Conflict of Interest? Yes, please.

In 1954, the US Congress set up the Atomic Energy Commission with the dual role of promoting nuclear power while ensuring it was adequately safe. In the words of the Act, the goal was "utilization of atomic energy for peaceful purposes to the maximum extent consistent with the common defense and security and with the health and safety of the public". After a slow start, the late 1960's AEC plants produced some of the cheapest electricity ever generated. Those plants have harmed no member of the public. In 1974, this dual role was deemed a conflict of interest; and the AEC was split into the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), and the Energy Research and Development Administration, later DOE. The NRC was instructed to focus solely on safety.

In France during the 1970's, the nominal nuclear safety regulator, the Central Nuclear Installations Safety Service (SCSIN) was buried in the Ministry of Industry, while the state utility, Electricite de France, pretty much did what it wanted to. It produced the power and effectively set its own safety standards, which have harmed no member of the public. This conflict of interest was corrected in stages, but only after France had pretty much completely decarbonized. The last stage was the establishment in 2006 of the totally independent Authority for Nuclear Safety (ASN). The ASN's responsibility is nuclear power safety, nothing else.

Before Fukushima, the Japanese nuclear regulator was the Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency (NISA). NISA was part of the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry (METI). METI is responsible for securing a stable and efficient energy supply to the country. During this period, the Japanese successfully built some 60 reactors with an average build time less than 4 years. Nuclear power was Japan's cheapest source of electricity. After Fukushima, the conflict of interest inherent in this arrangement was corrected by setting up an independent Nuclear Regulation Authority (NRA) and placing it in the Ministry of the Environment.

The NRA's job is to focus solely on nuclear safety. Recently when the prime minister called for rapid start up of the plants closed after Fukushima, the NRA director responded "Our goal as a regulator is not to be influenced by an ongoing debate on whether or not to use nuclear". Under the rules he's been given, he right. He is mandated to ignore the hardships imposed by not restarting serviceable nuclear plants. The benefit side is none of his business.

Nor is the harm imposed by alternate sources of power. When we asked Indonesian regulators to balance the hazards of coal and nuclear, one member of the group had the honesty to stand up and say "I don't care with the problems are with coal. I'm a nuclear regulator. My job is to make nuclear power as safe as possible."

The core problem in the control of hazardous, beneficial activities is finding the right balance between safety and economy. If the safety side is under-weighted, the result will be disproportionate harm. In the worst case, the technology will be rejected as unsafe and the benefits foregone. If on the other hand direct harm is over-weighted, resources will be expended which could be better allocated elsewhere; indirect harm from alternate power sources will be ignored; and in the worst case, the technology will be priced out of existence.

I'm a strong proponent of letting the market find that balance by a well-defined compensation scheme. But if, saints forfend, we must turn the balance finding job over to a bureaucracy, then that bureaucracy must encompass both the benefits and the harm. And if that is considered a conflict of interest so be it. Setting up a regulator which has been told to focus solely on safety, and then giving that regulator the final say in what gets approved is guaranteed stagnation. See USA. See France. See Japan.

The Americans, the French, the Japanese had it right the first time. If you must entrust nuclear power to a bureaucracy, make sure that agency is responsible for both providing the power and determining the adequate level of safety.