April 16 2025 GESCC Board Meeting

Agenda: 
Financials
Stop Signs at Arlington and Clarence    
Legislation on Nuclear Power-Lindsay Potter 

The views and opinions expressed in this episode are those of the individual speakers and do not represent any official position of the participants, organizations, or affiliated groups. 

Transcript

0:07

Welcome to D two and U. This is the podcast that brings you everything from the Greater East side of St. Paul, Minnesota. Today we are bringing you the recording from the Greater East Side Community Council District. To board meeting. This meeting was open to the public. It was held at six 30 at the Hayden Heights Library. This is a general review of the status and financials. As always, Lisa t the executive director, led the meeting and they discussed the financials, and then there was a motion to discuss. A possible, um, four-way stop sign at the Arlington and Clarence intersection, as well as some amendments to that. And then there was a presentation discussing a nuclear energy, and remember, this is just the audio transcription. You are free to locate the complimentary video recording on our website, greater eastside.org. Go to the meetings tab and also our YouTube channel, which will be linked in the show notes below. Just remember that these. Opinions are those of all of the speakers, and they do not represent the official stance of the Greater East Side Community Council employees and staff, as well as official government institutions. Please enjoy the episode and note that our next board meeting will be held on May 21st, again at the Hayden Heights Library at six 30. We would love to see you there. Please enjoy the show. Our bank account is a little bit lower than it typically is mainly because most of our grants are reimbursement and we've just got the go ahead to start requesting those reimbursements. Those should be coming in soon and hopefully next month we'll have a lot more in our bank account. With the return of the EV money, we were able to increase the hours of our staff. And although we no longer have Gianna on our staff we are going to work with our crew that we have and I'm really excited about some of the opportunities that we have. We will probably also take a look at doing something for the 50th anniversary again, like I originally had planned earlier in this year and before. Lots of changes to the federal government. And so watch your emails for, I can't start meeting on that until after my move is done, when I have more brain capacity. Which is next week, next Monday. Okay. But otherwise, then that that is your financial report at this time. Honor, do we have a motion to approve the financial report? A motion to approve pending whatever you. Okay. Second. Second. All in favor? Aye. Aye. All moving on. Alright, so we got Public works, St. Bob Public Works. Yes. So unfortunately they were unable to come tonight, but they did send me some information. They're looking at creating an a four-way stop at the intersection of Arlington and Clarence. Now for those of you not familiar with that intersection, Arlington has a pretty street, street hill. And people flow start to increase speed down there and there's been several accidents at that intersection. Typically public works is very. Specific on what restrictions there are to add for a four-way stop to a current intersection. This intersection, however, because of the increase of speeds clock there, because of the number of accidents that have occurred, including pedestrian versus car they believe that it's warranted. However, they do, you have to come to the district council for our opinion on that. I know Joanne, you live in the very close to that neighborhood, so why don't you start? It is a dangerous intersection. I, my husband and I have been in an accident at that intersection because. People come flying down arcade. Arlington. Arlington, excuse me. And then the other thing, if you think about it, just maybe a block and a half way is the ventral trail crossing. And now the city has just spent oh, hundreds of millions of dollars on a bike space there too. So it's a, and it is a very popular, it's a main thoroughfare to the lake Arlington is my concern about, yay. Putting up stop signs. I am for putting stop signs, but people park on the street virtually up to the corner. And so then that's part of the problem because you're at the stop sign on Clarence. You wanna get across Arlington and you can't see because the people who live on Arlington have parked their cars and their trucks right up to the corner, so you can't see on coming traffic. Especially from the east. So you creep out and that you gotta stop on your brakes because there's a car flying down the hill. So my other question would be or suggestion would be, yay, I think we need a four-way stop there, but I also would love to see signage that says Park 30 feet back from the corner. Because even if you put stop signs there you're, it is still, it is your sight of being able to see oncoming traffic is still inhibited by the cars that park on Arlington. And I understand that there's houses and, but they all have driveways. So would you be making a motion to support the stop signs with the caveat that some sort of signage saying 30 feet from the corner? Yes, I would. Is there a second? Alright, further discussion. Yep. But we need a second before further discussion. Okay. Second, sorry. Stop signs I know. Don't work. Yes. I know bump outs do. I know the gets into budgetary things, but we're not asking for speed tables. And those are more expensive. Yeah. Ideally bump outs on Arlington, but they're further east. They're not this far down. And that would definitely give you the clearance because cars have to stop. Oh, I understand. Yeah. Have to park in. Yeah. Have that. It opens those intersections up. So See, when people were crossing