I have blogged recently about SSB 5991, a bill working its way through the Washington State legislature. The bill calls for studying how to develop new nuclear power generation to add to the Washington State electricity supply. As I wrote the last post about the bill, it had passed the State Senate and was being considered in the house. The bill was amended by the House Committee On Technology & Economic Development (HCTED) during their consideration.
One of the things that offended me about the original bill was that it started with the bald statement that nuclear power was known to be "a safe, reliable, cost-effective, and carbon-free source of electricity." I pointed out in one of my posts that nuclear power was not "a safe, reliable, cost-effective, and carbon-free source of electricity." Other critics of the bill say the same thing. Washington State Senator David Frockt (D-Seattle) said that the bill was starting with assumptions that should rather be possible conclusions of the study called for.
State Senators from the Hanford area supported the bill as did a spokesman for Energy Northwest which operates the only nuclear power reactor in Washington. During discussions of the bill in the Senate, the idea was circulated that any new reactors could/should be located at Hanford. Representatives of the Hanford area and the owners of the Hanford reactor have obvious motivations of bringing new jobs and revenue to their area. Energy Northwest has been promoting long ranges plans to develop additional nuclear power in Washington since 2009 and they have settled on the new small modular reactors as the best choice but this technology is unproven.
The opponents of SSB 5991 have questioned the need for new nuclear power in Washington State as opposed to alternatives such as conservation and/or renewable sources such as solar and wind, both of which are plentiful in the Hanford area. Critics said that there were not enough public hearings called for in the bill and demanded more hearings be scheduled in Seattle, Spokane or Vancouver. There was also a call for the inclusion of planning for nuclear accidents in any such bill.
The amended bill was read and a vote was taken. The faction that voted to pass the bill to the full House as amended won over another group that did not want to pass the bill to the full House for a vote. The last milestone in the official history of the bill on the Washington State website is that the bill will be referred to the House Rules Committee for a second reading. I met with a member of the Washington State House yesterday and asked him about the bill. He said, "We killed it." I am not sure whether the bill was killed in the Rules Committee or the full House voted it down but I am happy to learn that the bill is dead. Nuclear energy is not a good choice to supply future electricity to the State.
Washington State Capitol:
