October 8th, 2016
It was a long, long day. Bottom line? Based on the record, and based on acknowledgement of Xcel’s peak demand history, we can shut down Sherco 1 & 2 now without missing it, and by 2025 or so, shut down Prairie Island and not have to pay for significant rehab to keep it running.
Here is the PUC webcast:
Here is my handout, noting the 700-788MW overstatement of peak demand forecast.
With the “forecast” that much off, it’s as absurd as the CapX 2020 2.49% annual increase. Staff questioned the forecasts in the Briefing Papers, Commissioner Lange raised forecasts right off the bat, and Commissioner Schuerger claimed it was at least 300 MW off (don’t know where that 300 MW came from). These discrepancies havce been noted, and they should dig deeper, because the numbers used by Xcel do not add up. Were they lying in the SEC filings or are they lying now? Why isn’t Commerce challenging this, given admissions of the existing surplus? This forecast overstatement, plus admission of under-utilization of grid (meaning grid has been overbuilt, DOH, CapX 2020 and MVP projects are not “needed” in any sense) raises a few issues:
1) This misrepresentation is NOW equivalent to at least one coal plant, and by the end of 2030, or by the time presumed for shut down of Sherco 1 and 2, it’s much more than that.
2) This misrepresentation avoids consideration of shut down of Sherco 1 & 2 NOW, and shutdown of Prairie Island at the 2024-2026 time frame, and avoidance of $600-900 million in capital costs, or more, for Prairie Island.
3) This misrepresentation circumvents discussion of the admitted surplus now existing, even Dr. Rakow admitted to that at least twice in Thursday’s discussion. Where there is surplus, they can sell it elsewhere, and that is, after all, the purpose of CapX 2020 and MVP transmission.
Got that? We can shut down Sherco 1 & 2 now without missing it, and by 2025 or so, shut down Prairie Island and not have to pay for significant rehab to keep it running. This is not rocket science. It’s as simple as using actual peak demand as a starting point and not making up numbers as they have been doing.
September 17th, 2016
There’s a NRC meeting on Tuesday about the “License Termination Plan” coming up:
6-8 p.m. on Tuesday, September 20, 2016
La Crosse Downtown/Mississippi Riverfront
500 Front St. South, La Crosse, WI
Now think about it… why tear down what’s left of the Genoa plant? So asks George Nygaard! Shouldn’t this be a historical site?
My father worked on the conventional side of the Elk River Allis nuclear plant, a demonstration project way back when. That was decommissioned back in the early 70s and is now a garbage burner. When the demonstration project was completed, and they tried to sell it, no local utility wanted it! Good call! Genoa was another matter, and Dairyland bought it for $1. Still not a great deal, because here we are now spending millions on decommissioning. How much? See below… they’re not telling.
Here’s the NRC page, with zero links:
Where’s the info on this? Here’s the press release, does it say why are we having a meeting?
Well, it looks like it’s to discuss the “License Termination Plan” according to their notice. But what’s to comment on? Why is there no link? After much digging, FOUND IT! From the NRC’s page:
La Crosse Boiling Water Reactor, License Amendment Request for the License Termination Plan.
Accession Number: ML16200A095
Date Released: Wednesday, July 27, 2016
- ML16200A083 – La Crosse Boiling Water Reactor, License Amendment Request for the License Termination Plan. (39 page(s), 7/27/2016)
- ML16200A085 – La Crosse Boiling Water Reactor License Termination Plan – Chapter 1 – General Information, Rev 0. (19 page(s), 6/27/2016)
- ML16200A086 – La Crosse Boiling Water Reactor License Termination Plan – Chapter 2 – Site Characterization, Rev. 0. (83 page(s), 6/27/2016)
- ML16200A087 – La Crosse Boiling Water Reactor License Termination Plan – Chapter 3 – Identification Of Remaining Site Dismantlement Activities, Rev. 0. (24 page(s), 6/27/2016)
- ML16200A088 – La Crosse Boiling Water Reactor License Termination Plan – Chapter 4 – Remediation Plan, Rev. 0. (31 page(s), 6/27/2016)
- ML16200A089 – La Crosse Boiling Water Reactor License Termination Plan – Chapter 5 – Final Radiation Survey Plan, Rev. 0. (74 page(s), 6/27/2016)
- ML16200A093 – La Crosse Boiling Water Reactor License Termination Plan – Chapter 6 – Compliance With The Radiological Criteria For License Termination, Rev. 0. (114 page(s), 6/27/2016)
- ML16200A091 – La Crosse Boiling Water Reactor License Termination Plan – Chapter 8, – Supplement To The Environmental Report, Rev 0. (37 page(s), 6/27/2016)
- ML16200A090 – La Crosse Boiling Water Reactor License Termination Plan – Chapter 7, Redacted – Update Of The Site-Specific Decommissioning Costs, Rev. 0. (14 page(s), 6/27/2016)
Look at this — how do we comment on redactions?
