Legalectric

It’s old news, be it “mad cow” or “sheep scrapie” or “pissy deer” a/k/a Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE), Chronic Wasting Disease (CWD), and it’s here in Minnesota, this time the DNR reports another round of CWD revealed in deer:

Third infected deer discovered in Minnesota’s CWD outbreak

Here’s the DNR’s page on chronically wasted deer:

Chronic Wasting Disease Management

Notice the DNR is talking about “management” and not prevention and eradication.

As a former meat hauler, and as a for-the-most-part veggie, I noticed years ago when a local man died of Jakob-Creutzfeld (don’t know if it was “variant” or not, that was not reported one way or the other), and have been waiting for the other shoe to drop.  It did later, when three Wisconsin men died of Jakob-Creutzfeld — the Center for Disease Control is paying attention (but not nearly enough):

Fatal Degenerative Neurologic Illnesses in Men Who Participated in Wild Game Feasts

Not just Minnesota and Wisconsin –here’s the US map (linked) — what concerns me is that it looks like only the Fillmore County and that the Pine Island CWD cases aren’t shown, where deer and elk were found, an entire elk herd shot::

Here’s bad news from Arkansas, lots of bad news:

Yearly Archives: 2016

Today on the PUC’s agenda? AWA Goodhue’s request for Reconsideration of the PUC’s remand to an Administrative Law Judge.

Here’s their remand Order and subsequent filings:

PUC’s Order – Remand to OAH

And from that Order, here’s what the PUC wants from the ALJ:

1. The ALJ assigned to this matter is requested to develop a record on every standard in Article 18 that is more stringent than what the Commission has heretofore applied to LWECS and make recommendations regarding each such standard whether the Commission should adopt it for Large Wind Energy Conversion Systems in Goodhue County. The Commission has identified two such standards in this Order (Section 4 and Section 6) but is not by this Order restricting the ALJ from developing the record and making recommendations regarding additional standards in Article 18 that upon further examination meet the “more stringent” qualification.

2. The ALJ assigned to this matter is requested to allow the parties to develop a factual record on the question of “good cause” as that term appears in Minn. Stat. § 216F.081 and to provide recommendations on whether, with respect to each standard in Article 18 identified in the course of her review as “more stringent” than what the Commission has heretofore applied to LWECS, there is “good cause” for the Commission to not apply the standard to siting LWECS in Goodhue County.

3. As the ALJ addresses the issues identified in the previous two sections, the ALJ is requested to include (but not limited to, by this Order) whether there is sufficient evidence regarding health and safety to support a 10 rotor diameter set-back for non-participating residents and the stray voltage requirements.

To which AWA Goodhue said  …. “NOOOO, we want you to undo that decision” …

AWA Motion – Text only – maps are too big

… and to which we said, “PPFFFFFFFFFFFFFBBBBBT!” …

Goodhue Wind Truth – Response to Motion for Reconsideration

… including a section you really ought to read:

III. THERE IS A SYSTEMIC FLAW IN THE PROCESS BY WHICH MATERIAL INFORMATION IS NOT FORWARDED TO THE COMMISSION

… and from Goodhue County:

Goodhue County – Response – late filed

… and then the AWA Goodhue’s Reply – quite pissy, eh?

AWA Goodhue Reply

… and some others on behalf of AWA:

“Wind on the Wires” Izaak Walton League Comment

GE Energy Comment – late filed

… and PUC staff weighs in:

Staff Briefing Papers (a separate revised cover sheet filed later)

… and then at 8:21 a.m. this morning, served by eFiling, and Document Properties show it wasn’t pdf’d until 4:03… TODD GUERERRO, WHATEVER ARE YOU THINKING… this from AWA Goodhue trying to wiggle into mediation somehow rather than a proceeding before the Administrative Law Judge.  Mediation???  Mediation has it’s place, but… well, anyway, here’s what they said:

AWA Goodhue Last Minute Letter

The Commission was probably not pleased, the timing of that latest filing was duly noted, and after a short discussion about the availability of mediation in any contested case, under the administrative rules it’s always an option, the discussion led by Commissioner Reha, who as an ALJ had mediated the Chisago Transmission Project (were any of the Commissioners around then?  Perhaps Pugh?):

