costs through a “tran- the past several decades due to poor invest- sition charge” that would remain on con- ments in nuclear power. Ignoring these sumers’ utility bills either for a defined costs makes nuclear power plants look far period of time or until all the stranded costs cheaper than they actually are. were recovered. In most states, the amount of stranded costs was determined at the outset of restructuring or when a utility’s Federal Subsidies nuclear power plants were sold, and could Nuclear power plant owners also benefit not be revised later if conditions changed. from generous public subsidies, mostly at The initial wave of nuclear power plant the federal level. Indeed, the nuclear indus- sales in restructured states amounted to a try likely would not exist were it not for

10 Challenging Nuclear Power in the States the federal government’s underwriting of owners are responsible for the cost of nuclear research and development, liabil- securing their plants. However, the need ity insurance and other aspects of nuclear to protect against attacks on nuclear power power plant operation. According to one plants has created the need for increased estimate, the nuclear power industry re- planning at the local, state and federal lev- ceived upwards of $145 billion in federal els. In addition, in the immediate wake of subsidies between 1947 and 1999—or more the September 11 attacks, National Guard than $1 billion for every operating nuclear and Coast Guard units were dispatched to reactor in the U.S.11 And the subsidies con- secure nuclear power plants.15 In 2005, tinue to the present: the recently enacted approximately $65 million in homeland federal Energy Policy Act adds an addi- security funding was allocated to the tional $4.8 billion in direct subsidies to the NRC.16 These costs for emergency plan- nuclear industry, as well as up to $7.3 bil- ning, emergency military response or lion in tax incentives.12 homeland security funding for the NRC are Among the largest ongoing subsidies is further additional costs that are paid by tax- the liability protection provided under the payers and hide the true cost of nuclear Price-Anderson Act. The act caps the li- power. ability of the nuclear industry in the case of a catastrophic nuclear accident, mean- ing that either the victims of a nuclear di- New Nuclear Power Plants saster, taxpayers or both would be held The economics of nuclear power have not responsible for any additional costs. The changed substantially since the disastrous nuclear industry denies that Price-Ander- experience of the 1960s through the 1980s. son represents a “subsidy,” but the amount Indeed, new nuclear power plants remain of additional insurance coverage nuclear an economically uncompetitive source of power plants would be required to hold to power. cover their full liability would be signifi- Estimates of the future cost of nuclear cant—if they could find a willing insurer at power plants vary. A 2003 interdisciplinary all. The value of the Price-Anderson Act study by researchers at the Massachusetts subsidy has been estimated at between $3 Institute of Technology estimated the cost million and $33 million per reactor per of energy from new nuclear power plants year.13 Again, these are costs that are not at 6.7 cents/kWh, compared to 4.2 cents/ included in the cost that the nuclear indus- kWh for new coal-fired power plants and try charges for power from its plants, mak- 5.6 cents/kWh for natural gas combined- ing nuclear power artificially cheap. In cycle plants under a high gas price sce- addition, the availability of Price-Anderson nario.17 These costs are significantly higher protection acts as a disincentive for the cre- than the cost of new wind power in much ation of safer reactor designs, a point ac- of the country and far higher than the cost knowledged even by some in the nuclear of avoided energy use through improved industry.14 energy efficiency.18 The MIT study also assumed capital costs for new nuclear power plants of $2,000 per megawatt, a cost level Security Costs that has been exceeded in the construction Among the most difficult-to-quantify ad- of several new plants in Japan and South ditional costs of nuclear power are the costs Korea over the last decade.19 of providing security and emergency sup- The U.S. Energy Information Admin- port services to nuclear power plants, par- istration (EIA) made a similar comparison ticularly in the wake of the September 11, of energy costs from new power plants 2001 terrorist attacks. Nuclear power plant assumed to be constructed in the 2015

Nuclear Power: Reasons for Concern 11 timeframe. Even with lower assumed capi- plant investments makes them even more tal costs for new nuclear plants than the expensive. Due to the risk of cost overruns MIT study, nuclear power remained a more or a sudden devaluation of a nuclear plant expensive option than coal, natural gas or (as would occur after an accident), inves- wind. (See Fig. 1.) The EIA estimate also tors demand a higher rate of return—push- did not include the current production tax ing up the cost of capital. The only way to credit for renewables, which would reduce reduce those costs is to guarantee the in- the cost of wind power significantly.20 vestment, either through assurances that ratepayers will pick up additional costs (as has traditionally been the case) or through federal loan guarantees. Both alternatives Fig. 1. Costs of Various Alternatives for represent yet another subsidy for nuclear Electricity Generation, 201521 power and serve only to conceal, not re- duce, its ultimate cost.

$70

$60 Toxic Waste $50 The operation of nuclear power plants gen- $40 erates highly toxic radioactive waste, which must be safely stored for thousands of years $30 to contain the discharge of radiation. Un- fortunately, there are no perfect options for $20 the long-term storage of nuclear waste. Centralized repositories—such as the $10 proposed Yucca Mountain facility in Ne- Levelized Cost of Energy ($/MWh) vada—require the transport of high-level $0 nuclear waste across highways and rail lines Coal Gas Wind Nuclear within proximity of populated areas. The Combined Yucca Mountain facility itself has been criti- Cycle cized for its location on an active earth- quake fault, among other weaknesses.24 Even if Yucca Mountain is eventually com- In addition to the high cost of nuclear pleted, it is likely that the amount of nuclear power, there is also the issue of risk. Nuclear waste generated by U.S. power plants will power plant construction projects during exceed its capacity, leading either to calls the 1970s and 1980s saw cost overruns of for an additional centralized storage site or as much as 700 percent.22 The credit rat- the continued on-site storage of waste at ing agency, Standard & Poor’s, recently nuclear power plants.25 concluded that cost overruns in the con- On-site storage can be dangerous as well. struction of new nuclear power plants are Nearly all U.S. nuclear reactors store waste “highly probable” and that “[i]n general, on site, often in water-filled pools at densi- nuclear plant ownership tends to be less ties approaching those in reactor cores. supportive of credit quality because it in- Should coolant from the spent-fuel pools troduces added levels of operating, regula- be lost (as a result of earthquake, terrorist tory, and environmental risk to a business attack or human error), the fuel could ig- profile.”23 nite, spreading highly radioactive com- The high risk involved in nuclear power pounds across a large area. In 2005, the

12 Challenging Nuclear Power in the States National Academy of Sciences (NAS) warned that “[s]pent nuclear fuel stored in pools at some of the nation’s 103 operating

y Commission commercial nuclear reactors may be at risk from terrorist attacks,” and recommended a series of actions to reduce the danger.26 One study estimated that a loss of coolant

accident that resulted in a spent-fuel pool U.S. Nuclear Regulator catching fire could result in between 2,000 and 6,000 additional deaths from cancer.27

Nuclear power regulators failed to prevent the Safety and Security corrosion of the reactor vessel head at Ohio’s The history of nuclear power in the United Davis-Besse nuclear power plant. States is filled with technical glitches and near-misses. While the Three Mile Island accident in 1979 was the nation’s most se- rious and most well-known nuclear acci- early indications of deteriorating safety.28 dent, many other incidents have posed In 2004, a pipe burst at the Hope Creek serious threats to workers and residents of nuclear plant in New Jersey, resulting in surrounding communities. The safety the release of a small amount of radioac- threats posed by nuclear power have only tive steam into the turbine building.29 In been magnified by the increasing threat of 2003, elevated levels of radioactive tritium terrorism. were found in groundwater near New Jersey’s Salem nuclear power plant, which is owned by the same utility as Hope Nuclear Incidents and Close Calls Creek.30 Both plants have experienced a The nuclear industry has experienced nu- variety of problems and a 2004 NRC in- merous equipment malfunctions and other vestigation found that “there were numer- incidents over the past several years with ous indications of weaknesses in corrective the potential to harm public health and actions and management efforts to estab- safety. lish an environment where employees are In 2002, the most significant nuclear in- consistently willing to raise safety concerns” cident in the U.S. since Three Mile Island at the two plants.31 The Union of Con- took place at the Davis-Besse nuclear plant cerned Scientists (UCS) noted that the in Ohio. Workers discovered a football- safety problems encountered at the two sized cavity in the reactor’s vessel head. Left plants were originally identified by the undetected, the problem could eventually NRC as early as 1998.32 have led to leakage of radioactive coolant In fall 2005, a small leak of radioactive from around the reactor core and, possi- water was discovered from the spent fuel bly, a meltdown. The U.S. Government pool at the Indian Point nuclear power Accountability Office (GAO) concluded plant just up the Hudson River from New that the NRC “should have but did not York City.33 Tritium and strontium-90 have identify or prevent the vessel head corro- been detected in groundwater just 150 feet sion at Davis-Besse” and that the NRC’s from the Hudson River and may have “process for assessing safety at nuclear reached the river itself.34 The event came power plants is not adequate for detecting five years after the unplanned release of

Nuclear Power: Reasons for Concern 13 radiation to the atmosphere from the plant agreed to pay a $28 million penalty to re- following a mechanical problem.35 Nuclear solve charges that its employees lied to watchdogs have also identified problems regulators about safety problems at the with a safety mechanism at Indian Point and plant.41 All of these developments poten- more than 60 other nuclear power plants tially threaten the future safe operation of that could reduce the plants’ ability to pre- nuclear power plants in the U.S. vent a meltdown in case of an accident.36 Along with the leaks of contaminated water at Salem and Indian Point, there have Terrorism and Sabotage been at least six other incidents in the last Nuclear power plants make attractive po- decade—including five others within the tential targets for terrorists—either via ex- past year—of leakage of contaminated wa- ternal assault or internal sabotage. The ter from nuclear power plants. 37 At the security record of nuclear power plants is Exelon-owned Braidwood plant in Illinois, far from reassuring. In tests at 11 nuclear for example, low levels of tritium were reactors in 2000 and 2001, mock intruders found in a drinking water well at a home were capable of disabling enough equip- near the plant in late 2005. Officials esti- ment to cause reactor damage at six mated that several million gallons of tainted plants.42 A 2003 GAO report found signifi- water had leaked from the plant more than cant weaknesses in the NRC’s oversight of five years earlier.38 Most recently, in March security at commercial nuclear reactors.43 2006, tritium was discovered in groundwa- In September 2004—three years after the ter at the Palo Verde nuclear power plant September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks—the in Arizona.39 GAO reported that the NRC had not yet In addition, problems have been identi- implemented some of the GAO’s earlier fied at plants that have undergone NRC- recommendations and that the NRC is not approved “uprates”—increases in their yet in a position to assure that plants are licensed capacity. Three boiling water re- able to defend against terrorism.44 And in actors owned by Exelon in the Midwest March 2006, the GAO was unable to con- suffered vibration-induced damage imme- clude that all nuclear power plants were diately following increases in their rated capable of defending themselves against a capacity.40 plausible terrorist attack, since only about The continued technical problems ex- one-third of the plants had conducted the perienced by nuclear power plants lead to necessary force-on-force inspections. serious questions about how the plants will The GAO also questioned changes made perform in the future. The NRC has been to the NRC’s standards for protection regularly approving 20-year license exten- against terrorist attacks, noting “the appear- sions for nuclear power plants across the ance that changes were made based on country, meaning that many will operate what the industry considered reasonable well beyond their original 40-year lifespans. and feasible to defend against rather than In addition, the NRC has approved numer- on an assessment of the terrorist threat ous power uprates that allow the plants to itself.”45 generate more power and operate closer to their margins of safety. Finally, the com- petitive pressures imposed by deregulated Proliferation electricity markets could push plant opera- The waste materials produced by nuclear tors to keep plants running in the face of power are of potential interest both to ter- known or suspected safety problems. For rorists and to nations that might want to example, FirstEnergy, the owner of the produce nuclear weapons. Conventional Davis-Besse nuclear plant in Ohio, recently nuclear fuel cycles produce radioactive

