|
It is a 150 page amendment to a 174 page bill and arrived on my
desk this past Tuesday - a day when the Senate was voting on 67 other bills.
The bill is up for a vote before the full Assembly this Tuesday.
The bill is known as the Clean Energy Jobs Act. The idea is to move us in to
a new renewable energy economy and reduce our dependence on fossil fuels -
especially coal. This is a laudable goal. Most everyone agrees we need to
move to a renewable energy economy. The question is how to get there.
The amendment to the Clean Energy Jobs Act substantially changes the
original bill. There are a lot of questions and few clear answers at this
point.
One of the more controversial aspects of the Clean Energy Jobs Act is
whether we should remove Wisconsin’s prohibition on nuclear power. The bill
changes state law to allow the building of new nuclear power plants; the
amendment reduces safety standards and increases the potential permissible
size of new nuclear plants.
The original bill required plants be built only to meet the power needs of
their customers - allowing for smaller nuclear plants to provide local
electricity. The amendment allows power companies to build larger, regional
nuclear power plants that could sell power outside their own territory.
Under the original bill, the size would have been limited by the needs of
the power company’s existing customers.
The bill clearly says limiting the size of nuclear plants is the best way to
insure safety, protect consumers, and limit the problems of nuclear waste.
Yet the language requiring a limit on size is eliminated in the amendment.
Curiously, the environmental groups that sent alerts to their members asking
them to contact their legislators to support the Clean Energy Jobs Act do
not mention the provisions in the 15 pages of the amendment that change
Wisconsin’s nuclear power laws.
I share concerns with others that we must precede with care down the path of
nuclear power. Residents of many states have seen large rate increases after
such plants were built and construction cost over-runs passed on to rate
payers.
And - despite many years of effort - we still do not have a plan in this
country for the permanent disposal of radioactive spent fuel rods.
It is also unclear just how much the requirement for the creation of
in-state renewable energy has changed in the amendment and what effect this
change will have on the creation of new jobs in Wisconsin which has become
the main political argument for passing the bill.
The dangers in ‘fast tracking’ a bill of this magnitude are many; but the
biggest problem I see is this: not only do legislators not have adequate
time to read and thoroughly understand the bill - the people of the state -
all of whom will be affected by the bill - are not able to debate, to
understand, and to provide input to the decisions before the bill comes to a
vote.
There are no easy answers. In moving to an economy fueled by renewable
energy there are trade offs that must be made. Everyone understands
legislation will not be perfect and some problems are going to take years to
solve but we do need to understand the particular trade offs being proposed
to us now in this bill as it is being amended.
These are the choices we will have to make when we vote. How much do we want
to rely on hydro-electric power from Manitoba as the prime way of bringing
Wisconsin to a 25% renewable energy standard by the year 2025? Do we want to
allow the building of new nuclear power plants in Wisconsin? Do we want to
accept the reduced safety requirements and increased size of the new nuclear
plants as proposed in the amendment?
Does the amendment still do what the original bill intended to do and is
this the best we can achieve?
There are a lot of questions and few clear answers at this point.
|
