Readers write for Wednesday, March 16

I was one of 1,414 nonviolent protesters arrested at the Seabrook nuclear power plant in New Hamphire in 1977.

The subsequent incidents at Chernobyl and Three Mile Island ended the nuclear discussion until recently.

Now we revisit the issue.

The Monticello reactor, 35 miles northwest of Minneapolis, is a General Electric Mark 3-design boiling water reactor similar to the Mark 1 reactors at Fukushima.

These reactors are 40 years old, and thus far, four of the six Japanese reactors have experienced cooling system failures.

In November 2006, the Monticello plant received a rubber stamp from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to operate another 20 years beyond its 40-year design life.

Extremely hot fuel rods are stored in a cooling pool 70 feet above the reactor. That is where the fire is in Fukushima.

In addition, at Monticello there is semipermanent nuclear storage in above-ground bunkers adjacent to the reactor on the Mississippi River floodplain, just upstream of the Twin Cities water intake valves. This spring we are expecting record floods.

We could use the Fukushima disaster to move toward a multifaceted efficiency-first and renewable-energy policy. Efficiency is the easiest, cheapest way to save significant power.

Retrofitting buildings for energy efficiency would promote jobs and taxes here. Renewable startup ventures are the small businesses of our dreams.

This is our chance to insure a secure economic and environmental Minnesota future with an eye to the international market.

SUSU JEFFREY, MINNEAPOLIS

• • •

As the chief author of the Minnesota Environmental Policy Act, which established the environmental review process, it greatly concerns me that the Republican-controlled Legislature is engaging in a deliberate weakening of this vitally important aspect of law.

The purpose of the law is "to promote efforts that will prevent or eliminate damage to the environment and biosphere."

The environmental review process is the means to carry out this purpose via analysis of potentially harmful projects to ensure that they are developed so as to minimize harm to natural resources, public health and the environment.

Most Minnesotans agree with this purpose and support environmental protection, as was demonstrated by the overwhelming vote to raise taxes on themselves by adopting the Legacy Amendment.

Any rational consideration of our many environmental challenges would indicate that we should be strengthening our protective measures from what they were when the process was established 40 years ago.

Instead, we are embarked on what appears to be a systematic weakening.

Unfortunately, a "streamlining" act was signed by the governor that did a number of things that tend to weaken the environmental review process.

One provision that was especially bad was to exempt the Iron Range Resources and Rehabilitation Board from review of its projects. It now seems that other proposals would exclude ethanol projects from review.

Who knows what other special interests will be seeking the same exemption?

I don't for a minute believe Minnesotans want to see this kind of damage done to something they hold dear.

Let's hope that common sense will prevail in the Legislature and that the governor will strongly oppose any actions to corrupt the environmental review process further.

ROBERT DUNN, PRINCETON

The writer is a former state senator.

• • •

Phil Verleger's prediction of higher gasoline and diesel prices from bringing a pipeline down from Canada ("If gas prices go up further, blame Canada," March 14) flies in the face of the global oil market reality and basic economic principles of supply and demand.

The pipeline could bring more than a million barrels a day to U.S. refiners along the Gulf Coast. Based on what we know about supply and demand, consumers will be helped by this, not hurt.

Gulf Coast refiners get supplies from around the world. They will now have an important new source of supply, which will enhance global competition for the U.S. refining market, which in turn, based on historical experience, will put downward pressure on prices.

Canadian producers or pipeline companies won't drive prices, as Verlerger suggests. Markets will. These companies must accept the price the market is willing to pay. They can't dictate it.

The level of the discount offered to refineries for Canadian crude will be determined by the competition, not by Canada. And a discount is a discount.

Secure supplies of oil from Canada will not just increase competition among suppliers to the benefit of consumers, it could create 113,700 new jobs in Minnesota and add more than $9 billion to the state's economy over the next five years.

Overall, it could create 343,000 new American jobs and add $34 billion to the nation's gross domestic product by 2015.

ERIN ROTH, MADISON, WIS.

The writer is executive director of the Minnesota/Wisconsin Petroleum Council.

* * *

The March 15 article on "Daily Deal Fatigue" left out a crucial fact that every buyer of a coupon or gift certificate needs to know: Minnesota law generally prohibits the sale of a gift card or certificate that has an expiration date.

This was made into state law in 2007 and is clearly explained by the attorney general's office. In fact, Groupon is being sued in U.S. District Court in Minneapolis under both state and federal laws that prohibit companies from selling or issuing gift certificates with expiration dates.

S.B. GARON, ST. PAUL

_______

Readers: To offer an opinion considered for publication as a letter to the editor, write no more than 250 words to opinion@startribune.com. Include your name and the city where you live.

Follow us on Twitter @StribOpinion