The Fix is in at the Commission

Thou shalt not advocate for nuclear today

Ok, so the commission turned down my request to be an intervener. My request was predicated on the issue that no interveners are advocating for existing large nuclear plans.¹ Allowing advocates for SMRs is giving lip service to nuclear but using technology that is 10+ years in the future, too late for this proceeding.

The commission’s first argument was that two avenues exist for me. First the Office of the Consumer Advocate. However, the OCA does not, and should not, advocate for a specific energy source.

Second, that I can enter comments. The fact that interveners exist show that there is a significant difference in the impact of commenters and interveners. You don’t see them telling the OCA to just enter comments.

The commission’s second argument was that interveners should not be individuals. However, they have accepted Walmart as an intervener and according to the Supreme Court a company is a person (singular). And they are a single rate payer. So legally - no different than me aside from the size of their monthly payment.

This argument gets even more ridiculous when you see that they have accepted numerous “environmental”² groups such as Sierra Club and WRA who’s membership is primarily in different states. Why are we allowing out of state actors, who’s priorities are set by people in other states, to intervene?

And the giant question - are they so afraid of the compelling arguments for building the AP-1000 or APR-1400 that they will not allow a single advocate for that in the proceeding?

What Next

My first thought was to appeal the decision. Unfortunately, every lawyer I could find who knows this world is already representing one of the existing interveners and so can’t represent me. I could use my law firm but they’ll be new to this and that is both expensive and less likely to succeed.

And on top of that, the commission has made it very clear, in my opinion, that they are all in on wind + solar + batteries³ and opposed to nuclear. If an appeal is successful I can then make them listen, but I can’t make them do so with an open mind.

So for the moment not appealing. And I will add comments shortly. As to what else, I’m open to suggestions…

And keep in mind, as you read news about what Xcel and the PUC are discussing as power sources over the next 10 years, nuclear is not being considered. The fix is in for wind & solar, regardless of the cost.

1. One intervener, PIESAC (bless them), is advocating for SMRs. And several interveners are open to SMRs. None are advocating for the AP-1000.

2. I use the quotes because saying you want to reduce carbon and are opposed to nuclear power isn’t environmental, it’s an argument for paralysis.

3. Granted they are aware of the cost and that might give them pause.