The Fukushima shock and Japan’s nuclear future 

Jacques E. C. HymansAssociate Professor of International Relations

University of Southern Californiahymans@usc.edu

March 11, 2011: Earthquaketsunaminuclear disaster

http://leader-leader.com/blog/2011/12/02/what-happened-at-fukushima/ 

Japanese nuclear policies at the time of the quake and one year laterPolicy area Policy as of March 11, 2011 Policy as of March 11, 2012

Nuclear exports Major multi-agency nuclear export promotion effort

Unchanged

Nuclear fuel cycle Rapid entry into service of Rokkasho (reprocessing) and Monju (fast breeder reactor), domestic enrichment of uranium (also at Rokkasho)

Reprocessing policy (Rokkasho) unchanged; Monju FY 2012 budget cut by 25%;Enrichment restarted Mar. 9, 2012

Nuclear power Increase nuclear power from 30% to 50% of domestic electricity production by 2030

“Decrease” reliance on nuclear power (unclear if “decrease” is counted from 30% or 50%)

Nuclear safety 30-year licenses for new NPPs plus unlimited 10-year extensions; No earthquake/tsunami emergency “stress tests”; METI and NSC responsible for nuclear safety regulation

40-year licenses for new NPPs with one possible 20-year extension; Mandatory earthquake/tsunami emergency “stress tests”; Ministry of Environment takes over nuclear safety regulation

Japan’s nuclear policymaking arena

Major veto players Minor veto players Other players

Electrical utilitiesMETI

PM/CabinetPlus, since 3/11: Ministry

of Environment?

AECHeavy manufacturersPrefectural governors

IAEAJAEAMEXTNSC

Public/media/activistsUniversities

USA

1st Affiliations of Advisory Committee MembersCategory METI ANRE AEC METI NISA

Subnational gov’ts

0 2 (7%) 0

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 NGOs

3 (12%) 2 (7%) 0

Other 0 5 AEC commissioners (18%)*1 journalist (4%)

0

Total members 25 28 11

“Anti-nuclear” and “pro-nuclear” members of government advisory committees

Government agency

Composition in 2005-2006

Composition as of 3/11/11

Composition as of 3/11/12

AEC Anti: 1 (3%)

Pro: 32 (97%)

Anti: 3 (12%)

Pro: 23 (88%)

Anti: 4 (13%)

Pro: 26 (87%)

METI ANRE Anti: 0 (0%)

Pro: 35 (100%)

n/a Anti: 8- 9 (32-36%)

Pro: 16-17 (64-68%)

METI NISA n/a Anti: 0 (0%)

Pro: 29 (100%)

Anti: 2 (18%)

Pro: 9 (82%)

“Airtime” of anti-nuclear members on the AEC Policy Planning Council

Pre-3/11 Post-3/11

Anti-nuclear % of total

airtime

10.5 19.2

Anti-nuclear % of council

member airtime

15.3 32.1

Three levels of nuclear policy

• National policy: not very much change?• Corporate policy: more change?• Prefectural policy: most change?

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

Prefectural policy: What is ‘local’? Potential geometrical expansion in veto players

http://ajw.asahi.com/article/0311disaster/fukushima/AJ2011101314327 

Any questions? Any answers?