So far in 2010, some big things have happened in the area of energy efficiency. It bears repeating time and again: the cheapest and cleanest energy is the energy we don’t use. Improving energy efficiency in our daily lives–meaning doing lots more with less energy–is 70 percent cheaper than generating new energy. The efficiency highlights so far in 2010…

• President Obama declared insulation sexy.
• Senator Amy Klobuchar’s held an energy efficiency forum at the Carlson School of Business of the University of Minnesota. Keynote speaker, Cathy Zoi, the Department of Energy’s undersecretary of renewables and energy efficiency, spoke of a new energy economy using space race and New Deal terms. Klobuchar expressly committed to personally working to develop a meaningful national energy efficiency resource standard (learn how to thank and encourage her on Fresh Energy’s Take Action page).
• The Minnesota Environmental Initiative hosted a January efficiency forum during which utilities talked about effective energy conservation programs to change energy consumption behavior–a big first.
• Fresh Energy coordinated the Minnesota release of the huge new Consumer Federation’s energy efficiency report that specifies, by state, potential energy savings and cost savings from a federal energy efficiency standard.
• Service Employees International Union Local 26, which represents over 3,000 janitors in the Twin Cities, won a new contract that includes green and energy efficiency practices.

“There is Governor Ames himself.” 

These were the words whispered in a low husky voice from one of four horse riders wearing long white cattle dusters as they rode across the bridge into Northfield, Minnesota, on what would become a fateful day in September of 1876.  Unfortunately for the would-be bank robbers, the words were overheard by Adelbert Ames as he walked past the riders on well-bred horses as he was leaving town from a meeting at the First National Bank. 

Ames had recently returned from the south to help manage the family mill in Northfield.   While in the South, he served as governor of Mississippi during Reconstruction.  Only a year earlier he was run out of Mississippi by the flames of racial prejudice and hatred for Northern carpetbaggers like Ames.  It was the beginning of an ugly era of Southern politics which was dominated by the KKK and their like.

When Ames heard these words whispered between the riders, he immediately knew something dreadful was in the wind that crisp fall day.  He said to the companions walking with him, “those men are from the south and are here for no good purpose, no one here calls me governor.”  When the riders had sufficiently passed Ames he turned to quickly head back into town; he soon heard cries explode from downtown that the bank was being robbed.  The Civil War veteran Ames sprang into action, helping lead the townspeople in their successful effort to repel the raiders.

Cole Younger later reported while a prisoner in Stillwater that one of the reasons they chose the bank in Northfield was their belief that there were ill-gotten gains from carpetbaggers like Ames who helped in the Reconstruction in the South.  Ames was astonished that the Southern anger at the Reconstruction would visit him so far north from his days in Mississippi.  Some 134 years later, those Minnesota environmental and conservation leaders who have worked hard to establish funding for environment and conservation purposes are a little worried there could be raids on their resources this legislative session.

Their concerns were not alleviated when Governor Pawlenty released his budget this Monday.  It is important to note that the Governor did not disproportionately cut the overall budgets in the major agencies responsible for protecting our lakes, rivers and wild places.  Therefore, it is probably not fair to compare it to the great Northfield bank raid by the James and Younger Gang.  Nonetheless, there are concerns of coming problems in light of the Governor’s treatment of several of our special environmental funds.

The Governor and Legislature face a daunting task this session, needing to close a $1.2 billion gap between our present revenue collections and the anticipated expenditures for the rest of this legislative biennium.  We are almost halfway through the budget that was established last legislative session with no reserves, minimal possible budget shifts and no real promise for increased revenue in the near future.  Therefore, the only place this no new tax governor has to go is deep budget cuts in state programs.  One budget balancing gimmick left is to take dedicated funding sources and redirect them to the general fund to be cut to cover the deficit.  Unfortunately, there are several of those opportunities in our major agencies like the PCA and DNR.

