What do we see coming from the State House committee that has the
name “Affordability” in its title and from its omnibus energy bill that is
marketed by its supporters as “Cleaner and cheaper?” Apparently “Cleaner”, “Cheaper” and
“Affordability” includes leaving utility customers on the hook to pay the
stranded costs of non-operational nuclear plants!
The overall
omnibus bill that passed the State House on Earth Day and is headed to
conference committee repeals the moratorium on new nuclear power plant
construction in Minnesota even though the per-KWH cost of nuclear energy is more expensive than
energy efficiency, wind and utility solar!
At the end of the April 22nd session shortly before the Energy
Omnibus bill was voted on, I heard majority leader Joyce Peppin state “Nuclear
energy is a clean, affordable energy source” in favor of the nuclear moratorium
repeal.
My first question I thought of was,
"Do the hundreds of millions of dollars cost overruns which more than doubled the budget for
Xcel’s Monticello nuclear plant upgrade somehow qualify as 'affordable' just
because the money will be paid by utility customers rather than taken away from
corporate profits?"
Earlier on the same
evening I heard Representative Frank Hornstein say “Nuclear is bar none the most effective way to
generate energy.” So according to logic, one of them has to be wrong.
The big story here is
Representative Phyllis Kahn brought up an amendment that addressed a big issue
related to the repeal of the state new nuclear moratorium. She pointed out some
southern states that are actually constructing new nuclear Power Plants. Kahn
mentioned that Duke Energy in Georgia has a non-operational nuclear plant that
has added 9% to each utility bill and maybe 15% soon. Her amendment was to
shift the costs of nuclear plants before they are operational onto the power
utilities instead of the utility customers. She also remarked “Of course those
who profit from it don’t care as long as they have access to the people’s
pocket.”
First of all it is
unclear of anyone who has plans for a new nuclear plant in MN. I have read into
Xcel Energy’s 15 year business plan and found no plans for then building any
new nuclear. However Kahn’s amendment would at least force the utilities to
stop and think if they did chose to launch a nuclear renaissance.
I did not hear the
bill’s author Pat Garofalo make any make any comprehensive argument whatsoever
against this Kahn Amendment except for a tense-sounding and cursory remark
about encouraging new technologies.
Melissa Hortman brought
up how Xcel’s “mismanagement” led to their Monticello Nuclear Plant cost
overruns which in turn provoked back-to-back rate hikes from Xcel. Maybe the
cost-overruns were slightly different than the Kahn Amendment at hand, but
Hortman presented it as a case in point to how nuclear is actually expensive
and hard on affordability and rather than cheap and easy. There were staffers
who passed out printed out articles about the Monticello Cost overruns at
Hortman’s request, but to no avail. Rep Anzelc from Itasca also brought up how
the cost of storing the waste was not accounted for, that there is no such
thing as the company paying the costs, the ratepayer pays everything and there
is no place to store the nuclear waste.
From
what I saw, the GOP caucus was very silent in voicing any critique of this
Amendment but
nevertheless voted it down 52-77.
So those who use the term “affordable energy” as a club to marginalize the
young solar industry were apparently not moved by over $400 million in cost
overruns at Monticello Nuclear, probably because the expense is not taken out
of corporate profits but from ratepayers.
Bill
Summary: http://www.house.leg.state.mn.us/hrd/bs/89/HF0843.pdf
No comments:
Post a Comment