[Sustain] Leno Measure On Nuke Plant Renewal
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 Originally From: "Velayas, Shannan" <Shannan.Velayas@asm.ca.gov> Date: June 1, 2007 11:56:45 AM PDT Subject: PRESS RELEASE: Leno Measure Delaying PG&E's Effort to Re-license Aging Nuclear Plant Wins Committee Approval For Immediate Release Contact: Shannan Velayas Friday, June 1, 2007 (916) 319-2013 Leno Measure Delaying PG&E’s Effort to Re-license Aging Nuclear Plant Wins Committee Approval Licenses for California ’s nuclear power plants aren’t scheduled to expire until 2021 and 2023 SACRAMENTO, CA— Assemblyman Mark Leno’s AB 1046 which would put re-licensing of California’s aging nuclear power plants on hold until the California Energy Commission (CEC) completes their in-depth economic and reliability study was passed out of the Assembly Appropriations Committee yesterday. “There are few decisions we make as a society that have as many far reaching implications as nuclear power,” said Leno. “The waste it generates will remain radioactive for 300,000 years and a single nuclear disaster has the potential to contaminate vast regions of our planet. Moving nuclear plant reauthorizations forward 15 years before expiration of their current licenses and without a careful and deliberate analysis that is independent of vested interests is bad public policy,” he said. AB 1046 would prohibit the California Public Utilities Commission from approving the further use of ratepayer funds for costs associated with re-licensing of nuclear power plants until the Energy Commission completes a study required by AB 1632, authored by Assemblyman Sam Blakeslee (R- San Luis Obispo) last year. The study, which is scheduled to begin in July 2007 and conclude in November 2008, will assess the costs and impacts associated with accumulating radioactive waste at California’s two operating nuclear power plants, as well as evaluate the vulnerability of the 4000 megawatts they generate to major disruption from aging equipment or a major earthquake. The study is projected to cost $800,000. In March, the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) allowed PG&E, which owns the Diablo Canyon nuclear plant, to spend16.8 million ratepayer dollars on an in-house study by the utility examining the feasibility of license renewal for the aging Diablo reactors. Despite calls from legislative leaders that the PG&E study be delayed until the Energy Commission completes its work on the issue, the CPUC only suggested that the utility “defer to the extent feasible” the work on their in-house study. AB 1046 does not reverse the CPUC decision, but delays further spending of ratepayer dollars on re-licensing costs until completion of the Energy Commission review. Rochelle Becker is Executive Director of the Alliance for Nuclear Responsibility, which along with Sierra Club California, is co-sponsoring AB 1046. “The Legislature and the Governor have asked the Energy Commission to review the impacts of accumulating radioactive waste along our seismically active coast. This bill reasonably asks utilities to wait until the review is completed before rushing to re-licensure,” said Becker. AB 1046 will be heard next on the Assembly Floor. # # #
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
(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@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
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@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
I should clarify. By new plants I also mean renewal of old permits. To me, that's just a new plant in sheep's clothing. Furthermore these extensions could help reopen the debate about allowing new plant construction. Regardless, my point about the legislation is still valid. It is too weak. It punts oversight of this issue into a corrupt agency. And it helps Leno greenwash his own image for the election when he has been purposely helping PG&E while undermining (and possibly even laying the ground to kill) Community Choice. I'm sorry but I don't support this unless it is amended to say that no nuclear power plant extensions can go forward, period. No studies by the CEC. Eric done7777@sbcglobal.net wrote:
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@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
participants (2)
-
Don Eichelberger -
Eric Brooks