The Governor strove to have 3% cuts in operation budgets with 6% cuts in grant programs across all state agencies except for public safety, education and veteran services.  It appears that our agencies received cuts which are proportional to other agencies, but this was accomplished by shifting several dollars from areas such as the Environment Fund and the Game and Fish Fund.  These funds were created using revenue from permit fees and license fees and these fees were meant to be specifically dedicated to activities directly related to the items for which they were levied.  For example, fishing license fees should go towards fishing programs and improved fishing habitat, not to balance the state’s budget.  It would be hard to justify running through the streets screaming that the bank is being robbed like the citizens of Northfield back in 1876 given the fact that we have been treated proportionately when you look at the overall budgets of our agencies.  In the past, that has not been true as our main agencies had suffered disproportionate cuts.

Nonetheless, there are a couple of small things that make many in the conservation community concerned about deeper raids in the future.  The Governor proposed a $2 million appropriation from the new constitutional Clean Water Legacy Fund to sewer infiltration in the metropolitan area.  Though this is an important clean water activity, it is not supported by any regional plan and is an item that has been supported by other funds in the past.  Also, a couple of positions supported in the past by the general fund were “cut” by the DNR, but then reconstituted with creative accounting by simply designating their new funding source out of dedicated accounts. These efforts look like a clandestine way to backfill in general fund budget cuts with the constitutional Legacy Funds and our other designated accounts.  This clearly is not keeping faith with the voters’ intention to have new ongoing investments protecting our great outdoors.

Fortunately the Legislature will get to weigh in on the budget and hopefully they will react as successfully as the Northfield townsfolk did in turning back any raid.  The MEP team will continue to assess the concerns with the budget and communicate those to the policymakers.  What is obvious is the dynamic has changed since the voters sent a clear message in the last election.  In the past, when we’ve faced similar daunting budget deficits, we have experienced deeply disproportional cuts in our agencies.  I guess it’s true, elections do matter.

Other MEP priorities are also starting to see action.  We will be keeping our eyes on the final bonding bill due to come out early next week.  Hopefully we will see passage of the Complete Streets legislation out of the House committee next week.  In two weeks expect a hearing in the Senate for an immediate repeal of the state’s moratorium on nuclear power plants which is opposed by the state’s environmental groups.  Also promised – a hearing soon on financial assurance for sulfide mining in the Senate.  The legislative session is picking up momentum.

Earlier this month, the American Wind Energy Association (AWEA) released the findings of a report they commissioned on the job impacts of a federal renewable electricity standard (RES).  The “Jobs Impact of a National Renewable Electricity Standard” study, conducted by independent, third-party researchers at Navigant Consulting, Inc., found that a 25 percent by 2025 national RES would result in 274,000 more renewable energy jobs over business as usual.

Additionally, the report found that by passing a federal RES of 25 percent by 2025 the United States would ensure a stable market for renewable generation, avoiding near term fluxuations in the market due to the uncertain future financial security created by policy gaps.  In order to create a stable market, the report recommends short-term federal RES goals of 12 percent in 2014 and 20 percent in 2020 in addition to the overall 25 percent by 2025 goal.

Another important finding of the report was that the entire U.S. will see job gains from a federal RES. The southeastern region of the United States stands to gain from a federal RES by producing energy from biomass and hydropower in addition to the possibility of offshore wind. While the entire country would see job creation from a federal RES, the report also found that if a federal RES is not enacted, some states – mostly in the Midwest – will experience a decrease in clean energy jobs from current levels.

For more information or to read the entire study, click here.

If you’ve been keeping up with Fresh Energy’s Transportations Connections Department, you’ve probably heard about its push for a state Complete Streets policy. The measure aims to make streets safer and more accessible through various planning measures. This includes sidewalks, bike lanes, crosswalks, and shoulders. But as far as understanding how exactly these road changes would equal improved safety and a cleaner environment, it’s a little bit difficult to get from point A to point B–no transportation pun intended. I didn’t have a clear understanding of it, myself, until I actually saw it last week. Three of us met with Councilman Steve Elkins in Bloomington last week to check out a road that underwent some Complete Streets-like changes. The background: Councilman Elkins had received a number of complaints from people who lived along a four-lane road. It had no shoulder, no bike lane, and the cars drove too fast for comfort. People complained that they didn’t feel safe walking their dogs or even getting their mail. What’s more, a number of bike commuters frequented the road, and at least one even got clipped by car.