14 Challenging Nuclear Power in the States spent fuel that could be used directly in a Water Consumption and “dirty bomb.” Spent fuel contains pluto- nium, which can be separated from other Local Environmental Impacts nuclear waste and used to fuel a second Power plants are major consumers of water, nuclear reaction—thus producing more responsible for nearly half of all water with- power—or to create a nuclear weapon. drawals in the United States.49 Nuclear The nuclear industry has done an im- power plants are especially profligate users perfect job of keeping track of spent fuel. of water, consuming more than a quarter Since 2000, at least three nuclear power more water per unit of energy produced than plants reported “missing” spent fuel. While coal-fired power plants and more than twice the spent fuel was eventually accounted for as much as combined-cycle natural gas plants.50 in two of three cases (and a plausible case Nuclear power plants can damage eco- for safe disposal was made in the third), the systems and wildlife both through the with- episodes showcased the lack of effective drawal of water and the release of heated tracking of spent fuel. The GAO criticized water back into waterways. When water is the NRC’s regulation of spent fuel, noting withdrawn from oceans or estuaries, ma- that “NRC regulations and oversight ac- rine creatures can become trapped in a tivities are insufficient to ensure control of plant’s cooling system. At one Florida all spent fuel.”46 nuclear reactor, for example, more than Reprocessing of spent fuel for use in a 5,000 sea turtles were found in the plant’s second nuclear fuel cycle is potentially an water intake system over a 20-year period, even greater danger. Reprocessing separates of which 190 died.51 In New Jersey, a 1990 the plutonium and uranium in spent fuel study estimated that water intakes from the from other radioactive waste. Since pluto- Salem nuclear power plant resulted in four nium is not highly radioactive, it is poten- times more fish losses than the commer- tially susceptible to theft (which is far more cial fishing industry in the area.52 Damage difficult for unseparated, highly radioactive to marine ecosystems from both the dis- spent fuel). And since it takes less than 20 charge of heated water and the entrapment pounds of plutonium to make a nuclear of adult and juvenile marine animals has weapon, loss of even a small amount of been documented in multiple cases across separated plutonium would pose a severe the country.53 In 2002, for example, discharge proliferation danger.47 of heated water from New Jersey’s Oyster Due to the danger of nuclear prolifera- Creek nuclear power plant caused more tion, the United States has barred the re- than 5,000 fish to die from heat shock.54 processing of spent fuel for three decades. Other technologies for cooling nuclear However, the Bush administration has pro- reactors (such as the cooling towers that posed a radical change of course, including have become widely recognized as a sym- $250 million in funding for nuclear spent bol of nuclear power) can reduce water con- fuel reprocessing in its fiscal year 2007 bud- sumption and environmental impacts get. Bush’s plan would not only use spent significantly. fuel currently stored at U.S. nuclear reac- tors, but would also import spent fuel from abroad.48 At a time when nuclear prolifera- tion and the disposal of America’s own The Nuclear Regulatory nuclear waste are of great concern, the no- Commission: tion of bringing more spent nuclear fuel to the U.S. and creating more material that An Ineffective Watchdog could be used in nuclear weapons appears The safety and security problems posed by highly dubious. nuclear power would be less troublesome

Nuclear Power: Reasons for Concern 15 if citizens could count on an effective “New” Nuclear Facility watchdog to probe for potential problems with nuclear power plants and require op- Designs: Are They the erators to fix them promptly. Unfortu- Solution? nately, little in the NRC’s history instills Proponents of nuclear power claim that confidence that it can play this watchdog new, “advanced” nuclear reactor designs role effectively. will avoid the safety and operational prob- The NRC’s failure to identify the prob- lems that plagued the first generation of lems at the Davis-Besse nuclear power plant U.S. nuclear reactors. is symptomatic of broader problems in the Lost in the hype around advanced NRC’s development and application of nuclear reactors is the fact that most of the safety regulations. Over a period of just two new designs are similar to previous designs. years, the GAO issued seven reports that The Pebble Bed Modular Reactor (PBMR) detailed the need for improvement in NRC is one of the most frequently touted new practices to ensure the safety and security reactor designs. The PBMR is a close of nuclear power plants, the safe storage of cousin of the high-temperature gas-cooled radioactive waste, the collection of adequate reactor, two of which were operated in the funds for nuclear decommissioning, and the U.S.: the experimental Peach Bottom 1 re- effective operation of nuclear reactors.55 In actor in Pennsylvania and the Fort St. Vrain a 2002 internal survey, nearly half of all reactor in Colorado, which was plagued by NRC employees responding thought their operational problems.59 PBMRs are pro- careers would be harmed if they raised moted as being meltdown-proof, since the safety concerns, and nearly one-third of fuel does not reach the temperature needed employees who had reported safety con- to provoke a meltdown. However, PBMRs cerns replied that they had suffered harass- have other potential safety problems, in- ment or intimidation as a result.56 cluding the release of radioactivity in the The NRC’s reviews of nuclear power event of a fire.60 In addition, some PBMR plant safety are fundamentally flawed. A proponents propose that the reactors be 2003 Union of Concerned Scientists docu- built without a secondary containment ment identified numerous problems with structure, which would reduce costs but also the reviews, which, combined, lead to an leave the reactors far more vulnerable to overly optimistic view of the safety of indi- terrorism and reduce the safety margin in vidual reactors.57 the event of an accident. Since no PBMRs While the NRC has taken some action have entered commercial operation, prac- to protect reactors against terrorism, the tical experience with the technology is lim- commission has refused to take public con- ited. And there has not yet been an application cern about terrorism into account in its li- submitted for certification of the PBMR censing decisions, calling the threat of a design in the United States, though an ap- terrorist attack at any single reactor “too plication could be forthcoming soon.61 speculative and remote.”58 Other new designs likely to be proposed The NRC’s track record does not in- for the U.S. are largely based on existing spire confidence that the agency will be able designs, such as the pressurized water re- to protect Americans from a malfunction actor and boiling water reactor. However, at one of the nation’s aging nuclear reac- these designs are touted as “advanced” due tors, safety problems at any new nuclear re- to simpler (and theoretically more cost-ef- actors, or a terrorist attack or act of fective) designs and the use of “passive” sabotage. safety measures. Passive safety measures use

16 Challenging Nuclear Power in the States natural forces, such as gravity, rather than terrorism, lack of safe long-term storage for electric-powered safety systems such as nuclear waste, and environmental harm— pumps to provide emergency cooling to the should be enough to call into question the reactor core in case of an accident. While wisdom of continuing to operate the such systems may be improvements over nation’s existing nuclear reactors and build- current reactors, nuclear power plants re- ing new ones. However, as noted earlier, main complex systems containing radioac- federal officials have acted to smooth the tive material and can thus never be way for new nuclear power plants and the considered inherently safe. relicensing of old ones. The following chapter describes ways that citizens can use state and local gov- Conclusion ernmental processes—as well as political or- Any one of the problems listed above—high ganizing—to challenge the so-called costs, safety problems, susceptibility to “nuclear renaissance.”

Nuclear Power: Reasons for Concern 17 Challenging Nuclear Power in the States

itizens have numerous opportunities tools are more limited in their application to challenge nuclear power through than others. But all should be considered C their local and state governments. In as part of citizens’ “toolbox” for challeng- order to understand which tools are most ing nuclear power in their communities. likely to bear fruit, it is necessary to under- stand how nuclear power is regulated in the United States. The 1954 Atomic Energy Act gave the federal government sole responsibility for Outright or Conditional Bans licensing and regulating the operation of While federal law gives primary authority nuclear power plants.62 State or local gov- for the regulation of nuclear power to the ernments may not impose additional licens- federal government, state governments re- ing procedures, safety requirements, or tain the authority to decide how to provide excessively burdensome regulations that for the electricity needs of their citizens. impinge on federal authority over safety. This authority extends to the decision of On the other hand, the federal govern- whether to allow nuclear power plants to ment cannot force a state to accept a nuclear be built within the state, and under what power plant against its will. States largely economic conditions. retain the power to determine how and At least six states—California, Kentucky, under what conditions the energy needs of Montana, Maine, Oregon and Wisconsin— their citizens will be met. In addition, state have adopted conditional moratoriums on and local governments enforce numerous new nuclear power plants. The conditions environmental and land-use regulations with vary from state to state. The California, which nuclear power plants must comply, Kentucky, Maine, Oregon and Wisconsin just like any other major industrial facility. laws are similar in that the main condition The sections that follow suggest many set for the permitting of new nuclear power tools that can be used at the state or local level plants is the availability of technology to to challenge the construction or operation permanently store high-level nuclear of nuclear power plants. Not every tool is waste.63 The Kentucky and Maine laws also equally suited to every situation, and some require that a high-level nuclear waste

18 Challenging Nuclear Power in the States storage facility be in operation at the time nonsafety rationale. The poor economic that disposal of nuclear waste must occur, track record of nuclear power, the unre- while the Oregon law also requires that solved problems of nuclear waste storage, nuclear power proposals be placed on the and the availability of energy sources with statewide ballot for approval by voters. The lower economic costs all provide reasons Wisconsin law also requires that a nuclear for states to adopt such policies. power plant be judged to be economically State legislation and regulations also advantageous to ratepayers compared with help to create the economic playing field other feasible alternatives. on which nuclear power must compete with The Montana law goes several steps other sources of electricity generation and further, requiring that no legal limits exist conservation. For example, states might to nuclear plant financial liability in case of consider adopting legislation requiring an accident, that there be “no reasonable nuclear power plant owners to assume more chance” of the discharge of harmful radio- of the “hidden” costs of nuclear power, such activity, that the safety systems of the plant as the emergency planning costs incurred be demonstrated as effective, and that by state and local governments to prepare nuclear facility owners post a bond equal for potential nuclear accidents. For more to 30 percent of the capital cost of the plant on strategies to ensure that the full costs of to cover decommissioning expenses.64 nuclear power are considered in utility de- In 1983, the U.S. Supreme Court con- cision-making, see “Public Utilities Com- sidered whether California’s conditional mission Processes,” page 23. moratorium on nuclear power plant con- struction was legal. In a 9-0 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that the state’s con- ditional moratorium was not pre-empted by federal law. Writing for the Court ma- Environmental and jority, Justice Byron White stated: Land Use Permitting Even a brief perusal of the Atomic States may not have the ability to reject Energy Act reveals that, despite its nuclear power on safety grounds, but they comprehensiveness, it does not at do have the ability to set conditions on any point expressly require the where and how nuclear power plants may States to construct or authorize operate in order to limit their impact on nuclear power plants or prohibit the environment. the States from deciding, as an absolute or conditional matter, not to permit the construction of any Environmental Permitting further reactors.65 Nuclear power plants—like most other in- dustrial and energy facilities—must receive However, the decision went on to say a series of environmental permits in order that states cannot reject nuclear power to go into operation. plants on the grounds of safety, since the Plants that withdraw or discharge water regulation of nuclear safety is reserved to for cooling from waterways must obtain a the federal government. Rather, the rejec- permit under section 316 of the federal tion must be based on non-safety criteria, Clean Water Act. In 45 states, Clean Wa- such as economics. ter Act permitting authority is administered Similar state laws could be adopted that by state environmental agencies, which constrain further construction of nuclear have the authority to grant or deny permits power plants, if they have a substantial according to EPA guidelines.66

