To: Governor Rick Snyder
From: xxx
Subject: Long-Term Energy Solutions
Date: November 27, 2017
High-level nuclear waste continues to be stored in three sites next to Michigan’s Great Lakes (Michigan and Erie). For long-term energy planning, this is not a solution and in fact should be dealt with accordingly. The most appropriate way to handle this situation is by initiating a “consent-based” process for siting to find a new place to store the waste generated from these facilities. Other sites, like the Yucca Mountain site have been rejected and continuing to keep the waste onsite, especially near water, can cause harm to the environment, health, and safety of the public. Therefore, siting a safe location for the waste while in constant communication with the public minimizes opposition, benefits communities willing to host the facility, and creates understanding between each level of government (“Blue Ribbon Commission”).
What is a “Consent-Based” Approach and Why Should We Use It?
The Blue Ribbon Commission on America’s Nuclear Future (BRC) published a comprehensive review of policies regarding the nuclear fuel cycle and recommended a new strategy in their publication (“Blue Ribbon Commission”). Within the publication an element in the recommended strategy was called a “consent-based approach to siting future nuclear waste management facilities” (“Blue Ribbon”). Public health and environmental safety requirements are already in place when siting a facility. Apart from the necessities, this approach includes finding sites where the government on all levels, local/regional authorities, and host communities are willing to accept/support the facility. Specifically, this method should be used because, as previously stated it:
- Promotes the cooperation of the public
- Establishes benefits to host communities
- Involves all levels of government
These three elements foster a dialogic process between the governmental body initiating the siting process and the citizens of the State or community inhabiting the area. They also support dialogue between each level of government, which promotes understanding between the local/State/tribal governments. The dialogues help the public and the government reach a consensus thus, creating a policy that each party agrees upon.
The “consent-based” process calls for citizens to be highly involved in the siting process. Therefore, public comments must be taken into consideration and from those comments specific milestones can be set in the final report regarding concerns of the citizens. It is important to emphasize finding a safe and reliable site to store the nuclear waste because if a site were not found, then the waste would continue to be stored on the three sites in Michigan. Educating the public of the dangers that may occur to the drinking water or the health of the general public if at least one of the facilities fails, will bridge a sense of understanding between the facility-siting body and the citizens. For example, if the people were reminded of the Fukushima disaster and the effects that have arisen from it, citizens would therefore be more willing to cooperate with the siting process.
Besides providing information to get the citizens involved, the “siting processes… should include a flexible and substantial incentive program” (“Blue Ribbon”). Economic-incentives have been used in environmental policy for pollution reduction. Tax credits or rewards/benefits to communities hosting the facility would increase support for siting, specifically enabling communities to volunteer to host the site (Stavins). Pursuing this course of action will benefit the community hosting the site as well as aid in minimizing public opposition towards the facilities.
Why is the “Consent-Based” Process Better?
The amount of time necessary to correctly implement the “consent-based” process would probably be longer then the other two options because it involves constant communication and engagement with the public and each level of government. However, it does minimize pushback from communities and forms of government that would arise without the communication and it is a safer way to store the waste than continuing to store it onsite.
For example, Yucca Mountain site took years to be selected in 2002, but, the general public of Nevada and even governor Brian Sandoval were in opposition of using Yucca Mountain as a site for a geologic nuclear waste repository (“Blue Ribbon”). This led to the inevitable halt for funding for Yucca Mountain by the Obama Administration. It is crucial to get a consensus among the public and each level of government, because if all questions were answered early on and negotiations on what the citizens and government want to happen specifically were made before establishing a site, then the controversies would most likely not occur.
Finding a site is necessary because the radiation from a failed site could be released into the environment and it is toxic. Natural disasters occur. In Japan, an earthquake, which led to a tsunami, destroyed Daiichi nuclear power plant. This event caused one the largest nuclear accidents in history to arise in Fukushima, Japan. Although such disasters do not occur in Michigan, it is important to safely store such waste into the safest possible area for storage in hopes of protecting human beings from accidents. Therefore, continuing to store the waste onsite is unfeasible for long-term energy policy and should be re-evaluated by using a “consent-based” process.
Texas Wind Turbines: “Consent-Based”
In 1999, George Bush, governor of Texas at the time, signed an electricity deregulation law that prompted the rapid development of wind power in Texas. Texas, a primarily republican State, managed to pass a law with a mandate for renewable energy that propelled higher than any other State that passed renewable energy laws at the time (Galbraith, Kate & Price, Asher). The process used in order to get such an outcome, involved the key elements of the “consent-based” process. The three key components to the “consent-based” process are minimizing public opposition, benefiting communities willing to host the facility, and creating understanding between each level of government. Although “consent-based” element was an element of a recommendation made for siting nuclear facilities, its main components have been incorporated in Texas specifically through, “deliberative polling” and intra-governmental agreement (Galbraith).
