“We had this afternoon quite a constructive meeting. We’re off to a good start. Most of the technical issues have been discussed,” he said after the meeting at the IAEA headquarters.

He said talks would resume on Tuesday morning.

The head of the Iranian delegation, Ali Asghar Soltanieh, said he endorsed Mr ElBaradei’s comments.

Let’s consider the leading Senate advocates of nuclear energy in the current climate legislation debate (and we’ll exclude Republicans who would under no circumstances support such legislation). Topping that list would be Graham, Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.), George Voinovich (R-Ohio) and John McCain (R-Ariz.) — all potential key votes for a climate bill. What do these senators have in common? They all represent states among those 19 that couldn’t support themselves with renewables. (Kerry’s Massachusetts, which could produce 105 percent of its energy demands from renewables, just barely exceeds that threshold.) It’s not hard to understand, then, why they’d turn to the other clean (but non-renewable) energy source.

Interestingly, none of the top five Senate recipients of campaign donations from the Nuclear Energy Institute in the 2010 campaign cycle — and just one of the top ten — comes from any of these 19 states. Perhaps as the nuclear debate comes into focus, the nuclear industry will shift its targets.

Here’s the map from the New Rules Project:

iStockphoto

Nuclear power is courting some new friends as it pushes for government subsidies in the sweeping climate bill being debated in the Senate.

For the last decade, the biggest players in the nuclear industry lent most of their financial backing to Republican candidates and lawmakers, who have been the strongest supporters of nuclear energy. But this year, as the Senate takes up cap-and-trade legislation to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, moderate Democrats have become the industry’s prime target.

Illustration by: Matt Mahurin

“It is the so-called Blue Dogs and the moderate Democrats who are going to tip the balance one way or the other [on nuclear incentives in the climate bill],” said Mitchell Singer, a spokesman for the Nuclear Energy Institute, a nuclear lobbying group and a leading industry donor to political candidates. “Those are the ones we feel the need to educate.”

A TWI analysis of 2009 campaign contributions by nuclear advocacy groups suggests this is indeed their strategy. This week, political action committees, which raise money for candidates, filed their monthly reports to the Federal Election Commission. The numbers reveal that the two biggest industry donors to congressional candidates, the Nuclear Energy Institute and General Atomics, made most of their contributions to Democrats, and particularly moderate and conservative Democrats.

This marks a break from recent trends. Since 2000, both groups had sent a large majority of their donations to Republicans in every election cycle. In 2007-2008, for example, even with Democrats in control of Congress, the Nuclear Energy Institute gave money to 25 Republican and 15 Democratic senators and Senate candidates. In 2009, it has donated to eight Democratic senators and just five Republicans.

Most of this year’s Democratic recipients in the Senate come from the party’s moderate wing, including Sens. Ben Nelson of Nebraska and James Webb of Virginia ($1,000 each); Evan Bayh of Indiana and Byron Dorgan of North Dakota ($2,500 each); and Tom Carper of Delaware ($3,120).

The Nuclear Energy Institute has also made the maximum $5,000 donation this year to a number of political action committees that fund moderate Democrats, including the Blue Dog PAC, Bridge PAC, Moderate Democrats PAC and New Democrat Coalition PAC. Its most recent reported donation — $500 on June 23 — was to Priority PAC, the leadership PAC of the conservative Democratic Sen. Mark Pryor (D-Ark.).

Likewise, General Atomics, which in 2007-2008 gave to 19 Republican Senate candidates ($68,000) and 10 Democrats ($41,500), this year has made donations to three Democrats ($9,000) and three Republicans ($7,500), in addition to the $8,000 it gave to the recent Republican-turned-Democrat Sen. Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania. The Democrats include the moderate Dorgan ($2,000) and the more liberal chair of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, Barbara Boxer of California ($2,000). General Atomics also donated $15,000 to the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee in January.

In the legislative debate, Republicans have pushed for expanded loan guarantees for nuclear plants and the construction of up to 100 new nuclear facilities. Many liberal Democrats and environmentalists argue that nuclear energy is expensive and slow to get off the ground, and that increases in nuclear power could come at the expense of true renewables like wind and solar.

