Remember our San Antonio mayor and city council infamously as "The Nuclear Eleven"

From Eric Lane:
The “Nuclear Eleven” is how this City Council should forever be remembered if they vote “Yes” on the proposed two new nuclear power plants.

It looks like City Council and the Mayor will be making the ultimate decision regarding the two new nuclear power plants proposed for STP.  But that decision will have a much vaster impact.  If they vote “Yes,” this City Council will, as we all know, for the first time in 30 years give the green light to restarting the nuclear power industry in this country. The implication is that they have studied this issue thoroughly and completely and have decided that nuclear power is in the best interests of San Antonio, South Texas, Texas, and, by extension, the United States.

Since there will be no public vote, these eleven folks have taken it upon themselves to make that ultimate decision.  If they vote “No,” other than upsetting a few very large business interests, most people will carry on with very little concern.  CPS will go back to the drawing board and come up with alternative energy scenarios.  And a huge, potential monstrosity will have been averted. 

If City Council votes “Yes,” then they should be held accountable for that vote.  It won’t be good enough to simply disappear into the political ether.  Why?  Because by voting in the affirmative they are guaranteeing San Antonio that we have nothing to worry about by going nuclear.

If there are cost overruns, if water becomes too scarce to run the nuclear plants, if uranium becomes too expensive or we become dependent on foreign uranium, if nuclear waste cannot be protected for the next 100,000 years, if there is an accident, a security breach, radiation leaks or any other number of potential risks, then this City Council and this Mayor should be held accountable by being remembered forever as the “Nuclear Eleven.”  They should not be allowed to hide in the fog of memory. 

It would be the height of irresponsibility to vote in the affirmative if City Council cannot guarantee there will be no problems.  The time to stop a problem is before it starts.  Not after.  If anything goes wrong the “Nuclear Eleven” should and will be held accountable.  From the day of any cost overrun, incident, or problem, their names, their political careers, their legacy will be forever tied to the Council vote on the nuclear power plants.

It won’t matter if the vote is 6 to 5, this City Council and this Mayor will forever be known and remembered as the “Nuclear Eleven.”

Eric Lane

Chair

Consumer Energy Coalition

P.O. Box 100806

San Antonio, TX 78201

Representative Waxman contrasts numerous hearings on climate change with lack of hearing on major legistation during years of Republican majority.

A pdf of the complete letter including footnotes is available here. This text was taken from the pdf and converted using character recognition. There may be some errors in the transcription.

Dear Ranking Members Barton and Upton:

This letter responds to the April 24, 2009, request from you and your Republican
colleagues on the Committee for additional day of hearings on the American Clean Energy and
Security Act of2009 (ACES). Your request was surprising given the extensive hearings the
Committee has held on energy policy and legislation. Our extensive hearings and the many
accommodations we have provided to the minority far surpass the process you provided
Democrats when you and your Republican predecessors controlled the Committee.

In the past two and a half years, this Committee has held dozens of hearings on energy
and climate change policy that have informed the development ofthe ACES text and built a
detailed factual record regarding the need for action on this matter. These hearings included:

• Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality, Hearing on Addressing Climate ChangeViews
from Private Sector Panels (Feb. 13,2007);
• Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality, Hearing on a Review ofthe Administration's
Proposalfor the Transportation Sector (Feb. 28, 2007);
• Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality, Hearing on Carbon Capture and
Sequestration; An Overview (Mar. 6, 2007);
• Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality, Hearing on Climate Change: Are Greenhouse
Gas Emissionsfrom Human Activities Contributing to a Warming ofthe Planet? (Mar. 7,
2007);
• Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality, The Environmental Protection Agency's
Fiscal Year 2008 Budget Request (Mar. 8, 2007);
• Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality, Hearing on Climate Change and Energy
Security: Perspectives from the Automobile Industry (Mar. 14,2007);
• Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality, Hearing on Climate Change: State and Local
Perspectives (Mar. 15,2007);
• Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality, Hearing on Climate Change: Perspectives of
Utility CEOs (Mar. 20, 2007);
• Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality, Hearing on Perspectives on Climate Change
(Mar. 21,2007);
• Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality, Hearing on Climate Change - International
Issues, Engaging Developing Countries (Mar. 27, 2007);
• Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality, Hearing on Climate Change - Lessons
Learnedfrom Existing Cap-and-Trade Programs (Mar. 29, 2007);
• Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality, Hearing on Alternative Transportation Fuels:
An Overview (Apr. 18,2007);
• Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality, Hearing on Implementation ofthe EPACT
2005 Loan Guarantee Programs by the Department ofEnergy (Apr. 24, 2007);
• Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality, Hearing on Achieving - At Long LastAppliance
Efficiency Standards (May 1, 2007);
• Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality, Hearing on Facilitating the Transition to a
Smart Electric Grid (May 3, 2007);
• Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality, Hearing on Alternative Fuels: Current Status,
Proposals for New Standards, and Related Infrastructure Issues (May 8, 2007);
• Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality, Hearing on Legislative Hearing on Discussion
Drafts concerning Energy Efficiency, Smart Electricity Grid, Energy Policy Act of2005
Title XVII Loan Guarantees, and Standby Loansfor Coal-to-Liquids Projects (May 24,
2007);
• Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality, Hearing on Legislative Hearing on Discussion
Draft Concerning Alternative Fuels, Infrastructure, and Vehicles (June 7, 2007);
• Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality, Hearing on Administration Perspectives on
United Nations Climate Change Conference in Bali (Jan. 17,2008);
• Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality, Hearing on Climate Change: Competitiveness
Concerns and Prospects for Engaging Developing Countries (Mar. 5, 2008);
• Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality, Hearing on Strengths and Weaknesses of
Regulating Greenhouse Gas Emissions Using Existing Clean Air Act Authorities (Apr.
10,2008);
• Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality, Hearing on the Renewable Fuels Standard:
Issues, Implementation, and Opportunities (May 6, 2008);
• Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality, Hearing on Legislative Proposals to Reduce
Greenhouse Gas Emissions: An Overview (June 19,2008);
• Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality, Hearing on Climate Change: Costs of
Inaction (June 26, 2008);
• Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality, Hearing on HR. 6258, the Carbon Capture
and Storage Early Deployment Act (July 10, 2008);
• Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality, Hearing on Climate Benefits ofImproved
Building Energy Efficiency (July 17, 2008);
• Subcommittee on Environment and Hazardous Materials, Carbon Sequestration: Risks,
Opportunities, and Protection ofDrinking Water (July 24,2008);
• Committee on Energy and Commerce, Hearing on the U.S. Climate Action Partnership
(Jan. 15,2009);
• Subcommittee on Energy and the Environment, Hearing on the Climate Crisis: National
Security, Economic, and Public Health Threats (Feb. 12,2009);
• Subcommittee on Energy and the Environment, Hearing on Energy Efficiency:
Complementary Policies for Climate Legislation (Feb. 24, 2009);
• Subcommittee on Energy and the Environment, Hearing on Renewable Energy:
Complementary Policies for Climate Legislation (Feb. 26, 2009);
• Subcommittee on Energy and the Environment, Hearing on the Role ofOffsets in Climate
Legislation (Mar. 5, 2009);
• Subcommittee on Energy and the Environment, Hearing on the Future ofCoal Under
Climate Legislation (Mar. 10, 2009);
• Subcommittee on Energy and the Environment, Hearing on Consumer Protection
Provisions in Climate Legislation (Mar. 12,2009);
• Subcommittee on Energy and the Environment, Hearing on Competitiveness and Climate
Policy: Avoiding Leakage ofJobs and Emissions (Mar. 18, 2009); and
• Subcommittee on Energy and the Environment, Hearing on Preparingfor Climate
Change: Adaptation Policies and Programs (Mar. 25,2009).

