Boyd puts out nuclear welcome mat
December 22nd, 2011
AAAAARGH, there goes PUC Commissioner (former chair) David Boyd putting out the welcome mat for nuclear power, nuclear plants and nuclear waste. This we DON’T need…
And note that he’s claiming that the hurdles are “costs” and “public perceptions.” Ummmm… where’s safety? Minnesota is home to a Fukushima Dai-ichi GE nuclear reactor, located in Monticello, north, upriver and upwind from the metro.
Safety, anyone? But then, I’ve been to the Appellate Court about the responsibility of the PUC for assuring that the utilities provide “safe” electricity, and we were tossed out. Power Line Task Force v. Public Utilities Commission
THE HURDLES OF COSTS AND PUBLIC PERCEPTIONS
Published In: EnergyBiz Magazine November / December 2011
David Boyd
THE FUTURE OF THE U.S. ELECTRICITY PORTFOLIO is a complex matter that asks the industry to find a path forward that acceptably balances many different factors. Once one acknowledges that every generating technology carries physical, financial and environmental risks, the conversation can begin in an intellectually honest manner. In the case of the nuclear industry, the issues frequently discussed are the costs of new construction, safety and fuel management.
Why would a utility consider nuclear power when public opinion on the risks and rewards appears to swing more significantly than it does for other technologies? A response requires taking stock of the broader situation as it stands today, and then focusing on the nuclear industry specifically.
We are entering a period where utilities will retool their generation fleets for the next 40 or more years. Construction will need to be phased over time, and the optimum portfolio could change with the passage of time. Policy drivers of this build-out include electricity that is reasonably priced, increasingly low carbon and as clean as possible, together with North American Electric Reliability Corp. and Federal Energy Regulatory Commission mandates for reliability. In addition, the evolving domestic gas supply, economics and the anticipated U.S. Environmental Protection Agency mandates dictate that coal use will be reduced in the near term. Some argue that this translates into a natural-gas dominated electricity sector. While I accept a movement to natural gas in the near term, that fuel will not yield the complete decarbonization of the electricity sector necessary to meet, for example, the goal to reduce total greenhouse gas emissions to 80 percent below 2005 levels by 2050, as per a Minnesota statute, among other state and federal guidelines. While we have made significant progress with wind and other renewables that support the greenhouse gas targets, questions remain regarding the cost and reliability of integrating very large quantities of renewable energy into the grid.
So is there is a place for new nuclear in our generation fleet? Advocates suggest that the answer is yes, with careful consideration of specific issues. Aside from hydro, nuclear plants are the only low- or no-carbon baseload option of significant scale for many states. Nuclear is also a part of a balanced generation portfolio that is prized by many – but at what cost, at what scale and under what circumstances? If the goal is to maintain the present 20 percent of electricity generation from nuclear, we will need to replace 40 reactors whose operating licenses expire by 2030.
There are a number of hurdles that remain for expansion of nuclear power in the United States. Chief among these is the capital cost of construction. Despite projections that the levelized cost of electricity from newly constructed plants will be competitive with other generating technologies, the project costs are so high that most utilities would be betting their futures by pursuing a new reactor. In addition, the first movers would need to develop new institutional knowledge and confront the preparedness of our domestic workforce. This could add significant costs, even though the effect would benefit those who might follow. Although the federal government has authorized loan guarantees to help overcome these barriers, they are significant issues that limit early movers in the industry.
Secondly, the federal obligation to take possession of spent fuel and place it in a repository, as dictated by the Nuclear Waste Policy Act and standing contracts with the utilities, has not been fulfilled, and this inaction adds to uncertainty. The Blue Ribbon Commission on America’s Nuclear Future has proposed policy actions to address this issue. Even with swift acceptance of the commission recommendations, it may be 12 years before any spent fuel begins to move from present storage sites. Furthermore, there remain matters of active litigation over the suspension of licensing activities for Yucca Mountain, and disputes over the Nuclear Waste Fund fees.
AWA Goodhue appeal refiled
December 13th, 2011
The T. Boone Pickens’ AWA Goodhue Wind Project proposed for Goodhue County is headed to the Appellate Court… again.
Here we go!!!
Why again??? Ask the PUC — they sent around a bogus memorandum pushing to appeal in September, we did, and said, “Hey, Appellate Court, look what they’re saying, can you believe it?” and the Appellate Court said, “PUC, what ever do you think you’re doing? APA rules do not pre-empt your own rules about appeal, DUH!”
They’re worth a read to see how convoluted and brazen the PUC’s push was. The Court agreed with us and said the PUC was so egregious that hey, don’t worry about it, when you refile at the appropriate time, NO CHARGE!!! As it should be.