Yeah. I don't know why they didn't put the bump outs. They stopped to add prosperity. So we, but I, because of, because they know I drive there usually high I accident. We can ask approve of course. Do the stop signs. Yeah. Yeah. Are you amending the motion? I. You accept the amendment, Cheryl? I'll take the amendment. Okay. The other thing is too, there are, that is a very busy school bus stop. Yes. Intersection. So they calm everything down and bus scratch it's typical. And then people get frustrated because the buses stop. And then they put their arm out and kids are across the street. Us, we have to go around the bus. And I've seen it multiple times. Not you. Not me. Okay. But I've seen multiple times where people have, the arm is out, kids are trying to get on the bus, and cars have gone around, but I can't, you can't stop stupidity. Argument type intersection. People are going stupid. So the motion is stands is that we would support the installation of the four-way Stop with recommendations of either or. And, I guess either and. Bump outs and 30 feet back in the coroner for parking. Is there any further discussion? Hold once three. All all in favor? Aye. Aye. Aye. Opposed? All right, I will Annie, will you reach out to Liz and Elizabeth on that? Thank you. You're on member board even though you're not on that member. Why don't you live in district two? Okay. You, I can vote. Can I add something? Yeah. I Isn't there also evidence like doing like barrels on the interception, horse deter? That is not something that the city would do. That would be something that we would have to fundraise to do. And we can, we did, we can con Yeah, we did. At the intersection of Ivy and Kenna. Thank you. Yeah. Ivy, sorry. Removing brain. Appreciate, appreciate your patience. So we did, but it is something that we have to budget for because you have to pay for permits and barricades and then an artist and all that. But we can certainly look at something maybe next spring. That's a busy intersection. You close that one. People are gonna be upset. Yeah. Especially on a Saturday. Friday. Friday and Saturday and Sunday. Yeah. Yeah. You close the intersection down for a weekend. I, people are gonna be upset. You may not even get. You may not get the residents at liberal, they're supporting if you're gonna close their main way of getting, because you get Arlington, you go west to the lake and you're out of there and you head east, you go up to white bear. So it is a very, it's a thorough fare, very important, thorough. But we can certainly look at, we can try, we can close half one week and then half the next. And so we're expecting you guys, I just kidding. No. It won't and they will. They said that they would put install temporary signage ahead of the in intersection to notify drivers of the change in traffic control, although I do not know how long those temporary signs will remain up. Alright, on Mr. Chair, one more questionnaire request. Speaking of Clarence. Going farther south to Fain, I would like to renew my request or formalize my request to get a flashing pedestrian button crossing now that the lofts at rows are filling out. Yes. And to get across failing either there or the other end of the Aldi parking lot at Aetna so they could get, I do know that they were looking at it for the CIB, the capital improvement budget process. So let me find out where we're at with that. Okay. That'd be great. Yeah. Thanks. Alright. Whoops. We're gonna move on. Yep. Alright, we're gonna move on. Alright. Legislation on Nuclear Power Lindsey? Yes. So Lindsey Potter is with us online. But Yani, would you like to kinda introduce the subject and then introduce Lindsay? Sure. There has been a lot of badgering at our state's moratorium currently on, on new nuclear construction. New construction, and with the rise of data centers and a lot of municipalities looking at leaning that as a good tax rate or base to invite. There's also something called a SM model, small nuclear reactor, which would be considered new construction that these businesses convert. Would in essence own themselves. Own in, yeah. Yeah. Until one accident happens, then you're living with it for 300 million years. And that's. That's one of the resources we have is a lot of wars, our aquifers, and so we're viable for that type of construction. And I invited Lizzie to speak to some of the going on at the legislation and where things are at and in hopes of possibly in ing something in our environmental work plan, saying that we don't want it in our backyard. I did speak with Athena Hollands and she was open to accepting drifting la moratorium if we could store the nuclear waste in the author's backyard. That Where do they plan to build this? Is it? Yeah. It's, it is in open. It's to open it up so it could be built. Oh yeah. And I'll hand it over to Lindsay. Lindsay. I've worked with Lindsay in in my search for finding more information on how this process is going and finding data access, support, why shouldn't do it. This type of infrastructure. And she has a lot more of that input. Lindsey, you're on. All right, great. Hello everyone. Can you hear me all right? Yes. Yes. Okay, wonderful. So I work actually with a nonprofit that's based in northwestern Wisconsin. It's been around since 1979 and we do a lot of environmental and also like piece education and research and work. We publish a quarterly newspaper but we are a founding member and a part of a an environmental advocacy coalition that's come around in the Twin Cities largely and working in the Minnesota area. In the last year. And that coalition is working on creating a nuclear free Mississippi River in response to one of the nation's worst leaks of radioactive tritium, which took place in November, 2022 through March of 23, up at the Monticello Reactor. About 35 miles. North of the Twin Cities and on the