In 1995 Lawmakers wanted utilities that needed more power, rather than resorting to usual strategies such as coal and natural gas, which opened up the market to renewable electricity industry. This led to law requiring renewable energy programs to be considered (as well as other industries) and public participation mandate. Conventional polls are unhelpful regarding energy matters because the public did not have information or even opinions about the issues worth consulting (Galbraith). Therefore, “deliberative polling” was used to engage the public. Deliberative polling not just public opinion, but informed public opinion as well. When government officials in Texas performed a deliberative poll, a representative sample of citizens were asked to join a focus group generally for a weekend and every effort was made to make participation easier. The participants were given information about energy issues in Texas and discussions were held in small and large groups to assess the information (Galbraith). At the end, a poll that resembles a poll given before information was administered to see if minds were changed after being enlightened with the necessary data to make an informed decision and it was clear that renewable energy and efficiency were preferred by most customers after. This method allows for the cooperation of the public, a part of the “consent-based” process because it minimizes public opposition.
There were a few years of backlash towards the bill from the due to reluctance of legislatures to pass it. It took time to get the State government legislators to get on the same page as the citizens. To reach the desired result the law had to elaborate on the benefits of passing such a bill. Therefore, the primary focus of the bill was using deregulation in order to create a competitive market in electricity. This helps the economy and appeals to each level of government.
The “consent-based” approach was created for years after passing this bill, however, the measures taken to ensure it’s passing closely resemble the components of the “consent-based” technique.
How Can This Work in Michigan?
The elements of the “consent-based” method helped Texas mandate a strong renewable energy law. Their method emphasized the economic benefits of the law rather than the environmental benefits, but regardless of intentions, it was a stronger law than any renewable energy law passed in other States. Therefore, if Michigan focuses on economic benefits as well as environmental effects while using the “consent-based” methodology, then expanding the goal of renewable energy in Michigan would most likely be successful.
Texas’ use of deliberative polling helped inform the public on renewable energy laws in Texas and the same process can be done in Michigan regarding Michigan’s renewable energy issues and possible modes of expansion. This polling technique would also allow for a push towards the goal of long-term energy planning. During deliberative polling in Texas, although people discussed the importance of renewable energy as a non-polluting source, they also discussed the possible shift of renewable energy to a primary source of energy eventually (Galbraith).
The policy should also serve a dual purpose because even though it helps the environment, to reach a general consensus among the population there must be an appeal from an economic standpoint as well. The framing done in Texas where the deregulation would help the economy was the main purpose lawmakers agreed to pass it. There was pushback originally, however, the framing of deregulation to create a market for electric energy focused on the creation of jobs and the expansion of a new industry. In turn, this helped give the environmentalists get what they wanted while still appealing to the conservatives.
Texas has outlined important techniques to use when passing energy laws that heavily involve the key aspects of the “consent-based” approach. This was done through approaching the issue from both an environmental and economic perspective. Using such techniques would help Michigan successfully implement another mandate of renewable energy law.
Conclusion
The “consent-based” method is the most appropriate option to find a nuclear waste facility because nuclear waste is too dangerous to keep storing onsite and the Yucca mountain facility has been shut down due to lack of public and governmental cooperation. It seems that this approach has been used in ways other than nuclear waste disposal siting. For example, the key components of the “consent-based” approach were used to pass the deregulation of electricity law in Texas in 1999. Such a technique enforces cooperation and communication among all parties involved, regardless of the issue. Therefore, Texas’ strategies can be applied in Michigan to aid in passing a renewable energy mandate that expands upon the previous one. This technique helps uphold the long-term energy-planning goal that has been made a priority for the next two years in the State of Michigan and thus, should be used in both the strive for finding a new facility to deposit nuclear waste and the expansion of renewable energy laws.
Works Cited
- Galbraith, Kate, and Asher Price. The Great Texas Wind Rush: How George Bush, Ann Richards, and a Bunch of Tinkerers Helped the Oil and Gas State Win the Race to Wind Power. Austin: U of Texas, 2013. Print.
- Hamilton, Lee H., and Brent Scowcroft. “Blue Ribbon Commission on America’s Nuclear Future.” Atomic Energy 112.4 (2012)
- Stavins, Robert N. “”Economic Incentives for Environmental Regulation”” Economic Incentives for Environmental Regulation – Harvard – Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs. Belfer Center, n.d. Web. 10 Dec. 2016.
- “Survey of National Programs for Managing High-Level Radioactive Waste.” A Report to Congress and the Secretary of Energy (2016)