Deal – NSP – Taylors Falls – St. Croix Falls

That’s one result of that mediation, one which I certainly wouldn’t be proud of, because though it did underground down the banks of the St. Croix River, it DOUBLED the capacity, and I don’t think anyone other than our friends at NSP had any clue what dropping voltage but bundling BIG conductors meant.  Well, Art Hughes, Ph. D., of course, but he’s dead… And at the time,  it was disturbing the way ALJ Phyllis Reha and George Crocker were on the stage of the Festival Theatre in St. Croix Falls stumping for the deal and urging Concerned River Valley Citizens to adopt the deal.  WHY, what’s in it for them?  For CRVC, nothing!  And why would Reha and Crocker want CRVC to adopt that deal?  Enough to be promoting it on stage before CRVC?  CRVC said NO, and the rest is history…

So anyway, to make a short story long, the PUC talked about Reconsideration and the referral to OAH a bit, Commissioner Reha mentioned some things she is concerned about as material facts at issue, they expressly stated they did not want to Reconsider, and they all (4, Betsy Wergin was missing) said NO to AWA Goodhue’s Motion for Reconsideration.

Onward!

.

And the pitch?  Nothing new, just RE-AMP toadying for utilities, but I’m waiting for Howard “The Slow” Learner to prove me right, again… and to see how far they go to promote transmission.

April 20 & 21st is Learner’s/Environmental Law & Policy Center‘s and RE-AMP’s “invitation only” transmission strategy workshop, at their office in Chicago, and I surmise much about their goal and strategy based on my many past experiences with transmission promoters.  This meeting is very unlike the Sierra Club transmission strategy meeting in West Virginia last spring, a great group of people who understand the purpose of transmission, were actively engaged in fighting it and who have been successful in slowing down that big web of 500kV/765kV lines known as Project Mountaineer.   Here in the Midwest, it’s a little different.  An example:

The ELPC has also been working with the South Dakota Energy Infrastructure Authority to develop and expand transmission lines across South Dakota. They will also work with neighboring states to develop new approaches for more transmission. The available wind energy in South Dakota is far greater than the state’s electricity needs, so the ability to move this power out of the state is crucial.

What is ELPC doing to develop and expand transmission?  Transmission lines across South Dakota moving this power out of state means it comes into Minnesota — funny how that works.  What is ELPC doing about the coal plants in queue in the Dakotas?

What is the goal of ELPC’s invitation-only Transmission Strategy Meeting?

Anyway, it was no surprise to me — Learner saw I was on the list and has slammed the door in my face!  Imagine that!  SNORT!  It seems that people with a lot of working knowledge of transmission, knowledge of history, and knowledge of the parties involved are not welcome.  Specifics on this meeting are below.

Don’t drop the ball, Howard!  Will Howard Learner and ELPC be the utilities’ water boy for transmission that’s planned stretching from the Midwest to the East Coast or acknowledge that more big transmission is not needed or wanted?  And why would anyone want to advocate for transmission to the East Coast if the East Coast doesn’t want it?  Will they respect the East Coast’s solid “NO!” to Midwest transmission?  How ethno-geo-centric will they be?

Here are a few posts with links to the primary documents of NYISO & ISO-NE, NY’s Deputy Secretary of Energy, the 10 Mid-Atlantic Governors letter, etc.

DUH… eastern states don’t want our transmission

Offshore transmission, NOT transmission from Midwest

Eastern Governors stand up against Transmission!!!

The windup?  Today’s Chicago Tribune has a disturbing article about transmission, foreshadowing the meeting three weeks from now:

Putting wind generated power where it’s needed

For example, from the article:

In order to integrate and move that alternative power east through Illinois, the grid would have to be expanded and upgraded, say transmission experts and utility companies.

The estimated cost to move that wind power east could range from $64 billion to $93 billion in 2009 dollars and would require 17,000 to 22,000 miles of transmission lines to be built in the eastern half of the country alone, according to the Eastern Wind Integration and Transmission Study (EWITS) published in January and prepared for the National Renewable Energy Laboratory.