In the middle stand the moderate Democrats — and some, such as Nelson, have provided evidence that the nuclear industry’s efforts may bear fruit. On May 25, Nelson penned a column in the McCook Daily Gazette, in which he wrote, “It makes abundant sense to include expanding nuclear energy in such legislation.” According to Nelson, nuclear power provides a third of Nebraska’s electricity.

Members of Congress routinely take money from industries that hold stakes in their respective states. Likewise, industry groups frequently target lawmakers who are likely to be sympathetic to their cause.

“These organizations aren’t doing it out of the goodness of their heart,” said Dave Levinthal, a spokesman for the Center for Responsive Politics, which compiles campaign finance data, including the figures for 2007-2008 cited here. “They’re doing it for very specific reasons.”

The Nuclear Energy Institute also lobbies, spending $580,000 in the first quarter this year, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. Singer described this lobbying effort as an educational campaign to inform members of Congress and their staffs.

“It’s kind of like going to class,” he said. “We explain the value of nuclear — what it can do and why it is needed.” He declined to specify which legislators have participated in these sessions.

Singer maintains that nuclear energy is an issue that can cross party lines, citing supportive statements from President Obama and Energy Secretary Steven Chu. “We never approach nuclear as a partisan issue,” said Singer. But he acknowledged that “a lot of Republicans are very strong supporters, particularly in states with nuclear power.”

Michael Marriotte, director of the Nuclear Information and Resource Service, which opposes the expansion of nuclear power, agrees that there is nothing overtly ideological about the nuclear debate. “Nuclear’s always been a pretty bipartisan issue on both sides,” he said. “It’s actually probably more partisan now than it’s ever been.” He added that he is puzzled by the recent staunch Republican support for nuclear power. “It doesn’t make sense from a fiscally conservative standpoint to spend billions and billions on nuclear power,” he said.

With a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate, Democrats should theoretically be able to pass their energy agenda without making concessions to Republicans. But given the relatively conservative nature of a number of Democrats — and the nuclear industry’s efforts to sway this contingent — there is a real possibility that a nuclear expansion will be necessary to bring enough “yes” votes on board.

“Everyone’s trying to figure out how to get to 60 votes,” said Marriotte. “And clearly you can’t do it without moderates. The industry is trying to make nuclear power the issue that brings over some of the moderates.”

Julie Gauthier contributed research assistance for this report.

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.

Rice stressed that the Bush administration’s tough stand on Iran was backed by multilateral agreements and prior U.N. resolutions, while sounding a positive note on high-level meetings. Once Iran suspends its enrichment program, she said “we’re prepared to talk to Iran at anytime.”

Transcript from the State Dept.:

QUESTION: Let’s move to Iran. The Democratic candidate, Sen. Barack Obama, mentioned his willingness to talk to Iran if it’s going to produce any result. Why your position was the opposite? Was your policy toward Iran based on ideological stand or political strategy, and can you explain?

RICE: Well, let’s remember that the policy toward Iran is a policy not just of the United States but also of the European 3 – Germany, Britain and France – and Russia and China, which is to say that there are two tracks. If Iran is willing to negotiate and to suspend its enrichment and reprocessing, and accept the very generous offer that the six have put on the table, including, by the way, an offer for civil nuclear power, then there’s an open path to not just negotiation about the nuclear program but negotiation about anything that Iran wishes to talk about.

I hardly think that that’s saying that we won’t talk to Iran. We’re perfectly ready to talk to Iran. But what we don’t want to do is to give Iran cover to continue improving its nuclear programs that could lead to a nuclear weapon, which, by the way, no one in the international community wants to see Iran with a nuclear weapon. So my question has always been not why won’t the United States talk to Tehran, why won’t Tehran talk to the United States.

QUESTION: But you haven’t had a visit at a higher level, you know, in talking with Iran till now, only with strong conditions.

RICE: Well, those conditions are set by four Security Council resolutions, not just by the United States. But we’re prepared to talk to Iran at anytime. But suspend the program, even for a while, and demonstrate that there is not a desire to have a nuclear weapon.

