CNIC Statement: Reflecting on “remarks” again – Regarding the moves toward restarting Tokyo Electric Power Company’s Kashiwazaki-Kariwa Nuclear Power Station –
On November 20, CNIC released a statement regarding the Tokyo Electric Power Company’s Kashiwazaki-Kariwa Nuclear Power Station. The next day, Governor Hanazumi Hideyo of Niigata Prefecture announced approval of the restart of Kashiwazaki-Kariwa NPS.
The following is the CNIC statement and an additional brief update on subsequent developments.
CNIC Statement: Reflecting on “remarks” again – Regarding the moves toward restarting Tokyo Electric Power Company’s Kashiwazaki-Kariwa Nuclear Power Station-
2025/11/20
A series of media reports have noted that Niigata Prefecture Governor Hanazumi Hideyo will soon make an announcement expressing his views on the restart of the Tokyo Electric Power Company’s Kashiwazaki-Kariwa Nuclear Power Station (KKNPS). At a regular press conference held on the 19th, he stated “There is nothing left that I thought I should ask, see, or think about before making a decision,” and “I would like to come to a conclusion and make an announcement soon.”
Governor Hanazumi cited meetings with mayors from the prefecture’s 30 municipalities, “public hearings” to gather the opinions of residents of the prefecture, and the results of a prefectural public opinion survey as the basis of his decision. These were available by mid-November. At the same time, Governor Hanazumi was reviewing accident and other countermeasures by Tokyo Electric Power Company Holdings (TEPCO HD). Governor Hanazumi has pledged that after a statement regarding his own judgement, he will seek the judgement of the prefectural residents. According to reports, the method for seeking the confidence of the people of the prefecture will be decided by a vote of the prefectural assembly.
CNIC opposes the restart of the KKNPS. Having made that statement, we would like to reflect on the remarks made regarding the restart of the KKNPS.
Overhyped claims of electricity cost saving effects
On September 6, 2024, the Ministry of Economy, Trade, and Industry (METI) explained in a document entitled “The Necessity of Restarting the KKNPS,” presented at the 12th Ministerial Council on Nuclear Affairs, that “According to TEPCO, the fuel cost reduction effect of restarting one reactor at the KKNPS is about 100 billion yen per year, and the impact of restarting the nuclear power plant on reducing electricity rates is extremely significant.” Meanwhile, TEPCO has explained that the restart of the KKNPS “will not result in further reductions in electricity rates.” This means that the government is disseminating false information.
In the first place, the very claim of a 100 billion yen reduction effect is questionable. Assuming Unit 6 of the KKNPS (electric output: 1.356GW were restarted and operated at a capacity factor of 80% and a station service power of 4%, it would generate approximately 9 billion kWh per year. The average wholesale electricity price in the Tokyo area market for FY2024 was 13.66yen/kWh. This suggests that a reduction of approximately 123 billion yen would be expected. On the other hand, based on the data released by Tokyo Electric Power Energy Partners (TEPCO EP) in 2023, the variable costs of a nuclear power plant (such as nuclear fuel costs) [3] amounted to \2.51/kWh (average for FY2023-2025), equivalent to an increase of approximately 23 billion yen. Therefore, in terms of fuel cost, 100 billion yen can be saved. However, in 2023, TEPCO EP had anticipated an increase in cost totaling 130 billion yen (average for fiscal years 2023-2025) as a result of the restart of Units 6 and 7 at KKNPS, covering repair costs and depreciation expenses. If half of this figure is assumed, that would be 65 billion yen, which means the reduction would only be 35 billion yen. The average variable cost for nuclear power plants already restarted by Kansai Electric Power Co., Inc., Kyushu Electric Power Co., Inc., and Shikoku Electric Power Co., Inc. has been approximately \3/kWh. Adjusting to actual performance, the margin of reduction will be even more severe.
Note that TEPCO EP purchases electricity generated at nuclear power plants from entities such as TEPCO HD. In its 2023 estimate, TEPCO EP expected to purchase nuclear electricity amounting to \494 billion, and the amount of nuclear electricity was expected to account for 11.9 billion kWh of total electricity sales (both figures are averages for FY 2023-2025).[4] In terms of unit price, that is 41.5yen/kWh. This means that they are buying electricity that costs three times more than the wholesale electricity price. Apart from the increased fuel costs and fixed expenses resulting from the restart of plants, nuclear power plants have existing maintenance costs. The unit price comes to this amount when these costs are included.