Just a reminder, Matt Schuerger who worked on this EWITS (or “nitwits”) study is the same one who, together with Beth Soholt, asked me and several others to sell out on the SW MN 345kV line.  At that time, he was at ME3 (after a stint at District Energy) and is listed as a consultant on Izaak Walton 990s, and Beth Soholt, Izaak Walton League (formerly of MAPP).  FYI – Wind on the Wires is a GRANT, not an organization — it’s listed on the Izaak Walton 990s as a “program” despite having a Minnesota non-profit established (CLICK HERE for Secretary of State link).  From May, 2001 NWCC minutes:

Matt Schuerger is, in 2022, a 2nd term Commissioner at Minnesota PUC (notice his bio doesn’t mention his working for Waltons, ME3/Fresh Energy, and Wind on the Wires!).

2008-Izaak Walton League 990

2007-Izaak Walton League 990

2006-Izaak Walton League 990

2005-Izaak Walton League 990

2004-Izaak Walton League 990

Color me naive, I really didn’t have a clue (other than the enviros’ obscene deal on Prairie Island in 1994) until that meeting in question, it was on or about Sept. 8, 2001, when Beth and Matt asked about 6-7 of us who were likely intervenors in that docket to sell out.   “What would you need to approve of this line?” (the SW MN 345kV line, PUC Docket 01-1958).  I asked what they were getting and what they’d share, and what they were getting was pissy and they got pissier the more questions I asked, particularly Matt, who made empty threats about walking out — DUH, please, leave!  The most important question they didn’t address was, “What about the big long list of coal in queue on p. 29 of the study, waiting for the transmission that they were promoting?”  Defensive pissyness, unwillingness to address the big picture, and silence.  Schuerger and Soholt, they were so B Squad about it that afternoon at the Loring Cafe, Dinkytown, in 2001.  That was the year that “Wind on the Wires” got $4.5 million to promote transmission.  That amount was ramped up for the next grant, and the focus of their deal became clear when one agreement was posted on the TRANSLink docket.  A o coupfle days later, “Wind on the Wires”  got an Energy Foundation/McKnight grant of $8.1 million.  $8.1 MILLION! Hmmmmm…

The Energy Foundation/McKnight funded and orchestrated promotion of transmission has been shameless, as bad as the enviro support for coal gasification, their transmission efforts ranging from attempts to gain endorsement of the regional SEED group (organizations that as a whole knew nothing about transmission) to legislative “it’s a deal, a package deal and it’s a good deal” changes desired by utilities, to NWCC “concensus building” to supportive intervention in transmission dockets.  That agenda continues despite clear evidence that midwest transmission supports coal, our RES that does not link an increase in renewables with a decrease in coal, MISO policy that has a goal of displacing natural gas with coal (see “Conclusions” in ICF – Midwest ISO Benefits Analysis) , and decreased demand and a conservation mandate, such that transmission is not needed now and probably not needed ever.  Whose interests are these organizations acting in?  Their interests, their funders’ interests.  Where’s consideration of the public interest?

What did they agree to back then?  Here’s one example that’s public:

Settlement Agreement – ME3(Fresh Energy), Izaak Walton League, Minnesota Center for Environmental Advocacy, North American Water Office

Take a closer look at “Wind on the Wires” that is a subset of the Izaak Walton League.  Do members and chapters of the Izaak Walton League have a clue what this organization is advocating?  Though there is a Minnesota “non-profit” registered, as above, it remains a “program” on the Izaak Walton League IRS 990s and Beth Soholt is an employee of the Waltons.  From the website, here’s the address, same as the Waltons:

Office Location

Wind on the Wires
1619 Dayton Avenue, Suite 203
St Paul, MN 55104
(651) 644-3400

Their list of  WOW Staff and Consultants:

Beth Soholt
Director, Wind on the Wires

Linda Brewster
Administrative Associate, Wind on the Wires

Matthew Schuerger, P.E.
Technical Consultant

Natalie McIntire
Technical/Policy Consultant

And take a look at who is on the board of “Wind on the Wires”, why the whole family is there:

Board Members
R.T. “Hap” Boyd
GE Energy

Hans Detweiler
American Wind Energy Association

Joe DeVito
RES – Americas

Tom Feiler
Clipper Windpower

Richard Free
John Deere Wind Energy

Bob Gough
Intertribal Council on Utility Policy

Ian Krygowski
enXco

Howard Learner
Environmental Law and Policy Center

Kevin Lynch
IBERDROLA RENEWABLES

Michael Vickerman
RENEW Wisconsin

(And would you look at that, Rick Free?!?!  Too funny — I’ve got to tell Nancy Prehn what Rick Free is up to since we killed his Simon Industries gas plant in Waseca!)

