By Mannix Porterfield
CHARLESTON — Nuclear power might be in the vanguard of West Virginia’s energy future, but a tiny line in law known as Article 27-A is keeping investors from even talking seriously about the first plant.
And to Senate Economic Development Chairman Brooks McCabe, D-Kanawha, that “effective ban” is inconsistent with West Virginia’s zeal to be an energy leader.
McCabe is the lone sponsor of SB240 that would erase the controversial article from state code and open the door for some heavy talk about building plants.
Not that one is likely to spring up right away.
In fact, McCabe said, the reality is a plant could be one to two decades into the future. But at the same time, he stressed, coal remains vital.
“What I’m suggesting is we go out and try to educate and convince our colleagues regionally and nationally that coal is good, that we can do a lot of solid work with coal in meeting future energy needs,” he said.
“It is inconsistent at the same time for us to be one of half a dozen states in the country that effectively bans the consideration of construction of nuclear power plants in our state.”
After much wrangling, his bill was put on hold, with Senate Energy, Industry and Mining Chairman Mike Green, D-Raleigh, naming a subcommittee to look into it.
Sen. Evan Jenkins, D-Cabell, who voiced concerns that striking Article 27-A might open the door to unregulated plants, chairs the panel. Serving with him will be Sens. Joseph Minard, D-Harrison, Frank Deem, R-Wood, and Bob Williams, D-Taylor.
“I think there is concern about the health and safety on any power generation,” he said.
Rather than strike the article totally, Jenkins suggested a modification that reflects the modern experiences with nuclear power since the provision in the code was adopted more than a decade ago.
“If we’re going down this road, let’s do it in a way that preserves the health and safety of the citizens,” he said.
When the article was enacted in 1997, said Don Garvin, executive director of the West Virginia Environmental Council, lawmakers fully understood “that nuclear power poses an undue hazard to the health and safety of West Virginians.”
The article in question is an “effective ban” since it stipulates no such installations can be put in place unless there is a place to either store or dispose of radioactive wastes.
Besides posing potential safety and health threats, Garvin suggested nuclear power certainly is no bargain for consumers.
“If you want to raise rates on West Virginia rate-payers, go ahead and do it,” he said.
Just this week, in a meeting with The Register-Herald editorial board, Gov. Joe Manchin declared, “I don’t have a bit of a problem looking at nuclear.
Manchin doesn’t expect nuclear power ever to prove viable in coal-rich West Virginia, but at the same time, says he feels all energy sources — nuclear among them — need to be part of the portfolio.
McCabe contended that if the lack of a national facility to handle waste can be used to forestall nuclear power, the same deficiency with regard to sequestration of carbon dioxide could be used against alternative uses of coal.
“This ban is inconsistent,” McCabe argued.
Before any plant goes up, he said, the Public Service Commission will “analyze every minute detail on this.”
“I’m not suggesting we try to put in place a complicated process to address nuclear energy at this point,” the senator said.
“We’ve got a lot to learn. But I’m suggesting the current legislation provides an effective ban on nuclear power. There’s a better way to deal with the issue.”
Quizzed by Williams if he felt the citizens would be “zealously protected” by the existing controls, McCabe said he didn’t think so.
“But I think there are enough in place to start the process,” he said.
“I think it is perhaps one of the most significant growth areas in the country and West Virginia needs to be right smack in the middle of it.”
— E-mail: mannix@register-herald.com
