OPINION:
A few days ago, Sen. Mitch McConnell’s office took the unusual step of issuing a statement on two administration nominees. One of them was Commissioner Jeff Baran at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, whose nomination is awaiting consideration by the entire Senate.
Mr. McConnell correctly noted: “Mr. Baran already has an extensive record as the NRC’s resident liberal obstructionist. … At every opportunity, this nominee has opposed commonsense efforts to revise regulations and keep pace with the smaller, safer, and more affordable nuclear technologies of the future. … I would urge each of our colleagues to oppose [his nomination].”
Mr. McConnell is on solid ground. Mr. Baran has consistently supported policy approaches that will make it more difficult, more costly and more time-consuming to site, license and operate the small modular reactors that are probably the future of nuclear power.
As an NRC commissioner, he has opposed making it easier to build these smaller, safer reactors at former industrial sites.
He has opposed improvements to the environmental review process.
He has opposed establishing emergency planning requirements that are informed by risk assessments.
It’s not just the Republicans. In a June 12 letter, the Breakthrough Institute, a left-leaning think tank based in Berkeley, California, was clear: “We oppose confirming Commissioner Jeff Baran to another five-year term. … Commissioner Baran‘s voting record shows a strong preference for overly burdensome regulations that hinder the deployment of new nuclear energy, and harm the environment in the process.”
The letter goes on: “The status quo is not acceptable, and the NRC needs to be led by Commissioners who acknowledge the evolution of nuclear energy technologies and, in turn, the importance of modernizing the NRC to provide an informed, thorough, and timely review of regulatory matters to maximize the general welfare of the public. Continued service of Commissioners who inhibit modernization [they mean Mr. Baran] should be a thing of the past.”
Amen.
What we are watching in real time is the Biden administration struggling with their obviously conflicting agendas.
The idea of a transition away from oil, natural gas and coal, as well as the fanciful notion that the electricity system will be net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050, will almost certainly require expanded reliance on nuclear energy.
That is unacceptable to many environmentalists who grew up in the anti-nuclear movement.
The story is the same with respect to mining. If the world is going to build electric vehicles, we are going to need lots of minerals — 40 times as much lithium we currently mine, and 20 times as much cobalt.
Yet the administration remains adamantly opposed to expanding mining in the United States.
Thomas Pyle, president of the American Energy Alliance, has said that a threshold question for any nominee to the NRC should be whether they generally support nuclear power as an important part of our national energy portfolio.
That seems like a pretty good test.
Mr. Baran almost certainly fails it.
If the Senate wants an anti-nuclear activist as an NRC commissioner, they should vote to confirm Mr. Baran. If they are looking for a neutral, impartial safety regulator, they need to look elsewhere.
Please read our comment policy before commenting.