It’s no Powell endorsement, but Rice is saying that greater engagement with Iran is a fine objective, suggesting that Obama might be on to something, while still disagreeing on the preconditions required for high-level meetings.

Sen. John McCain (WDC Pix)

PHOENIX— In one of the most contested exchanges from the first presidential debate, Sen. Barack Obama attacked Sen. John McCain’s voting record on alternative energy.

“Over 26 years, Sen. McCain voted 23 times against alternative energy like solar and wind and bio-diesel,” Obama said.

McCain dismissed Obama’s statement as if it were an absurd claim. “No one in Arizona is against solar,” McCain retorted.

Illustration by: Matt Mahurin

Moments later, Obama sought to make another point about McCain and Arizona. The Arizona senator interrupted the Democratic presidential nominee to make a sweeping assertion about his unwavering support for alternative energy development: “I have voted for alternate fuel all of my time,” McCain said, “and no one can be opposed to alternate energy.”

McCain’s legislative record shows otherwise.

Michael Neary, president of the Arizona Solar Energy Industries Association, a non-profit trade association, said McCain frequently says he supports renewable energy development, but his deeds do not match his words. McCain, Neary said, has skipped many important votes or voted against measures that would spur alternative sources like solar and wind.

“If he was truly an ally of alternative energy, he would have taken the time to get out there and vote and maybe rally some of the troops on the Republican side to get [measures] passed,” Neary said. “That’s something he hasn’t done, and this is extremely important to Arizona.”

McCain’s underwhelming support of alternative energy is well known to Arizona’s solar industry leaders, several of whom were surprised to hear the GOP presidential candidate proclaim his strong support for solar during the first debate. McCain’s campaign and Senate office did not return numerous phone calls and emails seeking comment.

Vivian Harte, chairwoman of the Arizona Solar Energy Assn., a statewide solar-advocacy group, said McCain’s backing was needed last winter when a renewable energy tax-incentive bill came within one vote of clearing the Senate. McCain, however, failed to go to the Senate floor and cast a vote — though he was in the Washington area.

Harte said her ears perked up during the debate when McCain declared that no one in Arizona is against solar. “I was surprised to hear that,” she said, “because he has voted against incentives in the past.”

McCain’s resistance to passing tax incentives threatens to derail Arizona’s solar industry just as it is poised to become one of the biggest players in the world. The state, experts say, has the potential to provide a significant share of the nation’s electricity supply. But so far, there has been relatively little interest in developing Arizona’s most plentiful natural resource — sunshine.

Harte said industry technical studies indicate that 10,000 square miles of solar-energy generating facilities in the state’s Southwestern deserts could produce electricity for the entire county. “We have the space and we have the sun,” she said. “Certainly, the Southwestern U.S. should be using a lot of solar power.”

Arizona’s fledgling solar industry heaved a sigh of relief Friday, when President George W. Bush signed the $700-billion Wall Street bailout bill, which included legislation extending and expanding tax incentives for alternative energy that were set to expire at the end of 2008.

The incentives, says Arizona Public Service Co. spokesman Jim McDonald, are vital to the development of alternative energy here. “It’s important to Arizona,” he said.

McCain voted in favor of the financial-rescue bill last week. In doing so, he reversed his history of opposing tax incentives for renewable energy.

In 2004, McCain introduced an amendment that would have eliminated the alternative energy tax credits. In March 2006, he voted against extension of the incentives. In 2007, the senator missed three votes to extend the tax credits set to expire this year.

McCain’s claim during the first presidential debate to support renewable energy is an extension of assertions made in his campaign ads that have come under fire from environmental groups. One ad links McCain to renewable energy, stating that it would be used to “transform our economy, create jobs and energy independence.”

The Sierra Club said the ad is “completely false and misleading” because McCain “has a long record of consistently voting against renewable energy.” The environmental group said in a statement that McCain voted twice in August to block extending renewable-energy incentives to push through offshore oil drilling legislation.

The environmental group also criticized McCain for being the only senator not present for the February vote on an economic stimulus bill that included incentives for renewable energy. McCain’s campaign plane had arrived at Dulles International Airport, about 20 miles west of Washington, shortly before the vote. McCain skipped the debate and vote, telling the Associated Press that he was “too busy” and “focused on other stuff.”

