Skip to main content

Getting a Correction from MSNBC

Crossing a lot of our desks at NEI today is a profile of one of our newest employees, Alex Flint, who joined NEI as Vice President of Government Affairs earlier this year.

It's your typical revolving door ethics story, one where activist groups who try to conceal their own conflicts of interest try to slime a former public servant in the absence of any evidence.
Nobody alleges that Flint did anything illegal. Neither the law nor Senate rules prohibited Flint from leaving the Energy Committee post after three years in which he helped develop policy and shepherd legislation on nuclear issues and going directly to work as NEI’s senior vice president for governmental affairs.

And one Washington watchdog says Flint's career path is hardly surprising in today's environment, where congressional staff jobs are viewed by many as a "stepping stone to riches."

Critics like Gary Kalman of the U.S. Public Interest Research Group say Flint's case is especially troubling in light of the fact that the Senate panel had recently finished work on legislation that included billions of dollars in research, construction and operating subsidies, and billions more in tax breaks for the well-heeled nuclear energy industry.

(Snip)

The Energy Policy Act of 2005 was a key focus of the committee’s work in Flint’s tenure as staff director. Its provisions, which became law when signed by President Bush last August, were labeled "The Best Energy Bill Corporations Could Buy" by Public Citizen and delighted the nuclear industry.
What the original story didn't disclose was the long and well documented history of both U.S. PIRG and Public Citizen as part of the vanguard of anti-nuclear activism (click here and here for just two examples). As we've seen before, while organizations like Public Citizen and U.S. PIRG demand transparency from their political enemies, they can't seem to live up to the same standards.

In any case, this story has something of a happy ending. My colleague Steve Kerekes just told me that MSNBC reporter Mike Stuckey has agreed to update the story to reflect the fact that both U.S. PIRG and Public Citizen have a significant axe to grind with our industry.

Just another thing to keep in mind when you scan the headlines.

Technorati tags: , , , , ,

Comments

Anonymous said…
What a lame excuse. PIRG has a problem with
industry shills? So what?

Does it matter who the critics are when you have a guy going from regulatory agency to lobby group? No. The only peope who suffer are all American taxpayers. It's so common people barely notice anymore.

I wish you all your karmic come-uppance at the earliest possible date.

Popular posts from this blog

How Nanomaterials Can Make Nuclear Reactors Safer and More Efficient

The following is a guest post from Matt Wald, senior communications advisor at NEI. Follow Matt on Twitter at @MattLWald.

From the batteries in our cell phones to the clothes on our backs, "nanomaterials" that are designed molecule by molecule are working their way into our economy and our lives. Now there’s some promising work on new materials for nuclear reactors.

Reactors are a tough environment. The sub atomic particles that sustain the chain reaction, neutrons, are great for splitting additional uranium atoms, but not all of them hit a uranium atom; some of them end up in various metal components of the reactor. The metal is usually a crystalline structure, meaning it is as orderly as a ladder or a sheet of graph paper, but the neutrons rearrange the atoms, leaving some infinitesimal voids in the structure and some areas of extra density. The components literally grow, getting longer and thicker. The phenomenon is well understood and designers compensate for it with a …

Missing the Point about Pennsylvania’s Nuclear Plants

A group that includes oil and gas companies in Pennsylvania released a study on Monday that argues that twenty years ago, planners underestimated the value of nuclear plants in the electricity market. According to the group, that means the state should now let the plants close.

Huh?

The question confronting the state now isn’t what the companies that owned the reactors at the time of de-regulation got or didn’t get. It’s not a question of whether they were profitable in the '80s, '90s and '00s. It’s about now. Business works by looking at the present and making projections about the future.

Is losing the nuclear plants what’s best for the state going forward?

Pennsylvania needs clean air. It needs jobs. And it needs protection against over-reliance on a single fuel source.


What the reactors need is recognition of all the value they provide. The electricity market is depressed, and if electricity is treated as a simple commodity, with no regard for its benefit to clean air o…

Why Nuclear Plant Closures Are a Crisis for Small Town USA

Nuclear plants occupy an unusual spot in the towns where they operate: integral but so much in the background that they may seem almost invisible. But when they close, it can be like the earth shifting underfoot.

Lohud.com, the Gannett newspaper that covers the Lower Hudson Valley in New York, took a look around at the experience of towns where reactors have closed, because the Indian Point reactors in Buchanan are scheduled to be shut down under an agreement with Gov. Mario Cuomo.


From sea to shining sea, it was dismal. It wasn’t just the plant employees who were hurt. The losses of hundreds of jobs, tens of millions of dollars in payrolls and millions in property taxes depressed whole towns and surrounding areas. For example:

Vernon, Vermont, home to Vermont Yankee for more than 40 years, had to cut its municipal budget in half. The town closed its police department and let the county take over; the youth sports teams lost their volunteer coaches, and Vernon Elementary School lost th…