Some other docs:
July 22nd, 2016
Well, that was interesting… and it took all evening!
First a sidebar, but an important one. The Agenda CBS Public Meeting-Minneapolis caught my attention, seeing PUC Commissioner John Tuma named front and center. The PUC’s page on Commissioner ex parte, conflict, and basic decorum has disappeared — I called the PUC about Commissioner Tuma’s appearance (fair warning, prior to event), and noted that the page had disappeared. Here are the rules (the page was what stressed the importance of avoiding even the appearance of impropriety:
Subpart 1. General behavior.
A commissioner or employee shall respect and comply with the law and shall behave in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the commission’s decision making process.
Subp. 2. Actions prohibited.
Commissioners and employees shall avoid any action that might result in or create a conflict of interest or the appearance of impropriety, including:
A. using public office for private gain;
B. giving preferential treatment to an interested person or entity;
C. impeding the efficiency or economy of commission decision making;
D. losing independence or impartiality of action;
E. making a commission decision outside official channels; and
F. affecting adversely the confidence of the public in the integrity of the commission.
Subp. 4. Outside employment.
A commissioner or employee shall not negotiate for or accept outside employment or other involvement in a business or activity that will impair the person’s independence of judgment in the exercise of official duties.
I registered this in a Comment section, provided copies of the rules, and expected something similar to Commissioner Koppendrayer’s response in a similar situation years ago (see below). Commissioner Tuma is new, and being there was not the worst of possible activities, other past and present Commissioners have done much worse, but it’s not OK. His presence on the panel, on the stage, lends the impression of support of the DOE’s efforts, and nuclear waste, nuclear decommissioning funds, nuclear uprates and rehab, all are issues that have been and will be in front of the Commission in highly contested cases. It lends the appearance of losing independence, impartiality, and impairment of judgment in future exercise of official duties.
I’ve seen this a few times. One positive experience was at the Sawmill Inn when Commissioner Koppendrayer was named on a coal gasification love-fest panel when Excelsior’s Mesaba Project was before the PUC, and I’d called the Commission ahead of time and spoken to the then Asst. A.G. who said, not to worry, they knew ex parte and conflict of interest and rules of decorum. Yet at that meeting, which Koppendrayer DID attend despite advance warning, I jumped up and objected from the back of the room, noting the PUC’s focus on avoiding even the appearance of impropriety, and Koppendrayer said something like “Overland’s got a point, and I should leave” and he did! He earned quite a few “respect” points that day. IEDC gets carried away February 15, 2007.
On the other hand, I’m also remembering Commissioner Phyllis Reha’s coal gasification junket to Belgium via Great Plains Institute, a well-funded toady for coal gasification (and GPI was on panel last night, another cause for concern, how much were they paid!). How blatant can you get? MCGP Request for Recusal (Commission saw no problem!).
… and there’s her stumping for CapX 2020 transmission: PUC Commissioner Reha: Enhancing the Nation’s Electricity Delivery System. That was the basis of another Motion, but of course, Commissioner Reha and the Commission saw no problem with her actions! NoCapX Motion to Recuse Commissioner Reha & Exhibit A – Reha Power Point Presentation.
And then there’s Great Plains Institute’s involvement. After their intense and well funded toadying for coal gasification ($437,000 over 21 months), and transmission, and then Xcel Energy’s e21, Dog help us! Anything GPISD in involved with has got my attention, and not in a good way!