AWA Goodhue Motions for Reconsideration
September 13th, 2011
Yesterday, we filed Motions for Reconsideration of the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission Order regarding the AWA Goodhue (a/k/a T. Boone Pickens) Wind Project:
What’s really weird about it is that not only is there a PUC Order where the ALJ’s Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Recommendation is adopted, with a few amendments and deletions, but there’s an “EFP” Order too, with the Energy Facilities Permitting writing their own separate overlapping “Findings.” Ummmmm…. who the hell is EFP to be writing Findings? When do intervenors get a chance to comment on them??? This is a very bizarre morphing that is not addressed anywhere in the rules. I can see EFP briefing papers, but Findings… and Findings that aren’t even cited? WTF?
Anyway, here’s what’s been filed, starting with my client, Goodhue Wind Truth:
GWT – Reconsideration – Site Permit
There are a lot of others, will post later, this is painfully slow…
Ellen Anderson’s Confirmation Hearing
May 13th, 2011
This is worth a watch…
I’ve been receiving a lot of emails about the upcoming hearings, now this has happened and emails are coming in about it.
She has a good handle on it, the job, the role, and she’s been on energy issues f-o-r-e-v-e-r. I’ve just put it on, and she is sounding nervous, with reason, given the tone of some of what I’ve been hearing.
Now she’s got a story about Koppendrayer and Pugh, where LeRoy told Tom that this was not the legislature and he didn’t have to vote with the chair, Tom proceeded, and LeRoy then said, “You don’t HAVE to vote AGAINST the Chair EVERY TIME!”
Right now, she’s addressing questions from Sen. John Howe, from here in Red Wing, but he’s asking about things that are before the Commission right now, which she cannot address, it’s like asking a judge in confirmation hearing about issues before the court, she can’t go there… and from the sound of it, she’s not real familiar with the Goodhue Wind case, where the statute does allow County regulation.
Explaining differences… “You can’t just shoot off your mouth like I could as a Senator.”
Sen. Howe is now addressing “personal bias” and I wonder if he knows about her role in limiting nuclear generation and nuclear waste in Minnesota?!?! And balanced with that is her role in putting nuclear waste “in Goodhue County.”
And now a question about repealing the coal moratorium. HELLO, where do these folks think that there’s a need for a coal plant? She’s talking about generation and transmission planning, decreased demand (too weak on that, she should have the specifics). They’re wanting answers to questions like “What would be the circumstances for the public interest to add a new coal plant?” Unreal… no understanding that there’s no need. Sen. Metzen is saying “we used to think we were 5,800-6,000MW short and now, I don’t think the need is there.” Well DUH. I’ve been providing info to the Senate and House Energy Committees for so long about need and lack thereof, how is it that so many haven’t gotten it through their heads that there is NO NEED!
Sen. Scott Dibble is now referrring to a facility proposed, can’t tell if it’s Big Stone or Mesaba, probably Mesaba, “a facility that there were questions about.”
Sen. Doug Magnus: “What are your thoughts on transmission… how are we going to move this energy around where we need it?” There’s a number of transmission cases coming up before us… PUC has decided the first of the CapX lines, that line is intended to help support renewables. Related to that… one thing that’s been interesting, because there’s been transmission gaps, and logjams in recent years, more of the wind projects have been located closer in to the metro area… as we site more of those transmission lines… that will help bring wind farm siting more back to the high speed wind areas that are more rural… not quite as much contention. I did carry bill in 2005 to allow CapX utilities to get cost recovery to build out transmission…
(gotta get back to work!)
Public Utilities Commission will webcast AWA Goodhue hearing!
March 9th, 2011
FLASH: NEXT WEEK, March 15-17, the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission will broadcast the AWA Goodhue hearing!
The PUC has entered the 21st Century!!! Notice just came over the wire that they’re going to webcast the AWA Goodhue evidentiary hearing. For those not in the know, this is the hearing in the administrative docket that is to address whether the PUC should apply the Goodhue County Wind Ordinance to the AWA Goodhue wind project. I’m representing Goodhue Wind Truth in the many Goodhue Wind project dockets.
The notice says:
To Access the Webcast:
Go to: www.puc.state.mn.us
See the ‘Upcoming Events’ forTuesday, March 15 through Thursday March 17, 2011
Click on the current day’s link: Evidentiary Hearing, AWA Goodhue Wind, LLC: Site Permit – St. Paul
Click on: WATCH WEBCAST
hmmmmmmm, I clicked on the “agenda” and it’s not there yet…
To see the full docket on this project, go to www.puc.state.mn.us and click on “Search eDockets” and search for docket 08-1233.