[Sustain] Leno Nuke Plant Measure - Strong Concerns

[Don Eichelberger]

Eric-

There already is a moratorium on new plants in CA pending resolution 
of the waste issue.  Sure, this may not go far enough.  But it is a 
first effort in a long time to educate legislators on this complex 
issue without scaring most of them off with rhetoric.

This is not the be-all legislation.  I do not think ultimately 
legislation will stop nuclear power, only slow its adoption while 
people discover (again) what a boondoggle it is economically.

Ultimately, I think we need to focus more on getting legislation that 
promotes, first, conservation, then alternatives.  But we also need 
to keep fighting off the "nuclear renaissance", even as we challenge 
the CEC, CPUC, DOE and other alphabet soup agencies and the grip on 
them by the energy industries.

I welcome the opinion of others,

Don

At 10:06 AM 6/5/2007, Eric Brooks wrote:
>(Please also forward this message to the gpca-energy list as I am 
>not allowed to post to that list.)
>
>I have a strong concern about this, The CEC is pretty co-opted by 
>corporate influence and might simply allow nukes to go forward. 
>Shouldn't this legislation be stronger and simply be a flat out 
>moratorium on new plants. This bill simply says, 'well let's study it'.
>
>We don't need to study nuclear power any more. We need to make sure 
>it is stopped in its tracks.
>
>The bill allows Leno to look good on an environmental issue just 
>before an election without his actually doing anything. In light of 
>his past pro-PG&E legislation, I am very skeptical of this, and at 
>this point I stand against this legislation in favor of something 
>much stronger.
>
>Thoughts?
>
>Eric Brooks
>
>done7777 at sbcglobal.net wrote:
>>At 09:50 AM 6/3/2007, Eric Brooks wrote:
>>>Hey all,
>>>
>>>Odd development below in light of the fact that Leno just passed PG&E
>>>and Mayor Newsom friendly solar legislation.
>>>
>>>Keep in mind though that it only delays re-licensing until the
>>>California Environment Commission (a very corporate co-opted agency)
>>>completes a study on the matter.
>>>
>>>Eric
>>
>>Eric, et al-
>>
>>Members of the coalition I have been working with that has been 
>>growing up around this issue have been looking for help in 
>>Sacramento to get this evaluation completed, and have approached 
>>Leno to carry the legislation, which he is.
>>
>>Below is a letter of support for the legislation that we are trying 
>>to get groups and individuals to send.
>>
>>I would like the Sustainability working group to send one.
>>
>>Don
>>
>>
>>Assemblyman Mark Leno
>>P.O. Box 942849
>>Sacramento, CA 95814
>>
>>Dear Assembly Leno,
>>
>>We are writing in support of AB 1046 to require that the California 
>>Energy Commission's analysis be complete, adopted and implemented 
>>before the state's nuclear utilities can use further ratepayer 
>>funding for license renewal preparation or applications.
>>
>>Last year the state unanimously passed AB 1632 [R. Blakeslee, San 
>>Luis Obispo] mandating a cost, benefit and risk analysis of the 
>>state's dependence on nuclear reactors designed in the 1960's and 
>>sited in seismically active coastal zones. The Governor signed the 
>>bill and the evaluation is set to begin this July.
>>
>>In the meantime PG&E has received approval for an in-house study 
>>for license renewal that we strongly believe should wait until the 
>>California Energy Commission has completed, adopted and implemented 
>>its in depth and independent review of these issues.
>>
>>Therefore we are in full support of AB 1046 requiring the 
>>completion of the state's analysis and ask California's legislators 
>>to approve this step towards responsible energy planning for 
>>California's future generation needs.
>>
>>We thank you for addressing the CPUC's short-sighted decision and 
>>for your foresight in understanding that absent an independent and 
>>in-depth review of all costs, benefits and risks there could be 
>>substantial economic impacts to our state and questionable 
>>reliability from reactors designed in the 1960's.
>>
>>
>>We thank you for presenting this bill
>>
>>
>>Sincerely,
>>
>>Your name
>>Name of Organization
>>Address
>>City, state zip
>>Phone
>>
>>
>>
>>