Mar 3 - McClatchy-Tribune Regional News - Dennis Lien Pioneer Press, St. Paul, Minn.



The nuclear power debate in Minnesota is back again -- in earnest.

A Senate energy panel heard three hours of testimony Tuesday on whether to lift a 16-year ban on new nuclear power-plant proposals in the state.

But it was only a prelude to Thursday, when the Energy, Utilities, Technology and Communications Committee will debate and vote on that bill, a crucial step in establishing whether the often-charged issue has enough support to continue advancing through the Legislature.

A measure championed by state Sen. Amy Koch, R-Buffalo, would remove a ban on new nuclear projects established in 1994 during a heated debate over where to put highly radioactive nuclear waste. It's the same proposal the Senate agreed to last year, and the House voted down. Proponents signaled they'd be back this year and have introduced several measures, including Koch's.

 Xcel Energy already operates two nuclear power plants -- near Red Wing and Monticello -- that produce a quarter of the electricity the utility distributes to its Upper Midwest customers. But the plants also generate a growing volume of controversial high-level radioactive nuclear waste that has no clear destination.

While the times have changed, many views outlined by a long list of speakers haven't.

Supporters of lifting the ban pointed to new jobs, low energy costs over the life of a nuclear plant and a reliable energy base. With increasing concerns about greenhouse-gas emissions, they argued,

nuclear power should at least be an option.

Planning can occur better without an official state ban, they said.

"Repealing the moratorium in no way guarantees that a new reactor will ever be built," cautioned Marshall Cohen, senior director of state and local government affairs for the Nuclear Energy Institute, a policy organization of the nuclear industry. "Continuing the moratorium does guarantee that your citizens never have the opportunity to participate in that decision."

But opponents pointed to safety risks, prohibitively high construction costs, uncertainty over where to put toxic nuclear waste, public opposition and federal inaction on solutions. They also argued that turning again to nuclear power is a distraction that would slow progress with other renewable energy options.

Lisa Ledwidge, outreach director for the Institute for Energy and Environmental Research, said the moratorium is not aimed at stifling debate, which she said can occur regardless. Citing upfront costs utilities elsewhere charge their ratepayers, she said it's "to protect Minnesota businesses and households from the types of problems that have emerged in other places."

The debate occurs before a rapidly shifting background.

Last year, the longtime federal option for storing nuclear waste, a permanent repository at Yucca Mountain in Nevada, was sidetracked by the Obama administration's decision to remove funding for it in the federal budget.

More recently, Obama gave nuclear power a boost when he announced an $8 billion government-loan guarantee to a coalition of utilities hoping to build a nuclear power plant in Georgia. It would be the first new plant in more than three decades.

Xcel Energy did not testify but has said publicly that it has no plans for a new nuclear plant in the state.

Dennis Lien can be reached at 651-228-5588.

(c) 2010, McClatchy-Tribune Information Services