Prairie Island tribe urges caution as Minnesota committee weighs lifting nuclear moratorium

The Minnesota Senate Energy, Utilities, Environment and Climate Committee took public testimony on the state’s 30‑year moratorium on new nuclear plant construction and about the state’s existing nuclear fleet and spent fuel.

Tribal leaders, utilities, labor unions and clean‑energy advocates told the committee that nuclear power provides dispatchable, carbon‑free electricity important to reliability and growth, but the Prairie Island Indian Community said any decision about new construction must address long‑term storage of spent fuel and the community’s decades‑long proximity to the Prairie Island plant.

Blake Johnson, government relations representative and tribal member of the Prairie Island Indian Community, told the panel that the reservation sits “less than 700 yards” from the Prairie Island nuclear plant and described the community’s experience living next to stored spent fuel. He traced the tribe’s objections to how decisions were made in the 1970s and to a 1994 state law that authorized on‑site dry cask storage and established the moratorium. Johnson said the tribe opposed lifting the moratorium until there is a viable plan for long‑term waste disposal.

Utility witnesses described the system role of existing nuclear plants and interest in advanced reactors. Pam Gorman, who has worked in nuclear operations and policy for Xcel Energy for 35 years, described MPR’s two plants: Prairie Island (two pressurized water reactors producing about 1,100 megawatts) and Monticello (a boiling water reactor producing about 700 megawatts). Gorman said Monticello received a federal NRC license extension through 2050 and Xcel has filed for state and federal approvals to extend Prairie Island into the 2050s.

Why it matters: Minnesota relies on existing nuclear units for a substantial share of today’s carbon‑free electricity. Supporters of lifting the moratorium said new and advanced reactors could provide firm, 24‑7 power needed as the state pursues electrification and responds to potential new demand from data centers. Opponents, including Prairie Island leaders, said past federal failures on a national repository (Yucca Mountain) and current on‑site storage create unresolved risks and inequities that should be resolved before allowing new construction.

Key points and testimony

- Prairie Island concerns: Blake Johnson said the community was not consulted when the plant was built and described decades of living near spent fuel stored on site. He cited the 1994 legislative findings that drove a moratorium, which included concern that future disposal costs and uncertainties could impose economic risk on Minnesota ratepayers.

- Utilities and labor: Pam Gorman (Xcel), Derek Moe (Minnesota Rural Electric Association), Kevin Prentice (LiUNA), and others emphasized nuclear’s reliability and role in maintaining a low‑carbon backbone. Gorman noted Xcel’s fleet produced more than 55 million MWh between 2020 and 2023 and described existing on‑site storage: Monticello has about 30 canisters, Prairie Island 52 loaded casks.

- Advanced nuclear and recycling: Witnesses discussed small modular reactors (SMRs) and advanced reactor demonstration projects funded in part by the U.S. Department of Energy; Pam Gorman noted pilot projects (for example TerraPower and X‑Energy) that aim to demonstrate technologies by the end of the decade. In response to a question, Gorman said advanced recycling technologies can recover a high share of usable material from spent fuel (she described reuse rates on the order of the high‑90s percent for certain processes) but said recycled material still produces a residual that requires management.

- Policy tradeoffs: Trade and business groups, including the Minnesota Chamber and Minnesota Conservative Energy Forum, argued the moratorium limits options for clean, firm generation and could put Minnesota at a disadvantage in attracting investment that requires large, reliable power. Opposing witnesses stressed the need for community consent and robust spent‑fuel solutions.

Actions mentioned by committee leadership

At the close of the hearing Cochair Matthews announced three bills planned for a future agenda: Senate File 350 (full repeal of the nuclear moratorium), Senate File 468 (partial repeal), and Senate File 426 (hydroelectric capacity bill). Those bills were announced for committee consideration; no committee action or vote on the bills took place during the hearing.

Discussion versus decision

The hearing was informational; no votes were taken. Committee members asked detailed follow‑ups about spent fuel, recycling, timing and costs. Utilities described relicensing and storage plans; tribal leaders urged further consultation and solutions for waste before policy changes.

Clarifying details extracted from testimony

- Prairie Island and Monticello capacity: Prairie Island two units ~1,100 MW; Monticello ~700 MW (Pam Gorman). - On‑site storage: Monticello reported about 30 loaded canisters; Prairie Island reported 52 loaded casks on site. - Licensing status: Monticello has an NRC license through 2050; Xcel has filed state and federal applications to extend Prairie Island into the 2050s.

What’s next

The committee announced it will schedule consideration of Senate Files 350, 468 and 426 at an upcoming meeting; no legislative action occurred at this hearing. Witnesses and committee members signaled that further hearings and stakeholder engagement — including direct consultation with the Prairie Island Indian Community — will be necessary if lawmakers pursue changes to the moratorium.

Ending

The hearing framed the central tradeoffs: reliability and decarbonization needs that proponents say require keeping nuclear on the table, against long‑running concerns about spent fuel siting and the rights of communities that live closest to nuclear waste. Committee members left the record open for further work and said the legislature will continue to consider the matter this session.