Legalectric

That’s “our” reactor, the Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant, here in Red Wing, it’s within the city limits (which were expanded to include the plant).  I represented Florence Township from 1995, when Xcel, f/k/a NSP, applied to put nuclear waste in Florence Township under the “alternate site mandate,” and that went on, and on, and on, until they finally withdrew their application at the NRC in … what, 1999?  2000?  That’s one I thought would never end.  But that’s the thing about nuclear, it’s never over.

QUICK — CONTACT THE LEGISLATORS AT THE BOTTOM OF THIS MISSIVE.

There are two bills before the Senate Environment and Energy Committee TOMORROW:

• SF306 is simply worded, deleting the Minn. Stat. 216.243, Subd. 3b prohibition of new construction of a nuclear plant and changes it to “Additional storage of spent nuclear fuel” and over the previous language that states: “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.”  It’s authored by Kiffmeyer, coauthored by Dahms and Anderson.

• SF0536 is even worse, authored by Anderson  only (see also HF338 sponsored by O’Neill ; Newberger ; Garofalo ; Howe ; Baker ; McDonald ; Nornes).  SF0536 lists only Anderson as an author, and, well, “Let’s build a nuclear plant!”  Here’s the language:

So we have a blanket repeal of the nuclear construction prohibition, and a specific opening for a Certificate of Need for a nuclear generator at the Monticello site.

Authors contact info is linked above, and emails for Senate Energy committee members and the authors are also listed below.

Whether it’s targeted as a replacement for the Fukushima Daiichi style GE plant, or whether it’s to add and operate a second reactor, WHY?

First, there’s no need.  There is a glut of electricity, as our friend, Xcel’s Ben Fowkes said, when they could no longer keep up the GROW GROW GROW fiction.  Here’s the Seeking Alpha transcript of the XEL Earnings Call, January 31, 2013. 

So I think the economies are in decent shape across all our jurisdictions. Doesn’t necessarily mean it translates to high sales growth. And that’s consistent with our forecast. I mean, we’re not anticipating that we’re going to see a tremendous rebound in sales, even as the economies start to improve. I mean, I think, that’s our new normal, frankly.

For last year:

Finally, NSP-Minnesota sales increased six-tenths of a percent driven by growth in the number of residential and small C&I customers and usage increases in the small C&I class.

From Xcel’s IRP (Docket 15-21), p. 45 of 102:

And here’s what they had to say about that (note they do NOT go back further than 2011, so we don’t get to see the 2000-2010 numbers):

We forecast a period of relatively flat growth such that our median base peak will increase only 0.4 percent in each year of the planning period…

That chart is NOT consistent with the 2014 SEC 10K filing, which shows a 2014 peak demand of 8,848 MW (info below is linked, see p. 9 at 10-K link):

That lower number is consistent with the downward trend of the 2014 NERC Long Term Reliability Assessment, now showing growth rates at lowest levels on record (note that it has NEVER been close to the CapX 2020 “forecast” of 2.49% annually):

And here’s the picture for MISO from the 2014 NERC Long Term Reliability Assessment:

2014 NERC Long Term Reliability Assessment, p. 38 (or p. 46 of 115 pdf).

Also from the 2014 SEC 10-K link:

So we don’t “need” it, there’s no talk of a new nuclear plant in their recently filed IRP.  So why???

And the “WHY?” may be clearer when taken into context with last week’s hearing at House Energy, where the intent, in part, behind legislation there was to make Minnesota an exporter of energy.  Again, WHY?  Why make the state an exporter of energy?  And if we do what would that do for our rates here?  How does that fit with Xcel’s well funded plan to institute its e21 Initiative, and how does that fit with Xcel’s desire to use ratepayer money to find other market options?  The House bill would let natural gas plants be built without a Certificate of Need, whether by an IPP or regulated utility, with the key being that they are selling into the MISO grid, and not for Minnesota native load.

