LAS VEGAS - John Edwards voted for making Nevada's Yucca Mountain a nuclear waste repository, but now he opposes it. Bill Richardson allowed the Yucca project to proceed when he was Bill Clinton's energy secretary, but now says he opposes it as a waste dump. Hillary Clinton several times voted against bills expanding the amount of ethanol required in gasoline, but now wants the government to help pay for the biofuel that is so important to Iowans.
Energy policy, presidential candidates in both parties agree, is a critical national priority. But the regional special interests involved in energy use, production, and waste disposal have created political problems for the presidential contenders as they woo voters across the country.
Question the role of ethanol as a cure-all gasoline additive when campaigning in Iowa? A candidate might as well drop out of the race instead, because ethanol comes from corn, which comes from Iowa, which will hold caucuses Jan. 3.
Decrying the siting of Yucca Mountain as a place to store the nation's nuclear waste goes over well with Nevadans, who are set to hold early caucuses Jan. 19. But in South Carolina - where Republicans will hold a primary the same day and the Democrats, the following week - voters don't like the idea of shelving Yucca, because that's where they want to send their nuclear waste.
Now, presidential candidates who serve in the Senate are preparing to vote later this fall on whether to increase fuel economy standards, which could alienate auto company unions and executives in Michigan, an early primary state.
Environmental activists and energy industry officials say they'd like more clarity from the presidential candidates on a national energy policy - even if it means alienating voters in some states.
"Democrats and Republicans are generally saying the same thing about energy policy, that global warming is an issue and we need to be energy-independent," said Frank Maisano, a veteran lobbyist for the energy industry. "Once you start talking about specifics . . . that's where people get gun-shy. That's why we don't get much substance on energy in presidential races."
Blease Graham, a political science professor at the University of South Carolina, said candidates who oppose Yucca Mountain could face trouble in the Palmetto State, where nuclear power provides a higher proportion of electricity supplied than any other state.
"I suppose candidates, in running campaigns, are assessing [political] risks, thinking, 'If I say this, I've got 70 percent-plus here,' as opposed to actually developing a policy and courageously telling these various groups, 'Here's where I stand,' " Graham said.
The Yucca Mountain matter is even more politically loaded this campaign season, because Nevada has moved up its caucuses, raising the influence of the state in the presidential nomination process. Democratic candidates are likely to face questions about Yucca when they meet in Las Vegas for a nationally televised debate tomorrow night. And the West is emerging as a key general election battleground, further increasing Nevada's importance.
"It's a very major issue for Nevadans. I think the message is, don't come to Nevada unless you're willing to address it," said Lydia Ball, regional representative of the Sierra Club in Nevada.
GOP candidates have been largely silent on the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository, but Democrats have overwhelmingly been critical of the idea.
Edwards, a Democratic former US senator from North Carolina, voted in 2000 and again in 2002 to advance the plan to put a national nuclear waste facility at Yucca Mountain, which is in rural Nevada. But last month, Edwards - who is hoping his prolabor credentials will result in a strong showing in Nevada, where unions are politically powerful - said he is now against the idea.
Edwards said he had become convinced that the Yucca Mountain facility could contaminate the ground water. Further, he said, transportation of nuclear waste to Nevada presents a national security threat during "a time of terrorism."
Richardson, now governor of New Mexico, also was content to let Yucca Mountain advance as a nuclear waste site when he was energy secretary. But while campaigning in Nevada, Richardson said he now favors opening Yucca Mountain as a national laboratory, instead of as a dump for the country's nuclear waste.
In Iowa, the energy test comes down to one word: ethanol. And Clinton, a New York Democrat who voted against ethanol early in her Senate career, sought to mend fences with Iowans last week, saying she now supports the product.
"I voted on behalf of my constituents," Clinton said in Iowa, explaining that the cost of transporting the product to New York would be burdensome to Empire State residents. But now that New York has ethanol plants, "I happily support corn ethanol, all forms of ethanol, research for cellulosic ethanol, biodiesel," she said.
Environmentalists are wary of ethanol because of the land use and energy required to produce it, said Nick Berning of Friends of the Earth.
One issue that has virtually united the Democratic candidates is raising the average level of fuel economy for cars and trucks. All support the 35 miles-per-gallon standard set in the Senate energy bill, which is likely to come before the full Congress early next month. And many, including Senator Barack Obama of Illinois, have advocated going beyond that standard.
Republicans - except Senator John McCain of Arizona, who supports higher fuel standards - have barely mentioned the issue.