Challenging Nuclear Power in the States 19 Section 316(a) authorizes limits on ther- available for new power plants.71 More re- mal discharges to waterways “that will as- cently, attention has turned to EPA’s “Phase sure the projection and propagation of a II” regulations for cooling systems of ex- balanced, indigenous population of shell- isting power plants. In 2004, six state at- fish, fish and wildlife in and on that body torneys general filed a lawsuit challenging of water.”67 Section 316(b) requires that EPA’s “Phase II” rule, which again allowed “the location, design, construction and ca- for the continued use of once-through pacity of cooling water intake structures cooling systems.72 reflect the best technology available for Requiring the replacement of once- minimizing adverse environmental impact.” 68 through systems at the 416 U.S. power As noted above, cooling water intake and plants (including several dozen nuclear the discharge of heated water can have se- power plants) that have them could cost as vere, damaging impacts on ecosystems and much as $2.3 billion annually (2001 dol- wildlife. Section 316 permitting processes lars), though this figure may be over- give advocates an opportunity to raise those stated.73 In some cases, the cost of installing concerns and to ensure that any new cooling systems that are protective of wild- nuclear power plant is maximally protec- life may alter the economics of the tive of waterways. The process also gives relicensing or continued operation of a advocates an opportunity to force techno- nuclear power plant. In any case, citizens logical changes that reduce the impact of should work to ensure that nuclear power existing nuclear power plants on the envi- plants’ cooling water intake does not dam- ronment. age wildlife or the environment. Regard- The environmental problems caused by less of the fate of the legal challenge to EPA’s cooling water intake and discharge are most proposed rule, the Section 316(b) process severe in power plants that use a “once- gives states an opportunity to reduce the through” cooling system, in which water is damage inflicted by nuclear power plants drawn in large quantities from waterways, on marine ecosystems. used for cooling, and then discharged back States also have the ability to regulate into the same waterway. About half of the the thermal discharge of power plants un- nation’s nuclear power plants use a once- der section 316(a) of the Clean Water Act. through system, while the others use sys- Power plants—particularly those with tems that are not quite as environmentally once-through cooling systems—discharge destructive, such as cooling towers and large amounts of heated water to water- cooling ponds and canals.69 ways, posing a potential threat to ecosys- For decades, the EPA determined tems. Some nuclear power plants raise the whether power plants complied with Sec- temperature of surrounding waters by as tion 316(b) on a case-by-case basis, despite much as 30°F. 74 In addition, some nuclear the “best technology available” require- power plants use chemicals to remove ma- ment for cooling-water intakes. A coalition rine organisms from their cooling systems, of environmental groups sued the agency, which are then discharged into water- resulting in a 2000 settlement that required ways.75 However, EPA has interpreted sec- the EPA to propose national standards for tion 316(a) relatively loosely, setting cooling water intakes.70 However, the stan- standards for thermal pollution on a case- dards ultimately proposed by EPA allowed by-case basis, instead of imposing a strong for the continued use of once-through cool- standard for the amount of thermal pollu- ing under certain conditions, despite the tion that can be discharged into waterways. ready availability of other technologies. A Challenges under section 316(a) are diffi- subsequent lawsuit resulted in closed-cycle cult, but can be used to raise public and cooling being deemed the best technology decision-maker awareness about the impacts

20 Challenging Nuclear Power in the States of thermal discharges on ecosystems and, reactor or of expanded waste storage facilities. on occasion, to force technological changes. Second, in many states, local zoning au- thority can be superseded by state energy Land Use Regulation facility siting boards. In approximately 36 states, these statewide bodies share juris- States, counties and localities are primarily diction with local governments or exercise responsible for regulating the use of land. final decision-making authority over the The extent of state and local land-use regu- siting of power plants and other energy fa- lation is limited by state and federal laws cilities.77 and the federal constitution. Third, the NRC, in its site review pro- States’ authority to regulate land use is a cess, considers the degree to which a pro- “police power” that may be exercised only posed power plant or other nuclear facility to protect the “public health, safety, mor- comports with local land-use regulations. als and general welfare” of the people.76 While a local government’s interpretation Land-use regulation is typically carried out of its land-use laws might differ from that through zoning, in which local govern- of the NRC, the NRC process would, at ments establish zones of the municipality least in theory, weed out most potential in which certain activities are permitted or power plant locations where zoning con- prohibited. For example, a factory may be cerns would be an issue. permitted to be built in an industrial zone, but not within a residential zone. In some localities and states, zoning laws must com- Coastal Zone Regulation port with an overall land-use plan. Many states have additional regulations and In theory, local land-use regulation is a processes that govern development in par- potent tool to limit the potential for nuclear ticular areas—for example, coastal zones. power development. In practice, the power The 1972 federal Coastal Zone Manage- of local land-use regulation is limited. ment Act (CZMA) and subsequent amend- First, there are several constitutional ments require states to develop a planning limitations on local zoning authority. Zon- process for energy facilities in a coastal zone ing laws may not amount to an unconstitu- and to give consideration to the “national tional “taking” of private property by interest” in the construction of such facili- rendering the land devoid of economic ties.78 Federal actions, including the grant- value. They may not be “exclusionary”— ing of siting permits and licenses for nuclear that is, they may not ban legitimate uses of power plants, must be consistent with the land outright. Zoning may not be dis- enforceable policies of the state’s coastal criminatory, nor may it be applied retro- zone plan. actively. Either the federal licensing agency or the As a result, local governmental land-use applicant for a license must notify the state regulations may not ban nuclear power agency responsible for determining consis- plants outright, but merely determine tency with the plan. The state agency may which parts of the locality are most suit- then reject the proposal if it is found to be able for development and the conditions inconsistent with the state’s coastal man- under which that development might oc- agement plan. Should an applicant disagree cur. Second, there is no way for a munici- with the state agency’s decision, it may ap- pality to retroactively revise zoning to force peal to the U.S. Secretary of Commerce. the shutdown of a plant that already exists, The CZMA process provides another although there may be ways to challenge opportunity for citizens to challenge new activities on the site of an existing nuclear power plant operation and associ- plant—such as the construction of a new ated development—even during the

Challenging Nuclear Power in the States 21 relicensing of existing nuclear reactors. superseding the jurisdiction of municipali- However, federal primacy in enforcing the ties or counties. In others, the board shares law limits states’ flexibility in rejecting pro- jurisdiction with local governments, by al- posed nuclear plants outright. lowing the applicant the option to choose between state and local jurisdiction, by re- quiring the state board to ensure that the project meets local land-use requirements, or by giving the local government a voice Energy Facility in the decision. Siting boards also have links with other Siting Processes state bodies. For example, many states re- In most states, energy facility siting boards quire that an energy facility be deemed nec- have a role in the permitting of power essary before a state siting board can grant plants, including nuclear facilities. The role its approval. These “determinations of of these boards varies by state. In some need” or “certificates of public convenience states, the siting board has sole jurisdiction, and necessity” are typically issued by the

Restructuring and Nuclear Power

he restructuring of the electricity industry has profound implications for the Tfuture of nuclear power in the United States. Many existing nuclear power plants have seen their ownership shift from regu- lated utilities to unregulated merchant generators. The economic pressures cre- ated by competition have made plants more efficient, but also pose potential safety concerns as plant owners are pushed to run their plants closer to their operating margins for longer periods of time with fewer staff. The shifting of nuclear power plants to the unregulated sector has also seen ratepayers in many states continue to be saddled with paying the “stranded costs” for utilities’ uneconomic nuclear in- vestments, which were originally approved based on unrealistically low projections of costs. The changes wrought by restructuring could either promote or hinder the con- struction of new nuclear power plants. On one hand, restructuring laws in the states either eliminated or circumscribed states’ authority to block the construction of new power plants on the basis of need, and restructuring at the wholesale level nationally has opened the possibility that nuclear power plants can serve larger, regional markets. On the other hand, however, the reduction of the role of regulated utilities in power plant construction means that any new nuclear power plant built in a re- structured state would likely have to be built by an unregulated merchant genera- tor. These companies and their investors would likely face the majority of the substantial financial risk involved in building a new nuclear power plant. That risk might be enough to prevent the construction of new plants—unless federal policies shift enough of the risk to taxpayers or ratepayers to tip the balance.

22 Challenging Nuclear Power in the States state public utilities commission (PUC). In Public Utilities Commission some cases, there is no independent siting board, but siting board functions are dis- Processes charged by the PUC itself. In the 32 states that remain under tradi- The criteria that power plants must meet tional public utilities regulation, the state in order to receive approval from the sit- Public Utilities Commission (or its equiva- ing boards vary from state to state. Among lent) must ultimately sign off on the con- the determinations that frequently must be struction of nuclear power plants by public made are that the plant: utilities. State PUCs may or may not have the power to approve the construction of • Is needed to satisfy the energy needs of nuclear power plants by non-utility power the state or region. generators within their states’ borders. PUCs exercise their authority over • Minimizes harm to the environment, nuclear power plants in several ways. Many compared with alternatives. PUCs have the authority to reject a power • Is economically justified, compared plant outright if it is judged not to serve a with alternatives. legitimate need. In addition, PUCs in tra- ditionally regulated states have the author- • Is consistent with local and regional ity to deny cost-recovery for power plant land-use plans. expenses that are not prudently incurred. PUCs also have the ability to reduce the • Is consistent with the state’s long-term need for nuclear power through the crite- energy plan. ria they use for evaluating utilities’ resource • Is in the public interest.79 plans and through the policies they imple- ment with regard to energy efficiency and In recent years, some states that have alternative sources of power. restructured their electric utility industries have weakened or eliminated some criteria Certificate of Public for power plant siting. States such as Cali- fornia have eliminated the requirement for Convenience and Necessity a demonstration of need.80 Other states In many traditionally regulated states, utili- have eliminated or scaled back their elec- ties must seek and receive a “certificate of tric system planning processes in the wake public convenience and necessity” (a “cer- of restructuring. tificate of need” or, more simply, a “certifi- In any case, the breadth of the criteria cate”) before building a power plant. State considered by siting boards gives advocates laws give PUCs varying levels of jurisdic- several opportunities to challenge nuclear tion over different types of power plants. power plants on the basis of their economic In some states, the PUC must issue a cer- merits, the “need” for energy in a particu- tificate for any power plant built within the lar area, or their consistency with the long- state, regardless of its owner. In others, the term energy and land-use plans of a region. PUC has authority over plants proposed by Siting agencies typically provide public public utilities only. hearings or opportunities for public com- The criteria proposed power plants must ment, enabling citizens to make their case meet to obtain a certificate also vary. in the public record. In states where siting Florida, for example, requires that a plant processes do not include the evaluation of both be needed and be the most cost-ef- alternatives or the consideration of cost-effec- fective option before a certificate may be tiveness, advocates can work to have these granted.81 Other states simply require a criteria included in energy facility siting laws. demonstration that the plant would serve a

