MADISON (AP) — Gov. Jim Doyle, a longtime opponent to building new nuclear power plants in Wisconsin, said Wednesday he was open to at least studying that possibility.

But Doyle was quick to repeat his oft-used line that no nuclear power plant has been built in the country in 30 years and Wisconsin would not be the first place one goes up.
Still, Doyle backed recommendations of a global warming task force he created that said utilities should be allowed to propose new nuclear power plants under certain conditions. Those include if they can be built for a reasonable cost and whether it would help meet emission goals.

“I think what you’re going to see happening with nuclear is one or two new plants will be commissioned in some state in the country ... and when that happens most of the country will really take a new look at this,” Doyle said.

The state has had a moratorium on new nuclear plant construction for 25 years. Doyle made his support of the ban a part of his 2006 re-election campaign, while his Republican opponent Mark Green said the ban should be lifted.

The Republican-controlled state Assembly debated a bill this year that would allow the Public Service Commission to consider plans to build nuclear power plants. The Democratic-controlled Senate did not take it up.

Last week Doyle announced that coal would no longer be used at three power plants in Madison. Instead, 13 other alternatives would be looked at for the plants that power government and University of Wisconsin buildings in Madison, he said.

Nuclear power was not one of the alternatives examined in the report Doyle referenced.

But on Wednesday the governor said the state should not be “sitting with our heads in the sand” on the issue of reviving nuclear power.

With gasoline hovering around $4 a gallon, and pressure increasing to reduce coal-fired power plants, supporters of nuclear power say it can serve as an alternative and combat global warming.

Opponents including environmental groups and the Wisconsin Citizens Utilities Board, which represents residential ratepayers, argue that other alternative energy should be pursued instead. A major concern of opponents is where the waste generated from the plants would be stored.

Advertisement