Minnesota’s nuclear moratorium — gone?!?!?!
May 8th, 2010
I read with horror news of Rep. Bill Hilty’s amendment eliminating the moratorium on new nuclear generating plants that passed in a House Ominous Bill this week. WHAT ARE THESE YAHOOS THINKING? The Senate already approved it, and now the House… and I just can’t see Pawlenty doing anything but signing it with glee.
(sudden feeling of ice picks going through temples… buried in brain… electricity applied…)
AAAAAAAAGH!
Is this the “price” of the rollback of exemptions of utilities from eminent domain laws? Is it an attempt to look like they’re repealing it when “conditions” mean it won’t happen? (like those that said Obama really doesn’t mean what he’s saying about coal gasification or transmission, he knows better) Is it more of the same deal-making that took the Renewable Development Fund away from PrairIe Island Indian Community, or the enviro sell-outs that gave us the 2005 Transmission bill? Minnesota’s second nuclear waste storage facility at Monticello, now two piles piling with no plan in sight, PERMANENT?
What I’m hearing about this from various little birdies….
… is NOT encouraging — ooooohhhhhhh do I have a headache…
… apparently NO ONE OBJECTED!
NO ONE OBJECTED?!?!?!?!
AAAAAAAAGH!
Here’s the bill as it is on the Senate site:
Here’s how Rep. Bill Hilty, Chair of House Energy, amended it:
Page 4, after line 11, insert:
“Sec. 4. [216B.1695] NUCLEAR POWER PLANT; COST RECOVERY.
(a) The commission may not allow any of the following costs attributable to the construction of a nuclear generating plant begun after July 1, 2010, to be recovered from Minnesota ratepayers until the plant begins operating at a monthly load capacity factor of at least 85 percent:
(1) planning, design, safety, environmental, or engineering studies undertaken prior to construction; or
(2) the costs of obtaining regulatory approval, including permits, licenses and any other approval required prior to construction from federal, state and local authorities.
(b) The commission may not allow any of the following costs attributable to the construction of a nuclear generating plant begun after July 1, 2010, to be recovered from Minnesota ratepayers:
Journal of the House – 98th Day – Thursday, May 6, 2010 – Top of Page 11584
(1) any construction costs exceeding the projected construction cost of the generating plant and any ancillary facility constructed by the utility to temporarily or permanently store nuclear waste generated by the plant, as identified in the utility’s certificate of need application submitted under section 216B.243;
(2) the costs of insuring the plant against accidents that exceed the cost of insurance for a fossil fuel plant of equivalent capacity; or
(3) contributions from the plant to provide and maintain local fire protection and emergency services to the plant in case of an accident.
(c) Except for regulatory costs of state agencies, no revenues from taxes or fees imposed by the state of Minnesota may be used to pay for any portion of the preconstruction, construction, maintenance, or operating costs of a nuclear generating plant, or to assume any financial risk associated with an accidental release of radioactivity from the generating plant or an ancillary facility constructed by the utility that owns the generating plant to temporarily or permanently store nuclear waste generated by the plant.
Sec. 5. Minnesota Statutes 2008, section 216B.243, subdivision 3b, is amended to read:
Subd. 3b. Nuclear power plant; new construction prohibited; relicensing. (a) The commission may not issue a certificate of need for the construction of a new nuclear-powered electric generating plant provided that the certificate of need application contains a separate estimate of preconstruction and construction costs that does not include any of the costs identified in section 216B.1695, paragraphs (a) and (b).
(b) Any certificate of need for additional storage of spent nuclear fuel for a facility seeking a license extension shall address the impacts of continued operations over the period for which approval is sought.”
Renumber the sections in sequence and correct the internal references
Amend the title accordingly.
Way below is the list of yeas and nays, do send each of them a missive:
The ones who voted against it are the strangest set of bedfellows! But KUDOS TO THEM!
If you click on this to look at the whole back and forth with amendments, scroll to p. 11579 to start. Here’s the vote:
The bill was read for the third time, as amended, and placed upon its final passage.
Those who voted in the affirmative were:
Those who voted in the negative were:
Pawlenty gets slapped!
May 6th, 2010
You know life is good in Minnesota when the Supreme Court slaps The Green Chameleon, Gov. Tim Pawlenty!
(FYI, it’s been a busy week in CapX 2020 transmission line land, the scoping hearings, today is Cannon Falls. Check it out on www.nocapx2020.info)
Here’s the decision:
In short:
Candidates Questionnaire
May 2nd, 2010
Here’s my Questionnaire for the Gubernatorial candidates (as one in the peanut gallery, I just love that “guber” part). I’ll give them some time and then post the responses and make note of those who do not respond.
Now off to the fair – and the Candidates’ Forum
Park Service releases EIS Scoping Report
April 29th, 2010
Imagine 190 foot transmission towers through the Delaware Water Gap, between Pennsylvania and New Jersey.
That’s what’s proposed by PSE&G for its Susquehanna-Roseland transmission line. This quad/tri bundled 500kV line is HUGE, ugly beyond belief, and it’s just so big that I can hardly comprehend, there’s nothing that large that I’ve found. Others like it are being cancelled by PJM due to lack of demand, and this one should be too…
From the Pocono Record:
Anyway, the National Park Service is doing an Environmental Impact Statement, and leading up to that is “scoping,” which, as Grant Stevenson noted yesterday at the Task Force meeting, is THE most misunderstood term. I agree. It just zooms over people’s heads, and comments end up being of the “I hate this project because___” and nothing that relates to what the scope of the environmental review should be. Utter waste of time, and something to be mindful of with the CapX 2020 transmission scoping meetings coming up.
SCOPE: Range, area of coverage, breadth
So “scoping” in this sense is the range, area of coverage, and breadth of environmental review.
We had comments on the scope a few months ago, and there were something like 6,500 comments. Yes, that’s right, SIX THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED! At the meetings I went to, it was standing room only and the comments were notably on point, they were profound examples of those rare uplifting meetings. Facilitation of the meetings was so good it felt like they really were interested in what we had to say. It was all taken down by a court reporter. THAT level of attention and appreciation is SO rare… and dig this … afterwards I RECEIVED A THANK YOU NOTE FOR PARTICIPATING. That is a first, I’ve never gotten a thank you note from an agency for showing up and speaking out. I’m thinking of framing it (after sending it to MN’s Dept. of Commerce).
NATIONAL PARK SERVICE – SUSQUEHANNA-ROSELAND 500kV TRANSMISSION LINE PAGE
Here’s their report:
The next step?
We’ll keep you posted.
It’s the end of an era…
April 25th, 2010
That’s my “Kelly Truck” on a Sunday night after a wash, and some dilled potatoes for me, at the Magic Wand in Vegas.
I’ve just cleaned out the closet under the stairs and put my truck stuff up on freecycle… sniff… sob… it’s the end of an era, but it’s time to admit that I’m probably not going back to driving a truck. I still go nuts every Friday at sunset, and it’s hard to drive with ameteurs. My life in two places and work all over the country sort of satisfies that road jones but… but… trucking? It’s done…
ZU ENDE!!! FINE!!!
