rssNuclear Power Gets Boost From Top Campaign Cash Recipients
Friday, May 08, 2009 at 12:00 pm
- 26 Comments
As the House works toward a deal setting new limits on carbon emissions, nuclear power is getting a boost from a core group of Democrats – the same lawmakers who have received the bulk of the industry’s campaign donations in recent years.
That electric utilities pushing for nuclear expansion are relying on their longtime congressional champions is not surprising. But the dovetailing of re-election dollars with support for nuclear power masks a more complicated political reality for moderate Democrats, many of whom are shrugging off opposition from environmental groups to embrace the industry as a source of low-carbon energy and a job creator in their districts.
Image by: Matt Mahurin
House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) and Rep. Ed Markey (D-Mass.), his energy subcommittee chief, are working overtime to reach a deal with centrist colleagues in time to pass their 648-page climate change bill by Memorial Day (1). Adding to that pressure, Roll Call reported this week, are calls from senior Democrats such as Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) and Majority Whip James Clyburn (D-S.C.) to add more benefits for the nuclear industry to the climate measure.
Hoyer and Clyburn ranked No. 3 and No. 5, respectively, among active House members on electric utilities’ list of campaign-money beneficiaries during the 2008 election cycle, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. Since 2003, Hoyer has received $348,800 from the political action committees of electric utilities, compared with $247,500 from investment firms and $133,250 from banks. Clyburn has also received more from electric-utility PACs since 2003 ($183,265) than from banks ($132,800) or investment firms ($102,750).
Another Democrat cited by Roll Call as advocating for more nuclear incentives in the climate bill, House Budget Committee Chairman John Spratt (D-S.C.), has also taken in far more from electric-power PACs than from famously influential banks and investment firms. Electric utilities have contributed $197,900 to Spratt since 2003, while bank PACs have given him just $56,000 and Wall Street PACs $21,000 during that same period.
“The industry can’t build new reactors without unprecedented levels of financial support from the American taxpayer,” Tyson Slocum, the director of Public Citizen’s energy program, said. “When your business model is dependent upon the generosity of the American public in the form of subsidies, they try to accomplish that through giving money to politicians.”
Indeed, the nuclear industry’s biggest players have ramped up their giving to Democrats even further during the first three months of this year. After giving slightly more than half of its donations to Democrats during the 2008 election, the Nuclear Energy Institute PAC sent the majority party more than $56,000 of its $60,000 in first-quarter 2009 campaign donations, according to the Federal Election Commission database.
Duke Energy, which joined NEI as a sponsor of Clyburn’s golf tournament last year, gave $56,000 during the first three months of this year – more than half of what it donated to Democrats during the entire 2008 election season.
“There is no doubt that the tide is moving in favor of nuclear power among Democrats,” Dr. Patrick Moore, the co-founder of Greenpeace turned nuclear advocate at the industry-backed Clean and Safe Energy Coalition, said in an email. Moore said he spoke to the House Nuclear Issues Working Group, which Spratt co-chairs, last week and found a receptive audience.
But not every senior Democrat has benefited from the nuclear industry’s courtship. Waxman has received $27,000 from electric-utility PACs since 2003, with Markey getting a relatively meager $21,000, according to CRP data. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), a fundraising powerhouse who has lately softened her criticism of nuclear power, took in only $46,000 from utilities over the past six years.
Are those low fundraising numbers for Waxman, Markey, and Pelosi a smart business decision by nuclear-power companies who want to steer clear of the opposition? Perhaps, Friends of the Earth spokesman Erich Pica said – but it’s also no accident that southeasterners such as Clyburn, Spratt, and Rep. G.K. Butterfield (D-N.C.) form the nuclear industry’s strongest Democratic bloc.
“New nuclear power providers have a foothold in the southeast,” Pica said. “That’s where they’re planning their renaissance. The utilities have captured the public-utility commissions and the state legislatures.”
Both Spratt and Hoyer have large nuclear plants in their districts, with operators looking to build new reactors in the coming years. Nuclear energy generates 20 percent of U.S. electricity but more than 50 percent of South Carolina’s power, as Clyburn often notes in public appearances.
“I have always said that any policy that does not include nuclear in the various mix of energy would be unfair to states like South Carolina – and under some options being discussed, could be punitive,” Clyburn said through a spokeswoman. “I would not support any policy that is punitive to my constituents.”
Hoyer is “working to ensure that the programs currently in place for nuclear development, such as tax credits and loan guarantees, match up with the new energy policy in the bill” to help the industry keep pace with rising demand for lower carbon alternatives, spokeswoman Stephanie Lundberg said.