Last night’s agenda was packed, and we got a lot done. A guy name Scott Thomas (the NSP engineer perhaps?) was at my table and jumped up and objected when we had a bit of opposition theater, I jumped up to counter, DOH, every hear of freedom of speech. I mean really, it took all of 5 minutes, let people speak up!
Here’s my comment, in large part based on “consent” a la SNUY’s approach for sexual consent, substituting “nuclear” for sexual — if we’re going to get screwed, this is the best possible of consent definitions:
Here’s the DOE’s Consent-Based Siting page. Notice was in the Federal Register, who reads that? Invitation for Public Comment in the Federal Register. Comments are being taken through July 31 or email to them at firstname.lastname@example.org.
Here’s how they’re framing it, with questions to be answered:
- How can the Department ensure that the process for selecting a site is fair?
- What models and experience should the Department use in designing the process?
- Who should be involved in the process for selecting a site, and what is their role?
- What information and resources do you think would facilitate your participation?
- What else should be considered?
We broke into small groups and actually had a pretty good discussion. Peggy Rehder, Red Wing City Council, was also at “Table 2” and of course we’re disagreeing. She’s frustrated at having spent 6 years on this and getting nowhere, but in terms of nuclear waste, 6 years is but a second or two… I’ve got 22 years in, and some there had many more. A key point was that the DOE must restore trust if it wants to get anywhere, and how would that happen? Stopping production of more nuclear waste is a key step. Dream on… this process is a move to enable continued generation of nuclear waste, continued operation of nuclear plants, now being relicensed, uprated, nuclear waste expanded.
Prairie Island’s President Shelly Buck was on the panel, and that was good — PIIC is in such a mess, the plant and nuclear waste right next door, and they’ve been screwed over so many ways, so many times. Will they be regarded as a “stakeholder” this time around? They’ve intervened in so many nuclear matters, doing everything they can to protect the Community…
Parts of it were webcast. There will be a video of the evening’s festivities sometime, LINK HERE (when it’s posted, scroll down to “Minneapolis”) and there was a photographer snapping shots every few seconds (hmmmm, well, I guess that will be added to all our files!).
Karen Hadden, SEED Coalition (that SEED Coalition grew from Energy Foundation funding, same as MN’s defunct “SEED Coalition” which morphed into “RE-AMP” about 2005), was present, and vocal (YES!), regarding their concerns about nuclear waste siting in Texas and New Mexico, particularly about a recent application to NRC for a nuclear waste storage facility in western Texas, near the New Mexico border. See www.NoNuclearWasteAqui.org for more info.
Alan Muller, environmental consultant in Minnesota, and Exec. Dir. of Green Delaware, spoke of his having TWO Prairie Island reactors on the other side of town here in Red Wing, and the THREE Salem and Hope Creek reactors, visible from the office window in Port Penn, Delaware.
Here’s the Arizona meeting, CHECK OUT THE VIDEO HERE. Well worth the listen, the panel is much better qualified than the one in Minnesota (with the exception of Prairie Island’s Shelly Buck, and Canada’s Kathryn Shaver from their Adaptive Phases Management Engagement and Site Selection, Nuclear Waste Management Organization, listen up to them when Mpls. video is released).
I think it’s worth trotting out the EQB Citizens Advisory Task Force report on nuclear waste, from the Florence Township Nuclear Waste Daze:
And also thing about the many casks on Prairie Island — those TN-40s and TN-29 have aluminum seals that need to be replaced EVERY 20 YEARS, and to my knowledge they’ve not been replaced, and there are casks that have been loaded and sitting there for more than 20 years. What’s up with that? What’s the plan? Back when they were permitting that, there was no plan. So…
Consider this 3 Stooges approach to cask unloading — don’t know of any other attempt to unload casks, maybe that’s one of the lessons learned here:
Here’s an INEL report on a TN24 leak:
And an NRC report on unloading:
Here’s an EPRI report on (these technical reports are important!) Creep and Crud, which occurs with storage:
Here’s a report generated after the “ignition event” at Pt. Beach, where spent fuel was loaded in a cask, then set out of the pool, and let sit overnight, then they attempted to well it, well, welding cask full of bubbles of hydrogen from the interaction of zinc and the acidic solution the assemblies are sitting in, left overnight, BOOM!