In addition, the Committee held four days of legislative hearings from April 21 to 24,
2009, specifically on the draft ACES text. We also released the draft text three weeks in advance
of these legislative hearings to ensure that both majority and minority Committee members, as
well as outside experts, had substantial time to review the text prior to these legislative hearings.

In total, the Committee has held over 40 days of hearings on energy and climate change
policy over the past two Congresses. During these hearings, over 300 witnesses testified,
including 130 in this year alone. These hearings have included testimony from numerous
minority witnesses and have involved accommodations for the minority that are not required
under House or Committee rules. For example, 14 witnesses requested by the minority testified
in the legislative hearings on ACES from April 22 to 24, 2009. On both April 22 and 24, the
Committee scheduled new panels during the middle of the day to accommodate last-minute
minority witness requests, pushing majority witness panels into the evening hours on those days.

Our approach to this legislation stands in stark contrast to the approach you and your
Republican predecessors adopted in previous Congresses on legislation that affected millions of
Americans and involved expenditure of substantial taxpayer dollars. Consider these examples:

• The "Medicare Prescription Drug and Modernization Act of 2003" (H.R. 2473): In
the 108th Congress, this Committee considered H.R. 2473, which provided for a new
trillion dollar prescription drug coverage program under Medicare. Despite the sweeping
policy and cost consequences of this measure, the Committee held no public hearings on
the legislation. There was no subcommittee markup. Democrats did not receive a copy
ofthe legislation until late Friday afternoon before a Tuesday markup.
• The "Gasoline for America's Security Act of 2005" (H.R. 3893): In the 109th
Congress, the Committee considered H.R. 3893, which codified controversial Clean Air
Act "new source review" regulations of the Bush Administration and provided for the
expenditure ofhundreds of millions of dollars for programs relating to the supply and use
ofpetroleum and other energy products. The Committee held no legislative hearings on
the legislation and no subcommittee markup. Instead, the bill was released on a Friday
night at 10:00 p.m., allowing only two business days for its evaluation before a full
Committee markup the following Wednesday.2
• The "National Uniformity for Food Act of2005" (H.R. 4167): In the 1o9th Congress,
the Committee considered H.R. 4167, which preempted virtually every state and local
law that protected consumers from contaminated foods. The Committee held no hearings
on the legislation and no subcommittee markup.3
• The "Refinery Permit Process Schedule Act" (H.R. 5254): In the 109th Congress, the
House considered H.R. 5254, a bill that directed the President to designate no less than
three closed military installations as suitable for refinery construction and required states
to meet a federal schedule for issuing refinery construction permits. H.R. 5254 was put
on the House suspension calendar, a procedure normally reserved for non-controversial
bills, and brought up on the House floor just one day after its May 2, 2006, introduction,
without the benefit of any legislative hearings or markup by the Committee.4 One month
later, still without having held any legislative hearings or markup on this bill, the
Committee brought H.R. 5254 back to the House floor under a rule that permitted no
amendments.5

• The "Energy Policy Act of 2002" (H.R. 4): In the 107th Congress, Rep. Barton
introduced H.R. 3406, which would have made controversial changes to federal laws
governing the electricity sector. This bill was never marked up or reported out of
subcommittee or the full Committee due to its lack of support among Committee
members, and these provisions were not included in the broad energy policy bill, H.R. 4,
that was considered by the House. Nevertheless, when H.R. 4 went to conference, then Committee Chairman Tauzin and Rep. Barton announced that the House would take H.R.
3406 into the conference as the House position.6

These are just a few of many examples ofhow Republicans abdicated regular order when
they controlled this Committee. This track record makes it particularly difficult to see any
reasonable basis for Committee Republican complaints about the thorough, fair, and deliberate
process we are employing to consider the ACES measure. .

Nevertheless, we want to continue to take into consideration issues raised by all members
ofthe Committee as we proceed with this measure. We therefore will provide for an additional
day of Committee hearings on the ACES draft on Friday, May 1,2009.
Sincerely,

Henry A. Waxman
Chairman
Committee on Energy and Commerce