And the pitch:

The ELPC Midwest Transmission Strategy Meeting.  The shameless Energy Foundation funded (and is this also McKnight Foundation funded?)  and orchestrated promotion of transmission continues.  First, on March 5th this appeared in my inbox:

Colleagues –

1.  We appreciate the Energy Foundation’s grant support to cover reasonable travel/hotel costs for individuals and organizations that may need assistance in order to attend this important regional meeting.

2.  Please call/email Kay Tamillow at ELPC (312-795-3709, ktamillow@elpc.org) for information on the favorable hotel rate that ELPC has obtained and to make reservations.

3.  Please RSVP to attend if you’re interested and have not yet done so.

Best wishes,

Howard
———————————

Midwest/Great Plains Environmental, Clean Energy and Consumer Colleagues,

Please join us for a Midwest Transmission Strategy Meeting on April 20 (dinner) and April 21 (full day), 2010 in Chicagoat the Environmental Law & Policy Center’s conference space, 35 East Wacker Drive.  New major interstate transmission lines in the Midwest/Great Plains are a double-edged sword:  On the one hand, they can provide additional needed delivery capacity for wind power and other new renewable energy development; on the other hand, they can provide enabling delivery capacity and lifelines of support for the continued operation of old highly-polluting coal plants.  We will be developing strategies to advance the former and avoid the latter.  We will also address important cost-allocation issues for new transmission.  Please RSVP to Kay Tamillow at ktamillow@elpc.org or 312-795-3709.  More info to follow on hotel, etc.

The purposes of the strategy meeting are to: (1) Bring together Midwest environmental, clean energy and consumer leaders to learn together and get up-to-speed on key transmission strategy and policy issues, (2) Set the strategic framework for what types of transmission lines we will support and which not, and what we can and should do through advocacy; and (3) Initiate strategic discussions and actions on high-leverage transmission advocacy targets in the Midwest/Great Plains states.

The importance of new transmission capacity to support wind power development is relatively clear. There is a less obvious and equally important goal of relating transmission advocacy to spur the retirement of old, highly-polluting coal plants in the Midwest/Great Plains states. There is a very important set of strategic leverage points because of the structure of the Midwest/Great Plains power market in 2010 – 2020.

The framework for the agenda is as follows below. We will distribute a final agenda closer to the meeting date.

April 20th, 5:30 pm. – 8:30 pm:
Dinner Meeting and Briefing with wind industry and transmission line developers presenting.

April 21st, 8:30 am – 4:30 pm:
Morning: Strategy briefing and short course on key transmission issues and opportunities for environmental, clean energy and consumer advocates.

Afternoon: Strategy planning and discussion on: (1) Engagement/intervention in key policymaking forums: FERC, MISO, State PUCs, Public Outreach; and (2) Focus on Pros/Cons and potential challenges to particular transmission line proposals in Midwest/Great Plains region.

The agenda planning group includes:

Citizens Utility Board (Illinois) – David Kolata
Energy Foundation – David Wooley and Ben Paulos
Environmental Law & Policy Center – Howard Learner and John Moore
Fresh Energy – Michael Noble
Kresge Foundation – Lois DeBacker
Michigan Environmental Council – James Clift
Wind on the Wires – Beth Soholt

Please RSVP to Kay Tamillow at ktamillow@elpc.org or 312-795-3709.  More info to follow on hotel, etc. ELPC is working to obtain foundation support to cover reasonable travel costs for individuals and organizations that may need assistance.  Please indicate in your response if you will need reimbursement of reasonable travel costs.