Challenging Nuclear Power in the States 23 need either within the state or within a inherent in providing electricity service. larger region. Their historic statutory mission has been Because of the great variation in state to ensure that the rates charged for elec- certification requirements, the certification tricity are “just and reasonable”—both to process may represent either a useful ve- the utility and its investors and to consumers. hicle for raising concerns over nuclear In traditionally regulated states, electric- power plants or a mere formality. Other ity rates are set based on the cost of pro- PUC proceedings, however, are among the viding service; that is, utilities are entitled most effective potential handles for citizens to recover, dollar-for-dollar, the cost of pro- to use in challenging nuclear power plant viding electricity (including payment of construction. interest and fair profit to shareholders). To determine the cost of service, PUCs must decide which facilities are included in the Rate Cases utility’s “rate base.” Generally, facilities in- Historically, the most important role of cluded in the rate base must be judged to state PUCs has been in the regulation of have been prudent investments at the time electricity rates. PUCs were established as those investments were made, and to be an antidote to the “natural monopoly” “used and useful”; that is, in active use and

Resources for Citizens: Ratepayer Advocates and Intervener Funding

ormal participation in utility rate cases is a time-consuming and expensive en- Fdeavor, often requiring specialized expertise. To ensure balance in the process, states have created a series of mechanisms to guarantee that consumers’ points of view are heard in PUC hearings. • Ratepayer advocates – Most states have professional advocates charged with representing the interests of consumers before utility regulatory bodies. In some cases, ratepayer advocates operate independently. In other cases, the job of advocating for ratepayers is delegated to the state attorney general or to an employee of the PUC. • Intervener funds – Some states have created intervener funds to ensure that municipalities or public interest groups have the resources to represent them- selves in PUC proceedings. In California, for example, interveners are eligible to recover their expenses, including attorneys’ fees and expert witness fees, if the PUC determines that they couldn’t otherwise afford to participate.84 • Citizen utility boards – In Illinois, Oregon, Wisconsin and the city of San Diego, independent “citizen utility boards” exist to advocate for ratepayers. Funded through citizen contributions and non-profit foundations, CUBs are run by democratically elected boards and have a track record of success. The CUB in Oregon, for example, claims to have saved ratepayers more than $1 billion in the first 20 years of its operation.85

24 Challenging Nuclear Power in the States contributing to the provision of service.82 IRPs differ from state to state, the plan- The disastrous experience with nuclear ning process is a useful and important place power plant construction in the 1970s and for advocates to raise concerns about par- 1980s posed a major challenge to the util- ticular sources of power, for several reasons: ity regulatory system. During the 1980s, • In some states, the IRP is used by the PUCs made the first widespread use of pru- PUC in determining whether a given dence reviews and the used and useful test investment will eventually be eligible in order to protect ratepayers from billions for cost recovery (though inclusion in of dollars in excess costs resulting from an IRP is not an absolute requirement nuclear power plant construction. Accord- for later cost recovery). ing to an early 1990s analysis by the Edison Electric Institute, approximately $14.4 bil- • In some states, the IRP process re- lion in investment in nuclear power plants quires the consideration of alterna- was disallowed by state PUCs under one tives—such as other forms of or more of these tests.83 generation, energy efficiency improve- In the wake of the nuclear plant con- ments and demand-side management struction debacle, PUCs and utilities cre- programs. ated new tools to prevent a recurrence. As • In some states, environmental and a result, while struggles over the after-the- social “externalities” are incorporated fact inclusion of a new nuclear power plant into consideration of how to provide in a utility’s rate base are possible, the real energy supply at the “least cost” to debate is likely to occur before ground is ratepayers and the public generally.86 broken on a new nuclear plant. As noted above, the IRP is not the final Integrated Resource Planning word on whether a utility will be able to recover costs for a given investment. The Historically, cost-based rate-making put final determinations typically come with the PUCs in a reactive posture—passing judg- issuance of a certificate of public conve- ment on utilities’ investments after the fact. nience and necessity and PUC decisions on The experience of high nuclear power plant inclusion of the facility in the rate base. In construction and operating costs and the some states, decisions made in the IRP pro- 1970s energy crises led many state PUCs cess play a significant role in those deci- to develop long-term planning require- sions; in other states, they have a much less ments to guide future utility investment important role. decisions. The IRP process provides several oppor- Integrated resource planning (IRP) re- tunities to challenge plans for new nuclear quires utilities to periodically develop long- power plants. The high relative cost of range plans for the adequate provision of nuclear power versus energy efficiency im- reasonably priced electricity with minimal provements (and even some forms of re- impacts on the environment or public newable power) and the large social and health. Under IRP, utilities identify the “re- environmental externalities posed by sources” (including both new sources of nuclear plants make it unlikely that nuclear generation and conservation and demand power would be considered a “least cost” management resources) that could be har- method of supplying a state’s energy needs nessed to meet an area’s energy needs, and under any rational planning process. Forc- then assemble a portfolio of those resources ing the PUC or a utility to concede that into a long-range plan. nuclear power is not a least-cost solution While the comprehensiveness, enforce- makes it far more difficult for a utility to ability, and degree of PUC oversight over justify its inclusion in the rate base.

Challenging Nuclear Power in the States 25 Project Financing moving forward with deregulation of wholesale electricity markets. These twin Nuclear power plants are among the most developments—lumped together as “re- capital-intensive forms of generation and structuring”—have brought about a dra- require among the longest lead times for matic shift in how power is produced and construction. Capital costs for nuclear sold in the U.S., and have major implica- power plants easily run to the billions of tions for the future of nuclear power. dollars and construction times of five years The nation’s first generation of nuclear or more are common. The traditional regu- reactors was built by traditional, integrated latory practice of allowing cost recovery utilities operating under traditional regu- only for facilities that are “used and use- lation. While there is some chance that new ful”—that is, already producing power— nuclear reactors will be built by utilities, it puts utilities and their investors at is also possible that they will be proposed tremendous financial risk during the con- by unregulated “merchant generators” who struction process. Given nuclear power’s sell their power on the open market. track record during the 1970s and 1980s, it Historically, utilities generated the vast is unlikely that a traditional utility or its bulk of the power they supplied their con- investors would choose to build a nuclear sumers. Now, many utilities in both restruc- power plant without a guarantee of cost tured and traditionally regulated states buy recovery and, preferably, the ability to re- significant shares of their power on the cover some of the plant’s cost during con- open market. For prospective merchant struction. nuclear power plant builders, having a firm, Some state PUCs have made exceptions long-term commitment for the purchase of to the used and useful doctrine by allowing power is likely to be an essential part of se- utilities to recover costs for “construction curing financing for the plants. PUCs in work in progress” (CWIP). In effect, traditionally regulated states generally have CWIP financing reduces the financial risk the authority to set the rules regarding util- to the utility and lowers the carrying cost ity purchases of power. Even in states with of the debt utilities must incur to build a retail restructuring, PUCs play a role plant. Unfortunately, CWIP financing through their regulation of “standard of- shifts that risk directly to ratepayers. fer” service—the electricity service pro- Any attempt to provide CWIP financ- vided by distribution utilities to consumers ing—or to make other guarantees of cost who do not choose an alternative electric- recovery for nuclear power plants—re- ity provider (which, given the failure of quires a formal decision by the state PUC. strong retail markets for electricity to de- Citizens can and should challenge such fi- velop in restructured states, includes virtu- nancing arrangements on consumer pro- ally all residential electricity customers). tection grounds. By so doing, they can States have a variety of strategies for pro- ensure that the risk of investment in nuclear curing power for standard offer service— power plants is fairly allocated among utili- ranging from competitive auctions to ties and the public. longer-term contracts with generators. In both traditionally regulated and Utility Regulatory Processes restructured states, citizens should hold power purchase agreements—and particu- Under Restructuring larly long-term agreements with facilities In 18 states, legislatures or public utilities such as nuclear power plants—to a high commissions have deregulated the retail level of scrutiny and force utilities to jus- side of the electricity business. At the same tify those contracts on the basis of cost. time, the federal government has been Restructuring has involved other

26 Challenging Nuclear Power in the States regulatory changes at the state level. Many economies and promote the use of renew- states that have undergone retail restruc- able sources of energy. Among the policies turing have removed or loosened require- states have adopted are the following: ments that power plant builders demonstrate the need for their facilities. Appliance Energy Efficiency And because PUCs in these states have a Standards reduced role in the setting of rates for elec- tricity generation, there are fewer instances States have latitude to impose energy in which a utility must come before the efficiency standards for residential and PUC to justify the inclusion of a nuclear commercial appliances where the federal power plant in its rate base. government has failed to do so. States may However, in addition to their role in also petition the federal government for a monitoring power purchase agreements, waiver to implement stronger energy effi- PUCs and other bodies (such as regional ciency standards for appliances subject to transmission organizations and indepen- federal regulation. In 2004 and 2005, 10 dent system operators) still make a variety states adopted stronger energy efficiency of decisions that affect the future shape of standards for a range of appliances. By the electric industry—and the role of 2030, those standards will reduce power nuclear power within it. We will discuss demand by more than 4,800 megawatts, or 88 some of these decisions in the section on nearly five nuclear power plants. The “Energy Policy Decisions” that follows. state actions also led to the enactment of new federal efficiency standards for many of the same appliances, which will elimi- nate the need for about 30,000 megawatts of generating capacity in 2030—the equiva- lent of about 30 nuclear power plants. Energy Policy Decisions There remain significant opportunities One of the most effective ways to challenge for states to push forward with new effi- nuclear power is to reduce the need for it ciency standards for appliances—standards in the first place. America has vast amounts that will save energy and reduce the need of unrealized energy efficiency potential as for all forms of power generation. The well as abundant wind and solar power re- American Council for an Energy-Efficient sources. In many cases, energy savings can Economy and Appliance Standards Aware- be obtained at lower cost than the construc- ness Project have identified 15 appliances tion of new power plants—particularly ex- for which standards could be adopted in the pensive nuclear plants. The declining cost near term. Adopting standards for those of wind power and the inherent cost ad- appliances would reduce demand by about vantages of clean, local power sources make 12,000 megawatts, or about 12 nuclear them attractive competitors with nuclear power plants.89 power. There are numerous ways that ad- vocates can promote these clean alterna- Energy Efficiency Funding tives to nuclear power. In the 1970s, utilities (often at the request of regulators) began to create energy efficiency Efficiency and and demand-side management (DSM) pro- Renewables Policies grams in order to reduce the aggregate cost of delivering electricity to consumers. Over the past decade, states across the These programs grew to the point where country have taken aggressive actions to utilities were spending nearly $1.8 billion improve the energy efficiency of their annually on energy efficiency programs by

