We needn’t mince words, not at this point in our history. Influential members of the U.S. Senate are preparing to unleash the most breath-taking assault on our planet, on our environment, ever contemplated by humankind.

If successful, the result will be nothing less than the perhaps-permanent browning and decaying of our planet. Sure, it’s possible to argue we’ve been on that track already. All of us already are concerned about the deterioration of the environment. But there has never before been a single piece of legislation that would so accelerate that trend, that would in one fell swoop reverse years of halting progress, that could possibly pose the threat to the Earth that the 260 or so pages of this bill would do.

Rhetorical excess, perhaps? Read on, and decide for yourself.

At this writing, the comprehensive energy policy bill being prepared by the GOP leadership of the Senate Energy Committee is a draft, with no bill number. But the draft that circulated on Capitol Hill the last week of January 2001 was said to be quite close to the final version, scheduled to be released during the second week of February.

Titled the "National Energy Security Act of 2001," the bill would provide the framework for a comprehensive energy policy for the United States. In theory, that might not be a bad idea. Unfortunately, this legislation would provide exactly the wrong energy policy for the 21^st century. It recycles every discredited idea of the past 40 years, rewards every big energy concern and large polluter with massive tax breaks, subsidies and incentives. It doesn’t just step on; it tramples any thought of environmental protection. It would ensure an ever-greater reliance on the three most polluting energy industries: nuclear, coal and oil, while providing virtually nothing for the advanced, sustainable technologies of our time. It is clear proof that the energy barons will stop at nothing to profit at the Earth’s—and our—expense, and just as clear proof that its backers have learned absolutely nothing from the environmental battles of the past 30 years.

Indeed, the bill is evidence that the world’s energy industries are desperate, and believe they have only a very short time to institute their policies, and so they’re seeking everything at once, because they know they probably won’t have a second chance.

The National Energy Security Act of 2001 doesn’t even start off of the right foot; but at least it makes no pretense of its intentions.

Beginning with a warning about increased dependence on foreign oil, by the fourth paragraph it complains, "the United States lacks a comprehensive national energy policy and has taken actions that limit the availability and capability of the domestic energy sources of oil and gas, coal, nuclear and hydroelectric."

So much for renewable and sustainable sources of energy. Wait, that’s in the seventh paragraph: "this comprehensive energy strategy must be multi-faceted and enhance the use of renewable energy resources (including hydroelectric, nuclear, solar, wind, and biomass)…." Yes, that’s right, nuclear is considered in this bill, if nowhere else on the planet, a "renewable" energy resource.

And it goes downhill from there…

The bill would provide support for the nuclear industry, both rhetorical and substantive, throughout its pages. What follows is basically an examination, in page order, of those provisions designed to support the atomic industry.

The bill would require the Secretary of Energy to prepare an annual report on how the U.S. is reducing its dependence on foreign oil. As part of this report, the Secretary "shall indicate, in detail" how to "increase domestic production and use of oil, natural gas, nuclear and coal, including any actions necessary to provide access to, and transportation of, these energy resources."

In addition, the Chairman of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission would be required to produce a report, within six months, "on the state of nuclear power generation and production in the United States and the potential for increasing nuclear generating capacity and production…." This is despite the fact that the NRC is, by law, a regulatory body and is specifically not charged with promoting the nuclear power industry. This report is also to make "recommendations for expediting the process and ensuring that relicensing [of existing nuclear reactors] is accomplished in a timely manner." Since the NRC already has changed its relicensing regulations to allow only the most minimal of public involvement in the process, it’s actually difficult to imagine how the NRC could streamline its regulations any further.

The bill simply assumes that Yucca Mountain, Nevada will become the nation’s high-level atomic waste dump, despite the fact and law that the site currently is only under study, that the final recommendation on the site by the DOE is many months away (and has been further delayed by an investigation of bias by DOE contractors), and that a myriad of unanswered, and probably unanswerable, scientific questions have been raised about the suitability of the site.

Existing law apparently means nothing to this bill’s supporters. Sec. 107 starts off bluntly, "Prior to permanent closure of the geologic repository in Yucca Mountain, Congress must determine whether the spent fuel in the repository should be treated as waste subject to permanent burial or should be considered an energy resource that is needed to meet future energy requirements."

What’s wrong with this statement? What isn’t? First, Yucca Mountain has not been recommended or approved as a nuclear waste dump. If science prevails, it never will be. Further, the clear implication in this one sentence is that Congress should overturn decades of anti-proliferation policy, supported by Democratic and Republican administrations alike, and consider reprocessing of atomic waste.

This section goes on to note that a second high-level waste dump may be needed (where are they going to site that—in your backyard?), unless Yucca Mountain can be expanded to handle even more waste than presently contemplated—an unlikely prospect.

