Energy & Environment
| More

Why States Are Saying No to Nuclear Plants

The opposition is still very high and very effective.

BY: | November 30, 2009



As climate-change legislation began winding its way through the U.S. Senate this fall, the outlines of a possible bipartisan deal came into focus. Republicans would accept limits on greenhouse-gas emissions, while Democrats would accept vast growth in the number of nuclear power plants. State governments, however, may stand in the way of such a compromise.

New nuclear plants generally can't be built without permission from both federal and state government. And nuclear power hasn't been faring so well in the legislatures lately. This year, half a dozen states rebuffed efforts to overturn longstanding bans on new reactors. As Michael Mariotte, executive director of the Nuclear Information and Resource Service, puts it, "The opposition to nuclear power at the state level and the grassroots level is still very high and very effective."

Supporters of nuclear power aren't discouraged. They note that bills overturning nuclear bans in some states, such as Kentucky and Minnesota, went further in the legislature than they have in the past. Plus, a number of states, particularly in the Southeast, are openly receptive to the idea of having more nuclear power reactors. Mike McGarey, director of state outreach for the Nuclear Energy Institute, an industry group, says, "New nuclear is going to go where it's wanted."

For new nuclear to go anywhere, though, it will need more than just legal authorization. Nuclear power plants are so expensive that they're almost impossible to finance privately. So states must decide whether utilities can charge ratepayers for the cost of the plants while they're being built. The nuclear industry's biggest legislative victory this year was passage of a bill in Georgia to allow just that. Another state-level debate hinges on whether nuclear counts as renewable energy in states that mandate a certain percentage of electricity to come from clean sources. And what to do with nuclear waste is a question that continues to vex policy makers at both the federal and state levels.

None of these decisions may matter much if Congress doesn't act to encourage nuclear power. On the other hand, what Congress decides may not matter either, if states decide they're not interested in encouraging nuclear, too.


If you enjoyed this post, subscribe for updates.

Josh Goodman
Josh Goodman

Josh Goodman is a former staff writer for GOVERNING..

E-mail: mailbox@governing.com
Twitter: @governing

Comments



Add Your Comment

You are solely responsible for the content of your comments. GOVERNING reserves the right to remove comments that are considered profane, vulgar, obscene, factually inaccurate, off-topic, or considered a personal attack.

Comments must be fewer than 2000 characters.

Latest from Energy & Environment

  • Tracking the Carbon Footprints of Cities
  • Scientists have found that urban hubs with over 10 million people are increasingly responsible for human-caused global warming, prompting closer study of cities across the country and around the globe.
  • Oregon Coal Export Terminal Plans Put on Hold
  • The battle over plans for a series of massive coal export terminals across the Pacific Northwest took a new turn Wednesday when the energy company Kinder Morgan announced it was dropping its plan to build a $200-million facility on the Columbia River in northern Oregon.

More From Energy & Environment

GOVERNING Data

Events & Webinars

  • Putting Crooks on Notice: How you can fight Identity Fraud
  • October 24, 2013
  • Fraud is on the rise. There is evidence that fraud has permeated virtually every government-based benefit program at the state, local and federal level. The federal government estimates that three to five percent of public assistance dollars are lost each year to fraud, and tax related identity fraud has grown 650% since 2008.


More Events & Webinars


© 2011 e.Republic, Inc. All Rights reserved.    |   Privacy Policy   |   Site Map