MN funded nuke study, the devil is in the detail
Hidden away on pages 43 to 45 of a 58 page MN state bill about taxes and finances, is a section entitled “Nuclear Energy Study; Appropriation.” The section is number 11. The bill is HF2438. It was signed into law by Governor Tim Walz, less than a month ago, on May 27th.
As reported on June 9th by the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association (NRECA):
“State lawmakers voted to fund a $500,000 study that could be the first step in lifting a 32-year ban on new nuclear power plants. … State lawmakers voted to approve the study on the final day of their legislative session on May 17.”
MN nuke study, the Center’s influence
The Center of the American Experiment has played an instrumental role in, not just the “baby steps in that direction” of this study, but also in ending “Minnesota’s moratorium on new nuclear power generators.”
An end to the ban on new nukes is starting to become more likely than not next year. This is in part due to this study, which will start on July 1st 2026 and be completed by January 31st 2027. But even more so, as observed by the Center on March 28th, because:
“It’s been clear for a long time that nuclear power enjoys bipartisan support at the legislature.”
The primary way the Center helped to get this process to the funded study stage, was our campaign to “Nuke the Mandate, Free the Nukes.” This was launched on March 5th and featured:
“billboards, TV ads during the high school hockey and basketball tournaments, radio and podcast advertising and social media promotion. The TV ad focused on the fact that Minnesota is just one of nine states to ban the expansion of nuclear power, the cleanest form of energy.”
MN nuke study, the devil’s details
In summary, Section 11 of HF2438 sets out this study’s: purpose and logistics in (a), (c) and (e); process and stakeholders in (b) and (d); as well as content and scope in (c)(1) to (c)(15). But, as they say, “the devil is in the detail.” A sample of this detail, with commentary, follows next.
“(a) $500,000 in fiscal year 2027 is appropriated from the general fund to the commissioner of commerce … (c) The study must be completed no later than January 30, 2027 … “
A study of this sort should typically take one year or more, and cost $1 million or greater. This is especially the case given the scale of just the status quo impacts alone, which were of the order of $1 billion way back in April 2017.
“(a) … to contract with the Great Plains Institute to conduct a study to inform policymakers …”
An independent study should be put out to competitive tender, and most likely awarded to a commercial consulting firm, rather than to an ideological 501(c)(3) nonprofit. The latter is more likely to have a predetermined viewpoint, be it for or against nuclear power. In the case of the Great Plains Institute For Sustainable Development, the evidence strongly suggests against. Not to mention, they do not seem to have any expertise in impact evaluation.
“(b) The commissioner of commerce must ensure balanced representation of perspectives in the study.”
This is a surprising, but very welcome, provision. And this is in keeping with a Red Team approach, which is “based on the idea that research that is more critically and widely evaluated is more reliable.” The Center has, thus, offered to Commissioner Grace Arnold our participation as representatives of the perspectives of sound economics and sensible reform.
“(d) The study must be conducted transparently, with all data, assumptions, and models made publicly available.”
This is also surprising, but again welcome. This provision is in line with “Evidence-Based Policy Making,” which requires, amongst other things, that: “If it hasn’t been tested, or contested, we can’t really call it evidence.” However, sources should also be included along with data, assumptions and models. Minnesota Management and Budget (MMB) clarifies what is considered evidence.
“(a) … regarding the potential impact of new nuclear generation on the public interest of Minnesota, including affordability, reliability, environmental protection, and public health.”
“(c) … and must include, at a minimum, discussion of: … federal regulations … technological advances … costs … ratepayer[s] … public subsidies, tax expenditures, and financial incentives … water … colocating … environmental … health … acceptance … transmission … waste … employment … economic activity … tax revenue … public safety … carbon-free … permitting … Minnesota statutes and administrative rules … workforce …”
As shopping lists go, this is a pretty good one. However, it lacks a structured framework. MMB provides the beginnings of that in terms of Impact Evaluation (IE), but not nearly enough. The US federal government provides more, but for regulatory Cost Benefit Analysis (CBA) not for IE per se. The Australian government offers the most comprehensive guidance for both IE and CBA, the former referred to as Policy Impact Analysis (PIA).
“(c)(3) … The analysis must include historical evidence from comparable projects in the United States and internationally;”
This is yet another welcome provision, except that it is appears to only narrowly apply to (c)(3), which is confined to “full lifecycle costs … and long-term liability exposure …” The Center intends to encourage this approach to be taken for the study as a whole.
MN nuke study, the Center’s involvement
The Center hopes to hear back from the MN Commerce Commissioner, well before July 1st, that our offer of participation in this Nuclear Energy Study, has not only been accepted, but is even welcomed.
Our perspective for this study, as also in PUC rate cases, is unique in MN. We provide a free-market-friendly viewpoint that best balances the interests of energy suppliers, users and other stakeholders, including climate, environmental and social welfare ones.
We hope to do even better in this study than being just a critical watchdog, in line with the modern idiom of “the devil is in the detail,” by going further to be a constructive contributor, as per the original derivative of “God is in the detail.”