A California initiative proposed for the November 2012 ballot would require the state’s two nuclear power plants to shut down until the federal government mandates a way to safely dispose of the plants’ harmful byproducts.
If successful, the Nuclear Waste Act of 2012 would prohibit the further generation of nuclear power in the state until the federal government approves a method for permanently disposing of high-level nuclear waste, as well as the construction and operation of facilities for the reprocessing of nuclear fuel rods.
To make it to the fall ballot, the measure requires 504,760 signatures by April 16, according to the California Secretary of State’s Office.
In response to the proposal, the state’s non-partisan Legislative Analysts Office (LAO) released a report on Nov. 3, warning of dire consequences should the measure pass. According to the report, the nuclear power plants generate approximately 16 percent of the state’s energy.
“Because the state’s two nuclear facilities are integral parts of the state’s electricity grid, their operation is currently necessary to ensure reliable access to electricity in California, particularly in light of regulatory constraints faced by potential sources of replacement power,” the report reads.
The LAO warned that the loss of such a source would more than likely result in the type of “rolling blackouts” that plagued the state during the 2000 energy crisis, the frequency and duration of which would depend on various undetermined factors such as demand and weather.
According to the report, “such disruptions to the electricity grid would have negative impacts on the California economy, including loss of economic output, reduced productivity, loss of jobs, and reduced purchases of goods and services, leading to reduced household and business income.”
The report warned of the possibility that a court at either the federal or state level could use preemptive powers to prevent the measure from taking effect on the basis that a mandated shutdown amounts to an “unconstitutional taking” of private property without just compensation.
Representatives for Pacific Gas & Electric Co., which operates the Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant in Avila Beach, could not be reached for comment on the initiative as of press time.
The proposed initiative’s author, Ben Davis, Jr., of Santa Cruz, told the Sun he’s a self-taught legal professional who’s held a variety of jobs, including delivery driver and caretaker. He successfully petitioned for decommissioning the Rancho Seco Nuclear Generating Station in Sacramento in 1989.
Davis, who describes himself as an anti-nuclear activist, was the original author of the popular-vote referendum that ended up shutting down the Sacramento Municipal Utility District’s plant. He said the LAO’s report is “misleading” and “biased,” stating that members in the LAO involved in the report have serious connections to the nuclear industry, though the Sun couldn’t confirm that charge.
“This is a Christmas present to the nuclear industry,” Davis said.
Moreover, Davis said the report largely ignores the economic costs of a potential release of radioactivity as a result of earthquakes or other natural disasters. The report calls these threats “potentially avoidable impacts,” which “could collectively amount to billions of dollars,” he pointed out.
Since 1976, there’s been a moratorium in place on the construction of new plants in California, though the existing Diablo Canyon power plant and the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station in Southern California were grandfathered in as exemptions. Both facilities currently store their waste on-site, much to the aversion of many neighboring residents.
Similar to the Rancho Seco site, Davis is focused on the threats posed by nuclear waste storage and uncertainty regarding the dangers posed by nature and terrorism.
“The LAO’s report completely ignores effects a nuclear emergency situation would have on agriculture and losses to the state’s economy in that sense,” Davis said. “They’ve completely ignored concerns from people [who live] around these plants.
“Eventually the public will realize that the risk of nuclear energy is not worth what they are getting out of it,” he said.
This article appears in Dec 1-8, 2011.