Where are all the reports about the weld flaws on the VSC-24 casks? They’re in Pt. Beach, Palisades, and Arkansas One.
And here’s a report relevant to us here in Minnesota, given all our granite and our “2nd place” position in the federal site selection resulting in “choice” of Yucca Mountain:
July 13th, 2016
The DOE is hosting a meeting on “consent-based” nuclear waste siting? Who are stakeholders? What does it take to become a “stakeholder?” Who has legitimate authority to give consent for storing nuclear waste? Who would agree? And who would agree and on whose behalf, i.e., City of Red Wing, Goodhue County agreeing on behalf of those of us living here? AAAAAAAAACK!?!?! And given how the Minnesota legislature has dealt with nuclear waste, mandating siting “in Goodhue County.”
Thursday, July 21 from 5-9 p.m.
Hilton – 1001 Marquette
From the south, hop on light rail at Ft. Snelling, and transfer or hoof it down to 10th & Marquette.
If you can’t make the meeting, check the Invitation for Public Comment in the Federal Register and email Comments to email@example.com by July 31, 2016.
From the DOE:
The purpose of the consent-based siting public meeting is to hear from the public and interested stakeholders on what matters to you as the Department of Energy moves forward in developing a consent-based process for siting the facilities needed to manage spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste. The agenda includes a presentation from the Department of Energy’s Acting Assistant Secretary for Nuclear Energy, John Kotek. Mr. Kotek will discuss the nuclear energy activities that have brought us to this point, as well as describe the Department’s vision for an integrated waste management system and the need for a consent-based approach to siting. This presentation will be followed by a panel session with several experts providing diverse perspectives on the primary issues that need to be resolved in the design and implementation of a consent-based process. Participants will then have the opportunity to comment or ask questions to the Department and the panelists.
Following this session, there will be facilitated small group discussions on a variety of topics related to consent-based siting and integrated waste management. These small group discussions will provide the opportunity for participants to engage more closely on topics of interest to them. The Department intends for these small group discussions to be frank and open sessions on key topics that will inform the design of a consent-based process. The consent-based process will in turn serve as a framework for working with potential host communities in the future.
The agenda also includes a public comment period and two open houses with poster sessions before and after the formal meeting. The open house sessions provide participants with an opportunity to engage in less formal discussions with the Department and other meeting attendees.
December 30th, 2015
“Northern States Power d/b/a Xcel Energy” filed a rate case with the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission, PUC Docket 15-826. You can see all the filings — GO HERE TO PUC SEARCH PAGE — and search for docket 15-826.
Monday, January 4 at 1:30 p.m.
PUC Large Hearing Room – 3rd Floor
121 – 7th Place E.
St. Paul, MN 55101
Xcel is asking for a big increase, and they admit it’s transmission driven. So yes, I’m interested, you betcha. No CapX 2020 and Carol A. Overland (as individual) have intervened:
So far, here’s what’s been happening:
A rough schedule has been proposed by Commerce DER, which will be hashed out at the Prehearing Conference, and probably altered as the case moves forward:
The PUC Staff Briefing Papers for last Thursday’s meeting:
Here’s the webcast: Video – should be good for 90 days from Dec. 10
Video – Docket 15-662 — Rate Design — video at 00:15:00 – 02:20:00
Video – Docket 15-826 — Rate Case — starts at 02:20:00
There has been one other intervention — “The Commercial Group” which is the biggies, like Walmart. There have been several Notice of Appearances filed, but not interventions. ???
The AG’s Office has been the only one filing challenging comments thus far, which is why I have felt the need to barge in. The “usual suspects” have been part of the e21 nonsense, and other agreements in the past that have both compromised their position and not been in the public interest. Here are the AG Comments thus far. RUD is dead on about NSP/Xcel’s overstatements, and those proven overstatements should be sufficient to grind this thing to a halt and get on more realistic terms:
This is just Minnesota. Obviously there will be a similar proceeding in Wisconsin in the very near future.
And given this rate case is transmission driven, the linkage between the FERC approved MISO rate and the reduction of return on equity in the FERC docket will have to be addressed:
December 29th, 2015