Nuclear shouldn't be termed 'renewable'

Last year, our state Senate approved S360, which would classify a host of energies — solar, wind, geothermal, biogas, hydrogen — as "renewable." But the bill was amended to also include nuclear power, which does not make sense because uranium fuel comes from a finite source just like oil and coal does.

The classification of nuclear as "renewable" is more than just senseless. It diverts attention from the original intent of the Energy Efficiency Act, which was to promote South Carolina's emerging, homegrown energy economy. Furthermore, allowing power companies to boost their "renewable" power ratings with nuclear-generated power creates loopholes for future energy production standards and discourages serious investments in real energy conservation.

South Carolina already has a significant investment in nuclear and over 50 percent of the power produced here comes from nuclear plants. Last year's Base Load Review Act eliminates virtually all financial risks for utilities associated with building nuclear power plants in South Carolina.

It guarantees that utilities may collect from rate-payers all costs, plus a profit margin, incurred in studying the need for new nuclear power plants, as well as all costs incurred for actually constructing the multibillion-dollar nuclear plants. S360 need not be a referendum on nuclear energy because the General Assembly has already provided a major subsidy to utilities.

Next week, House members will have the opportunity to return the bill to its original intent. The sad irony is that South Carolina has vast potential for energy conservation. South Carolina is one of the least energy-efficient states in the country, consuming per capita more electricity than all but a few states and twice the amount of California. If efficiency is low hanging fruit elsewhere in the country, it is a freshly baked apple pie sitting on the kitchen countertop in South Carolina. Are we going to let it rot?

Despite the diversionary tactics of the big utilities, efficiency and renewable programs work. Vermont and California, for example, have tax rebate programs that have saved consumers millions and reduced power consumption dramatically. With newly passed net metering laws, North Carolina, Georgia and Virginia all have the jump on South Carolina. Indeed, North Carolina has a renewable portfolio standard requiring that its utilities obtain a modest percentage of their electricity from renewables.

State government can be the catalyst for attracting new investments in wind, solar and other renewables. It can create programs for financing and incentives for increasing efficiency.

But the good news is that the private sector will provide the delivery system and the jobs.

Most conservationists are like most South Carolinians: They are waiting for a comprehensive national energy plan that weighs the true costs, both environmental and economic, of different energy options. Our position is that efficiency and renewables are not only the cleanest and cheapest means of meeting immediate demand, they buy us the time we need to develop technologies that will make our country energy independent and secure.

Any rush for South Carolina to nuclear, or especially to coal, is premature because literally billions of dollars of energy are leaking out of our windows and through our ceilings and floors every day.

Instead of letting big power companies run roughshod over strategies to boost energy efficiency and promote renewables, legislators should focus on the real point of the Energy Efficiency Act — creating ways to meet demand, and save money for consumers, by being more efficient.

Ann Timberlake is executive director of the nonpartisan, nonprofit group Conservation Voters of South Carolina.