Challenging Nuclear Power in the States 27 1993.90 In the wake of electric industry re- to experiment with new ways to ensure that structuring, however, many states assumed the benefits of energy efficiency would con- that market forces would take over the job tinue to accrue to ratepayers and society as of driving improvements in energy effi- a whole. At least 20 states now assess “sys- ciency and, as a result, allowed utility en- tems benefit charges”—small surcharges on ergy efficiency programs to wither or expire electricity bills—that are used to raise funds altogether. to support energy efficiency programs. In In the late 1990s, however, states began 2003, these programs, along with utility-

Regional Transmission Organizations and Independent System Operators (RTOs/ISOs)

egional transmission organizations and independent system operators (RTOs/ RISOs) are powerful new players in the utility regulatory scene. Since the cre- ation of the first ISOs in the mid-1990s as part of restructured electricity markets, these organizations have come to play an increasingly important role in setting the rules for electric power markets, operating those markets, planning for the future of the grid, and shaping the energy future of the regions they serve. Citizens con- cerned about nuclear power should become acquainted with RTOs/ISOs and how they work. RTOs/ISOs are billed as “independent” organizations, meaning that they are not controlled by any particular player in the market. However, RTOs and ISOs are not publicly accountable bodies; rather, they are typically non-profit organiza- tions whose governance is dominated by electricity generators, transmission own- ers, utilities and large customers.87 While RTOs/ISOs typically allow some advisory role for consumer, environmental or public interest “stakeholders,” industry par- ticipants typically hold the lion’s share of decision-making power. Moreover, RTOs and ISOs—unlike state PUCs and federal regulators—face no statutory or other requirement to act in the public interest. RTO/ISO rules and planning processes have major influence on the shape of a region’s energy system. Through the transmission planning process, RTOs/ISOs influence whether a region will continue to receive power from large, centralized power plants, smaller power plants located closer to sources of demand, or im- proved energy efficiency and conservation. RTO/ISO rules for interconnection to the grid influence whether renewables and smaller-scale sources of power will be able to take advantage of the ability to sell their power on the open market. And RTO/ISO pricing and market rules determine whether these alternative sources of power will be treated equitably. RTOs and ISOs have limited ability to determine whether a nuclear power plant can be built. But the rules, procedures and plans they establish for regional trans- mission grids can determine whether nuclear power plants will appear to be fea- sible or infeasible options for serving a region’s electricity demand. For that reason, citizens concerned about nuclear power should become familiar with the opera- tions of the RTO/ISO in their region.

28 Challenging Nuclear Power in the States operated energy efficiency and demand funding often coming from small systems management programs in states with tra- benefit charges on utility bills. The combi- ditional regulatory models, had resulted in nation of renewable energy standards and savings of 67,000 gigawatt-hours of state funding is projected to lead to the in- power—equivalent to the annual output of stallation of about 22 gigawatts of renew- about eight nuclear power plants.91 able electricity capacity by 2020—enough Yet, the potential for further efficiency to offset at least seven nuclear power plants.94 improvements is immense. Of the approxi- Other public policies can also smooth mately $1.1 billion spent on energy efficiency the way for renewable energy sources: programs in 2003, more than 80 percent was spent in just 10 states.92 In 21 states, • Solar incentives and new home including populous states such as Illinois, standards – The California PUC Pennsylvania, Maryland, Virginia and recently approved the nation’s largest Georgia, energy efficiency spending rep- investment in solar photovoltaic (PV) resented less than one-tenth of 1 percent power; a $3.2 billion incentive pro- of utility revenue.93 gram, funded through a surcharge on Expanding energy efficiency funding and utility bills, that is anticipated to result programs in the states can reduce future in the installation of as much as 3,000 demand for power—thus reducing the per- MW of solar photovoltaic systems in 95 ceived need for nuclear reactors. In addi- California over the next decade. tion to winning better programs, however, California has also contemplated advocates must also push for energy plan- policies to require the installation of ners—including utilities, PUCs and ISOs/ solar PV systems in new homes or to RTOs—to recognize the impact of energy require that new homes be “solar ready.” efficiency in their demand growth forecasts, • Net metering – Solar PV systems are which are often used to justify new power more economical for homeowners and plants. businesses when the rules for selling power back into the grid compensate Renewable Energy Standards, Funds PV owners fairly. Strong “net meter- and Other Policies ing” policies (as well as rules that In addition to reducing consumption of require utilities to respond quickly to energy, demand for nuclear power can be customers’ requests to connect PV reduced by promoting the use of clean, re- systems to the grid) can encourage the newable sources of energy such as wind and installation of solar power systems solar power. States have taken a variety of and other forms of on-site power actions over the last decade to dramatically generation. ramp up the generation of power from re- newable sources. • Fair standards for wind power – In At least 19 states have adopted renew- many parts of the country, new wind able energy standards (often called “renew- power projects face an array of eco- able portfolio standards”) that require a nomic obstacles resulting from out- growing percentage of a state’s electricity moded regulations and market rules. to come from renewable sources. The Wind power projects are often unfairly most aggressive standards call for gradual penalized under old market rules increases—on the order of 1 percent per designed for conventional power year—in the share of power coming from plants.96 In addition, many states that renewable sources. In addition, at least 15 have undergone retail restructuring states devote some funding to the develop- now require utilities to purchase power ment of renewable energy sources, with the on the open market in short, one- to

Challenging Nuclear Power in the States 29 three-year long contracts. Because greater. As a result, power systems that rely wind power is capital intensive, the on large nuclear power plants must main- limits on long-term contracts reduce tain higher reserve margins and/or more the attractiveness of wind as an invest- “spinning reserves” than they would if they ment. State PUCs and regional relied on a greater number of smaller gen- transmission organizations should erators. The discovery of a technological adopt policies that allow wind power problem common to several nuclear reac- to play a growing role in supplying tors could lead to serious reliability energy. problems. Finally, nuclear power plants could prove Power System Planning less resilient in the event of a widespread power outage like the 2003 blackout in the Nuclear power plants face a series of fun- northeastern U.S. and Canada. Nuclear damental problems as a source of electric- power plants are designed to shut down (or ity. First, electricity is generally in greatest “trip”) when a blackout occurs. Restarting demand in centers of population—areas those plants after the blackout requires where large numbers of people live, work, them to draw power from the grid, mean- shop and carry out their daily activities. ing that power first has to be restored to Nuclear power plants, however, are best the nuclear reactors before they can restart suited for areas where population density and contribute power to the restoration of is low. High population density, for ex- the grid. Ontario’s heavy reliance on ample, would make efficient evacuation dif- nuclear power during the 2003 blackout, ficult, if not impossible, in the event of a for example, led to electricity shortages in nuclear accident. the province well after power to U.S. con- Nuclear power plants are also generally sumers had been restored.97 In the U.S., massive in scale, supplying power for large the first shut-down nuclear plant to restart numbers of homes and businesses. To move began generating power three days after the power from the nuclear power plants where blackout, with the last not returning to ser- it is generated to the places where it is used, vice until eight days after the blackout.98 utilities must invest in transmission lines. By contrast, most fossil fuel and renewable Adding transmission capacity is expensive power plants were able to generate power and frequently engenders local opposition. as soon as conditions on the grid were sta- In addition, expanding the transmission bilized. network and adding new, centralized A decentralized and diversified power sources of power enhance dependence on generation system that takes greater advan- the nation’s interconnected power grid—a tage of local sources of power provided by grid that failed spectacularly during the a mix of technologies and resources would 2003 blackout in the Northeast and on sev- provide greater reliability and stability to eral other occasions. the electricity system than the current reli- Large-scale nuclear power plants face ance on large, centralized power plants. another disadvantage as a source of “Distributed generation” technologies— power—they require the maintenance of such as solar power, fuel cells, natural gas- large amounts of backup generating capacity fired microturbines and combined for times when the plant is shut down for heat-and-power technology—hold the po- refueling or routine maintenance or due to tential to deliver electricity more efficiently unexpected problems. All sources of power and with greater reliability than traditional are susceptible to sudden shutdown. But power generation. because nuclear power plants are so large, The question of whether to invest in the potential disruption to the grid is centralized power generation or distributed

30 Challenging Nuclear Power in the States generation arises in power system planning. California’s PUC, for example, now re- Planning for the electricity system is car- quires utilities to submit long-term power ried out at several levels—at state PUCs, procurement plans. The PUC has required at the regional level through multi-state or- those plans to give energy efficiency and ganizations, and through independent sys- demand management top priority, followed tem operators and regional transmission by the development of renewable power organizations (ISOs/RTOs). In addition, resources and distributed generation.101 the siting and construction of transmission Only after energy efficiency, demand man- lines is also influenced by the decisions of agement, renewables and distributed gen- local governments and state energy facility eration are considered can fossil fuel-fired siting boards (in some states). power plants be proposed.102 The benefits of distributed generation In states that have restructured their are often not considered in power system electric industries, but where most custom- planning processes that are geared toward ers remain served by traditional utilities, today’s centralized system of power genera- portfolio management can ensure that utili- tion. A 2002 study by the Rocky Mountain ties make sensible choices for the procure- Institute found that small-scale distributed ment of power. This, in turn, reduces generation technologies frequently produce demand for nuclear power by ensuring that greater value than centralized sources of less costly and lower-risk options are con- generation because they are less risky, less sidered first. States with open retail power dependent on fossil fuels (which are vola- markets but little competition should be tile in price), are more efficient, and make encouraged to adopt portfolio manage- the power grid more reactive.99 In addition, ment processes similar to those in place in a number of significant barriers—includ- California. ing high fees, cumbersome technical re- quirements, and burdensome and one-sided contracts—have kept distributed genera- tion from gaining more of a foothold.100 Advocates can reduce dependence on Climate Policy and nuclear power (as well as other centralized Market-Based sources of electricity with environmental impacts, such as coal-fired power plants) by Environmental Regulations working to ensure that the benefits of dis- The nuclear power industry touts its prod- tributed generation are considered fairly in uct as being clean and safe. The industry’s the utility planning process and by work- long history of safety problems, its devas- ing to remove unjustified barriers to the tating impact on marine ecosystems, and spread of clean, local forms of power gen- the long-term environmental challenges eration. posed by nuclear waste storage give lie to that claim. But nuclear power does have some legitimate environmental advantages Portfolio Management over coal-fired power plants and, to a lesser Some states that had moved toward retail extent, those fueled by natural gas. Unlike deregulation are now recognizing that most these power sources, nuclear power plants consumers will continue to buy their power do not release soot or smog-forming pol- from traditional utilities indefinitely and lutants into the air. And the life-cycle im- that those utilities should be required to pact of nuclear power plants on the global come up with balanced, long-term plans for climate is relatively low.103 securing power for those customers. This As a result, the nuclear industry has been process is called “portfolio management.” aggressive in seeking to make its technol-

