Electrical Energy Project Working Team Meeting: Independence
July 12, 2011
Members Present: Julia Eagles, Fritz Ebinger, Kristen Eide-Tollesfson, Rick Evans, Jenny (Myers) Fisher, Mark Fritsch,
Sheri Hansen, Georgie Hilker, Matt Hunt, Robert Jagusch, Rodney Larkins, Charles LaVine, Dennis Panzer, Don
Peterson, Christina Mills, Becky Siekmeier, Ted Stephany, Michelle Vigen
Staff Present: Annie Levenson-Falk, Brittany Werner
Negotiate Agenda: Knock off ten minutes of small group discussion to allow for more large group discussion.

What is electrical independence? What do we mean when we use that term?

Talk about the possible benefits of being independent of out of state electricity.

Rodney brought up the idea of cost efficiency last time.

If you have a great wind resource in one place but not another it doesn’t seem reasonable to build an
uneconomical generating source here just to say we have one.

Is it an island of independence?

Decided in the prior meeting that we would be talking less about being completely independent of other states
electrical resources and more about become less dependent on them for our electrical power.
Large Group Discussion: Why is electrical independence important to Minnesota?



Main reason: economic development
o
stop flow of dollars out of state
o
protect from price volatility
o
etc
We would be less dependent, not totally independent.
o
We produce as many electrons as we use.
o
We will continue to be tied into regional grid.
o
Maybe not “independence” but what kind of “inter-dependence.”
o
Leaf-branch-tree analogy
Need to consider independence in context of mitigating factors
o

Reliability is important

Not a problem now, must continue to not be a problem

Tie to regional grid helps prevent brownouts

Could independence serve reliability? Could it make it more difficult?
o
Price that is competitive
o
High quality power
o
The other key characteristics of the system (efficiency, minimal environmental impact, etc.)
Minnesota’s energy resources are renewable. Electrical energy independence would reduce environmental
impact as a byproduct


Distributed and centralized generation
o
Consequences for reliability?
o
Possibility of a false choice (neither one may be “right” or “wrong”)
o
Pros/cons of each, how can they complement each other?
o
Agreed to continue this discussion online
Minnesota become a leader by figuring out infrastructure questions
o
Financing is a barrier
Infrastructure Modeling

Independence is good insofar as it doesn’t interact negatively with other things

As an environmental concern, independence almost certainly means an increase in renewables, for
Minnesota at least.
o
Agreed that, because of our lack of fossil fuels, more emphasis on renewables and other forms of clean
energy would result from independence.
o
At some point we’ll see our base load sources as things other than fossil fuels
o
Nice to have renewables but we will probably never completely eradicate the need for base load plants

MN could be an innovator on this issue

Distributed versus Centralized generation
o
Regarding the modeling question: there are a number of different models and no one model is likely to
dominate
o
The distributed model could be supplemental to what we eventually end up doing.
o
A mixture of both with different options for different places
o
Based on what we’ve looked at do we want distributed or centralized generation or some mixture of both?
o
Maybe just focus on pros and cons for now and stay away from specifics

Do we want to look at economic development in terms of dist. Versus centralized generation?
How do they compare?

Financing is an issue; if you can’t get the money to do it you can’t make it happen

You can have a giant solar or wind plant but how much space and resources do you want
to take up in order to get it?

Ownership is important
o

Encourage MN made panels, turbines etc.
Socioeconomic element
o
Richest people get solar panels due to incentives and others pay for it.
Triple Bottom Line Small group discussion
The group divided into three smaller groups to tackle three sub-issues regarding independence

Social

Environmental

Economic
Social
Talked mainly about putting together a comprehensive list of stakeholders.

Consumers

Environmental groups
o
Residential

Unions
o
Commercial

Investors
o
Industrial

Rate payer advocates

Regulators

Plant construction businesses

Local governments

Health care providers/ health advocates

Different types of utilities (municipal vs. investor

Landowners
owned)

Policymakers
Economic

Talked primarily about economic sustainability
o
Cost effectiveness versus cost competitiveness

The system could be more expensive but also provide more benefits
o
Independent infrastructure and cost effectiveness if consumer is not willing to bear those costs we have a
problem.

Need to keep consumer needs in mind
Environmental issues

Talked quite a bit about technology and how the development of this technology will contribute to economic
growth within the state
o

Technological improvements are the key to improving sustainability and independence
Reducing carbon footprint will inevitably become a natural part of Minnesota’s energy independence
Next Steps Evaluations

Continue the definition discussion online until next meeting

Sheri is providing incentives (raffle for gift cards) for Citizing use

Continue the centralized versus decentralized discussion online as well
Ratings
3,3,3,4,3,4,4,4,4,4,3,4,3,2.5
Average Rating
3.5
Comments

partial consensus but not quite sure we identified everything adequately

we had good discussion and addressed some important concerns