Mississippi River. So that's a little background just of the groups that I work with. But around the moratorium specifically I've been working on this legislative session along with the DFL Environmental Caucus and the Rise and Repair Alliance and a few other groups, the Sierra Club to get some educational information out there, especially for legislators who are having to consider this moratorium repeal. So I have a slideshow for you. That's just some background information. If you if we could do that to share the screen. I'll just tell you the slideshow, we'll go through a little bit of what the nuclear moratorium is as a piece of legislation reasons why the repeal of that moratorium could open up Minnesotans to a dangerous new expenditure on new nuclear infrastructure. So if you wanna share the screen. Let's see. You're able to share. Oh, okay. I'm able to do it. I am. Let's see. Okay. Share application it goes. All right. Okay. Can everyone see that? There we go. Yes, it's working. Yep. Got it. Okay. Alright. So repealing Minnesota's nuclear Moratorium. So an overview of this there were a handful actually of senate files introduced in this legislative session. Among them are 3 5 0 and 7 1 8. There were a couple other that came after and then house file nine and all of those proposed to repeal the 31-year-old nuclear moratorium. They would specifically strike language in a current Minnesota statute that reads the commission may not issue. Let's see. I have to get the zoom box out of my base here and then I can read it. Okay. May not issue. A certificate of need for the construction of a new nuclear powered electric generating plant. So that's what's on the books right now. This moratorium law was a compromise as part of a 1994 law that forced radioactive nuclear waste to be stored on site at the Prairie Island Nuclear site despite opposition from the Prairie Island Indian community. And they're the closest community in the US to a nuclear reactor. However, within that same statute there's a subdivision that reads the commission may not issue a certificate of need for a large energy facility that generates electric power by means of a non-renewable energy source, unless demonstrated that the alternative selected is less expensive, including environmental costs than power generated by a renewable energy source. So nuclear cannot meet this renewable energy standard. It costs three to 14 times that of onshore wind. It takes seven to 20 years, seven to 21 years longer to build than wind. It produces nine to 37 times more emissions. It creates risk and costs associated with increased nuclear weapons, proliferation, meltdowns, accidents, the uranium fuel chain health risks, radioactive waste, and environmental justice. There are impacts on indigenous communities, so the sites for nuclear reactors and their related mining and waste are often placed on our near tribal lambs in violation of treaties, and without free prior and informed consent. Blake Johnson, who's a tribal member and government liaison for the Prairie Island Indian community, has testified many times before the Minnesota legislature, including in this session, opposing each of the current bills to repeal the nuclear moratorium. Leona Morgan, who's a Dene organizer has said an interview with democracy now that the nuclear industry is inherently racist. All of these activities depend on uranium, which comes mostly from indigenous lands. There are over 500 abandoned uranium mines on Navajo alone, and some say up to 2000. And in Canada, the KE and other First Nations are appealing a planned nuclear waste storage facility on the Ottawa River threatening sacred waterways, drinking water and old growth forests. All right. So reasons why new nuclear infrastructure are really a bad investment for Minnesotans, but something that stands to rake in profits for the operators of those potential new reactors are that nuclear takes too long. So nuclear reactors, new reactors could take 10 to 22 years from planning to operation to build, whereas utility scale, wind and solar can be deployed in one to five years from planning to operation and rooftop. Solar PV projects can take only six months sometimes to install. Global warming is accelerating at a greater rate than anticipated. We have already passed 1.5 degrees Celsius, and we cannot wait another 20 years for new energy infrastructure to come online. In addition, new nuclear infrastructure is too expensive. The US Energy Information Agency's 2024 comparison of energy sources found that nuclear power costs three to four times more than the combination of renewable wind and solar power plus battery backups. This cost estimate does not include the cost of additional meltdowns or accidents such as Fukushima in Japan, which has so far cost between 460 and$640 billion, but is not cleaned up. And it does not include the cost of storing the nuclear waste that is generated by every operating reactor and must be stored for hundreds of thousands of years. So the US currently spends$500 million annually to store nuclear waste from civilian reactors, and that is without any long-term storage solution for that waste. Alright, so the only new reactors to be built in the US in the last 30 years we're built in Georgia. Called Plant Vogel units three and four. It took 15 years to build them, which was twice the initial timeline estimated. And it cost$36.8 billion, which was also twice the cost estimate or more than twice. Georgia Power. The operator raked in$17 billion in profits during the time that it incurred that roughly$20 billion in cost overruns. So rate payers in Georgia now have some of the highest power bills in the nation, and it will take them years, maybe up to 15 years to continue to see those rate increases on their bills to pay back building these two reactors. Alright, another reason why new nuclear infrastructure