We all understand the strategic importance of this meeting and the issues to be discussed. Thank you in advance for you participation and engagement. Please let me know if you have any questions or suggestions.

Best wishes,

Howard

Howard A. Learner
Executive Director
Environmental Law & Policy Center
35 East Wacker Drive, Suite 1300
Chicago, Illinois 60601
email:  HLearner@elpc.org
phone: (312) 673-6500
Please visit ELPC’s website at www.elpc.org

And of course knowing what they’re up to, I signed right up right after I got it, and Alan did too.   We’re all set!  Then, on the 16th, I get this, from Howard Learner:

Howard Learner wrote:

Carol and Alan,

I’m writing to let you know that the Transmission Strategy Meeting on April 20-21 is a “by invitation only” strategy session among a group of directly invited environmental – clean energy – consumer colleagues, rather than an open conference or seminar event.  Members of the planning group for this particular strategy session have asked that we limit attendees to those directly invited.  Although my assistant Kay Tamillow did receive your RSVP, we’ll ask that you not plan to attend.

Thank you for understanding,

Howard

Howard A. Learner
Executive Director
Environmental Law & Policy Center
35 East Wacker Drive, Suite 1300
Chicago, Illinois 60601
email: HLearner@elpc.org
phone: (312) 673-6500
Please visit ELPC’s website at www.elpc.org

So here’s my response to Howard’s email:

Howard –

Interesting — I  think I understand some things and don’t understand others. I do know that I am thinking that the “plan” is getting more and more interesting…

The Sierra Club had an excellent transmission strategy planning meeting in West Virginia last spring of those intervening in transmission dockets, attorneys, expert witnesses, and advocates from both coasts regarding their focused and effective efforts. I think I shall regard your missive as confirmation that your strategic plan and goal is quite different from that of Sierra.

But many questions remain…

Carol A. Overland
Attorney representing clients in transmission cases across the country for 15 years now

We’ll see how this goes!

The Delaware’s Public Service Commission (at least they still call it “public service”!!!) is holding meetings Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday on the Delmarva Power and Light Integrated Resource Plan.

Tuesday, January 12 @ 7 p.m.

Carvel State Office Building, 2nd Floor Auditorium

820 N French Street
Wilmington – DE, 19801

Wednesday, January 13 @ 7 p.m.

DTCC – Owens Campus Theatre – Arts and Science Building
Rt 18, Seashore Hwy
Georgetown – DE, 19947

Thursday, January 14, @ 7 p.m.

Cannon Building, Ste 100
861 Silver Lake Blvd
Dover – DE, 19904

But wait… no plan has been filed, no plan is due to be filed until May…

EH?

Nothing there.  So let’s look at the DPS IRP site:

CLICK HERE FOR DPS IRP SITE

Ummmmmmm… THERE’S NOTHING THERE

Really, check it out, I defy you to find one thing on Docket 10-02!

EH?

So I says to myself, I says, “There’s LOTS that needs to be a part of this Delmarva IRP!”  Particularly where when I commented way back in December 2008 that demand was down and when would Delmarva produce updated forecasts and nada, they wouldn’t even address it.  Todd Goodman just got pissy, to the point where he deserved one of these:

And so today, here’s what I sent in, gathering up some of the choice documents from this New Jersey Susquehanna-Roseland transmission fight, and wrapped it up and tied it with a bow:

Overland IRP Comment – 1-11-10

Exhibit C – MAPP Request to Suspend – Jan 8, 2010

Exhibit D – PATH-VA Press Release – Withdrawal 12-29-09

Exhibit E – PJM PATH Sensitivity Analysis & Cover Letters

Exhibit F – Letter NJ Comm. Fiordaliso – Official Notice 1-6-10

Exhibit G – Offshore wind and transmission Memorandum of Understanding

So now it’s your turn — it’s a blank slate!

Send Comments on Delmarva’s nonexistent IRP to:

ruth.price@state.de.us

Be sure to note on the Comment that it’s for IRP Docket 10-02.

EH?