The environmental community continues to oppose new nuclear plants, pointing to the safety risk from aging, waste-producing facilities such as New York’s Indian Point and the massive cost burden of plant construction. The non-partisan Government Accountability Office (GAO), Congress’ investigative arm, estimated last year that government loan guarantees for the nuclear industry carried a 50 percent risk of default.
“New reactors are not going to be a good deal for the public in terms of cost or energy issues – it seems to me that these officials should understand that,” Michael Marriotte, director of the Nuclear Information and Resource Service and a critic of nuclear expansion, said.
Moreover, Marriotte noted that liberal skepticism about nuclear power can still pack a punch, as it did in 2005 when Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) lost four votes for his climate-change bill after adding new nuclear subsidies. “Most of the people who are pushing to add nuclear power to the Waxman-Markey bill are not going to vote for the final bill anyway,” he added.
The nuclear industry counters with more than just its contributions to campaign coffers. Those asking Congress to fund new clean-energy development banks and loan guarantees point to Gallup’s 2009 environmental poll, which found that more than one-quarter of all Americans strongly favor nuclear – a notable uptick from previous years. Nuclear power was embraced by 71 percent of Republicans and 52 percent of Democrats in the survey, representing an eight-year high in support across party lines.
“Over the last four years, we’ve seen a big change in the way Democratic party members are looking at nuclear,” NEI senior political affairs director Hannah Simone said. “At a time when the economy is weak and jobs are needed, we’re actually an industry that wants to build and expand and grow, as opposed to other industries that don’t have that capability.”
But as the nuclear industry’s Democratic allies seek more concessions in the climate bill, both supporters and foes of new plants are reminding Congress of a simple truth: the very concept of regulating carbon emissions gives nuclear power a competitive advantage.
“The best thing for advocates [of nuclear power] is this carbon pricing,” said Judi Greenwald, vice president for innovative solutions at the Pew Center on Global Climate Change.
The climate bill “is going to add cost to [nuclear’s] competitors,” she added, “so it will function as a subsidy for nukes. I think the nuclear industry should be excited about a cap-and-trade program.”
Elana Schor is a freelance journalist in Washington. She has written for The Guardian, The Hill and Talking Points Memo.
26 Comments
Comment posted May 8, 2009 @ 9:34 am
Thanks for this story exposing these bought-off politicians. Now, the nepotism factor kicks in as Obama has nominated Rep. Clyburn's daughter, Mignon Clyburn, to the FCC. In South Carolina, she is on the Public Service Commission and has fell all over herself to vote against consumers at every step, most recently for new nuclear reactors by South Carolina Electric & Gas. Like father, like daughter, it seems.
Comment posted May 8, 2009 @ 10:29 am
It would be interesting to see what the contributions from the anti-nuclear environmental groups were to Waxman and Markey. Why wasn't that information included in the article?
Comment posted May 8, 2009 @ 11:01 am
This is a nice piece of writing. I think the article is an overall fair and balanced look at the political realities the nuclear industry must go through to get its agenda heard. A political donation is a great way to combat the fear mongering demigods who are trying to tear down the nuclear renaissance.
The antinuclear naysayer’s bring nothing productive to the global warming debate. All these groups do is stir up irrational fears in the electorate. This article has motivated me to make a donation to one or more of the numerous politicians who strongly favor nuclear power.
Via the Nuclear Renaissance
Comment posted May 8, 2009 @ 11:04 am
Companies give money to members who can impact them even if they aren't aligned directly with interest — they don't want to make enemies. Re nuke in climate bill, yes, can lower emissions without nukes. But analysis indicates it is MUCH more expensive for the economy if nukes left on sidelines.
Comment posted May 8, 2009 @ 1:20 pm
Nuclear power is not a solution for the global warming issue. I gather you are not taking into account the entire nuclear fuel cycle? The mining of uranium , reprocessing of spent reactor fuel , transportation of radioactive waste , any spills/leaks/catastrophes involving a plant or it's waste , and the daily , routine emissions of radionuclides , noble gasses , and particulate matter. All of these things are very dirty and leave a significant carbon footprint.
In the words of Sister Doctor Rosalie Bertell ,
“Promoting nuclear technology raises false expectations , usurps money better spent in energy efficiency , and substitutes emissions of radionuclides for emissions of carbon dioxide. The intelligent customer will not substitute one pollution for another , but will rather eliminate both by more energy efficient use.”
We CAN meet our baseload energy demands through TRULY safe , TRULY clean forms of alternative energy such as wind , solar , geothermal , ocean wave technology , otec ,energy efficiency and conservation.