The bill received 59 votes, one short of that needed to cut off debate and allow it to proceed to the floor, where only 51 votes were needed for passage. The next day, McCain voted for a revised economic stimulus bill — one stripped of incentives for clean energy — and it passed the Senate.

Uncertainty over whether the incentives would be renewed has played havoc with solar projects in Arizona. Some were canceled because there wouldn’t be time to finish them this year to qualify for the tax credits. “The whole solar industry was starting to drag,” said a state economic development official.

One threatened project was construction of the world’s largest solar electric generating station, to be built about 70 miles southwest of Phoenix. The Solana power plant would have been derailed if the 30 percent tax credit on the cost of construction had not been extended another eight years.

Abengoa Solar Inc., a Spanish energy company, is planning to build the $1.2-billion facility near the small town of Gila Bend, Ariz. The facility will produce 280 megawatts of power when completed in 2011, enough electricity for 70,000 homes.

Arizona Public Service, the state’s largest electric utility, has a contract to purchase all the electricity produced by the solar plant, estimated to be worth $4 billion over 30 years. Plant construction is expected to create about 1,500 jobs, and the facility is expected to employ 85 skilled technicians. The plant stores energy in saltwater tanks, allowing it to produce electricity for several hours after the sun sets.

In testimony last March before the House Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming, a representative of the Arizona Public Service warned that without the incentives, construction of emission-free sources of electricity like Solana would not happen. “Without these tax credits, large scale solar projects, including Solana, are simply not affordable today,” Barbara Lockwood, APS manager of renewable resources, said in a statement.

Passage of the law clears the way for APS and Abengoa to move forward. Lockwood said the utility is committed to making Arizona “the solar capital of the world and bringing affordable renewable energy to all of its customers.”

Reaching this goal won’t be easy. APS is now reliant on nuclear power, coal and natural-gas-fired generating plants. The utility operates the largest commercial nuclear generating station in the world, with 3,825-megawatt capacity. It owns 29 percent of the triple-reactor Palo Verde Nuclear Generating station, 50 miles west of Phoenix.

The amount of solar power used in Arizona remains a tiny fraction of the energy produced by fossil fuels and nuclear power. APS has installed only 5 megawatts of solar power in the last 20 years. The utility is also planning to build a second large solar facility, working with Nevada utilities, that would generate approximately 250 megawatts. But to keep up with growing demand, APS would have to build one 250-megawatt solar plant a year.

Arizona regulators are pushing the state’s public utilities to generate more power from alternative sources. APS and other utilities must generate at least 15 percent of its energy from renewable sources by 2025 under new regulatory rules.

Congress has tried to pass legislation requiring the nation’s utilities to produce more power from renewable sources. McCain has voted against implementing federal standards.

McCain has close ties to APS, and its parent company, Pinnacle West Capital Corp. Robbie Aiken, Pinnacle West’s chief Washington lobbyist, is an unpaid volunteer for the McCain campaign. He is helping with advance fieldwork and fund-raising. Aiken was also involved in McCain’s 2000 presidential campaign.

Pinnacle West executives, including Aiken, have made personal contributions totaling at least $25,000 to the McCain’s presidential campaign since January 2007. Meanwhile, Pinnacle West chairman, William Post, has raised at least $100,000 for McCain by bundling contributions. Steve Betts, president of SunCor, a Pinnacle West real-estate subsidiary, has also raised at least $100,000 for McCain.

Rather than supporting renewable energy, McCain has made expansion of nuclear energy the centerpiece of his energy policy. During the Sept. 26 debate, he said construction of 45 nuclear power plants would create 700,000 jobs and help the U.S. reduce reliance on foreign energy.

McCain’s call for more nuclear energy has triggered concern in northern Arizona, where widespread radiation contamination from the postwar uranium mining boom, whicht continued until the 1970s, harmed the health of thousands of people.

Harte, of the Arizona Solar Energy Assn., said she doesn’t expect McCain to do much for renewable energy if elected president. “He talks with passion about nuclear power,” she said. “That’s really where his focus is.”