So Councilman Elkins launched two small, inexpensive changes to the road. He changed it from four lanes to three lanes, with the inside lane being a turn lane. This slowed down the cars that had been whizzing by. He also added a shoulder on the both sides of the road. It provided a new space for bikers. This was great news for employees of Quality Bicycle Products, a Bloomington business. A number of them used that road to bike to work every day. The shoulders also served people on their feet, who now had a buffer between them and the cars.

The result? People began to feel safe in their neighborhood again. They didn’t feel threatened by cars that were driving too fast, whether they were biking on the road, walking on the sidewalk, or working in their yard. The people who had objected to the changes turned around and thanked Councilman Elkins for improving their neighborhood. A couple simple, cheap steps increased the likelihood of folks getting around without a personal vehicle. That’s why Complete Streets is also a matter of clean air. Increasing pedestrian safety and comfort is a key step in reducing the pollution that comes from cars. Roughly 1/4 of global warming pollution in Minnesota and 2/3 of oil consumption comes from the transportation sector.

If you’re interested in learning more or helping promote a statewide Complete Streets policy for Minnesota, check out the Minnesota Complete Streets Coalition or contact Ethan Fawley (fawley@fresh-energy.org).

“There is a basic law of nuclear waste often overlooked – all waste remains where it is first put.”
 
- Richard Wilson Riley, Then Governor of South Carolina, 1982*
 
This little bit of southern frankness from South Carolina happened to find its way into Minnesota history when it was quoted by administrative law judge Allen W. Klien in his opinion advising the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission to reject Northern States Power’s (NSP, now Xcel Energy) petition to store nuclear waste at the Prairie Island nuclear plant in April 1992.  One of NSP’s central arguments was that storage outside of Prairie Island would only be temporary.  It appears that former Governor Riley’s “Law of Nuclear Waste” was truer than the predictions of the high-priced experts hired by NSP who claimed back in the 1992 at the administrative hearings that the waste would be removed by 2010.

By the way, it is still there and still causing problems. 

The issue of long-term storage of extremely dangerous nuclear waste from our state’s two nuclear reactors in temporary casks took center stage at a hearing before the House Commerce and Labor Committee on Monday of this week.  The Committee had an informational hearing on HF2440, authored by the Committee’s chair Rep. Joe Atkins (DFL-Inver Grove Heights).  The bill proposes to interject the State of Minnesota in the long-standing dispute Xcel has with the federal government regarding their promise to collect spent nuclear fuel and permanently store it in a secure underground repository.  The federal government contracted to start picking up the waste beginning in1998.

As a result of the federal government’s breach of promise to collect nuclear waste, Xcel was forced to store this highly radioactive material in “dry casks” at its two nuclear reactors in Monticello and Prairie Island.  The sad reality is that Minnesota citizens as ratepayers to Xcel have been paying and continue to pay millions of dollars to the federal government for the purpose of collecting this waste.  Rep. Atkins put it quite simply when he asked, “If you all had a garbage man that didn’t show up for 28 years, would you continue to pay the bill?”  His legislation would do exactly that – require Xcel to stop paying the bill to the federal government to develop a national nuclear repository and require the money to be deposited instead in a state fund managed by a new Minnesota Nuclear Waste Storage Commission.  That Commission would be charged with developing a strategy for the long-term storage of high-level radioactive waste from the state’s nuclear reactors.

