Nuclear storage fees at Monticello plant revisited by Senate committee  
Wednesday, 11 April 2007
by T.W. Budig
ECM capitol reporter

Grumbling from local lawmakers about proposed Xcel Energy payments for dry cask storage at the Monticello nuclear power plant has one Senate committee revisiting the nuclear power issue.

The Senate Committee on Energy, Utilities, Technology and Communications temporarily laid aside legislation that would have Xcel paying $350,000 each year for each dry cask containing spent fuel at Monticello — $5.2 million a year if the plant is not operating.

Sen. Ellen Anderson, DFL-St. Paul, described the bill as compromise language worked out with Xcel Energy.

 
Image
 
PICTURED: Sen. Ellen Anderson, DFL-St. Paul, listens to testimony during a Senate hearing on dry cask storage fees at the Monticello nuclear power plant. In the foreground is Jim Alders of Xcel Energy.

 

Xcel Energy currently pays some $16 million a year for nuclear waste storage.
 

Sen. Amy Koch, R-Buffalo, characterized Anderson’s legislation — part of a larger bill — as well meaning but excessive. “I just view the charge as an additional overcharge,” she said of the proposed Monticello cask fee.

 

Image
 
PICTURED: Sen. Amy Koch, R-Buffalo, was critical of the proposed $350,000 per year fee for each dry cask at Monticello containing spent fuel.  Monticello began operations in the early 1970s.

 

Sen. Mike Jungbauer, R-East Bethel, argued that charging Xcel Energy to store nuclear waste was backward. Rather than storing the radioactive material, research should be conducted on secondary uses for it, he argued. Nuclear energy ought to be part of the overall energy discussion, Jungbauer opined. Though adding the waste storage is a concern, he lauded the technology as not contributing to green house gases — a legacy of fossil fuels.

Still, Anderson explained that indications are coming out of Washington that the proposed federal nuclear waste storage facility in Yucca Mountain, Nev., may never be accepting nuclear waste.

“So who knows what’s going to happen,” she said.

The committee is expected to revisit the nuclear power issue, including Anderson’s bill, at an upcoming hearing.

(Photos by T.W. Budig, ECM Capitol Reporter)