But nuclear is SO expensive!  First, there’s an immediate example of nuclear construction cost overruns right here in Minnesota, at the Monticello nuclear plant, where they went way beyond what was approved in the Certificate of Need:

Xcel management blamed for cost overruns at Monticello

So what was that about?  Costs more than doubled, increased by a factor of 2.33!!!  From the article:

The project to extend the plant’s life and increase power output ballooned from an estimated $320 million in 2008 to $665 million when it was completed last year. However, the final price tag likely will rise to $748 million, including construction-in-progress financial costs.

And let’s look at new construction, the first new nuclear plant in the US in 30 years:

C&U disputes Southern Co. claim for $247 million in penalties for cost overruns at Plant Vogtle

The cost punchline on the Vogtle plant?  Southern, Westinghouse and CB&I are already in court over previous cost overruns on the project, which is currently expected to cost $14.5 billion.

Here’s that other project:

Shaw Power Group, Westinghouse, face cost issues at S.C. project.

The cost punch line here?  The NRC is expected to act soon on the Summer license. Summer is projected to cost about $9 billion.

Building new plants?  Well, NEI has some info, BUT it’s outdated, nuclear has not caught up, and this is the most current I can find on the site (HERE’S THE WHOLE REPORT):

So please explain — why would anyone want to build a new nuclear plant?

• There is no need.
• They cost so much that it’s unreasonable to even consider, and is the definition of imprudent!

Why are Reps. Kiffmeyer and Anderson trying to make this a possibility?  Is this for real?  Is it a diversion from some other issue?

CONTACT INFO FOR LEGISLATORS:

To contact the Senate Energy and Environment Committee, go to COMMITTEE LINK, because many MN Senators have form access, not direct emails.  Boo-hiss…  Here are the emails listed, but go to link to see the buttons for the Senators with form access only:

sen.john.hoffman@senate.mn; sen.david.osmek@senate.mn; sen.michelle.benson@senate.mn; sen.david.brown@senate.mn; sen.lyle.koenen@senate.mn; sen.julie.rosen@senate.mn; sen.bev.scalze@senate.mn; sen.matt.schmit@senate.mn; sen.bill.weber@senate.mn

Senate authors: sen.mary.kiffmeyer@senate.mn; sen.gary.dahms@senate.mn; sen.bruce.anderson@senate.mn

SF306 is authored by Kiffmeyer, coauthored by Dahms and Anderson, click names for links!

SF0536 is authored by Anderson only.

HF338 is sponsored by O’Neill ; Newberger ; Garofalo ; Howe ; Baker ; McDonald ; Nornes, click names for links!

Tomorrow the House Jobs Growth and Energy Affordability Policy and Finance Committee will take up HF 341, see also SF 237, to provide an exemption from Certificate of Need for natural gas plants that sell power into the MISO market.

SAY WHAT?!?!?!

The Power Plant Siting Act, specifically Minn. Stat. 216E.04, Subd. 2(2) already gives natural gas plants a free ride by allowing “alternate review,” which is “review lite.”  For example, the “Simon Says” 325 MW natural gas plant that had been planned for Waseca would have been built.  The 700-800 MW Sunrise River Station by the Chisago sub would have been built.  WHY?  Should a community be subject to living with a HUGE natural gas plant without regulation?  Nope, no way, no how.  Plus who will pay for the transmission interconnection, and how will that be regulated, both “need” and routing… and then there’s eminent domain!  What’s the impact on Minnesota utilities and their service territory?

The biggest problem?  If it’s not regulated by the PUC, who handles it?  Counties.  What county has the expertise or resources to review and permit a power plant?  Most likely it’s as in Freeborn County, where they cut and pasted the project APPLICATION and called it an EIS!  Really!  Or look at Chisago County and the Sunrise River natural gas plant.  That’s not something that should be thrown at a local government.

Here are the Authors’ emails — contact them today:

rep.chris.swedzinski@house.mn, rep.jason.metsa@house.mn, rep.dave.baker@house.mn, rep.marion.oneill@house.mn

Here are the Committee member emails — contact them today:

Please let them know how important it is that we continue to regulate natural gas plants.  A power plants is large, expensive infrastructure with large, costly impacts, and should only be built when and where needed, after a full Certificate of Need and Siting review.

