October, 25 2012, 03:28pm EDT

San Onofre: California Launches Investigation of Cost Issues as Nation's Aging Reactors Face 'Mothballs'
Friends of the Earth: Continued operation of San Onofre is not cost effective
IRVINE, Calif.
The California Public Utilities Commission will announce today that it is launching an investigation assessing key economic issues relating to the crippled San Onofre nuclear reactors operated by Southern California Edison. The move, coming just three days after the announcement of the closing of a Wisconsin reactor for economic reasons, raises the question of whether San Onofre will be among the aging and expensive U.S. reactors that face closure because they can no longer compete with cheaper sources of energy.
"It has become increasingly clear that nuclear power is not cost effective," said Damon Moglen, energy and climate director at Friends of the Earth, which is filing as a legal intervener in the PUC's investigation of San Onofre. "We'll be providing expert testimony to the PUC and we are confident that the investigation will prove that continued operation of San Onofre is not cost effective."
San Onofre's twin reactors have been shut down since January after a leak of radioactive steam led to the discovery of severely damaged steam generators. Earlier this month, Edison filed a plan with the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission to experiment with the restart of one of the reactors despite conducting no additional repairs to the failed steam generators. Friends of the Earth has also intervened legally in that proceeding.
On Wednesday, the New York Times reported that aging and expensive reactors like that at San Onofre face being "mothballed" because of high, non-competitive energy costs. Energy reporter Matthew L. Wald wrote that the announcement by Dominion Energy that it will close its reactor at Kewaunee, Wisconsin, "is not the only trouble sign for the industry" and that the Kewaunee closing could be "a harbinger of more closings."
Because of the low price of energy from sources like wind power, some reactors are being forced to sell energy for less than their costs of production - in other words, they have to pay instead of being paid. One energy consultant told The Times that even where renewables are not part of the energy supply, the low price of natural gas and the high costs of repair of the aging reactors means "A (nuclear plant) that might have been worth a couple of billion dollars is now basically worthless."
The decision to close the Kewaunee reactor came after Dominion tried for a year to sell it to another operator. The closure amounts to a bellwether indicating that old nuclear reactors, already recognized as not providing electricity at competitive rates, will be even less economical as they are forced to pay for needed safety upgrades and storage of the expanding mountain of nuclear waste generated by the plants' continued operation.
The closure of Kewaunee has direct implications for San Onofre. The design errors in the costly new steam generators at both San Onofre reactors have led Edison to propose that it be allowed to experimentally operate only one of the reactors at 70 percent power. Such a proposal, while totally unacceptable from a public safety standpoint, is also indefensible from an economic standpoint given that massive costs will be incurred with only limited power output.
Friends of the Earth fights for a more healthy and just world. Together we speak truth to power and expose those who endanger the health of people and the planet for corporate profit. We organize to build long-term political power and campaign to change the rules of our economic and political systems that create injustice and destroy nature.
(202) 783-7400LATEST NEWS
Texas House Passes Attack on Mailed Abortion Pills That 'Will Fuel Fear' Nationwide
"Texas: Land of the free! Also Texas: We want you to surveil your neighbor, see if they've missed their period, snoop through their trash and mail, and sue whoever sent them medication abortion."
Aug 29, 2025
Republicans in the Texas House of Representatives on Thursday night advanced another anti-abortion bounty hunter bill, this one taking aim at medications mailed from states that support reproductive freedom so Texans can choose to end pregnancies.
House Bill 7 passed 82-48 along party lines during Texas' second special legislative session of the year. The proposal from state Rep. Jeff Leach (R-67) still needs approval from the Senate—which previously passed similar legislation—before it heads to the desk of Republican Gov. Greg Abbott. He has signed various attacks on reproductive rights, including Senate Bill 8, a 2021 state law that entices vigilantes with $10,000 bounties to enforce a six-week abortion ban.
Like S.B. 8, the new bill relies on lawsuits filed by private citizens. H.B. 7 would empower them to sue out-of-state healthcare providers, medication manufacturers, and anyone who mails or otherwise provides abortion pills to someone in the state for up to $100,000 in damages per violation—even if no abortion occurs. Under pressure from some anti-choice groups, Republicans added language allowing vigilantes to keep only $10,000; the rest would go to a charity they choose.
"It's designed to trap Texans into forced pregnancy," Shellie Hayes-McMahon, executive director of Planned Parenthood Texas Votes, told the Houston Chronicle. "Instead of fixing the crisis they (Texas lawmakers) manufactured, they're doubling down to punish anyone who dares to help a Texan. This bill is not about safety, it's about control."
Republicans in the Texas House have introduced another way to try to harm patients, providers, and manufacturers in the state. HB 7 would allow anyone to sue a manufacturer, distributor, or provider of medication abortion—even without proof of care being provided.
