Democrats Change Tune on Nuclear Energy

During the 2008 presidential campaign, it was Sen. John McCain, not then Sen. Barack Obama, who touted nuclear power. Obama, for the most part, was noncommittal on the subject. But in the year since being elected, President Obama and congressional Democrats increasingly appear to be embracing nuclear power.

Democrats' support has not been entirely rock solid. Obama's decision, last spring, to scrap a decades-old plan to store nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain in Nevada was interpreted by some critics as an early sign of an antinuke stance within the administration. But many less high-profile moves, especially in recent weeks, suggest that Democrats in the White House and on Capitol Hill, far from turning their backs on nuclear power, now see it as a way of advancing their goals on energy and climate policy.

Perhaps the most telling sign is that representatives of the nuclear industry are giving the administration relatively high marks for its nuclear policies thus far.

"This administration has been very seriously engaged on nuclear issues," says Alex Flint, the Nuclear Energy Institute's top lobbyist. "There is no longer a political stigma associated with it.""We are pleased with the of support the administration has expressed," says Buzz Miller, who heads up nuclear development for Southern Nuclear, which operates three nuclear plants in the Southeast and is starting to work on building two more reactors near Augusta, Ga.

New reactors, according to industry estimates, will probably cost at least $6 billion each. Like several other nuclear companies, Southern has applied for financial help from the Department of Energy. It's also still waiting for final approval from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. But it's on funding and policy issues that Democrats are proving surprisingly supportive.

Sen. Barbara Boxer, a liberal California Democrat, has included a whole set of goodies for nuclear energy in her climate bill in an effort to win Republicans' and moderate Democrats'support. Democratic Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts, the bill's cosponsor, recently penned an op-ed with South Carolina Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham calling for expanding the industry.

And earlier this month, Democratic Sen. Jim Webb of Virginia and Republican Sen. Lamar Alexander of Tennessee proposed legislation to double the U.S. production of nuclear power in the next 20 years.

All these proposals are notable for the emerging political reality they represent. Nuclear power is low in carbon emissions, domestically generated, and it's particularly popular in the Southeast and some Midwestern states.That means liberal Democrats, who have often railed against nuclear energy because of the radioactive waste it produces, will almost certainly have to fork over money for nuclear to win the votes for their climate bill. .

This calculation is outraging many of the administration's environmental-minded supporters, who say the nuclear industry is siphoning off funds that could be used for other projects, like energy efficiency, that don't take nearly as long or cost nearly as much as building reactors. "They are seeing an opportunity," says Anna Aurilio, D.C. director of the nonprofit Environment America. "The nuclear industry wouldn't exist but for massive federal subsidies, and they are trying to position themselves to get even more federal subsidies."

This tension, no doubt, is only going to sharpen as the administration shifts its focus from healthcare to energy and other topics. Over the past year or two, many politicians have called for "an all of the above" approach to the country's energy policies, one that would include new nukes and new offshore oil drilling as well as massive support for solar and wind power. But each would require extensive funding, and at a time when so much attention is being placed on federal spending, someone's gain will most likely be someone else's loss in the energy world.

• See the Countdown to Copenhagen.
  
• Read 10 Things You Didn't Know About the Copenhagen Summit.