If the SPS is perceived to present a zero-infinity dilemma, it is probable that its regulatory costs will look much more like those of nuclear power (Table 4.52) than those of coal-fired electricity. Like nuclear power, the SPS would be faced with continual regulation. Its international character might not provide an "escape route" around United States regulatory requirements — the rest of the world cannot be expected to be any more willing to permit even a small possibility of a catastrophic SPS accident for the sake of supplying energy to the United States than the United States has been willing to risk a catastrophic nuclear accident within its own borders. Of course, whether the SPS does present a zero-infinity dilemma as serious as nuclear power is a question on which there is no consensus. How serious an accident must be to become "catastrophic" and how small the probability to be viewed as "impossible" are political decisions that this study is intended to facilitate. It is important to recognize, however, that when a technology has come to be perceived as posing a zero-infinity dilemma, the total costs associated with regulating it could become a determinant of its economic viability. 4.7.3 Regulatory Trends The comparative evaluation of the regulatory system that is likely to accompany any of the technologies considered here will continue to evolve. The extraordinary public attention that has been focused for a variety of reasons on energy production over the past ten years appears to be having a long-term impact on the ways in which the problem is being perceived and resolved. The purpose of this section is to analyze some of these trends in a qualitative fashion. In concluding that "the weight and importance of the decentralization trend in America is greater than the 150-year-old trend toward more centralization," John Naisbitt^S calls attention to developments that have important implications for the regulatory system that would be associated with the SPS, as well as other electricity production technologies. Naisbitt states that if the decentralization trend continues, it is likely to cause intergovernmental conflicts in the regulation of all electricity technologies, but especially the SPS. He further contends that increasing decentralization probably will make uniform regulations more difficult than would otherwise be the case. Of course, it is dangerous to draw too many conclusions from such recent developments. Nonetheless, it is important to understand their implications in the event they become long-term realities. Intergovernmental Conflicts. As Naisbitt^®^ points out, numerous events suggest a growth of power among states and communities at the expense of the federal government. Increasing activity on the part of regions, states, and local governments is leading to greater assertion of decisionmaking authority by these entities. Naisbitt illustrates this trend with examples of states and localities that have tried recently to gain regulatory control over certain stages of the nuclear fuel cycle, including siting, transportation, and disposal of nuclear materials, and disaster emergency plans.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTU5NjU0Mg==