The fukushima shock and japan’s nuclear future Speaker: Jacques Hymans

1. The Fukushima shock and Japan’s
nuclear future
Jacques E. C. Hymans
Associate Professor of International Relations
University of Southern California
hymans@usc.edu

2. March 11, 2011:
Earthquaketsunaminuclear disaster
http://leader-leader.com/blog/2011/12/02/what-happened-at-fukushima/

3. Japanese nuclear policies at the time of the quake and one year later
Policy area Policy as of March 11, 2011 Policy as of March 11, 2012
Nuclear exports Major multi-agency nuclear Unchanged
export promotion effort
Nuclear fuel cycle Rapid entry into service of Reprocessing policy (Rokkasho)
Rokkasho (reprocessing) and unchanged;
Monju (fast breeder Monju FY 2012 budget cut by
reactor), domestic enrichment 25%;
of uranium (also at Rokkasho) Enrichment restarted Mar. 9, 2012
Nuclear power Increase nuclear power from “Decrease” reliance on nuclear
30% to 50% of domestic power (unclear if “decrease” is
electricity production by 2030 counted from 30% or 50%)
Nuclear safety 30-year licenses for new 40-year licenses for new NPPs
NPPs plus unlimited 10-year with one possible 20-year
extensions; extension;
No earthquake/tsunami Mandatory earthquake/tsunami
emergency “stress tests”; emergency “stress tests”;
METI and NSC responsible Ministry of Environment takes
for nuclear safety regulation over nuclear safety regulation

4. Japan’s nuclear policymaking arena
Major veto players Minor veto players Other players
Electrical utilities AEC IAEA
METI Heavy manufacturers JAEA
PM/Cabinet Prefectural governors MEXT
Plus, since 3/11: Ministry NSC
of Environment? Public/media/activists
Universities
USA

5. 1st Affiliations of Advisory Committee Members
Category METI ANRE AEC METI NISA
Subnational 0 2 (7%) 0
gov’ts
Industry 4 (16%) 5 (18%) 0
Finance 1 (4%) 2 (7%) 0
Think tanks 6 (24%) 3 (11%) 1 (9%)
Universities 9 (36%) 7 (25%) 10 (91%)
Consumer NGOs 2 (8%) 1 (4%) 0
Environment 3 (12%) 2 (7%) 0
NGOs
Other 0 5 AEC commissioners (18%)* 0
1 journalist (4%)
Total members 25 28 11

6. “Anti-nuclear” and “pro-nuclear” members of
government advisory committees
Government Composition in Composition as Composition as
agency 2005-2006 of 3/11/11 of 3/11/12
AEC Anti: 1 (3%) Anti: 3 (12%) Anti: 4 (13%)
Pro: 32 (97%) Pro: 23 (88%) Pro: 26 (87%)
METI ANRE Anti: 0 (0%) n/a Anti: 8- 9 (32-
36%)
Pro: 35 (100%)
Pro: 16-17 (64-
68%)
METI NISA n/a Anti: 0 (0%) Anti: 2 (18%)
Pro: 29 (100%) Pro: 9 (82%)

7. “Airtime” of anti-nuclear members on the AEC
Policy Planning Council
Pre-3/11 Post-3/11
Anti-nuclear % of total 10.5 19.2
airtime
Anti-nuclear % of council 15.3 32.1
member airtime

8. Three levels of nuclear policy
• National policy: not very much change?
• Corporate policy: more change?
• Prefectural policy: most change?

9. Corporate policy: Will METI run TEPCO?
Wide range of potential policy implications
Edano-TEPCO fight over voting rights:
• 1/3 of voting shares: veto power over
proposed board members
• 1/2 of voting shares: select board members
• 2/3 of voting shares: directly hire and fire
management, set corporate strategy

10. Prefectural policy: What is ‘local’?
Potential geometrical expansion in veto players
http://ajw.asahi.com/article/0
311disaster/fukushima/AJ201
1101314327

11. Any questions? Any answers?