Challenging Nuclear Power in the States 31 ogy eligible for credits under a variety of contribute to the construction of a nuclear market-based environmental programs. power plant in another state or country on “Market-based” programs are those that the premise that doing so would avoid use market mechanisms—such as the trad- enough pollutant emissions to compensate ing of emission credits—to achieve envi- for the continued operation of the coal- ronmental goals at the lowest aggregate fired power plant. cost. In northeastern states that fail to meet “Set-asides” are allocations of valuable national health standards for ozone, for emission credits made to jump-start example, credits for the release of smog- “cleaner” technologies. For example, a cap- forming pollution are traded. European na- and-trade program might require that 5 tions have chosen to implement an emission percent of all emission permits be allocated trading system to reduce global warming to the government, with the proceeds from pollution. A similar “cap and trade” system for the sale of the permits used to support zero- global warming pollution is in the process of emission technologies. Ideally, the funds being launched in the northeastern U.S. raised through such a sale would be used Market-based policies for the control of to promote renewable energy and other air pollution and global warming give technologies that are clearly in the public nuclear power plants an inherent leg up in interest. But a poorly designed set-aside the marketplace. Unlike the owner of a coal program could also allow nuclear power or natural gas power plant, nuclear power plants to receive these funds. plant owners are not required to buy al- Both offsets and set-asides have the po- lowances to emit carbon dioxide or to pay tential to become direct subsidies to nuclear for pollution reductions elsewhere. How- power—unless nuclear power plants are ever, the nuclear industry is pushing aggres- explicitly disqualified from receiving these sively for its plants to receive even more incentives. The parties to the Kyoto Pro- financial advantages by making the plants tocol have specifically barred countries with eligible for consideration as “offsets” or for global warming emission reduction targets funding through “set-aside” programs for from using nuclear power projects in other zero-emission sources of electricity. countries as offsets.104 However, in the “Offsets” allow facilities required to United States, the state of New Hampshire comply with emission limits to pay for has allowed the Seabrook nuclear power emission reductions elsewhere, rather than plant to qualify for set-aside funding in the reducing their own emissions. For example, state’s nitrogen oxide control program.105 the owner of a coal-fired power plant could And the recent cap-and-trade agreement in

Nuclear Power and Hydrogen

o date, nuclear reactors have primarily been used as a source of electricity. But the Trecent run-up in oil prices and concerns about long-term oil supplies have led some to push nuclear power as a source of hydrogen fuel for vehicles. A number of states, including California and Florida, are proceeding with pro- grams to promote the development and use of hydrogen as a vehicle fuel. Citizens need to watch these state programs and federal hydrogen development programs carefully in order to ensure that they prioritize renewable, and not nuclear or fossil fuel-based, hydrogen generation, and that they do not provide a further “back door” subsidy to the nuclear industry.

32 Challenging Nuclear Power in the States the Northeast leaves open the possibility generation or efficiency improvements. that nuclear power plants could be consid- The NRC process for licensing nuclear re- ered eligible for funding under its set-aside actors ignores many key concerns and lim- provision. its the public’s opportunity to have a voice. Nuclear power plants ought not to re- And generous federal subsidies supported ceive undue financial advantage from pro- by Congress and the president add further grams designed to reduce emissions of momentum to nuclear power. other pollutants. As a matter of principle, In short, in some parts of the country, technologies with environmental and safety none of the many opportunities to chal- challenges as significant as nuclear power lenge nuclear power listed in this paper is should not be eligible for subsidies under likely to be successful unless it is matched the guise of environmental protection. And by vigorous and sustained action on the part as a practical matter, nuclear power is of the public. Only by taking their case di- among the most expensive solutions to glo- rectly to the public can advocates ensure bal warming and air pollution. Allowing that elected officials, regulators, utilities and major nuclear facilities to qualify for these generating companies are forced to defend funds will tend to crowd out smaller-scale— proposals to expand nuclear power capacity. and often more economically appealing— The anti-nuclear movement of the 1970s competitors. and 1980s was successful in awakening and Advocates can take several steps to en- channeling public concern over nuclear sure that nuclear power does not unduly power. And in recent years, a revitalized benefit from these programs. First, they can movement has brought additional scrutiny work to ensure that only clean, renewable to nuclear proposals in a variety of states. sources of energy and not “zero-emission” To follow are several organizing strategies forms, are eligible for financial support. If and techniques that can be used to raise the that fails, they can ensure that offsets and many serious problems posed by nuclear set-asides not be used to support projects power in local and state political debates. that would have occurred anyway without the additional financial incentives. Local Resolutions Local and county governments have many reasons to be concerned about the opera- tion of nuclear power plants. Local emer- Organizing Opportunities gency personnel have the immediate Citizens looking at the political and regu- responsibility as “first responders” to pro- latory climate surrounding nuclear power tect the public in the event of a nuclear ac- often have reason to feel discouraged. Large cident or terrorism. Municipalities and utilities and power generation companies counties must concern themselves with are wealthy and politically powerful. Mu- evacuation plans and other emergency mea- nicipalities that host nuclear power plants sures. In addition, while nuclear power may depend on them for tax revenue and plants represent an economic boon to some oppose efforts to shut the plants down. communities, they often saddle communi- Powerful business interests may see nuclear ties with an aesthetically unpleasant land power, incorrectly, as the most realistic so- use that crowds out other opportunities for lution to the long-term energy needs of residential and business growth. their region. Utility regulators and system As a result, many communities are will- planners often appear pre-disposed toward ing to lend their support to resolutions op- large additions of generation and transmis- posing the operation, relicensing or sion capacity, rather than smaller-scale construction of a nuclear power plant.

Challenging Nuclear Power in the States 33 Passing anti-nuclear resolutions through of the plant—other than aging of the plant’s town and city councils or county govern- components—are generally not considered ing bodies can add great legitimacy to an in relicensing. advocate’s claim to represent the public in- As residents living near nuclear reactors terest in opposing a nuclear power pro- can attest, much can change in 40 years. posal. In New York, for example, dozens of Nuclear power plants that were built in municipalities, county governments, school once-remote areas are now in the midst of boards and other groups have passed reso- growing population centers. Population lutions calling for the shutdown of the In- growth in some areas has made evacuation dian Point nuclear reactor on the Hudson in the event of a sudden nuclear accident River above New York City.106 virtually impossible. For example, three Local resolutions are an important dem- counties near the Indian Point plant have onstration of local opposition to nuclear refused to certify the emergency response power in and of themselves. But they also plans for the plant because they believe the create an opportunity to build support plans would be ineffective in the event of among political leaders at both the state and an actual emergency.107 local level. State representatives, senators, Emergency officials and government governors and members of Congress tend agencies may or may not be able to be en- to be responsive to public concerns in ways listed in outright opposition to relicensing that agency officials are not. Elected offi- of a nuclear power plant. They are, how- cials can be important allies in an effort to ever, potentially key allies in ensuring that challenge nuclear power plants, with the legitimate issues regarding plant security power to demand information from gov- and emergency planning are at least voiced ernment agencies and to put pressure on within the license renewal process, if not regulators to do their jobs effectively. actually taken into account by the NRC.

Alliances with Emergency Corporate Campaigns Officials One way to challenge the construction or The increased risk of terrorism in the wake relicensing of a nuclear reactor is to con- of the September 11, 2001 attacks, coupled vince the corporation proposing the plan with the failure of evacuation procedures to change its mind. This, as might be ex- in response to Hurricane Katrina, have gen- pected, is not an easy thing to do. But the erated concern among citizens and elected process of organizing a corporate campaign officials about how public safety would be can identify unlikely allies who can be in- protected in the event of a terrorist attack fluential in other forums. on a nuclear reactor or spent fuel pools. As “first responders,” local and county emer- Organizing Shareholders gency personnel have a strong interest in Corporate management is ultimately re- ensuring that adequate plans are in place sponsible to the shareholders. Sharehold- to evacuate citizens in a nuclear emergency. ers can influence the conduct of managers Incredibly, the issues of terrorism and directly through the filing of resolutions at evacuation plans are not formally consid- corporations’ annual meetings. While few ered in the NRC’s relicensing process. In- shareholder resolutions ever receive a ma- stead, the NRC only requires nuclear jority vote, resolutions that attract even a power plants to maintain adequate levels relatively modest vote can draw media at- of safety “under requirements of their origi- tention to the issues surrounding nuclear nal licenses.” In other words, any changes power and convey shareholder discontent that took place over the initial 40-year lifetime to the management. And in some cases,

34 Challenging Nuclear Power in the States shareholder resolutions have helped lead to tion is likely to have great weight with changes in corporate policy. policy makers, RTO/ISO boards, PUCs Several organizations representing those and the corporations proposing nuclear concerned about nuclear power have filed power expansion. Finding out where they shareholder resolutions. Typically, these stand early on, and working to influence resolutions call attention to the financial their position, can be a useful strategy. liabilities inherent in operating nuclear power plants, particularly the risk of a Creating Publicity nuclear accident or issues related to long- Generating media attention is a key part of term nuclear waste storage. Other advo- any corporate-focused campaign. Many cates have used shareholder resolutions to advocates have extensive experience with challenge companies to increase their pro- directing the attention of the media to their duction of clean, renewable fuels. issues. But the content of publicity in a cor- porate campaign is just important as the Organizing Customers quantity of publicity received. Utility customers are also an important A major goal of publicity in a corporate- potential target for an organizing campaign. focused campaign is to put a name and face In the 1990s, for example, New Jersey or- on objectionable conduct. In the case of ganizations seeking to close the Salem nuclear power, this is straightforward: all nuclear power plants encouraged custom- nuclear power plants have a corporate ers of the plant’s utility owner to put stick- owner and these owners typically have a ers on their utility bills urging the utility to public face, the CEO. Increasingly, these “Unplug Salem.” But residential custom- corporate owners and CEOs do not live in ers are not the only potential target of an the communities or states where their organizing effort. plants are located. As a result, a good deal Industrial customers were among those of publicity must be generated around who most badly burned by the 1970s and 1980s the companies are and how they do experiences with nuclear power. Some in- business. dustrial consumers would likely welcome In New Jersey, for example, campaign- the addition of nuclear power (or any ma- ers opposing relicensing of the Oyster jor increase in generation capacity) in the Creek nuclear power plant have focused hopes that it would deliver cheap and stable their attention on the plant’s owner: Exelon electricity over the long haul. But indus- Corporation of Chicago. Advocates have trial customers in traditionally regulated publicized the company’s record in its op- states have ample reason to worry that ad- eration of nuclear power plants in other dition of nuclear power plant costs to the states, and charged the company with put- rate base would increase the prices they pay ting profits over public safety in its opera- for power, just as it did during the first wave tion of nuclear plants. of nuclear power plant construction. Even Presenting solid, factual research can in restructured states, some industrial cus- also generate publicity. There are many tomers might have concerns over the im- sources of information detailing the cor- pact of nuclear power on grid reliability or porate practices of nuclear power plant have reasons to support cleaner alternatives owners. Sources of information that should such as distributed generation, combined be consulted include NRC filings, reports heat and power, or improved energy effi- from labor unions and insider “whistle- ciency. blowers,” and Securities and Exchange Industrial consumers may wind up tak- Commission reports and other regulatory ing positions for or against nuclear power. filings. But in either case, their support or opposi- One key to achieving the best results