Nuclear power plants would never get built without taxpayer-backed federal loan guarantees , Wall Street won't touch nuclear power with a ten-foot pole because there's too much risk.
Politicians have been getting campaign money from utilities for a long time , it's the old “I'll scratch your back if you scratch min.” Dirty politics and dirty , deadly nuclear.
A recent German study showed that German children that grew up near nuclear power plants had much higher rates of leukemia and lymphomas than German children who did not grow up near nuclear power plants.
It should be noted that , all German nuclear power plants will be shut down by 2020.
You should ask yourselves , why is a country (Germany) so noted for it's scientific and technological discovers and advancements phasing out nuclear power and the U.S. , sadly , seems poised to resurrect this antiquated technology? Something is amiss. Truly safe and truly clean renewables can be online quicker , are much less expensive , and create more new jobs (jobs that will have longevity) than nuclear. Why are our elected officials not considering safe and clean renewables? You know what , I smell money…dirty money.
Pingback posted May 8, 2009 @ 3:12 pm
[...] Another fellow blogger put an intriguing blog post on Nuclear Power Gets Boost From Top Campaign Cash RecipientsHere’s a quick excerptAs the House works toward a deal setting new limits on carbon emissions, nuclear power is getting a boost from a core group of Democrats – the same lawmakers who have received the bulk of the industry’s campaign donations in recent years. That electric utilities pushing for nuclear expansion are… [...]
Comment posted May 9, 2009 @ 2:01 am
There are several logical fallacies in Ms. Schor's commentary. Since most of the US nuclear power generating capacity is concentrated in the hands of about half a dozen out of the more than 200 publicly owned electric power utility companies in the US, implying that any donation from a power company is seeking legislation favorable to nuclear power is rather absurd. It is far more likely that the donation is made with the intent of seeking favorable treatment for coal or gas, both of which are competitors to nuclear and which have higher portions of the electrical generating mix.
It is also untrue that the GAO report that is linking in the article presents any analysis indicating a 50% risk of default. There is a footnote in the report that states that the analysis ASSUMES a 50% rate of default along with a 50% rate of financial recovery in the case of a default, but the report is actually a rather critical look at the Department of Energy's implementation of a congressionally mandated program with some suggestions on how to improve the program's effectiveness.
Like Ed Fenstermacher, I would be interested in some balance here with some information provided about the political contributions of those groups that oppose nuclear power development – not just the “environmental” groups, but also the competition for both electrical power markets and government largess in support for development. Coal and gas both compete with nuclear for reliable power production while wind, solar, geothermal, waste to energy, and wave power compete for research and development support.
Pingback posted May 10, 2009 @ 6:34 am
[...] The Washington Independent » Nuclear Power Gets Boost From Top … [...]
Comment posted May 12, 2009 @ 3:05 am
Regarding the entire nuclear fuel cycle, you are a incorrect on, well, everything. To begin with, uranium mining has had much less issues and complications than certain fossil fuels (you know – the one we rely on for more than 50% of our energy needs) since they first realized what the hazards of uranium mining are. (Yes, this did take at least 10 years to realize. Many smokers were impacted with higher rates of cancer)
Currently, we (the USA) do not reprocess any spent reactor fuel or transport it anywhere. Every reactor keeps all spent fuel on-site. This is only possible because nuclear power generates so little volume of waste. Imagine a coal-powered plant trying to do that with the mountains of waste it generates that get dumped into the air.
Regarding “the daily , routine emissions of radionuclides , noble gasses , and particulate matter,” I have no idea where you are getting any of this information, but if any nuclear power plant releases ANY of this, they will suffer immense fines by the NRC. Go look them up. They have people on-site at every nuclear power plant who individually have the power to raise their hand, say “this plant is unsafe,” shut it down until the problem is fixed, and assess immense fines. No plant likes being shut down for any period of time – a single day of an outage costs the plant over a million dollars.
As for the carbon footprint, nuclear power is very on-par with renewables when you look at it in terms of watt generated per emissions (this is including the entire process of constructing the plant and decommissioning it 50+ years later). The difference between nuclear power and renewables is that renewables can't generate nearly enough power in any reasonable amount of land required for solar or wind. I truly wish we could meet baseload demands with alternate forms of energy, but there is absolutely no way that is remotely possible.