It’s just another day in a company town…

Just who do they think they are?  Xcel is getting pissy, spewing its arrogance in a way that should be embarassing, but they’re too arrogant to get it.  This sounds a lot like Tom Micheletti to me!  Unreal…

Xcel is complaining about the City of Red Wing, which has taken a long needed step in representing City residents by intervening in the PUC docket for Xcel’s uprate and more dry casks at the Prairie Island nuclear generating plant.  In my view that’s only a small partial step, but it’s a welcome one.

Notice of Appearance

Petition to Intervene

Motion to Amend First Prehearing Order

Red Wing dove in last week, these came in last week.  This is good news!

Red Wing also passed a resolution at the last City Council meeting, clarifying their position:

City Council Resolution 5972

And Xcel is not pleased about this resolution, or their Intervention either, I imagine … isn’t that too bad… but they have to act like an abusive partner, firing off a pissy missive to the Mayor and City Council, wanting to redo the resolution and upset that it wasn’t CLEARED BY XCEL FIRST!!! Really, they say that twice:

While we support your participation in the process, we are disappointed that we were not allowed to review the resolution prior to passage.

…and…

More troubling to us, however, was the process used to rescind the prior resolution of support and adopt the new one. While we respect and support the city’s right to participate in the process and raise any concerns it may have, we also believe this decision should be based on accurate facts and with input from residents and other stakeholders. Refusing us the ability to review the resolution prior to adoption signals an abrupt change to our long-standing, constructive relationship. We believe that such a significant change in position warranted input and comment from residents and all stakeholders. We would support further dialogue on this issue in public forums, as it is a significant issue for the community.

And I remember a statement when their prior resolution had been before the City Council, that it had been “approved by Michael Wadley.”  That one got a double take from moi.  But to send this… How clueless can they be?  Through this letter, we learn from the horse’s… er… mouth… what I’ve suspected, known, for a long time, that Xcel was running the City of Red Wing and that the City did not do anything without approval of Xcel and did many things because it was what Xcel wanted.  Doesn’t Xcel get that an admission of this sort IN WRITING, and even sent TO THE NEWSPAPER, is against interest?  I’m glad it’s finally out in the open, that prior councils and mayors had been led around by the nose, bowing in subservience, “are we bending over far enough?” … and it’s about time this changed.

Xcel screwed over the city, well, many times, but the most obvious to me was their use of City and County “supporters” by the busload to get their nuclear waste storage at Prairie Island in 1994, with cries of “SAVE THE TAX BASE.”  Yet, before the ink was dry, in 1995 there’s Xcel in tax court trying to cut Utility Personal Property Tax revenue, revenue that goes to the county, city and school district, and then they’re cutting Utility Personal Property Tax at the legislature (I had a good go-round with Tom Micheletti about that in the Beagle in 1997) and then cutting it through rulemaking… every way possible that tax has been slashed —  it’s been slashed in half thanks to Xcel — exactly what about this is being a “good neighbor.”  They’re screwing the city, the county, and the school district by pulling out part of the deal to host a nuclear plant.

The City, County and School District should all be intervening in this PUC docket and also the relicensing docket at the NRC — Xcel has had a major impact on the community, and while there have been some benefits, there are many costs, and these costs and the meaning for those of us who live with a nuclear plant must be addressed.

Anyway, it’ll probably be in the Beagle soon

Here’s Xcel’s missive in all it’s glory:

To Mayor Howe and Members of the Red Wing City Council

Xcel Energy values our long and cooperative relationship with the people of Red Wing and surrounding areas and their leaders. We operate two power plants in the area – the Prairie Island nuclear plant and the Red Wing steam plant – and maintain a service center in the city. Our employees live in Red Wing, we support the community through our tax payments, and we support a variety of civic initiatives — in short, we strive to be a good neighbor, as we value our host community.

On Monday, the Red Wing City Council unanimously rescinded a prior resolution of support for our proposal to seek a 20-year life extension of Prairie Island and adopted a resolution outlining a variety of concerns and authorizing intervention in the state approval process. While we support your participation in the process, we are disappointed that we were not allowed to review the resolution prior to passage. We would have welcomed the opportunity to address the concerns and correct inaccuracies it contains to inform your decision.

