By Rep. Paul Anderson
The increasing cost for electric energy in the future has been a recurring theme for meetings of the Legislative Energy Commission this past summer and fall. Most experts in the field expect the cost to rise modestly into the future. However, the national policy of carbon reduction and what it might do to existing coal-fired generation plants could be the big driver of rates in the years ahead.
The plan pushed by President Obama is currently being challenged in the courts, and most of our neighboring states have stopped the discussion on how to meet the rigorous federal standards for carbon emissions pending the outcome of the case. The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, however, has continued its scheduled series of meetings concerning the new rule around the state. That despite a letter from several legislators, including myself, asking the agency to suspend its planning process until the situation has been decided by the courts. The reply we received back was, “Full speed ahead.”
Up to this point, Minnesota has been a national leader in energy conservation. But anything done before the year 2012 is not being counted toward the attainment of these new reduction goals. Nuclear power, probably the cleanest and most green method of producing large amounts of baseload electricity, is also not being counted. Also of concern is how North Dakota will reduce its carbon emissions by up to 45 percent under the Clean Power Plan. Much of the coal-generated electricity consumed in Minnesota comes from our neighboring state to the west, and they will be challenged in meeting these ambitious reduction numbers set by the EPA. And, once again, technologies already in place to significantly reduce pollutants such as mercury will not be counted as part of their new reduction goals.
At a recent Energy Commission hearing, a spokesman for Great River Energy, the power supplier for Minnesota’s rural electric cooperatives, spoke about how their business is different from investor-owned or publicly-owned utilities. On average, the investor-owned business has an average of 34 customers per mile of power line. The municipally-owned utility has 48 customers per mile, while the co-ops have less than eight. As a result of that lower density, co-op revenue per mile of line is significantly lower than the other two. And the mix of customers for the three types of providers shows the co-ops residential share of business is well over 50 percent, while the other two have higher percentages of larger commercial and industrial customers.
***
Language aimed at clearing up the intent of last year’s buffer legislation has been introduced in both the House and Senate. It does a fairly good job, and removes any mention of the wording “benefitted areas,” which led to disagreement about mapping private ditches, along with public waters and public ditches. Still of concern, however, is one section of the statute defining public waters as any watershed draining at least two square miles. At a hearing in the Ag Policy Committee last week, we were shown a map of a section of Traverse County. Most of the land there, on the southern edge of the Red River Valley, is flat, and the map we saw was a section of six square miles. There were four small rivers or creeks running through the area, and it appeared that the entire six miles of land could be included for buffers because it’s all within the two-mile distance from the public waters on the map.
***
Hoping your Easter holiday was enjoyable. We woke up to a fresh coating of snow Sunday morning, but by the time church had ended, the bright sunshine had taken care of that. The afternoon was delightful, with blue skies and light winds making the day enjoyable for outdoor activities.
-30-