Not only has the garbage man not come in the last 28 years, it is indicated he probably will not come for another hundred years.  U.S. Energy Secretary Steven Chu recently announced that waste generated by America’s 104 nuclear reactors can be stored safely on-site for the next 100 years. The Department of Energy has put in place plans to permanently shut down the program to make Yucca Mountain a national repository, without any plans to look for an alternative site.  This was a complete 180 degree turn from the position taken by Chu back in March of last year where he promised a panel to explore permanent storage of US nuclear waste.  He even stated then, as far as Yucca went, America “could do better.”  No such panel has been created.  Apparently Chu thinks doing better on nuclear waste is to ignore the problem for a hundred years and leave it to our great-grandchildren to worry about.

If the federal government’s attitude is to ignore the problem, maybe Rep. Atkins has a good point that we should go it alone.  Unfortunately, his bill only gives lip service to finding a permanent repository for the over 2000 tons of nuclear waste which will be generated by our two reactors by the time the present permits expire.  It appears that the intent of the Commission is only to support efforts by local units of government to be first responders to a disaster and their responsibility to provide security for these facilities.  Such efforts need to be funded but ignore the permanent solution.  It appears that the local cities are using this effort to highlight a dispute they have with Xcel over the amount of property taxes the utility is paying to local units of government.  Xcel has been quite successful in past tax bills in reducing their overall property tax liability going to local units of government.  It used to be that cities wanted to have power plants within their property tax base because they used to provide a nice little boost to the local government coffers.  Unfortunately, with the changes in tax law secured by utilities and the new heightened concerns of terrorist attacks, the cities of Red Wing and Monticello are now forced to manage security for these highly toxic waste sites with less revenue.

Xcel indicated that Minnesota ratepayers are paying $13 million annually to the federal government for waste removal and storage.  We have paid over $386 million over the life of our nuclear reactors for the same.  Xcel claims that they will be successful in litigation to recover most of this payment because the federal government signed a contract to take the waste.  So our federal government goes into further debt so our grandchildren can pay higher taxes for our inability to manage our nuclear waste.  I for one, as an Xcel customer, would like them to either return my money or actually use the money to permanently dispose of this waste.

Therefore, a sensible improvement on this legislation would be to force Xcel to provide permanent secure underground storage away from the open air dry cask storage platforms along the Mississippi River.   This radioactive waste has a decaying “half-life” of 24,000 years and it takes 10 of those “half-lives” before the waste is no longer dangerous.  The casks our nuclear waste is presently stored in at over 500 degrees only have a design life of 25 years.  Minnesota has several large ancient granite formations that would be ideal for storing this waste.  If Minnesotans were truly stewards of our resources, we would not leave this waste unsecured for future generations to deal with.  We have been the ones who have enjoyed the benefits of this electricity, and we should take responsibility for its safe disposal.

Interestingly, former South Carolina Governor Richard Wilson Riley, who gave us the frank and honest assessment of nuclear waste storage, was most famous as an education reformer.  He was extremely popular in his home state due in large part to significant education reforms.  He was so popular with the people of South Carolina that they amended their constitution to allow him to serve a second term.  (A decision they’re probably regretting after the second term of current South Carolina Governor “Argentine Playboy” Sanford.)  Riley was later appointed by President Clinton to serve as the Secretary of Education.  He has been considered one of the most effective cabinet members in our nation’s history.

I wonder how former Secretary of Education Riley would grade the stupidity of actually wanting to build more nuclear reactors to create more nuclear waste that we have no place to safely store.  I’m going to go out on a limb and guess that the champion of improved educational standards would give a dunce hat to anybody so stupid as to think we need new nuclear reactors when we have not figured out how to dispose of the first four decades of waste we’ve already created.  I’m sure no one would be that stupid . . . or would they?

*Cited from the findings of the Minnesota administrative law Judge Klien, 4-10-92 on the dry cask storage at Prairie Island.

