FROM THE DESK OF
REPRESENTATIVE DE BOEF
March 31, 2011
Increased Iowa Energy Production - Essential for Iowa
Nuclear energy generation and safety issues have been in the headlines ever since Japan’s
tragic earthquake and tsunami that followed. The threat of a meltdown of one of the reactors and
exposure to radiation has the entire world watching and re-examining the safety and security of their
own nuclear power facilities.
Upon closely examining the Japanese failure that was affected by the disaster, two things
have come to light. The first is that the reactors survived the earthquake itself. No structural damage
was detected as a result of one of the most severe earthquakes ever recorded, 9.0. The shock waves
created by movement resulting in an overlap of over 13 feet of the earth’s geo plates did not affect the
nuclear plant. The engineering design had successfully addressed the shock waves.
What the engineers failed to address was protecting the facility from the tsunami, the 31 foot
wall of water that rushed ashore wiping out entire cities resulting in 10,000 persons dead and 19,000
still missing. As the water surged into the nuclear facility shutting down its power, the emergency
generators used to continue to cool the water in which the radioactive rods are stored were suddenly
under water and unable to function. This put the nuclear reactors at risk. If those generators had
been installed on the roof of the plant, rather than on the ground, we wouldn’t be confronted with the
potential disaster.
This year, the Iowa Legislature has been examining the feasibility of building a next-generation
nuclear power plant in Iowa. Safety concerns are utmost in our minds. Even though we have no
threat of a tsunami here in Iowa, water is still an issue in the safety of the plant. Nuclear power plants
are always built near water that provides cooling needs of the facility. Protection from floods is
imperative in the design of a new nuclear facility in our state.
The Iowa House will debate House File 561, which is the next step in the process to see if
bringing new technology to Iowa is the right approach for meeting the state’s needs for electricity over
the next 50 years.
Why nuclear rather than other forms of power generation being considered? Coal, which has
been our major producer of electricity in the past, is expected to eventually be phased out. As it sits
now, federal regulations will require the use of clean coal technology in 2015. Eleven coal fired plants
will close across the country. A new coal fired plant for Iowa was rejected in recent years. Solar
power at 33 cents per kwh is over three times the cost of nuclear’s ten cents per kwh. The cost of
natural gas is 15 to 32 cents per kwh, but would serve our citizens better if used for heating our
homes, rather than the production of electricity. Wind is the cheapest at nine cents per kwh but is
unreliable, only producing electricity 30 percent of the time. The form of energy production that we
choose must be able to consistently produce power at all times to sustain the power grid.
With the recent near-disaster in Japan, many are asking, “What’s the hurry? What’s wrong
with waiting a year?”
It is in the best interests of consumers to act now. The U.S. Department of Energy is moving
forward in 2011 to competitively award $400-500 million for the development of the type of small
modular reactor that MidAmerican is considering. The Iowa project could be potentially eligible for
$200 million. The bill specified that any amount received will be directly credited to the customers’
costs of the generating plant.
It is important to remember that the EPA this month handed down rules for the handling of
mercury and fine particulate that the agency itself predicts will shut down 17% of all coal-fired
generation plants nationally and add four to five dollars a month to residential customers’ energy bills.
Please note that this is just the first of many regulations that are planned for coal plants and there are
a number of other rules pending which could require even more controls, such as National Ambient
Air Quality Standards, coal combustion residue requirements, carbon legislation, and water intake
structure rules. This is just the beginning of the costs that will be borne by customers to comply with
the rules.
Study Finds Abandoned Power Projects Cost Iowa
$10.2 Billion of Investment, Thousands of Jobs
As Iowans discuss the possibility of additional power generation being constructed in the state,
a new national report shows the impact on state economies when power projects are not built.
The United States Chamber of Commerce last week released “Progress Denied: A Study on
the Potential Economic Impact of Permitting Challenges Facing Proposed Energy Projects”. Their
study found that over the past decade, 351 different energy-related projects had been stopped by
issues related to receiving approval by state and federal regulators.
For Iowa, the Chamber’s identified four different projects proposed for construction in Iowa that
did not occur due to regulatory road blocks. The best known of these would be the proposed Alliant
power generation facility that was slated to be constructed outside of Marshalltown. This project,
which was proposed to replace an existing coal-fired fire plant in the area, was shelved in 2009 when
state regulators continued to impose new requirements on the company in order to proceed.
One of the other uncompleted projects was LS Power’s proposal for a 750 megawatt
generation facility outside of Waterloo. This project was proposed in 2007, but immediately ran into
regulatory barriers imposed at the state and local level. In 2009, LS Power announced its intention to
abandon the project. The other power projects identified in the report were the Big River Resources
Ethanol plant proposed for Grinnell and the Green River Express transmission lines that were to move
electrical power from South Dakota to Chicago.
Constructing these four projects would have brought 19,300 jobs to Iowa and an investment of
$10.2 billion dollars. The annual economic output of just these four projects would have been $1.1
billion, with $200 million of that going out in salaries and benefits to the 5,400 permanent jobs that
would have been created if they had been able to be built.
On a national level, the study found that the construction of the 351 proposed projects would
have generated $1.1 trillion in economic activity and 1.9 million construction jobs. Once in operation,
791,000 Americans would have been needed to keep the facilities operating.
The report clearly shows that meeting the power needs of American businesses and
consumers has tremendous impact on the economy. As federal policy moves to limit the options for
power generation, meeting these needs has the potential to be a major driver in the economic
recovery of Iowa and the nation.
Visitors at the capitol this week: Brenda Lyddon of Deep River. Two of my children and their
families who were here to lead the Pledge of Allegiance. TIP director Larry Boesenborg and his board
with TIP rural electric coop. Father Phil Ryan, Mr. Brad Hohensee, & Duane Popenhagen with
students of the month from BGM High School. Tim Hadley Government teacher from Pekin High
School and his students. Larry Klein, Dave Klein & Nathan Fritchen with Keokuk Co. Farm Bureau,
Doug Boland, Tom Head, & Vic Rathje with Iowa County Farm Bureau.
Question of the week: Do you believe this is the time to approve a new nuclear power plant in Iowa?
I am always happy to deal with any requests you may have or any input you may offer! Please
contact me at 515-281-3221 or betty.deboef@legis.state.ia.us.