As for the study that shows higher rates of anything, I call bull. There are plenty of studies throughout the US trying to find “cancer clusters”, but there is not even a correlation between these so-called clusters and nuclear power plants. The numbers for even Chernobyl were terribly fudged by environmentalists who claimed that prior to the event. I'll direct you to http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/articles/… (scroll down to the section labeled The Thyroid Cancer Hoax). Basically, thyroid cancer is known to occur in children between 6,000-35,.000 per 100,000 regardless of environmental factors. Prior to Chernobyl, no one was searching for thyroid cancer in any of the nearby areas. They had numbers showing that there were an average of 4.9 per 100,000 cases of thyroid cancer in Ukraine before (due to the fact that no one was looking), then after Chernobyl, the numbers fell in line with the rest of the world, which led people like you to scream about the huge increase of 4.9 per 100,000 to thousands per hundreds of thousand.
Finally, for the jobs section, I'd love to ask what backwards logic you are using to come to the conclusion that nuclear power does not create jobs with longevity. I'm 24 years old, and I took a class on nuclear engineering in college (I learned a TON from it – both ups and downs). I made it a goal of mine to get into the nuclear industry because I had (and still have) so much respect for it. Just two months ago, I finally achieved my goal. I am currently working at a nuclear power plant in PA, and I am _VERY_ happy with the level of professionalism and safety involved at every step of the way. Given that nuclear power plants have lifetimes of at least 40 years (upwards of 60+), the jobs created by this industry do, in fact, last a very long time. Many of the people I am working next to have been there for their entire career, and they are very happy.
Pingback posted May 12, 2009 @ 3:50 pm
[...] The entire room burst into applause. Of course, Mr. Hoyer does not support a coal moratorium (maybe because he is the 3rd highest political recipient of utility money? this could be unrelated), but it was great to see 250 of his constituents showing their support [...]
Comment posted June 4, 2009 @ 10:37 pm
Sent the following to hundred of sites,
“I have been looking for a company or Organization that would be interested in a new theory regarding the PERMANENT disposal of Nuclear Waste. Would you have any suggestions?”
No positive replies as yet. I guess no is interested, or there is to big of an industry storing this nasty stuff, or I did not have a phd behind my name, too bad.
Any comments?
Comment posted June 5, 2009 @ 5:37 am
Sent the following to hundred of sites,
“I have been looking for a company or Organization that would be interested in a new theory regarding the PERMANENT disposal of Nuclear Waste. Would you have any suggestions?”
No positive replies as yet. I guess no is interested, or there is to big of an industry storing this nasty stuff, or I did not have a phd behind my name, too bad.
Any comments?
Comment posted May 30, 2010 @ 4:40 pm
Wow Julia, do a little research before posting. I really can't add much to what Garrett posted, but you don't get spills of Uranium tailings in the gulf that wipe out entire habitats and you don't do mountain top removal. Think about that. How much energy does it take to remove an entire mountain top and shove it into the adjacent watershed? How much does reclamation take? How much does it take to process and transport the coal? How much does it take to pulverize it? Then you can start to talk about how much total pollution is released into the atmosphere or slurry ponds. Coal is an affinity matrix for the capture of heavy metals from ground water, it sits in the seam for hundreds of millions of years trapping mercury, arsenic, uranium etc. Then we burn it and it releases a witches brew of these in addition to acid rain and carbon dioxide. Please Please Please Julia, STOP IT!
Comment posted June 2, 2010 @ 3:31 pm
Thank you for your sharing.I'm very interested in it.
Comment posted August 5, 2010 @ 10:46 am
Thank you for your sharing.I'm very interested in it.
Comment posted August 5, 2010 @ 10:46 am
Thank you for your sharing.I'm very interested in it.
Comment posted September 15, 2010 @ 1:21 am
This is a nice piece of writing. I think the article is an overall fair and balanced look at the political realities the nuclear industry must go through to get its agenda heard. A political donation is a great way to combat the fear mongering demigods who are trying to tear down the nuclear renaissance.
Comment posted June 11, 2011 @ 6:59 am
[url=http://www.topfashionweb.com/panerai-watches-c-475_543.html]panerai
replica [/url]
have become more and more popular corresponding to people’s large demand, they also have become the indispensable decoration to people’s daily life. In our online shop, you will find varieties of replica watches in from
[url=http://www.topfashionweb.com/bvlgari-watches-c-475_537.html]bvlgari
replica[/url]
to
[url=http://www.topfashionweb.com/chopard-watches-c-475_539.html]replica
chopard [/url]
, no matter which brand you choose, you will get the high-end quality and all watches in our site are sold at the lowest price, or 2 or more watches from us, free shipping is available. So don’t hesitate to visit our website.
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
