Advertise Here

Deliver your message to thousands of readers every day.

Our readers are influential opinion makers - politicians, journalists and activists.

Our latest headlines

If It Were up To Them We’d Still Be in the Depression
Schrag: The Problems with Prop 4 on Parental Notification
With Friends Like New York Times Columnists Thomas Friedman, Maureen Dowd And Frank Rich – Does Barack Obama Need Enemies?
California Budget Crisis – Again-- Possible Special Session on State Budget
Why McCain’s Attack Strategy Will Backfire
Attorney General Brown Announces Largest Predatory Lending Settlement in History: $8.68 Billion in Home Loans and Foreclosures Relief Nationally—Up to $3.5 Billion to Californians—From Countrywide Financial Corporation
Hannah-Beth Jackson Has the Goods on Tony Strickland in Pivotal California Senate Seat Race

About Us

The California Progress Report is published by Frank D. Russo, a longtime observer of and participant in California politics.

About Frank Russo.
About California Progress Report.

Got a news tip? Want to write a guest column? Contact Frank here.

Books

California Nuclear Initiative Withdrawn: A Victory for Environmentalists and Setback for Nuclear Revivalists That May Have National Implications

By Frank D. Russo

California Republican Assemblymember Chuck Devore and other proponents of a ballot measure to repeal California's 1976 nuclear safeguards act -- which prohibits new reactors until there is a permanent solution to the problem of disposal of high level radioactive waste -- yesterday quietly withdrew their proposed initiative from circulation. Apparently having trouble getting sufficient signatures to qualify, and enough financial backing and public support to pass, they pulled the plug on the effort.

Dan Hirsch, President of the Committee to Bridge the Gap, one of the initiative's opponents, hailed the withdrawal as being of "national significance," and as indicative that the national movement to build new nuclear plants may be running out of steam.

The irony of this proposal and its demise was not lost on Hirsch. He pointed out that 30 years ago, California's law conditioned the approval of new nuclear power plants in the state upon the California Energy Commission's finding that the Federal government had identified and approved demonstrated technology for the permanent disposal of high-level nuclear waste. The proposed ballot proposition would have waived that. According to Hirsch, that is because we are no closer after all these years to solving the storage problem.

"Nuclear power is the most dangerous technology on earth, with risks of meltdowns, terrorist attack, proliferation, and leaking long-lived wastes." said Hirsch. "This humiliating reversal for a proposed initiative to revive it in California is a great victory for common sense. Now the state can focus on safe and sensible renewable solutions to global warming."

Bill Magavern, Senior Representative for Sierra Club California, said, “California has much cheaper, safer and quicker solutions to our electricity needs. We should be moving forward with 21st century clean energy technologies instead of pouring more money down the nuclear rat hole.”

A number of groups had worked hard to fight the efforts to place the initiative on the ballot, forcing recognition that its chances of passage were dismal.

The Attorney General's Title and Summary included this telling sentence: "Potential, unknown financial exposure to the state in the long term, potentially in the millions of dollars in environmental cleanup costs at each new nuclear power plant site, and potentially in the billions of dollars in the event of a major radioactive release. [Emphasis added]

The Legislative Analyst's Office also issued a letter on the potential costs that gives a background on the state of California's law--a de facto moratorium on new nuclear plants in the state. It described the proposal and it's fiscal effects on the state and local governments. It also pointed to the financial exposure of the state and other costs and economic impacts.

Posted on November 20, 2007

Comments

Glad to see that the nuclear utility industry was unable to move forward in our state.
Please see the following position paper on nuclear power and global warming.
http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/global_warming/npp.pdf

Posted by: DanK. at November 20, 2007 06:45 PM

Yes, its a great victory. We're finally assured that California won't build nuclear power plants and will only have to rely on building more coal plants and importing more power from out of state.

Posted by: Dezakin at November 21, 2007 06:23 AM

Dezakin: Boy are you retro on this issue. There's a lot more going on here in California with solar power, conservation and efficiency, and other alternatives to the Hobson's choice you pose here.

Posted by: Frank D. Russo at November 21, 2007 07:05 AM

Sorry, but nowhere in the world has managed to displace coal without nuclear power unless they have enormous hydropower reserves compared to their population.

France manages to run 80% of their grid off of nuclear power and has the lowest electricity prices and CO2 emissions per capita in Europe. Italy, which actually phased out nuclear power, replaced all of their reactors with coal an natural gas and has some of the highest electricity prices in Europe. Its fortunate for california they can import their electricity from neighboring states, because that's what they're gonna do.

Posted by: Dezakin at November 25, 2007 12:53 AM

nukes are worse than global warming! This is a tremendous victory for our state and the entire nation!

Posted by: Rafa VG at December 11, 2007 10:58 AM

Get Email Updates

Want the California Progress Report by email? Once a week, we'll send you the latest and greatest headlines.

Stat tracker