The most economical energy mix that contributes to decarbonization should be pursued by breaking down electricity generation costs by power source. However, for TEPCO, the fixed costs that increase with restarts, such as maintenance, repair, and depreciation expenses, are a given premise, regardless of whether the plants restart or not. That is why they are only concerned with the difference in fuel costs. However, these conditions are irrelevant to electricity consumers. The electricity TEPCO’s Nuclear Power Stations generate is clearly expensive. TEPCO is shifting onto electricity consumers the burden of the consequences of the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster it caused and the huge cost of approximately 1.169 trillion yen resulting from its business decision to restart the KKNPS Units 6 and 7. There is a conflict of interest between TEPCO, which deliberately purchases expensive nuclear electricity, and electricity consumers. This fact should be taken into account.
Prefectural survey
Niigata Prefecture conducted a survey of its residents as part of the decision-making process for restarting KKNPS. [5] According to the results, for Question 5-1(14) “The condition for restarting is currently in place,” 37% responded “Agree” or “Somewhat agree,” while 60% responded “Somewhat disagree” or “Disagree.” For Question 5-1 (15) “No matter what measures are taken, restarts should not be permitted,” 47% responded “Agree” or “Somewhat agree,” while 51% responded “Somewhat disagree” or “Disagree.” Judging from these results, it appears that the residents’ opinions on restarting are divided right down the middle. However, the problem lies with the survey itself.
Let us take a closer look at the survey questionnaire. For example, Question 3 asks “Do you know that the following countermeasures are being implemented?” while listing TEPCO’s countermeasures with accompanying photographs. This way of asking questions gives respondents the impression that sufficient countermeasures have been implemented. In fact, the survey results show that 44% answered “sufficiently secured” or “generally secured,” while 25% answered “not sufficiently secured” or “not secured at all,” with 27% answering “don’t know.” This result conflicts with the responses regarding the restarting of the plants.
Moreover, Question 4 lists and confirms the disaster prevention plans implemented by the prefecture under the heading “Disaster Prevention Measures for Nuclear Disaster.” In this section, for example, the survey states and reaffirms the measures taken by the prefecture and local governments by stating that “Prefecture and municipalities formulate evacuation plans that outline information dissemination, evacuation methods for residents, and response measures for host municipalities during nuclear disasters,” and then asks about awareness of these measures. Question 4-3 follows with, “Regardless of the measure(s) selected in Question 4-2, to what extent do you think disaster prevention effects are being implemented?” Here, it makes no mention whatsoever of the numerous doubts raised recently about the feasibility of the evacuation plans and presents the question in a manner that makes it seems as though sufficient countermeasures have been put in place. The results similarly showed that 36% responded “sufficiently implemented” or “mostly implemented,” 34% responded “not sufficiently implemented” or “not implemented at all,” and 27% responded “don’t know.” This result also contradicts the responses regarding the restarting of the plants.
Along with these questions, the survey also distributes a separate document as an attachment outlining the safety measures implemented by TEPCO and the prefecture’s disaster prevention measures. In other words, this survey was designed to be highly suggestive, aiming to steer public opinion toward restarting the reactors. In spite of this content, the fact that responses to the question about restarting nuclear power plants were split down the middle is extremely significant.
Furthermore, the cross-tabulation results conducted by the commissioned survey contractor deserve particular attention. According to the analysis, awareness of countermeasures implemented by operators and prefectural government is categorized into four levels. The findings indicate that “the higher the level of awareness regarding safety measures (as knowledge increases), the greater the tendency for respondents to believe ‘conditions for restart are currently in place.’” Similarly, the higher the level of awareness regarding disaster prevention measures (as knowledge increases), the greater the tendency to believe the ‘conditions for restart are currently in place.’” In other words, recognition of countermeasures tends to increase the likeliness of agreeing to restart the plant. However, looking especially at Group 4, which has the highest level of awareness, 52.2% responded negatively to the question of whether conditions for restarting the plants are met for safety measures, and 58.1% responded negatively for disaster prevention measures. This suggests that it is not low awareness which leads to negativity over restarting the plants, but in fact the respondents oppose restarting because they understand the issues.
Seeking the confidence of the people of the prefecture
In 2018, at the time of his first election, Governor Hanazumi stated on his website, “We will thoroughly proceed with three verifications regarding nuclear power plants and dedicate our full efforts toward a nuclear-free society in the future.” He further explained his position: “We will widely share the verification results with all residents of the prefecture, receive the residents’ evaluation, and determine whether they can be approved. After that we will reach a conclusion and consider seeking the confidence of the residents.” [6]
During his re-election in 2022, he stated: “Regarding the nuclear power plant, I will thoroughly pursue the three verifications. Until the results of these verifications are available, I will not discuss restarting operations. I will face the national government and TEPCO with the stance that the safety of the prefecture’s residents is the top priority. Furthermore, I will aim to realize a society that does not depend on nuclear power and protect the safety and peace of mind of the prefecture’s residents.” He also stated, “I ask that the discussions on the three verifications concerning the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Station accident be thoroughly conducted without setting a deadline, and I will not discuss restarting the plant until the results of these verifications are available.” “The results of the three verifications will be widely shared with all residents of the prefecture, and I will seek their evaluation. Together with the safety confirmation of the KKNPS currently being conducted by the Technical Committee, I will consider reaching a conclusion, based on which I will seek the confidence of the residents.” [7] What has become of these explanations, especially regarding the restart of nuclear power plants?