Here’s an example of how it went in Waseca when they tried to bootstrap a larger plant onto an already approve very small plant — short version?  It didn’t go:

Blooming Grove Township — Sen. Dick Day shows his true colors

And in Chisago County where they tried to ram through a HUGE plant on the Sunrise River and pull out large amounts of water — short version?  It didn’t go:

LS Power’s Sunrise River plant voted DOWN!

Lent Twp voters say NO! to LS Power

LS Power’s Sunrise River Energy in the news

Report on Monday Chisago meeting

500+ give LS Power a piece of their mind

What about the Mesaba Project which has a site permit good until 2019, and which couldn’t demonstrate either “need” or that it would provide reasonably priced electricity — under this bill, a large natural gas plant could go up on that site without any further review!  More info HERE on Mesaba Project!

That’s what communities think of having a natural gas plant using their water, making noise, being lit up 24/7, and all for the profit of some absentee corporate owner:  Thanks, but NO THANKS!

Here’s the agenda for tomorrow:

Wednesday, February 25, 2015

12:45 PM

Room: 10 State Office Building

Chair: Rep. Pat Garofalo

Agenda:

Overview of natural gas issues in Minnesota.If you wish to testify on HF341, please contact Committee Legislative Assistant, Jonathan Fortner, at jonathan.fortner@house.mn.

Bills:

HF341 – (Swedzinski): Requirement to obtain certificate of need prior to construction of a natural gas plant generating electricity that is exported from the state eliminated.

Here’s the full text of HF 341:

Thanks to Charlotte for finding this.  My Google Alerts disappeared and now I’m the last to know!

For the Excelsior’s Mesaba Project, the carbon capture and storage was a farce, the project plan took it to the PLANT GATE, and a small percentage of it at that.  A scam:

IGCC – Pipedreams of Green and Clean

And McClatchyDC says the POTUS is taking a “step back” from coal gasification.  ‘Bout time for this coal state Pres. to admit the obvious reality that this is NOT “the way forward for coal.”

The White House walks away from clean coal

How can they write a headline like that and not put the quotes around “clean coal.”

STOP SHIPPING NOW!  DO NOT SHIP ONE MORE DROP OF BAKKEN CRUDE UNTIL IT’S DEGASIFIED.  NOT ONE DROP, BY RAIL, BY PIPELINE, BY TANKER TRUCK, BY BARGE, NOT ONE DROP UNTIL IT’S DEGASIFIED!

News Reports:

Governor declares state of emergency after oil train derails, sets house ablaze

West Virginia Train Derailment Sends Oil Tanker Into River

Crude Oil Train Derails in Fayette County, WV

WCHS Updates

From Bakken.com: CSX oil train derails in W. Virginia, 14 cars on fire

It’s happened again, another Bakken BOOM! train derailment and explosion.  And where did the wreck happen?  BOOMER BOTTOM, West Virginia… really!  At least 14 cars are reported derailed, one went into a  home and blew up, destroying the home.  Water supply is drawn from the river and has been shut off, oil on the river is burning. Route 61 has been shut off at the Montgomery bridge.  Power is off because flames melted powerlines.   Two towns evacuated, one person hospitalized so far, no deaths reported yet.

How many explosions; how many homes, businesses, riverbanks must be burned and leveled; how many people must die before the DOT puts its foot down?  DEGASIFY!  How long are we going to take this?

This is not rocket science.  Bakken oil is exceedingly, dangerously volatile, much more so that typical crude.  It MUST be degasified before it is transported by any means, by pipeline, by rail, by truck, NO, DO NOT SHIP, it’s an explosion waiting to happen.

Here’s the DOT letter regarding degasifying:

1_2_14 DOT Rail_Safety_Alert

I hope you’re as pissed off about this as I am — and remember, it’s better to be pissed off than pissed on.  Please take a few seconds and dash off a note to our Senators and Representatives to demand that Bakken crude be degasified before it’s shipped, starting NOW!