John’s Update to the Update:

Who knew we had so much pull to get the Secretary of Energy to finally adopt the blue ribbon commission on nuclear energy?  Just released today by the Department of Energy was the announcement of a new commission to look at nuclear energy and its waste management.  Hopefully they will be more successful than the nearly 50 years it took the Department of Energy to decide on and then kill Yucca Mountain. Here’s a link to the announcement:
http://energy.gov/news/8584.htm

A new report finds that Twin Cities building owners could save up to $10 million a year by implementing day shift cleaning. The report, “Clean Sweep: How a New Approach to Cleaning Buildings in the Twin Cities Can Protect Our Health and the Environment While Securing Jobs and Saving Money,” was released today by the Blue Green Alliance and SEIU Local 26. It finds that a day shift cleaning transition could save 4-8 percent in office building energy costs, and adopting green cleaning practices–which encourages the use of less toxic cleaning products–would protect the health of janitorial and office workers in commercial office buildings.

Twin Cities janitors work hard to provide a clean and safe environment for all of us in our biggest public and private buildings. Every night as most other workers are going home, most janitors begin their night shift, which keeps the lights and heat on for at least eight additional hours every night. Citing energy savings and a better environment for workers, the Hennepin County Government Center has already made the switch. Janitor Katra Arale, who has worked at the building for 11 years, said in a Tuesday press conference that workers like herself are happy to go to day cleaning to help save money and energy. However, Arale noted, the transition must be done right, preserving eight-hour shifts to allow workers to support families.

The report comes as SEIU Local 26, which represents over 4,000 janitors who clean the majority of buildings in the seven-county Twin Cities metropolitan area, have scheduled a Saturday vote deciding whether the union should strike. Union janitors have been working without a contract since January 8.

“Green Cleaning and Day Shift Cleaning should be a win-win proposition for building owners, tenants, and the janitors that clean the buildings,” said Javier Morillo, President of SEIU Local 26. “The key element in such a transition is ensuring that we have adequate staffing levels, training and the engagement of building tenants to make this transition as smooth as possible.”

“Day Shift Cleaning and Green Cleaning go hand-in-hand, as you can’t have a truly green building that is saving energy but full of toxic chemicals, or cleaned with green products but wasting energy,” said David Foster, executive director of the Blue Green Alliance. “This report demonstrates that transitioning to a green economy impacts every corner of our economy, from manufacturing the parts for clean energy production to making our buildings and workplaces safer, cleaner and more efficient.”

Fresh Energy joins over 40 community, environmental, faith and other organizations supporting Twin Cities janitors in their efforts to make janitorial jobs part of the new clean energy economy and ensure they are stable, eight-hour fulltime jobs that can support a family.

The American Corn Growers Association (ACGA) is speaking out in strong support of national energy and climate legislation. Keith Dittrich, chairman of the board of the ACGA, spoke January 15 in Chicago. A corn and soybean farmer from Nebraska, Dittrich addressed cap and trade policy as an opportunity to “save our productive environment.”

Dittrich rebuffed misinformation from the American Farm Bureau Federation, stating that “there is not enough being told about the benefits of cap and trade to agriculture.” He stated, “Cap and trade expands the market for farm production and will offer historic opportunities” for farmers.

Cap and trade legislation is currently pending in Congress. In reaction to the carbon legislation opposition Dittrich said, “the worst case scenario if we are wrong is that we will have built an energy system that is diverse, domestic, decentralized, renewable and more sustainable.”

Click here to read the news release from the American Corn Growers Association.

“Even Mr. Schwartz, the expert sponsored by NSP, conceded that 2010 was optimistic”
       Allen W. Klien
       April 10, 1992

Allen W. Klien was the Minnesota Administrator Law Judge appointed in 1992 to collect evidence and provide an opinion to the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission (PUC) as to whether Northern States Power Company (NSP, now known as Xcel) was allowed to store spent nuclear rods in dry casks outside its Prairie Island nuclear power plant.  The Prairie Island power plant is located just outside of the city of Red Wing on an island at the mouth of the Cannon River that had been used for centuries by the Dakota Indians as a village.  The first accounts by white explorers of this village go all the way back to Father Hennepin.