“The three verifications” refers to the discussions held within three verification committees (Technical Committee, Health and Living Committee, and Evacuation Committee) established by Niigata Prefecture regarding the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear accident. Although Governor Hanazumi had stated that the process should be “thoroughly implemented and “without setting deadlines,” in reality, the “Verification and Review Committee” which was supposed to consolidate the committee’s discussions, met only twice. As a result, the review was compiled not by the committee but by the prefectural secretariat. The discussions were never fully concluded.
How about “seeking the confidence of the prefectural residents”? That’s a rather vague way of putting it. It could refer to a prefectural referendum, approved by the prefectural assembly, or even a gubernatorial election. Governor Hanazumi has so far avoided specifying any particular option, but early in his term, regarding methods of seeking the residents’ confidence, he stated, “It is possible that I would stake my position to seek confirmation.” [8] If it is taken at face value, this could be understood as meaning that he would call for a new election. It also looks as if this about to be reneged on.
Regarding the restart of the KKNPS, far too many frivolous remarks have been made. Each of these frivolous remarks have contributed to the building of a momentum for the restart of the nuclear plant. However, what we witnessed in 2011 was profoundly grave.
Niigata Prefecture and its governor must not make decisions regarding the restart of the KKNPS based on such frivolous remarks. They should not ignore the reality of the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear accident. With this in mind, they should pursue measures to reflect the collective views of the residents and make democratic decisions.
At an emergency press conference on November 21, Governor Hanazumi announced his intention to seek a vote of confidence/no confidence in the regular session of the prefectural assembly, regarding his decision to approve the restart of the KKNPS. Following the announcement, on November 25 the LDP prefectural assembly group, which holds a majority of seats, and the Komeito Niigata prefectural assembly members expressed their intention to support the governor’s decision.
At the same time, there has been strong opposition both within and outside the prefecture towards the governor’s decision to approve the restart as well as to leave the final judgement to the prefectural assembly. That same day, the 25th, outside the Niigata Prefectural Office building, approximately 1,200 people were gathered to form a human chain surrounding the prefectural office building and assembly hall, in response to a call from the citizen group “Niigata Prefectural Network for Considering the Restart of the Kashiwazaki-Kariwa Nuclear Power Station,” which advocates for a referendum on the restart of the KKNPS. Additionally, a survey of voters within the prefecture conducted on November 30 showed that 47% did not support the governor’s decision, while 45% supported it. As for the restart of KKNPS, 49% opposed it and 42% were in favor.
The prefectural assembly will be in session from December 2 to 22.
[All links in Japanese]
[1] www.cas.go.jp/jp/seisaku/genshiryoku_kakuryo_kaigi/dai12/siryou2.pdf
[2] www.tokyo-np.co.jp/article/425723
[3] warp.ndl.go.jp/collections/content/info:ndljp/pid/14364078/www.emsc.meti.go.jp/activity/emsc_electricity/pdf/0041_06_01_03.pdf
[4] warp.ndl.go.jp/collections/content/info:ndljp/pid/14364078/www.emsc.meti.go.jp/activity/emsc_electricity/pdf/0045_03_03.pdf
[5] Questionnaire：www.pref.niigata.lg.jp/sec/genshiryoku/kashiwazakikariwa-kenminishikityosa-tyousakaishi.html、
Results：www.pref.niigata.lg.jp/sec/genshiryoku/kashiwazakikariwa-kenminishikityosa-kekka.html[6] web.archive.org/web/20180804213606/http://hanazumi-hideyo.jp/manifest/manifest1/
[7] web.archive.org/web/20220522044703/https://hanazumi-hideyo.jp/manifest/#manifest02
[8] www.pref.niigata.lg.jp/sec/kouhou/1356895957303.html
A: Governor Hanazumi
(omitted) I am stating that it is possible that at that very moment, I would risk my job to verify the matter.
Q NHK (Japan Broadcasting Corporation):
This means there is a possibility of a mid-term election?
A: Governor Hanazumi
Well, if there’s no need to drag things out, I think this would be one of the approaches to confirm whether this is indeed the solution for Niigata Prefecture.
