6.1. ERMUSR 04-12-2011 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Vol. 14, No. 5 March 11, 2011 The House Commerce and Regulatory Reform Committee Tuesday approved HF 72 (Beard, R- Shakopee). The bill removes the state ban on new carbon dioxide emissions from utilities, either from new in-state plants or importation of power from out-of-state plants. That same day the Senate Committee on Energy Utilities and Telecommunications approved the Senate companion bill, SF 86 (Rosen). The identical bills are expected to be approved by their respective bodies. Many observers question whether Gov. Mark Dayton will sign the bills, in their current form. A conference committee was scheduled for today (Friday) to possibly reconcile differences in the House and Senate versions of legislation which repeals the state's ban on new nuclear power plants. In a move that is perhaps not coincidence, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce released a study Thursday that identified five stalled energy projects in Minnesota that it said could contribute $12.8 billion in economic output and 21,100 jobs a year if they were approved. The five projects were part of a national study that identified 351 proposed energy projects in 49 states that are caught in regulatory limbo, according to the business group. Planning and construction of those projects would generate $577 billion in direct investment, 1.9 million jobs and approximately $1.1 trillion for the U.S. gross domestic product, said the Chamber. Senator Michelle Benson is convening a Conservation Improvement Program (CIP) stakeholder's meeting, scheduled for Tuesday, March 15th. The purpose of this meeting, according to legislative staff, is to develop "the best possible legislation that will optimize the success of CIP in Minnesota." Goals include: (1) achieving energy conservation, thereby reducing the need for utility infrastructure investments to achieve ratepayer savings and other benefits; (2) Ensuring that CIP is structured on sound business principles which will achieve real and verifiable energy savings; and (3) Focus on utilizing CIP for economic development and job creation as part of an overall energy savings process. MMUA and municipal joint action agencies will participate in the meetings. Topics are expected to include: 1) How can more job creation and economic development be achieved with CIP expenditures? Should there be more focus on business customers? 2) Is a more rigorous policy necessary to direct investments towards projects with the best rate of return in energy savings and/or economic development? 3) Why should energy savings achieved from utility infrastructure investments be treated different from savings achieved by customers? 4) Why are energy savings from a certain protect only counted for one year, and not for the iife of the project?