[image or embed]
— Reproductive Freedom for All (@reproductivefreedomforall.org) August 29, 2025 at 10:34 AM
The bill is part of a broader effort to stop the flow of abortion medications—mifepristone and misoprostol—into states that have ramped up restrictions in the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court's right-wing supermajority reversing Roe v. Wade in 2022.
As GOP lawmakers have worked to further restrict reproductive freedom, Democrat-controlled states have enacted "shield laws" to protect doctors and patients. Laws enabling telehealth abortions are key targets for Republican officials and far-right activists—including "anti-abortion legal terrorist" Jonathan Mitchell, the chief architect of S.B. 8 who's now representing a Texas man in a wrongful death case against a California doctor accused of providing pills that his girlfriend used to end her pregnancy.
The New York Times reported that "supporters hope and opponents fear" H.B. 7 "will serve as a model for other states to limit medication abortion by promoting a rash of lawsuits against medical providers, pharmaceutical companies, and companies such as FedEx or UPS that may ship the drugs."
Supporters and opponents also anticipate court battles over the bill itself. "Texas is sort of the tip of the spear," Marc Hearron, the associate director of litigation at the Center for Reproductive Rights, told the Times. "It's setting up a clash."
H.B. 7 is "pushing up against the limits of how much a state can control," Hearron added. "Each state can have its own laws, but throughout our history, we have been able to travel across the country, send things across the country."
Texas: Land of the free! Also Texas: We want you to surveil your neighbor, see if they've missed their period, snoop through their trash and mail, and sue whoever sent them medication abortion. https://bit.ly/4lM2sXF
[image or embed]
— Center for Reproductive Rights (@reprorights.org) August 28, 2025 at 4:45 PM
After Thursday's vote, Blair Wallace, policy and advocacy strategist on reproductive freedom at the ACLU of Texas, warned in a statement that "H.B. 7 exports Texas' extreme abortion ban far beyond state borders."
"It will fuel fear among manufacturers and providers nationwide, while encouraging neighbors to police one another's reproductive lives, further isolating pregnant Texans, and punishing the people who care for them," she said. "We believe in a Texas where people have the freedom to make decisions about our own bodies and futures."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Trump Taps 'Manifestly Unqualified' Peter Thiel Protégé as Acting CDC Director After RFK's Purge
A health researcher for Public Citizen said Trump's interim CDC director has "no medical or public health background and extremist libertarian views."
Aug 29, 2025
After pushing out his own handpicked Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) director, infectious disease expert Susan Monarez, fueling a wave of outraged resignations this week, US President Donald Trump has appointed a loyal acolyte to replace her at Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s side.
On Thursday, the president tapped one of RFK's top aides as interim CDC director: biotech investor Jim O'Neill, a man with no medical experience but extensive experience profiting from healthcare while working at billionaire GOP megadonor Peter Thiel's venture capital firm, Mithril Capital.
Unlike his predecessor, whose ouster came as she tried to push back against RFK's anti-vaccine agenda, O'Neill fits snugly into the secretary's efforts to restrict access to the Covid-19 vaccine, and potentially ban it outright, as the Daily Beast reported earlier this week.
"A tech investor with no medical or public health background and extremist libertarian views, Jim O'Neill was unfit for the number two position at HHS and manifestly unqualified to lead the CDC," said Dr. Robert Steinbrook, director of Public Citizen's health research group, on Friday.
Just as Kennedy did during his confirmation hearings, O'Neill insisted he was "pro-vaccine," noting that he was "an adviser to a vaccine company." However, this is belied by his record on the subject.
He has championed unproven cures like ivermectin, hydroxychloroquine, and vitamin D supplements to protect against Covid-19, and has accused the CDC under the administration of former President Joe Biden of downplaying the vaccine's dangers while railing against mandates.
O'Neill has also praised Kennedy's response to the measles outbreak that swept across the US earlier this year, during which the secretary downplayed the severity and cast unfounded doubt on the effectiveness and safety of the measles vaccine that had virtually eradicated the disease before vaccination rates began to decline.
"Unlike Susan Monarez," Steinbrook said, "O'Neill is likely to rubber-stamp dangerous vaccine recommendations from HHS Secretary Kennedy's handpicked appointees to the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices and obey orders to fire CDC public health experts with scientific integrity."
O'Neill melds medical crankery with a Thielite strain of anarcho-libertarianism. He has served on the board of the Seasteading Institute, an organization founded by Patri Friedman, the grandson of the right-wing economist Milton Friedman, who advocates for corporations like Apple and Google to form their own floating cities at sea, which would be governed as corporate "dictatorships" free from the constraints of democratic governance.
That anti-government ethos extends to his views on the healthcare system, which O'Neill says is flawed not because of the rampant profiteering of the private companies that run it, but because it is supposedly not "free market" enough.