Challenging Nuclear Power in the States 35 from organizing and publicity efforts is to in such a campaign. Advocates for low-in- begin them early—well before a relicensing come consumers similarly have an interest application is filed or plans for a new in protecting consumers against high prices. nuclear plant are announced. Acting early Rural communities, which will benefit from achieves several goals. It establishes the expansion of renewable power sources such terms of the debate in the public mind at as wind, also have a stake in the issue, as do the outset. It also raises the bar for the cor- some labor unions, which stand to benefit poration proposing the relicensing or ex- from the large number of jobs created by pansion, demonstrating to them that they energy efficiency and renewable energy. will need to marshal more resources to Advocates would do well to identify part- achieve their goals. Acting early can also ners and build support for a clean energy force proponents to delay their application agenda at the same time they challenge for relicensing or the licensing of a new nuclear power proposals. Presenting a bet- reactor, which can play to the advantage of ter, and often more popular, alternative to opponents. nuclear power allows decision-makers to refute arguments that nuclear power expan- sion is necessary for a region’s economic Building Support for Alternative health and enable advocates to shift the Energy Sources debate in the media to friendlier turf. Any campaign to challenge nuclear relicensing or the construction of new Intervention in NRC Proceedings nuclear power plants is likely to require an NRC licensing proceedings, as noted alternative response to a region’s energy above, are often stacked in favor of the needs. As described above, energy effi- nuclear industry. However, these proceed- ciency, renewable energy, and distributed ings give provide a forum to raise critical generation are often cleaner, cheaper and issues about nuclear power plants, to enlist less risky alternatives to nuclear power the support of like-minded groups and in- plants. dividuals, and to create a public record that Campaigns for alternative energy sources can later be used to challenge nuclear power have the potential to bring unusual allies in other forums. As such, they provide a into the fold. Local solar and wind power useful organizing opportunity—even if the manufacturers, as well as energy services chances of winning outright before the companies, might be willing to participate NRC are small.

36 Challenging Nuclear Power in the States Conclusion

here are many reasons for citizens to NRC and many federal decision-makers, be skeptical about a “nuclear renais- there are ample opportunities to raise the Tsance” in the U.S. Level-headed economic, environmental and security con- analysis of the current state of nuclear cerns at the state and local levels. power suggests that the safety, security, cost With the passage of the pro-nuclear and environmental concerns that have Energy Policy Act of 2005, the accelerated plagued nuclear power over the last 50 years planning for new nuclear power plants by have not gone away. some utilities, and continued concerns over Each one of these issues leads to a po- America’s energy future, now is the time tential policy handle or organizing oppor- for citizens to raise the legitimate concerns tunity that concerned citizens can use to about nuclear power in public policy forums hold nuclear power plants to a higher level and to develop and work for a vision of a of scrutiny. While winning battles at the cleaner energy future that can satisfy federal level over safety issues may be diffi- America’s energy needs using clean, secure cult due to the pro-nuclear slant of the and stable sources of energy.

Notes 37 Notes

1 Peter A. Bradford, Nuclear Power’s Prospects, Analysis Shows, [press release], 12 June 2001. Power Point presentation to California Energy 7 Nuclear Information and Resource Service, Commission Nuclear Issues Workshop, 16 Ta lking Points on Bush/Cheney Energy Plan, August 2005. downloaded from www.nirs.org/nukerelapse/ 2 50,000 tons of nuclear waste: U.S. General bush/talkingpointsonbush.htm, 24 January 2006. Accounting Office, Spent Nuclear Fuel: Options 8 Laura Maggi, “Making White Elephants Fly,” Exist to Further Enhance Security, July 2003. American Prospect Online Edition, 28 February Electricity rates have typically been higher in 2000. states with greater reliance on nuclear power 9 Edward P. Kahn, “A Folklorist’s Guide to the than in non-nuclear states. See Public Citizen, Used Plant Market,” The Electricity Journal, States Pay the Price for Relying on Nuclear Power, 12(6): 66-77, 1999, cited in Paul L. Joskow, 12 June 2001. “Deregulation and Regulatory Reform in the 3 Nuclear Energy Institute, Quantifying U.S. Power Sector,” in Sam Peltzman and Nuclear’s Economic Value, downloaded from Clifford Winston, eds., Deregulation of Network www.nei.org/index.asp?catnum=2&catid=49, 24 Industries: What’s Next, AEI-Brookings Joint January 2006. Center for Regulatory Studies, Washington, 4 See, for example, Patrick Moore, “Going D.C., 2000. Nuclear: A Green Makes the Case,” Washington 10 Price of Ginna sale and book value from Post, 16 April 2006. Moore claims that nuclear Platt’s POWER, “RG&E Gets Nod for Sales power “is in fact one of the least expensive 470-MW Ginna Nuclear Plant,” 10 June 2004. energy sources,” citing only the cost of operat- Price per megawatt based on sales price of plant ing existing reactors. only (not including fuel) from Nuclear Energy 5 Nuclear Energy Institute, Nuclear Plants in Institute, U.S. Nuclear Plant Sales, updated States Implementing Retail Competition, down- August 2005. loaded from www.nei.org/documents/ 11 $145 billion from Marshall Goldberg, nuclearplants.pdf, 24 January 2006. Renewable Energy Policy Project, Federal 6 States with nuclear power plants have among Energy Subsidies: Not All Technologies Are Created the nation’s highest electricity rates. As of 2001, Equal, July 2000. rates were approximately 25 percent higher in 12 $4.8 billion from Taxpayers for Common states with nuclear power plants than in states Sense, Nuclear Subsidies in the Energy Bill: A without. Source: Public Citizen, Consumers in Spending Explosion, downloaded from Nuclear States Pay 25 Percent More for Electricity, www.taxpayer.net, 14 December 2005; $7.3

38 Challenging Nuclear Power in the States billion from U.S. PIRG and Friends of the Figure 58. Capital cost and other assumptions: Earth, Final Energy Tax Package Overwhelmingly U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Informa- Favors Polluting Industries, 27 July 2005. tion Administration, Assumptions to the Annual 13 Jill Lancelot, Taxpayers for Common Sense, Energy Outlook 2006, March 2006. Price-Anderson Act: Special Subsidies and Protections 21 U.S. Department of Energy, Energy for the Nuclear Industry, downloaded from Information Administration, Annual Energy www.taxpayer.net/energy/priceanderson.htm, 18 Outlook 2006, February 2006, Figure 58. January 2006. 22 Public Citizen, Consumers in Nuclear States 14 In July 2005 testimony before a congres- Pay 25 Percent More for Electricity, Analysis Shows, sional committee, General Atomics Senior Vice [press release], 12 June 2001. President David Baldwin agreed that Price- 23 Standard & Poor’s, Credit Aspects of North Anderson was a “disincentive for safety” and American and European Nuclear Power, 9 January should be phased down over time, noting that 2006. reactors that were truly “inherently safe” would 24 See Kevin Kamps, Nuclear Information and not need the protection Price-Anderson Resource Service, The Science and Politics of the provides. See The Next Generation of Nuclear Proposed High-Level Radioactive Waste Dump at Power, Hearing Before the Subcommittee on Yucca Mountain, Nevada, USA, 28 November Energy and Resources, Committee on Govern- 2003. ment Reform, U.S. House of Representatives, 29 June 2005. 25 See Environmental Working Group, Marks the Spot: We Can’t Solve America’s 15 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Nuclear Waste Problem if We Keep Making More, Frequently Asked Questions About NRC’s Response downloaded from www.ewg.org/reports/ to the 9/11/01 Events, downloaded from nuclearwaste/exec_summ.php, 24 January 2006, www.nrc.gov/what-we-do/safeguards/faq- which suggests that recent NRC relicensing of 911.html, 24 January 2006. nuclear power plants will produce wastes that 16 Doug Koplow, EarthTrack Inc., Nuclear will well exceed the capacity of Yucca Mountain. Power in the U.S.: Still Not Viable Without Subsidy, 26 National Academy of Sciences, Spent Fuel Power Point presentation to Nuclear Power and Stored in Pools at Some U.S. Nuclear Plants Global Warming Symposium, Nuclear Policy Potentially at Risk from Terrorist Attacks: Prompt Research Institute, November 2005. Measures Needed to Reduce Vulnerabilities [press 17 Massachusetts Institute of Technology, The release], 6 April 2005. Future of Nuclear Power: An Interdisciplinary MIT 27 National Academy of Sciences, Board of Study, 2003. Radioactive Waste Management, Safety and 18 See Amory Lovins, Rocky Mountain Security of Commercial Spent Nuclear Fuel Storage: Institute, Nuclear Power: Economics and Climate- Public Report, National Academies Press, 2005. Protection Potential, 11 September 2005. The cost 28 U.S. Government Accountability Office, of energy efficiency improvements varies, but Nuclear Regulation: NRC Needs to More Aggres- the life-cycle cost of electricity saved as a result sively and Comprehensively Resolve Issues Related to of state public benefits energy efficiency the Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Plant’s Shutdown, programs has been estimated at between 2.3 and May 2004. 4.4 cents/kWh. Source: Martin Kushler, Dan York and Patti White, American Council for an 29 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Energy-Efficient Economy, Five Years In: An Information Report – October 22, 2004. Examination of the First Half-Decade of Public 30 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Event Benefits Energy Efficiency Policies, April 2004. Report for July 28, 2003. 19 Bruce Biewald, Affidavit of Bruce Biewald in 31 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the Matter of Exelon Generating Company LLC Frequently Asked Questions About Hope Creek and (Early Site Permit for Clinton ESP Site), before Salem, downloaded from www.nrc.gov/reactors/ the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board, U.S. plant-specific-items/hope-creek-salem/faq.html, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, docket no. 52- 25 April 2006. 007-ESP. 32 David Lochbaum, Union of Concerned 20 Levelized cost estimates: U.S. Department Scientists, Letter to Mr. A. Randolph Blough, of Energy, Energy Information Administration, Director of Reactor Projects, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Annual Energy Outlook 2006, February 2006, Commission Region I, Re: Same Problems at Same