The section also would establish a new Office of Spent Nuclear Fuel Research, which would be charged with "carrying out an integrated research, development, and demonstration program on technologies for treatment, recycling, and disposal of high-level nuclear radioactive waste and spent nuclear fuel…" In other words, to support reprocessing and other destructive technologies….

Section 111 (note, all sections may change when the bill is finally introduced) of the draft bill is the most astonishing of all. Under the innocuous heading of "Study of Financing for New Technologies," the bill would require the Secretary of Energy to hire an outside consulting firm to conduct "an assessment [that] shall include a comprehensive examination of all available techniques to safeguard private investors in high capital cost technologies—including advanced design power plants including, but not limited to, nuclear—against government-imposed risks that are beyond the investors’ control. Such techniques may include (but need not be limited to) federal loan guarantees, federal price guarantees, special tax considerations, and direct federal investment."

Never has the nuclear power industry been so brazen in its admission that its technology has failed every basic economic test. In this basic acknowledgement that nuclear power cannot compete economically, the industry is now seeking tax credits, loans, and taxpayer-funding of new nuclear reactors! Not since the days of Atoms for Peace in the 1950s—before there were any commercial atomic reactors--has the federal government considered paying for new nuclear plants, yet the nuclear industry and its backers now want our dollars to pay for their marketplace failures.

Another provision would extend the Price-Anderson Act, which limits utility liability in the event of a nuclear accident, for ten years—until 2012, except that DOE contractors would apparently be protected in perpetuity. The maximum assessment to nuclear utilities under Price-Anderson would increase from $10 million to $20 million per year, per reactor, over the same seven-year period. With a hypothetical 100-reactor makeup, the nuclear industry would, as a whole, be liable for some $14 Billion in damages. Compare that to the $350+ Billion damages caused by the Chernobyl accident (in a region where the dollar is worth substantially less than in the US) or the $300+ Billion in damages projected back in 1982 by Sandia National Laboratories from an accident at New York’s Indian Point reactors.

But that wouldn’t be the end of taxpayer support for nuclear power. Not even close. The bill would authorize $60 million in the first year alone for nuclear power research, including $5 million "for a roadmap to design and develop a new nuclear energy facility in the United States…."

The bill also would provide direct payments of up to $2 million in any calendar year (lasting up to 15 years) to retrofit existing reactors to increase their power output and another $1 million subsidy to help pay for the retrofit.

Also included in the bill are rather complicated tax provisions allowing nuclear utilities to pocket more of their decommissioning funds, and to ease the sale of reactors.

The nuclear provisions alone would be enough to make this legislation intolerable. But the bill’s backers haven’t stopped there. The bill would also open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) to oil drilling, and in a rare—and unwanted--sop to the renewable energy industry, would allocate a portion of the proceeds from that drilling to research and development of renewable energy technologies.

The bill also provides substantial funding for development of "clean coal" (an oxymoron if there ever was one) technologies, for natural gas development, and for other oil-based technology (such as recovery of "little-used" oil resources). Energy efficiency gets short shrift in the bill, although there is a new program to encourage school districts to reduce their energy use and there are modest tax credits for individuals who purchase new, more efficient clothes washers and refrigerators. Similarly, there are tax credits for individuals who purchase "hybrid" (electric/gasoline) automobiles, there are no provisions to increase auto fuel mileage standards.

Incentives for renewable energy development are virtually absent from the bill—perhaps the clearest indication possible that the bill is intended to meet the needs of its large corporate backers, and not to meet the requirements of a 21^st century energy policy.

Truth be told, the bill is unlikely to ever be enacted in its current form. It is just too broad and addresses too many controversial issues for one piece of legislation. Instead, its backers will probably try to modify and then pass different sections of it at a time. But that’s not a reason to sit back; only effective citizen action can ensure the bill’s defeat and, especially, ensure that the nuclear sections are never adopted. Right now, before you do anything else, sit down and write a brief letter to your Senators and Representative and tell them in your own words that you insist that they oppose this bill. Since there is, as yet, no bill number, just refer to the bill by its title: The National Energy Security Act of 2001." This is the single most important and effective thing you can do at this point.

If you are not yet on NIRS’ e-mail Alert list, please sign up now (just send a quick message to nirsnet@nirs.org), and we’ll keep you informed about the bill’s progress and let you know when it’s appropriate to act again.

Tell all of your friend, colleagues, neighbors, church members, PTA members, and everyone else about this bill—odds are, they will agree with you that this is simply a travesty. Ask that they also write letters. And begin now to set up phone trees and action networks—there will be a lot more work to do before this is over.