We believe we can provide substantial information in response to the concerns outlined in the resolution and would welcome the opportunity to present that information to you. Prior to that opportunity, I would like to highlight several topics for your attention. These include:

* Accountability. The resolution states that Xcel Energy has claimed we are not responsible for the used fuel stored at our plants and that there is insufficient funding set aside for storage and decommissioning. To the contrary, we have always accepted responsibility for the used fuel we store at the plant sites on an interim basis until the federal government fulfills its contractual obligation to take it. We further have adequately accrued funds to manage the cost of storage and decommissioning through a process overseen by the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission. Our most recent filing, pending before the commission, documents our accrual of over $538 million in an external qualified trust fund for Prairie Island decommissioning. These funds must remain in this account until all expenses associated with decommissioning have been paid. We also have accrued an additional $65.7 million for decommissioning Prairie Island in an escrow fund. Our filing demonstrates that our accrual practices will produce sufficient funds to support decommissioning under a variety of possible future scenarios.

* Cask Safety. The resolution suggests that, absent a permanent repository, it is accepted that the dry storage facility will require replacement at least every 100 years. To the contrary during the Monticello proceeding on dry storage we presented evidence showing that the 100-year life assumption stems from a study where it was assumed that dry storage facility did not undergo any maintenance. Our evaluation concluded that with proper maintenance, as we are committed to do, the Prairie Island facility could safely store used fuel for more than 100 years. Further, the federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has jurisdiction over the continued safe operation of the storage facility and periodically would evaluate the continued safe operation of the facility to ensure that aging would not impact the facility’s safety.

* Storage Term. The resolution states that the NRC is proposing revisions to the Waste Confidence Rule and the Waste Confidence Decision to indefinitely extend the on-site storage of high-level nuclear waste. In fact, the NRC has proposed removing from the Waste Confidence Decision a date by which a national repository will open, but it does not propose an indefinite period for on-site storage. Instead, the NRC proposes changing to 60 years from 30 the length of time it is confident used fuel can safely be stored on-site after a plant is permanently shutdown.

* Groundwater Contamination. The resolution states that no studies have been initiated to ensure groundwater contamination protection for the current proceedings before the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission. In fact, Minnesota law requires the Minnesota Department of Commerce’s Office of Energy Security to make a specific finding in an Environmental Impact Statement that operation of the dry-storage facility will not result in groundwater contamination in excess of established limits; it has done so in our comparable proceeding for the Monticello nuclear plant life extension and will do so in our pending application for Prairie Island.  The reason no studies are being undertaken is because the casks are decontaminated before they are placed on the concrete pad outside the plant building and they are sealed, so there is no release from the dry storage containers to the groundwater.

We believe we can respond to all issues raised in the resolution and would welcome the opportunity to meet with you to do so.

More troubling to us, however, was the process used to rescind the prior resolution of support and adopt the new one. While we respect and support the city’s right to participate in the process and raise any concerns it may have, we also believe this decision should be based on accurate facts and with input from residents and other stakeholders. Refusing us the ability to review the resolution prior to adoption signals an abrupt change to our long-standing, constructive relationship. We believe that such a significant change in position warranted input and comment from residents and all stakeholders. We would support further dialogue on this issue in public forums, as it is a significant issue for the community.

We believe the city significantly benefits from the plant, our employees, and our involvement in the community — benefits that would extend another 20 years if regulators accept our proposal. We hope to work constructively with you and to reach a mutual resolution of your concerns.

Sincerely,

Judy Poferl
Regional Vice President

Northern States Power Co.-Minnesota, an Xcel Energy company

CC:      Jay Squires, City Attorney
Red Wing Republican Eagle

Note they didn’t even copy the City’s nuclear intervention attorney — Thomas P. Harlan and Katherine E. Becker, of the law firm of Madigan, Dahl & Harlan, P.A.    Also note, Jay Squires has been the City Attorney for some time, and this practice of Xcel calling the shots has been in existence during his watch, some bizarre City policies have occurred on his watch as well.  Whose interests is he representing as City Attorney?  Isn’t it his job to protect the City?

Yup, today’s news about our “good neighbor.”  And to send it to the paper, wanting it public… unreal…