The Presidential Politics of Yucca Mountain
August 22, 2007 | Permalink | 7 Comments
Hillary Clinton has vowed to end the Yucca Mountain project if she were elected, and followed that up with a call for hearings on the subject, although there’s controversy that she was not present for past hearings on the subject.
She issued the following statement on Yucca in May this year:
“I have long opposed storing nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain. This latest attempt to push forward development of the project is particularly reckless, as it aims to increase spending and begin construction on the site prior to license approval. There are far too many unanswered questions about both the geology of the site and integrity of the science to support the decision to store waste at Yucca at all - let alone to justify accelerating the site’s development.
Senator Clinton also said, “Continued attempts to push this misguided project forward are both disappointing and irresponsible. As President, I will work with the scientific community to examine all options for safe, secure storage of nuclear waste as part of a comprehensive national energy policy.”
John Edwards voted for the Yucca Mountain site in the Senate, but backed away from the vote when he was named VP in 2004. Take this article from July 2004:
Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., spoke with Edwards and Kerry shortly after the announcement and said he received assurances that Edwards would defer to Kerry’s Yucca stance. Kerry has pledged that the mountain 100 miles northwest of Las Vegas will not hold a repository if he is elected president.
“I’ve spoken to both of them today,” Reid said. “John Edwards is totally on board on nuclear waste. He is committed to having no nuclear waste dump in Nevada.”
In 2000, Edwards voted against a bill for temporary storage of waste at Yucca. That bill passed and then President Bill Clinton vetoed it. Edwards then voted to override Clinton’s veto. In 2002, he voted for the permanent repository.
“Remember, he voted with us and this was a big issue in North Carolina,” Reid said, referring to the Tar Heel state’s nuclear power plants. “He said to me on the floor (for the 2000 override), ‘If you need me, I’ll be with you,’ and I said, ‘Well, we’ve got enough votes now.’ ”
Barack Obama has opposed Yucca by calling for regional dumping sites for the nuclear waste, but also argued against storing too much waste in Illinois, which has 11 nuclear power plants. In addition, Obama has ties to a nuclear energy company with significant interest in nuclear development. Take this article from May:
Obama has received hundreds of thousands of dollars from the nation’s largest nuclear power operator. Exelon Corp. is the second-largest contributor to Obama’s presidential campaign, after financial services company UBS, according to an analysis by the Center for Responsive Politics.
Exelon executives and employees have given $161,000 to Obama’s presidential bid. He’s received an additional $86,000 since 1998 from Exelon’s political action committee, employees and predecessor, Commonwealth Edison. Obama got money from the company in his 1998 bid for the Illinois state Senate and for his failed 2000 congressional campaign. Exelon also donated to Obama’s PAC and his successful 2004 U.S. Senate bid.
Someone donating that much cash wants an ear in the White House. So what does Exelon Chief Executive Officer John Rowe want? Fortune magazine, in a May 15, 2006, article titled “Meet Mr. Nuke,” details Rowe’s call to solve the waste problem before additional nuclear power plants are built. “We have to be able to look the public in the eye and say, ‘If we build a plant, here’s where the waste will go,’ ” Rowe told Fortune.
The Yucca Mountain Project is the “linchpin” to solving the waste problem and building new plants, Rowe told U.S. News and World Report for an Oct. 22, 2006, article, “Mired in Yucca muck.” Rowe is co-chairman of the National Commission on Energy Policy, a privately funded advocacy group formed in the aftermath of Dick Cheney’s secret energy task force. Rowe is also on the board of the Nuclear Energy Institute.
If it were just Rowe’s support, or just the donations, or just the Domenici letter, Obama might be able to successfully play the Edwards card to Democratic caucus voters. Iraq, health care and education still trump Yucca Mountain among Nevadans. But having that combination of money, the executive’s advocacy and a letter the candidate wrote could definitely tip the scales.
Maybe that’s why Obama didn’t bring up Yucca Mountain during his big public rally in Las Vegas in February.
The Obama campaign said Monday the candidate did not accept money from Exelon’s lobbyists. Spokeswoman Jen Psaki said the letter shows Obama “doesn’t believe any state should be burdened with storing the waste from others as long as the state has a storage site to deal with its own waste.”