Notes 39 Nuclear Plant Deserve Same Protection for the Security, Emerging Threats and International Public, 21 June 2004. Relations, Committee on Government Reform, House 33 Riverkeeper, Riverkeeper Calls on Governor of Representatives: Nuclear Regulatory Commission: Pataki and Senator Clinton to Investigate Latest Preliminary Observations on Efforts to Improve Safety Problem at IP [press release], 21 September Security at Nuclear Power Plants, 14 September 2004. 2005. 45 U.S. Government Accountability Office, 34 Greg Clary, “Indian Point, NRC Officials Nuclear Power Plants: Efforts Made to Upgrade Met With Skepticism,” The Journal News, 29 Security, but the Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s March 2006. Design Basis Threat Process Should Be Improved, March 2006. 35 New York State Public Service Commission, Report on February 15, 2000 Event at Indian Point 46 U.S. Government Accountability Office, 2, 16 May 2000. Nuclear Regulatory Commission: NRC Needs to Do More to Ensure that Power Plants Are Effectively 36 Riverkeeper, Union of Concerned Scientists, Controlling Spent Nuclear Fuel, April 2005. Indian Point Energy Center – Petition Pursuant to 10 CFR 2.206 – PWR Containment Sump Failure, 47 Union of Concerned Scientists, Extracting 8 September 2003. Plutonium from Nuclear Reactor Spent Fuel, downloaded from www.ucsusa.org/ 37 Five of the six other incidents identified in global_security/nuclear_terrorism/extracting- David Lochbaum, Union of Concerned plutonium-from-nuclear-reactor-spent- Scientists, Petition Pursuant to 10 CFR 2.206 – fuel.html, 8 February 2006; Union of Con- Enforcement Action – Longstanding Leakage of cerned Scientists, Fissile Material Basics, down- Contaminated Water, submitted to Luis A. Reyes, loaded from www.ucsusa.org/global_security/ Executive Director for Operations, U.S. Nuclear nuclear_terrorism/fissile-materials-basics.html, 8 Regulatory Commission, 25 January 2006. The February 2006. sixth incident is the leak of water containing tritium from the Palo Verde nuclear plant in 48 Bloomberg, “Bush Budget Seeks $250 Million Arizona. for Nuclear Fuel Reprocessing Plan,” 6 February 2006. 38 David Lochbaum, Union of Concerned Scientists, Petition Pursuant to 10 CFR 2.206 – 49 Susan Hutson, Nancy Barber, et al., U.S. Enforcement Action – Longstanding Leakage of Geological Survey, Estimated Use of Water in the Contaminated Water, submitted to Luis A. Reyes, United States, 2000, revised February 2005. Executive Director for Operations, U.S. Nuclear 50 American Wind Energy Association, Wind Regulatory Commission, 25 January 2006. Energy and the Environment, downloaded from 39 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, www.awea.org/faq/tutorial/ Preliminary Notification of Event or Unusual wwt_environment.html, 24 January 2006. Occurrence: Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station: 51 Linda Gunter, Paul Gunter, Scott Cullen Followup for Tritium Contamination Found in and Nancy Burton, Licensed to Kill: How the Water Onsite, PNO-IV-06-001, 17 March 2006. Nuclear Power Industry Destroys Endangered 40 Union of Concerned Scientists, Snap, Crackle Marine Wildlife and Ocean Habitat to Save Money, & Pop: The BWR Power Uprate Experiment, 9 July 2001. 2004. 52 Ibid. 41 Michael Erman, Reuters, “FirstEnergy 53 Ibid. Admits to Nuclear Power Plant Cover-Up,” 20 54 New Jersey Office of the Attorney General, January 2006. New Jersey Reaches $1 Million Settlement with 42 Union of Concerned Scientists, Nuclear Owner of Oyster Creek Nuclear Power Plant Reactor Security, downloaded from Regarding Fish Kill Caused by Thermal Discharge, www.ucsusa.org/clean_energy/nuclear_safety/ press release, 8 April 2004. page.cfm?pageID=176, 24 July 2003. 55 U.S. Government Accountability Office, 43 U.S. General Accounting Office, Nuclear Te stimony Before the Subcommittee on Clean Air, Regulatory Commission: Oversight of Security at Climate Change and Nuclear Safety, Committee on Commercial Nuclear Power Plants Needs to Be Environment and Public Works, U.S. Senate, Strengthened, September 2003. Nuclear Regulatory Commission: Challenges Facing 44 U.S. Government Accountability Office, NRC in Effectively Carrying Out its Mission, 26 Te stimony Before the Subcommittee on National May 2005.

40 Challenging Nuclear Power in the States 56 See note 1. Massachusetts, New Jersey and New York Sue Over 57 David Lochbaum, Union of Concerned EPA’s Failure to Protect the Nation’s Waters, press Scientists, Nuclear Plant Risk Studies: Failing the release, 26 July 2004. Grade, August 2000. 73 David Schlissel, Geoff Keith, et al., Synapse 58 Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Memoran- Energy Economics, Comments on EPA’s Proposed dum and Order CLI-02-24: In the Matter of Duke Clean Water Act Section 316(b) Regulations for Cogema Stone & Webster, Docket No. 70-3098-ML, Cooling Water Intake Structures at Phase II 18 December 2002. Existing Facilities, 7 August 2002. Estimate is based on an EPA estimate for replacing all 59 Arjun Makhijani and Scott Saleska, Institute current once-through systems with cooling for Energy and Environmental Research, The towers. Nuclear Power Deception, April 1996. 74 Dick Munson, Northeast-Midwest Institute, 60 Arjun Makhijani, Institute for Energy and Water Use by Electric Utilities in the Great Lakes, Environmental Research, The Pebble Bed Modular January 2005. Reactor, downloaded from www.ieer.org/com- ments/energy/chny-pbr.html, 24 January 2006. 75 See note 51. 61 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 76 U.S. Supreme Court, Village of Euclid, Ohio v. Design Certification Pre-Application Review – Ambler Realty Co., 272 U.S. 365 (1926). PBMR, downloaded from www.nrc.gov/reactors/ 77 Kevin E. McCarthy, Connecticut Office of new-licensing/design-cert/pbmr.html, 24 Legislative Research, Siting Agencies in Other January 2006. States, 13 August 2002. 62 Atomic Energy Act of 1954, P.L. 83-703, as 78 16 USC 1455 (d)(8). cited in U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 79 Tony Dutzik, Jasmine Vasavada, Travis Office of General Counsel, Nuclear Regulatory Madsen, National Association of State PIRGs, Legislation: 107th Congress, 1st Session, June 2002. Toward a Consumer-Oriented Electric System, June 63 CA Pub Res Code § 25524, ME Rev Stat 2004. §4374; KY Rev Stat § 278.610, WI Stat Ann § 80 See 77. 196.493. 81 Energy and Environmental Analysis, Inc., 64 MT Code § 75-20-1203; 35-A ME Rev Stat Regulatory Requirements Database for Small §4374; KY Rev Stat § 278.610, OR Rev Stat Electric Generators, downloaded from www.eea- 469.597. inc.com/rrdb/DGRegProject/index.html, 26 65 U.S. Supreme Court, Pacific Gas & Electric January 2006. Co. et al v. State Energy Resources Conservation and 82 William G. Rosenberg, Dwight C. Alpern Development Commission et al, 461 U.S. 190 (1983). and Michael R. Walker, Deploying IGCC in this 66 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Decade with 3Party Covenant Financing: Volume II, State Program Status, downloaded from May 2005, Chapter 7. cfpub.epa.gov/npdes/statestats.cfm, 23 January 83 Figures from Edison Electric Institute Rate 2006. The states without Clean Water Act Regulation Department cited in National permitting authority are Alaska, Idaho, Massa- Academy of Sciences, Commission on Engineer- chusetts, New Hampshire and New Mexico. ing and Technical Systems, Nuclear Power: 67 Federal Water Pollution Control Act, Sec. Technical and Institutional Options for the Future, 316(a). National Academies Press, 1992. 68 Federal Water Pollution Control Act, Sec. 84 Harriet Burt, California Public Utilities 316(b). Commission, Bibliography of CPUC Intervener 69 See note 51. Compensation Decisions from 2002, downloaded from www.cpuc.ca.gov/word_pdf/report/ 70 Ibid. 34768.pdf, 4 April 2004. 71 Riverkeeper, Seeking Federal Regulations for 85 Citizens’ Utility Board of Oregon, CUB Cooling Water Intakes, Phase I Lawsuit, down- Membership, downloaded from loaded from riverkeeper.org/campaign.php/ www.oregoncub.org/membership.html, 24 biodiversity/we_are_doing/100, 24 January March 2004. 2006. 86 Based on the Regulatory Assistance Project’s 72 Rhode Island Department of the Attorney state IRP surveys, downloaded from General, Rhode Island, Connecticut, Delaware,

Notes 41 www.raponline.org /Feature.asp?select= 100 U.S. Congressional Budget Office, Prospects 14#IRP%20Survey, 5 May 2006. for Distributed Electricity Generation, September 87 The California ISO, whose board is ap- 2003. pointed by the governor, is an exception. 101 California Public Utilities Commission, 88 Appliance Standards Awareness Project, PUC Adopts Long-Term Power Purchase Plans for Savings from Recent State and National Standards, Utilities to Ensure Adequate Energy Supply for Excel spreadsheet, 12 January 2006. Nuclear State, press release, 16 December 2004. reactors based on 1,000 MW reactor operating 102 Ibid. at a 90 percent capacity factor. 103 See, for example, Joseph V. Spadaro, 89 Steven Nadel, Andrew deLaski, Maggie Lucille Langlois and Bruce Hamilton, “Green- Eldridge and Jim Kleisch, American Council for house Gas Emissions of Electricity Generation an Energy-Efficient Economy and Appliance Chains: Assessing the Difference,” IAEA Standards Awareness Project, Leading the Way: Bulletin, 42:2, 2000. Some researchers, however, Continued Opportunities for New State Appliance suggest that the life-cycle energy use of nuclear and Equipment Efficiency Standards, March 2006. power is commonly underestimated and that, 90 Dan York and Marty Kushler, American should the world’s supply of high-grade uranium Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy, be exhausted and lower-grade ores be required, ACEEE’s Third National Scorecard on Utility and the life-cycle carbon dioxide emissions from Public Benefits Energy Efficiency Programs: A nuclear power would exceed those of gas-fired National Review and Update of State-Level Activity, power plants. See Jan Willem Storm van October 2005. Leeuwen and Philip Smith, Nuclear Power: The Energy Balance, downloaded from 91 Ibid. www.stormsmith.nl/, 17 January 2006. 92 Ibid. 104 United Nations Framework Convention on 93 Ibid. Climate Change, Report of the Conference of the 94 Assuming that the bulk of renewable energy Parties in its Seventh Session, Held at Marrakech installations are wind power, operating at a 33 from 29 October to 10 November 2001, Addendum, percent capacity factor. Part Two: Action Taken by the Conference of the 95 Environment California, “It’s Official!” Parties, 21 January 2002. CPUC Approves $3.2 Billion Solar Program, press 105 Scott Peterson, Nuclear Energy Institute, release, 12 January 2006. Nuclear Energy as an Environmental Answer 96 Randall S. Swisher, “Bringing Wind Energy [PowerPoint presentation], downloaded from Up to ‘Code,’” Public Utilities Fortnightly, June 2004. www.nei.org/documents/Speech_Peterson_9- 19-03_EA-slides.ppt, 24 July 2004. 97 Public Citizen, The Big Blackout and Amnesia in Congress, undated. 106 See Riverkeeper, Mobilizing Support from Municipalities, NYC Community Boards, Labor 98 U.S.-Canada Power System Outage Task Groups, School Boards and Civic Groups, down- Force, Final Report on the August 14th Blackout in loaded from riverkeeper.org/campaign.php/ the United States and Canada: Causes and Recom- indian_point/we_are_doing/26, 26 January mendations, April 2004. 2006. 99 See Amory B. Lovins, E. Kyle Datta, et al., 107 Riverkeeper, Three Out of Four Counties Rocky Mountain Institute, Small Is Profitable: Reject Indian Point Emergency Plans for Fourth The Hidden Economic Benefits of Making Electrical Consecutive Year, press release, 11 January 2006. Resources the Right Size, 2002.

42 Challenging Nuclear Power in the States

Harriet Eckstein Graphic Design