It’s what happened on this island in the early 1990s though that set the stage for one of the most dramatic political battles in Minnesota state history.

Last week we were recounting the passage of the 1977 Radioactive Waste Management Act which prohibited the construction or operation of a permanent radioactive waste management facility within Minnesota unless specifically authorized by the Minnesota Legislature.  In 1991, NSP was seeking permission from the PUC to “temporarily” store spent fuel rods from the Prairie Island nuclear plant in “dry casks” on a concrete pad just outside of their plant.  A dry cask is a 17′ x 9′ steel cylinder holding 40 spent fuel rods encased in helium to keep the fuel cool.  They were left with no choice but to store this waste in this fashion because the federal government failed to live up to their promise of building a federal repository.  Each of the spent fuel rods is highly radioactive with a decaying “half-life” of 24,000 years and it takes 10 of those “half-lives” before the waste is no longer dangerous.  One of Judge Klien’s findings was that the cask only had a design life of 25 years with a possible maximum life of 100 years.

NSP’s central argument was that the 1977 Radioactive Waste Management Act did not apply to the storage because it was “temporary” due to the imminent construction of a federal repository at Yucca Mountain in Nevada.  They put into evidence that the federal government was required to provide the repository that would be taking waste by 1998, but the utility expert testified that it would likely be ready by the year 2010.  On cross-examination, he apparently indicated, as quoted above, that the 2010 prediction was “optimistic”.  (Finding 88 of Judge Klien’s findings, 4-10-92)  Let’s see, that’s right — this year is 2010.  Well at least the NSP “expert” did get the optimistic part right.  It’s 2010 and the only thing hibernating in the caverns off Yucca Mountain, Nevada are rattlesnakes and scorpions.

Judge Klien rightly determined that any storage of nuclear waste in the fashion proposed by NSP had to be considered permanent.  Therefore, he ruled that the Legislature reserve for itself the authority to approve dry cask storage just outside the plant.  The PUC surprisingly ignored the administrative law judge’s opinion and issued a permit for the storage of the spent nuclear fuel rods in dry casks without legislative approval.  The PUC was then sued by the Prairie Island Mdewakanton Dakota Community and MEP member Minnesota Public Interest Research Group (MPIRG), among others.  At the end of May 1993 the Minnesota Court of Appeals ruled that the Legislature did retain the authority under the 1977 act to specifically authorize the dry cask storage.  That set off one of the most contentious legislative debates in Minnesota history.

Under immense pressure from the utilities to authorize the storage and in the midst of huge public protests against the storage, the Minnesota Legislature allowed 17 of these casks at Prairie Island, which was far less than was requested by the utilities.  The authorization by the Legislature came with some clear conditions.  Wisely recognizing the fallacy that there was no permanent storage in the near future, the Legislature placed a moratorium on the construction of more power plants that would produce more waste that would dangerously linger on Minnesota’s soil for many generations.  This legislation also required NSP to produce more wind and solar energy under the first concrete renewable energy standard.  It was a framework that the Minnesota Legislature has been building off of ever since, becoming a leader in renewable energy production through wind and other sources.   A small legacy of stewardship we should be proud of. 

The biggest lesson we should learn from this little tidbit of history is to take the claims of the so-called utility experts with a grain of salt.  As in the early 1990s, they are telling us today that nuclear energy is the most sensible baseload electricity source in existence.  I’m kind of curious what our great-grandchildren will think when they are saddled with the cost of figuring out how to store this dangerous nuclear waste when the casks outside of Red Wing start admitting excess amounts of radiation due to the decay of the casks.  At best, the casks are only supposed to survive the next hundred years.  So for 40 years of cheap electricity, we have saddled our future generations with the immense costs with no benefit.