Send a simple message to all federal Senators and Representatives:

Shipping this Bakken oil without degasifying it first is TOO DANGEROUS.  IMMEDIATE MORATORIUM on shipments of Bakken oil, not one drop to be shipped until it is degasified, whether by rail, pipeline, truck tanker, or barge, not one drop moves until its degasified.

In Minnesota:

EMAIL SEN. AMY KLOBUCHAR

EMAIL SEN. AL FRANKEN

CongressCritters HERE. 

Minnesota Representatives — name is linked to their site:

District	Name	Party	Room	Phone	Committee Assignment
1	Walz, Timothy J.	D	1034 LHOB	202-225-2472	Agriculture Armed Services Veterans’ Affairs
2	Kline, John	R	2439 RHOB	202-225-2271	Armed Services Education and the Workforce
3	Paulsen, Erik	R	127 CHOB	202-225-2871	Ways and Means
4	McCollum, Betty	D	2256 RHOB	202-225-6631	Appropriations
5	Ellison, Keith	D	2263 RHOB	202-225-4755	Financial Services
6	Emmer, Tom	R	503 CHOB	202-225-2331	Agriculture Foreign Affairs
7	Peterson, Collin C.	D	2204 RHOB	202-225-2165	Agriculture
8	Nolan, Rick	D	2366 RHOB	202-225-6211	Agriculture Transportation

Here’s the quick message I sent — so simple:

Another Bakken BOOM! train has exploded in West Virginia.  These trains go through Minnesota every day, here in Red Wing every day, and look what happens!  They explode.   All Bakken crude must be degasified before shipment by ANY means.  Please get on this today and introduce a bill requiring degasificaiton of Bakken crude before shipment.

Take a few minutes and just do it.  NOW!

And in the meantime, here’s an insurance industry take:

‘Degassing’ North Dakota Crude Before Shipping Among Safety Ideas

Notice_20152-107344-01

The meeting details:

2:00 p.m. on Thursday February 26, 2015

Minnesota Public Utilities Commission

121 – 7th Place East, Suite 350, Large Hearing Room

St. Paul, MN  55101

Here we go — the PUC has announced a “planning meeting” for this e21 Initiative based on the filing of Xcel Energy last month. What filing?  Well, this one:

Letter & e21 Initiative Report_201412-105629-01

Here’s what the PUC says they’re going to do at that meeting:

Why is the Commission going along with this to the extent that they are?  Well, they do have connections, and for sure PUC Commissione Nancy Lange, who is listed as Advisory Committee on the Citizens League e21 promotional group, should NOT be participating at the Commission, in discussions or by voting (see Appendix B, p. 1, of the Citizens League Policy Framework to Optimize Efficiency of the Electrical Energy System_Phase2):

Citizen’s League’s mighty presumptuous charge from this report, to recommend e21 and draft legislation!!!

Charge-to-Electrical-Energy-Phase-3

And remember, Xcel, in its letter they asked the Public Utilities Commission for a meeting:

Throughout this e21 filing they say, repeatedly, that this is a “package,” and the consensus depends on this being a “package,” which is reminiscent of the “it’s a deal, a package deal, and it’s a good deal” of the 2005 Transmission Omnibus Bill from Hell.  We saw how that “good deal” worked, how it worked for the public, and who it was “a good deal” for.  Disgusting…

But that big red flag is not all — they also asked that no Comment Period be scheduled:

Thus, we respectfully request that the Commission delay initiating a comment period to allow for additional collaboration prior to the start of a formal proceeding.

Really!  Because clearly some stakeholders are more stakeholders than others, I filed a Petition for Intervention to get a foot in the door and notice of festivities:

Legalectric-Intervention

So if you’re wondering what all this means, that it’s a little obfuscated between the lines, come on down to the Public Utilities Commission Planning Session.  If you want to make comments either file them or bring written ones to hand out, because there’s no set time for public comments:

2:00 p.m. on Thursday February 26, 2015

Minnesota Public Utilities Commission

121 – 7th Place East, Suite 350, Large Hearing Room

St. Paul, MN  55101