And that’s not even considering the politician with the most history with Yucca Mountain - Bill Richardson, who dealt with the issue as Secretary of Energy for Bill Clinton. Take this blog post from a Nevada journalist:
Richardson is also the Democrat with the most Yucca Mountain baggage to deal with. Under his tenure as head of the Department of Energy, the nuclear waste dump at Yucca Mountain progressed past several milestones. While he was secretary, Richardson approved the $3.1 billion contract with Bechtel for work on the project and the DOE issued a controversial report validating Yucca Mountain’s suitability for the project. But Richardson was spared from making the final recommendation on the site. (That was left to the Bush administration.) Although the project progressed under Richardson, he hasn’t exactly been a Yucca cheerleader. According to the Las Vegas Review-Journal’s Tony Batt, Richardson had a solid record voting against the project while he was a member of Congress. As energy secretary, Richardson demanded an inspector general’s investigation when questions arose over whether the DOE’s scientific study was designed to sell the project to Congress. Richardson also backed President Clinton’s veto of a bill that would have approved Yucca Mountain as the temporary storage site for nuclear waste.
Richardson has tried to make the issue moot politically, such as this statement:
He also spoke about specific Nevada issues. Richardson told reporters he agreed with a recent statement by U.S. Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., that the planned Yucca Mountain nuclear-waste facility is dead. But he added, “The Bush Administration tries to revive it every year.”
It would be more than a little interesting if Clinton was not hurt by the Yucca Mountain policy of Bill Clinton but Richardson is. It seems unlikely, though, that any of the Democrats will advocate anything significant at Yucca Mountain.
Republicans by and large support using Yucca Mountain as a dumping ground for nuclear waste. Fred Thompson voted in favor of Yucca while in the Senate, and his new campaign manager in waiting Spencer Abraham has been said to have been fervent on the issue.
Republicans, such as John McCain, who have been in Congress have similar records.
The two leading candidates who have not served in Congress, Giuliani and Romney, are trying to leverage that into hinting at not supporting Yucca.
Giuliani, for instance, said the following in March:
Giuliani said he was aware of the safety concerns with the proposed nuclear waste repository at Yucca Mountain and “somebody would have to take a good look at that.”
When pressed, he did not rule out the repository, however.
“One of the things you’ve got to be real careful about with nuclear power is you’ve got to make sure it’s really, really safe,” he said. “Frankly, some of the problems that have occurred with Yucca Mountain are matters of grave concern, so you’d have to take a good look at that.”
Those concerns should not kill the nuclear power industry, he said.
“We’re going to have to find a way to expand nuclear power, because it’s one of the ways in which we can give ourselves (energy) independence and also not have it impact on the environment, on pollution, global warming, the things that concern people,” he said.
Mitt Romney has been dodging Yucca questions for the most part, answering questions about nearly everything else a week ago in a Nevada stop except Yucca.
In a stop yesterday, Romney talked about Yucca, but said little:
Campaigning Tuesday in Nevada, Romney dodged questions about his stance on the construction of a nuclear waste dump 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas. The state and most of its voters oppose the project at Yucca Mountain.
The former Massachusetts governor suggested that he might be sympathetic to their fight, but he fell short of taking a firm stance.
“I’m a federalist, I believe in the authority of states, and clearly Nevadans have a lot to say about this and other policies,” Romney told reporters in Las Vegas.
“My position is I’m not going to do anything that puts the health or well-being of Nevadans at risk,” he said. “It’s something I’m going to look at further as the results of the study that’s ongoing are provided.”
Right now, Yucca does not seem to be the hot button issue in Nevada. But it’s looming right beneath the surface, and if any event happens with energy policy, it could easily become the issue, either in the primary or general election.
Sphere: Related ContentPolicy Breakdown: Hunter Argues for Keeping Guantanamo Open
While closing Guantanamo has been a popular topic ever since Colin Powell said it should be closed on Meet the Press, Duncan Hunter (among other Republicans) is arguing to keep it open.
Hunter said regarding Guantanamo:
“Once these detainees are brought onto U.S. soil, the detainees may acquire minimal rights under the Constitution, in particular, the right to habeas corpus. This change in status will inevitably spawn a completely new round of litigation,” Hunter said in a statement.
“While I believe the Combatant Status Review Tribunals that all detainees at Guantanamo receive satisfy those rights, it would take years of further litigation to finally reach that result,” the congressman said. “Thus, the military commission process would be stalled for the foreseeable future, and none of the detainees at Guantanamo would be brought to justice.”
