Will Japan's Tsunami Affect Iowa's Nuclear Power Debate?

Will we pile on the problems with the Fukushima Nuclear Power Plant located near the town of Okama, Japan, damaged as a result of an earthquake and tsunami on Friday? No, our thoughts and prayers are with the people of Japan in this time of natural disaster.

When we consider the prospect of building new nuclear power plants in Iowa, we have different issues. It is not what could happen as a result of natural disasters as much as it is the way that SF390 and HF561, bills that would transfer the financial risk of building a new nuclear plant from investors to rate payers, are being forced upon Iowans without consideration by our legislators for potential costs.

In addition, if these bills enter into law, Iowa will likely avoid the careful consideration and hard decisions related to developing the best, lowest cost solution for producing and delivering electricity to meet Iowa's current and future needs. As his Excellency Peter Burian, Ambassador from the Slovak Republic to the United States said this afternoon in Iowa City, “beware of popular people with simple solutions to complex problems.”

The plain truth about MidAmerican Energy's proposed legislation is that most Iowans don't even realize what is at stake with these bills. Those of us following the legislation don't know what is motivating the legislators to move this legislation through the process so quickly and without thorough vetting in the public. Whether it is true or not, it seems to be a cloak room deal, made in the shadows, with intent to hide the consequences from a public that is unaware. While most of our legislators are good and decent people, one wonders what motivates them to behave this way?

We know part of that answer. A legislator that supports transferring capital risk from investors to rate payers presented this explanation: “House File 561 is the next step in potential development of next-generation nuclear power technology in Iowa. The bill creates a process by which Iowa utilities could study, plan, and construct a nuclear power facility in the state. Development of such a plant creates jobs for construction and operation of the facility, while also ensuring a stable, clean source of baseload power for Iowans. Since this could be one of the first facilities utilizing this technology, Iowa could also become a hub for development of nuclear technology and a training site for other companies using the same technology.”

This all sounds good on the surface, but what is missing is the cost to rate payers and that it is possible that the nuclear power generating station(s) may never be built, even if we are charged for them.

Blog for Iowa urges readers to contact their legislators and ask them to stop SF 390 and HF 561 until the costs to rate payers and viability of the projects are known. Click here to contact your legislators.

~Paul Deaton is a native Iowan living in rural Johnson County and weekend editor of Blog for Iowa. E-mail Paul Deaton