In 2014, he advocated for the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to begin approving drugs for the market without conducting clinical trials to determine their effectiveness. "Let people start using them, at their own risk," he argued, "Let's prove efficacy after they've been legalized."
He has also argued for the government to allow people to sell their own internal organs. This process often results in deteriorating health for the disproportionately poor people who partake.
While working at HHS under the administration of former President George W. Bush, O'Neill also opposed the FDA regulation of companies that use algorithms to perform laboratory tests.
At the time, he was focused on DNA testing products like 23andMe, but a report from the consumer watchdog group Public Citizen says that "a decade after he made this remark, it's clear how dangerous such a concept is," noting that "with the development and proliferation of artificial intelligence, algorithms are omnipresent in the practice of medicine, including in diagnostic tools, medical devices, AI assistants to doctors, and personalized medicine."
In addition to Thiel's ideology, he reportedly brings several conflicts of interest to the CDC director job from his time working at Thiel's venture capital firm.
Accountable.US reported Friday that O'Neill "took money from, helped incubate, or was otherwise linked to at least eight medical industry startups with direct business before the department he could help run."
These include firms he advised, like the pharmaceutical company ADvantage Therapeutics or the National Institutes of Health grantee Rational Vaccines, which manufactures herpes drugs.
It also includes four companies seeded by his Thiel-affiliated venture capital firm Breakout Labs, some of which have received government funding or have products awaiting FDA approval.
Though O'Neill agreed to divest from some of these companies and abstain from involvement in decision-making with them as part of his ethics agreement, the report notes that "he did not promise to abstain from decisions involving these companies for the duration of his term, or to abstain from doing business with them after departing HHS."
"O'Neill would be in a prime position to ensure favorable outcomes for several medical industry startups he's been financially linked to that have direct business before HHS and the CDC," said Accountable.US executive director Tony Carrk. "How can American patients be sure that proper vetting of these companies would take place on O'Neill's watch and that public health will be a higher priority over the profits of his former clients?"
Though Steinbrook describes O'Neill as "manifestly unqualified" for the position, he said, "No credible public health authority is likely to work for Kennedy, who is dictating the agency's decisions based on whim, not science."
"The only path forward," Steinbrook said, "is for Kennedy to go, which Congress, professional organizations, medical journals, and the public should demand."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'AI Death Panels': Trump Pilot Program Seeks to Bring 'Very Worst' For-Profit Insurance Practices to Medicare
The administration, warned two union leaders, "is inserting private AI companies, which have a giant financial stake in the denial of care, into the doctor-patient relationship."
Aug 29, 2025
Creating what critics are equating to "AI death panels" elderly Americans in need of care, the Trump administration is launching a pilot program in six states that will use artificial intelligence to determine whether Medicare recipients should qualify for certain procedures.
As reported by The New York Times on Thursday, the pilot program will hire private firms to deploy AI to make what are known as "prior authorization" decisions regarding whether Medicare should pay for certain procedures, including spinal surgeries and steroid injections. The program is set to run first in Arizona, New Jersey, Ohio, Oklahoma, Texas, and Washington.
According to the paper, the program will rely on algorithms similar to those "used by insurers have been the subject of several high-profile lawsuits, which have asserted that the technology allowed the companies to swiftly deny large batches of claims and cut patients off from care in rehabilitation facilities."
The way the program is being structured will also give AI firms big incentives to maximize the denial of claims for Medicare recipients, as the Times reported that "Medicare plans to pay them a share of the savings generated from rejections."
Abe Sutton, the director of the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation, emphasized in an interview with the Times that this program would not be used to review emergency services or hospital stays.
Even so, some experts and advocates have warned that this program risks bringing the same problems experienced by people who use private insurance to Medicare.
"It's basically the same set of financial incentives that has created issues in Medicare Advantage and drawn so much scrutiny," Ohio-based surgeon Dr. Vinay Rathi, who is also an expert in Medicare payment policies, explained to the Times. "It directly puts them at odds with the clinicians."
Jathan Sadowski, a senior lecturer and research fellow in the Emerging Technologies Research Lab at Monash University, also warned about private insurance practices creeping into traditional Medicare.
"The government is hiring companies using AI to make those determinations about healthcare," he wrote on X. "This is exactly the same tactic that private insurers like UnitedHealth use to delay and deny treatment."
The reported pilot program also drew harsh reviews from the American Federation of Teachers (AFT), as president Randi Weingarten and the union's Retirees Program and Policy Council co-chair Tom Murphy issued a joint statement accusing the Trump administration of "attempting to transform Medicare into the very worst of private insurance."
"Instead of making life easier and better for older Americans, this administration is introducing extra hurdles that are burdensome to patients and often get in the way of their desperately needed treatments," they said. "And the administration is inserting private AI companies, which have a giant financial stake in the denial of care, into the doctor-patient relationship."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular