Push for new nuclear plants gains steam in Legislature

The state Senate dealt a blow to Minnesota's ban on nuclear power plants Wednesday, easily passing a repeal of the 17-year-old moratorium during its first major vote of the legislative session.

The bill passed 50-14, drawing some support from DFLers. The House, where the bill also has strong GOP support, is expected to vote on the repeal later this month.

Republican legislative leaders say that even though no nuclear construction has been proposed, a repeal would provide a strong signal that Minnesota is ready to explore its options.

Nuclear power is getting a fresh look across the country as gas prices spike and other alternate fuels bring their own challenges. Growing energy demands and calls for cuts in carbon emissions have prompted even some environmentalists to support nuclear energy.

"I believe very strongly that Minnesota should not move into the future with one hand tied behind their back," said Senate Majority Leader Amy Koch, R-Buffalo, a chief sponsor of the bill. "And I believe that currently that's what's happening."

Gov. Mark Dayton sounded strong notes of caution, but did not reject a repeal outright.

"My opposition is based on the fact that there is no national storage site [for waste]. ... There's no free lunch when it comes to energy production," Dayton said Wednesday. "If that could be resolved at some point in the future, then it seems to me that it changes the consideration."

The Sierra Club environmental group, meanwhile, called the vote a "step in the wrong direction."

Minnesota has nuclear plants, in Monticello and Prairie Island, but has prohibited the construction of new plants since 1994, when long-term storage of waste became a flashpoint of controversy. A DFL-led Senate voted to lift the state's ban in 2009, but similar efforts failed in the DFL House.

The majorities in both bodies have flipped since then, and Republicans say that the time to explore expanded nuclear power is at hand.

"This bill is not a permit for construction, members," Koch said in arguing for her bill. "It is simply a permit for discussion." By most estimates, a new plant would take about a decade to construct.

Dayton said his concerns go beyond waste storage. He does not want ratepayers to be on the hook for planning costs or any reprocessing that could result in weapons-grade plutonium as a byproduct.

Koch said that preventing utilities from charging ratepayers for plant costs until it is operational would make it financially impossible to build new plants.

"Our customers have already been on the hook for a nuclear power plant that they changed their mind and didn't go ahead with," said John Marty, DFL-Roseville, recalling Xcel Energy's plans to build a plant in Wisconsin in the 1970s. Minnesota customers wound up having to pay $67 million for the site even after Xcel abandoned it.

Where does it go?

The Obama administration recently cut funding for a long-awaited nuclear storage facility at Yucca Mountain in Nevada. Without a federal facility, Minnesota's nuclear power plants must store spent fuel rods on-site.

Sen. Ellen Anderson, DFL-St. Paul, noted that the original moratorium was born out of concerns over waste storage.

Dayton said that "if there isn't a national resolution to the waste disposal, I would not personally support an additional nuclear plant."

Sen. Michael Jungbauer, R-East Bethel, said those concerned about storage should pressure the state attorney general to "go after the federal government."

"They were the ones that promised [the storage]," he said.

The bill is scheduled for a House hearing next Tuesday.

Staff writer Rachel E. Stassen-Berger contributed to this article.