Of course, those utility experts will tell us that the future holds some exciting recycling opportunities for this waste and that science will come up with the solution.  We don’t know at what cost or whether that is realistic, but those well-paid and well-meaning utility experts said it.  Therefore, it must be true.  They tell us that those paragons of scientific knowledge in France have figured it out by “recycling” their nuclear waste.  They want us to believe that this recycling will leave us with something useful in the end like a doormat made out of recycled pop bottles.  You too can have your recycled nuclear doormat for only $19.95 from Xcel Recycling Products, our friendly green nuclear recycling company (bonus, it even glows in the dark).  The dirty little secret they don’t tell you is that recycled nuclear waste produces weapons grade plutonium which is even more dangerous and more expensive to secure.  I hear the countries of Ethiopia and Yemen are competing to build the repository for our “recycled” nuclear waste.

Of course those experts also tell us that if Yucca Mountain does not work out, our federal government will be able to identify other storage options in the future.  The other dirty little secret that they don’t want you to know is that Minnesota has long been considered an ideal site for a nuclear repository.  We are miles away from any fault line and we have some of the largest ancient granite rock formations in the world.  As a matter of fact, the federal government has already identified several sites in Minnesota which would be ideal.  So if you live in St. Cloud, Mankato, or Thief River Falls, you might want to convince your mayors to start competing for that new repository.  I hear those repositories produce good construction jobs, for at least a couple years.  What’s great is that after the waste starts rolling in, think of the great community promotion and pride that will result from being the home of a nuclear waste repository.

Now, I am only the lobbyist for the environmental community and there are some in our ranks who think we should not give up on the possibility of nuclear energy playing a role in an energy policy with the goal of reducing pollution.  But every one of those individuals that I have talked to who want to continue to explore the concept of nuclear energy always provide significant caveats regarding what to do with the waste.  The caveat is always along the lines that the waste management issues must be resolved now before we create any more of this dangerous waste.  It is the height of extremely selfishness and utter lack of stewardship for our generation to think that we are so important that we must produce electricity for our short-term enjoyment while leaving thousands of generations with the headache of managing our legacy of dangerous waste. 

To learn more about moving forward with sensible and clean energy options without the need to saddle future generations with nuclear waste, go to www.protect.mn.

To learn more about the 1994 Prairie Island controversy the Minnesota Legislative Library as assembled several of the original document well organized for public review at: http://www.leg.state.mn.us/lrl/issues/prairieisland.asp

Most Minnesotans think the nuclear debate in Minnesota began with the 1994 battle dealing with the storage of nuclear waste in dry casks at Prairie Island just outside of Red Wing. The essential result of that debate was the compromise allowing limited storage of nuclear waste in exchange for a moratorium on the construction of new facilities in the state.

There is now a concerted effort to seek repeal of this moratorium during the 2010 legislative session. Proponents of repealing the moratorium on constructing nuclear power plants want the public to believe it is a knee-jerk reaction unwisely foisted upon Minnesota policymakers by long-haired hippies who sprinkled pixie dust over the legislators to confuse them from the reality that nuclear energy is safe. What they want is for us to ignore the rich history and well thought out policymaking that Minnesota entered into regarding nuclear energy long before the 1994 Prairie Island controversy.

One central piece of history was the adoption of the Radioactive Waste Management Act by the Minnesota Legislature in 1977, some 17 years before the Prairie Island compromise.

In the early 1970’s, Minnesota became home to two nuclear power plants. In 1973, Northern States Power Company (NSP, now known as Xcel Energy) powered up its brand-new Prairie Island nuclear power plant just outside Red Wing. Prairie Island is on the Mississippi River and the site of an ancient traditional winter village of the Dakota Indians. In 1974, NSP opened its second plant just outside Monticello, Minnesota. These two plants were built in the optimistic days when the federal government promised it would take and store waste from nuclear power plants. As a result, these plants were designed with very little waste storage capacity.

Also in the 1970’s, Congress empowered the Department of Energy’s predecessor, the Energy Resource and Development Administration (ERDA), with the duty of beginning the siting of a new federal nuclear waste storage facility. This effort immediately entered into a highly politicized game of hot potato between those understanding the need for such a site somewhere in United States and those in Congress who were trying to make sure they did not end up with a hot potato nuclear site when the music stopped playing.

Long before Yucca Mountain in Nevada, the Midwest was considered a prime site for a future repository of high level and low level nuclear waste from power plants. The little secret that the “repeal the moratorium” advocates don’t want you to know is that Minnesota is still a possible repository for nuclear power plant waste, but more on that next week. 

In 1975, word slipped out that ERDA was focusing in on salt beds underneath the northeast corner of the Upper Peninsula of Michigan. Michigan quickly marshaled its political resources under the leadership of its governor, William Milliken, and Congressman Philip R. Ruppe to snuff out the attempt.

By 1976 information started to leak out that ERDA’s attention had shifted away from salt mines to stable ancient granite rock formations in Wisconsin. It was quickly learned that Minnesota had very similar ancient granite rock formations throughout the state. As a result, the Minnesota Legislature in 1977 sprang into action. Unlike the legislative sessions of gridlock and inaction we’ve become used to in the last decade, the legislatures of the 1970s proved to include some of the most respected policymakers in the nation. Remember this was the age of the “Good Life in Minnesota,” with the famed picture of Governor Wendell Anderson holding up that scrawny Northern on the front of Time magazine with a theme that we were “a state that works.”  Apparently catching a scrawny Northern while wearing an Elmer Fudd plaid shirt was an image of success back then.

The 1977 Legislature took up HF1215, a bill prohibiting the transportation and storage of radioactive waste in Minnesota which they titled the Radioactive Waste Management Act. The chief author in the Senate was Bill Luther from Brooklyn Center, serving in his first term and later to become a Congressman. The House author was Walter Hanson, a four term representative from St. Paul. He was joined by co-authors Willard Munger and a third term House member from Minneapolis by the name of Phyllis Kahn.

The Radioactive Waste Management Act specifically prohibited the construction or operation of a radioactive waste management facility within Minnesota unless specifically authorized by the Minnesota Legislature. On May 9, 1977, the Minnesota House unanimously passed HF1215.  On May 20, 1977, the Minnesota Senate took up floor debate on the bill. Senator Pillsbury (yes, of the famed milling family that brought us the Pillsbury doughboy) moved to strike the language prohibiting the construction of a radioactive waste facility unless the Legislature approved its construction. Senator Pillsbury’s motion failed because he could only convince seven other colleagues to join him. The Senate went on to overwhelmingly support passage of HF1215 by a vote of 41 to 16. The bill was signed into law by Governor Rudy Perpich as Chapter 416 and codified in section 116C of the Minnesota Statutes. This was Perpich’s first session after becoming governor from his post as lieutenant governor upon the resignation of Wendell Anderson. One of Perpich’s first acts as governor was the appointment of Wendell Anderson as a U.S. Senator to finish the term of the new vice president of United States, former Minnesota Senator Walter Mondale.

In the 1980’s, the Department of Energy did identify three possible locations within Minnesota for permanent storage of nuclear waste from power plants, but those efforts never came to a final proposal which would have challenged whether the Radioactive Waste Management Act law was constitutional. The prohibition of the permanent storage of radioactive waste in Minnesota would not become an issue until 1991, when Northern States Power filed a certificate of need with the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission for additional “temporary” storage of nuclear waste in dry casks outside of its Prairie Island power plant. The promised federal repository that Northern States Power was relying on back in the 1970s when it built its nuclear power plants with little storage was still only a concept in the early 1990s. They argued that Minnesota’s Radioactive Waste Management Act did not apply to “temporary” storage. 

More on the role of Radioactive Waste Management Act in the Prairie Island debate next week.

Click here to see the Time magazine cover of former Governor Wendell Anderson.

Watch videos, read tweets and blogs, and look at photos of the events, all from Midwesterners in Denmark this month.

Check out the Will Steger Foundation’s website and RE-AMP’s collection of information.