Skip to main content

Elections Won or Lost: Some Things Never Change

Before you get wildly excited or stunningly depressed about the results from election night, just remember, 99% of government wasn'’t affected by how you voted.

While we officially call few government organizations "“bureaus"anymore, they remain bureaucracies --– the people in them act and think, are motivated or not, by common customs and restraints, all rooted in the nature and role of government action in a law-abiding democracy. Yet, the Federalist Papers barely mentions them.

Renowned Harvard political scientist, James Q. Wilson, has explained their nature and behavior in a book we in the nuclear industry, in government or not, should read. Titled simply Bureaucracy, it starts with a reflection on the quality of customer service at the author'’s local department of motor vehicles in Cambridge, Mass. and then explains why such interactions are the norm rather than the exception, at all levels. Of course, people in the employ of bureaucracies are people like the rest of us, but their behavior in organizations is not personal but political behavior.

One telling concept is that the great battles for a bureaucrat are not between the bureaucrat and Congress, or with the President, or with the citizens it serves, but rather with other bureaucrats. In the history of the US nuclear industry, the early interactions between the NRC and predecessors with the Tennessee Valley Authority would serve as an example. The slow erosion of scope of NRC'’s regulation over to the EPA is another illustration. The rise and fall of the AEC is yet another.

With the extensive new plant licensing efforts just beginning, it would behoove us all to read and ponder this work.

Technorati tags: , , , , , , , , ,

Comments

Anonymous said…
I have been thinking something along these lines. 2005 was too late to introduce the Energy Bill.

The problem is that in 2001, the Republicans came in with a quite radical agenda that included refusing to ratify Kyoto. This was one of their big plays in favor of the fossil fuel lobby. This was their first of many "tiffs" with the Europeans on foreign policy. The Europeans had gotten along quite well with the Clinton Administration and, at the time, in spring 2001, were baffled at the way things were being handled.

The Iraq war was the Republicans' other big play for the fossil fuel lobby.

Another part of the radical agenda of the Republicans was their attempt to cut Social Security.

I believe that moderate concepts such as the 2005 Energy Bill and legislation to move forward on Yucca Mtn. got "steamrolled" in the Republican Party by an agenda that was dominated by radical neocons and by fossil fuel interests.

This is, in my mind, a failure of Republican policy, just as Clinton's failure to address vehicle fuel economy standards and failure to promote U.S. energy independence were failures of Democratic policy.

I don't like the idea of Harry Reid as Senate Majority leader either.
Joseph Somsel said…
Come on, guys!

In posting this book review, I was trying to cheer myself up.

For the nuclear industry, the kindest prospect from Democratic control of the Congress is probably some sort of carbon tax or trading scheme which will improve the apparent economics of new nuclear plants. I won't support such a scheme but any extra income I net from any such plan could ameliorate the pain.
Joseph Somsel said…
The Energy Act of 2005 is not likely to be repealed - too many goodies for too many people.

The fix is in on Yucca Mountain it appears - reprocessing is being pushed globally with work on actinide burners being funded. Ultimately, it is just so much cheaper (for government). See my article here:

http://www.energypulse.net/centers/article/article_display.cfm?a_id=1108

The path for the next two years seems clear - license new nukes. That means the action shifts to the "pointy end of the energy stick" - the NRC and those of us who provide them their raw materials - COLAs, LTRs, ESPs, etc.

That's why we should stop crying in our beer and buckle down and get those license applications written.
Kirk:
If ESBWRs are indeed cheaper than coal plants, and a carbon tax is in fact established, ESBWRs will be built. IIRC they use a 36-month construction schedule, with lessons learned from ABWRs that have been built on time and on budget in Japan.

Jim:
If they want to deal with waste but not have to make any hard decisions, and want to immediately make it possible to double nuclear output, they could push DUPIC as a "Democratic alternative to Yucca." It would certainly work and would be politically feasible. A number of other processes could as well, but DUPIC is ready-for-prime-time, no?

Popular posts from this blog

An Ohio School Board Is Working to Save Nuclear Plants

Ohio faces a decision soon about its two nuclear reactors, Davis-Besse and Perry, and on Wednesday, neighbors of one of those plants issued a cry for help. The reactors’ problem is that the price of electricity they sell on the high-voltage grid is depressed, mostly because of a surplus of natural gas. And the reactors do not get any revenue for the other benefits they provide. Some of those benefits are regional – emissions-free electricity, reliability with months of fuel on-site, and diversity in case of problems or price spikes with gas or coal, state and federal payroll taxes, and national economic stimulus as the plants buy fuel, supplies and services. Some of the benefits are highly localized, including employment and property taxes. One locality is already feeling the pinch: Oak Harbor on Lake Erie, home to Davis-Besse. The town has a middle school in a building that is 106 years old, and an elementary school from the 1950s, and on May 2 was scheduled to have a referendu

Why Ex-Im Bank Board Nominations Will Turn the Page on a Dysfunctional Chapter in Washington

In our present era of political discord, could Washington agree to support an agency that creates thousands of American jobs by enabling U.S. companies of all sizes to compete in foreign markets? What if that agency generated nearly billions of dollars more in revenue than the cost of its operations and returned that money – $7 billion over the past two decades – to U.S. taxpayers? In fact, that agency, the Export-Import Bank of the United States (Ex-Im Bank), was reauthorized by a large majority of Congress in 2015. To be sure, the matter was not without controversy. A bipartisan House coalition resorted to a rarely-used parliamentary maneuver in order to force a vote. But when Congress voted, Ex-Im Bank won a supermajority in the House and a large majority in the Senate. For almost two years, however, Ex-Im Bank has been unable to function fully because a single Senate committee chairman prevented the confirmation of nominees to its Board of Directors. Without a quorum

NEI Praises Connecticut Action in Support of Nuclear Energy

Earlier this week, Connecticut Gov. Dannel P. Malloy signed SB-1501 into law, legislation that puts nuclear energy on an equal footing with other non-emitting sources of energy in the state’s electricity marketplace. “Gov. Malloy and the state legislature deserve praise for their decision to support Dominion’s Millstone Power Station and the 1,500 Connecticut residents who work there," said NEI President and CEO Maria Korsnick. "By opening the door to Millstone having equal access to auctions open to other non-emitting sources of electricity, the state will help preserve $1.5 billion in economic activity, grid resiliency and reliability, and clean air that all residents of the state can enjoy," Korsnick said. Millstone Power Station Korsnick continued, "Connecticut is the third state to re-balance its electricity marketplace, joining New York and Illinois, which took their own legislative paths to preserving nuclear power plants in 2016. Now attention should