“Some would like this result; they would prefer to see terrorists tried under our federal criminal justice system. This is a false choice,” Hunter said.
“We cannot try terrorists for war crimes if it requires our soldiers to read terrorists Miranda rights or take a battalion of lawyers onto the battlefield,” he said. “Military commissions are crucial because they are crafted for the conduct of war by providing procedures flexible enough to account for the constraints and conditions of the battlefield.”
Thus far, all Democratic candidates and Republican candidates Ron Paul and John McCain have called for Guantanamo to be closed, including Fred Thompson who has yet to officially declare.
[Photo Credit: Flickr user Rob Bluey]
Related at 2008 Central:
Breakdown: Democratic Energy Policies
(This begins a new series on 2008 Central, where we will take an issue and break down different positions between candidates; we’re staying intra-party for now)
Following the success and popularity of Al Gore’s documentary ‘An Inconvenient Truth,’ energy policy has become of the most important policy issues of any Democrat in this election, along with health care and Iraq.
It’s still rather early to start this, as only Chris Dodd, Bill Richardson, and John Edwards have announced any sort of comprehensive plan. Tom Vilsack did as well, and I included his plan for comparative purposes. Dennis Kucinich has various policies on energy about his website, but he doesn’t specifically list taxes or specific goals on reducing greenhouse gasses that I could find. Barack Obama has most of a comprehensive plan — reading it, it seems that there’s more details to come. Hillary Clinton has announced no details whatsoever. Joe Biden seems to have a lot of ideas hidden on his site; none are featured. Mike Gravel offers no specifics on his website. I’ve included any plans when I noted specific proposals.
Here’s a breakdown of where the comprehensive plans differ:
Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissons
- Chris Dodd: 80% reduction in greenhouse gases by 2050
- Richardson: 90% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2050, 80% reduction in greenhouse gases by by 2040.
- John Edwards: 80% reduction in greenhouse gases by 2050.
- Vilsack: 75% reduction in Greenhouse gases by 2050; Reduce carbon in all energy by 10% by 2018; reduce carbon emissions 20% in new coal plants. By 2020, all new power plants ought be carbon free.
Tax Changes
Most, if not all, candidates endorse some sort of cap and trade policy but have not specified how credits would be distributed.
- Dodd: Proposed the ‘Corporate Carbon Tax’ (which is what it sounds like), Make permanent the Production Tax Credit to incentivize clean energy development.
- Richardson: Eliminate “wrongly-placed tax subsidies.”
- Obama: Gas Stations get tax credits for installing E85 ethanol/gasoline mixture.
- John Edwards: Require polluters to purchase emission credits, for $13 billion per year; Ends tax breaks to oil companies; Make permanent the Production Tax Credit to incentivize clean energy development; Addional tax credit for investment in renewable energy.
- Vilsack: Tax credit for ethanol production; Repeal Oil and Gas Tax breaks;
Fuel Economy Standards
- Dodd: Fuel effiency of 50 mpg by 2017; Renewable energy standard of 20% by 2020.
- Richardson: Renewable energy standard of 30% by 2020, 50% by 2040; cut oil demand 50% by 2040;
- John Edwards: Renewable energy standard of 25% by 2025; Fuel efficiency of 40 mpg by 2016; Reduce Oil imports by 7.5 million barrels per day by 2025; Produce 65 billion gallons of ethanol per year by 2025;
- Obama: 5% less carbon in gasoline and other fuels by 2015, 10% by 2020; endorses Obama-Lugar-Biden Fuel Economy Reform Act; 2 billion gallons of biodiesel by 2015;
- Joe Biden: Make all cars able to run on gasoline and alternative fuels by 2016; Require gas stations to install E85 ethanol/gasoline mixture; 60 billion gallons of ethanol/biodiesel by 2030; 4% increase in fuel efficiency per year;
- Kucinich: Double renewable energy use by 2010, standard of 20% by 2010.
- Vilsack: 50% increase in fuel efficiency by 2030; Require 60 billion gallons of renewable energy per year by 2030; Petroleum-free America by 2040;
Just about every candidate has proposed additional investment in clean and renewable energies; no need to differentiate on that issue. It’s a consensus among Democrats, and even many Republicans.
This is not meant to be a complete differentiation of plans; there’s many, many details that would need to be evaluated in an academic paper, not a blog. Feel free to point out anything I should add when energy plans are compared again when the other Democratic candidates announce their energy plans.
Sphere: Related Content