is not a good idea for Minnesotans is that we don't have the water to sustain more nuclear reactors. For example in France, over 40% of the fresh water consumed each year goes toward cooling their nuclear reactors. Saltwater nuclear reactors, which must sit on coastlines are subject to greater storm risks. Nuclear reactors release thermal pollution by returning warmer water to the environment, which means a lower oxygen level and a higher pH. And nuclear reactors release 50% more waste heat into the water than a fossil fuel plant producing the same amount of electricity. At its Monticello nuclear reactor alone, Xcel is currently licensed to pump 75% of the volume of the water of the Mississippi River. Though historically they only pump between four and 33% Xcel is permitted to withdraw 20 million gallons of groundwater per year, and Xcel is currently pumping over 100 gallons of groundwater per minute. This is groundwater, which typically feeds the Mississippi River. Another issue with new nuclear infrastructure and existing nuclear infrastructure are the radioactive releases and increased cancer rates. Carcinogenic releases of radioactive water vapor are a routine part of nuclear power plant operations and can contain over 100 radioactive substances. Among these is tritium, a radioactive form of hydrogen tritium ingested as water or water vapor can cross the placenta. Harm fetuses cause pregnancy loss and increased cancer risk. People, plants and soil are exposed to elevated tridium levels for up to 60 miles from a reactor site. The EPA, that's the US Environmental Protection Agency allows levels resulting in a lifetime cancer risk of one in 1 million for most toxins in our drinking water, however, they allow a radiation level resulting in a lifetime cancer risk of one and only 143. This is a particularly increased risk for people in St. Paul in Minnesota and, minneapolis, Minnesota because they are 35 miles downstream from the Monticello plant and draw a great deal of their drinking water from the Mississippi River. So women can have up to 53% higher cancer risks than men from the same radiation exposure. Children under five living near power plants had a 1.6 fold increase in all cancers and a 2.2 fold increase in leukemias. So Joe Manano, who's a researcher with the Radiation and Public health project, has used CDC data to show the significant increase in cancer deaths around the 15 oldest nuclear facilities in the us around the Monticello Reactor. He's used this data and modeling to project that between 2031 and 2050, there could be as many as 1,662 excess cancer deaths as a result of the radiation exposure. This is more about the Monticello leak. So in November of 2022, the Monticello Nuclear Reactor, which is run by Xcel Energy, 35 miles north of the Twin Cities, leaked 829,000 gallons, containing 14 trillion picocuries of radioactive tritium into the groundwater. Xcel was caught lying. They told the press again and again that this water could not reach the Mississippi River, that would not be feasible. There would be no way. And then they published environmental impact statements as part of their 20 year license extension application that provided data showing that the water had in fact reached the Mississippi River. So their own data has shown that. Now, the original leak was over 200 times, the EPAs drinking water limit for Tritium, and the water that leaked into the Mississippi River was also above that EPA limit. It's one of the largest tritium leaks in volume and concentration. The highest concentration in a single well found under Monticello was over 5 million picocuries per liter. The Associated Press has done a report on chronic tritium leaks due to corroded pipes at aging reactors that found 38 leaks between 2000 and 2009. Xcel's published to Data has blatant inadequacies and contradictions with large amounts of data missing. Xcel took four months to notify the public while raking in$160 million in that time. And while applying to run the reactor another 20 years until it is 80 years old or twice its design-based lifespan, no nuclear reactor has run this long. So it's uncharted territory for these reactors with age-related issues. Excel's first attempt to contain the leak failed and the reactor had to be shut down while the leak was addressed In February of this year, there was another 450 gallon leak that has a long list of failures, accidents, coverups, and lies, and running its three reactors in Minnesota. So these, this could be the fate of future nuclear reactors run by Xcel. We're the moratorium to be lift lifted. There are uranium mining risks associated with nuclear power. So the International Atomic Energy Agency estimated that in the next 10 years, there will be global shortages of the uranium fuel required to power reactors. Fuel is not renewable, like wind or sunlight. It must constantly be mined, processed, and transported. Reactors must be shut down for regular refueling. Uranium mining causes cancers, reproductive harm, kidney disease, and autoimmune diseases. The Navajo people and others in areas of concentrated uranium mining activity bear the brunt of the environmental harm and health risk and the mining poisons, water and soil, and many local people work in the mines and are exposed to there. The US now imports most of its uranium and new nuclear reactors will mean new mines or reopening abandoned mines. Mine owners are already attempting this in the southwest, near lands of the Havasu, pa, Navajo, and Hopi. And this map here on this slide just shows some of the mines that are being reopened currently and then the transport route that uranium takes to where it must be milled and processed, which is through the Hopi and Navajo reservations. Alright, now the waste risk high level nuclear waste, which is used fuel rods must be isolated from the environment for 240,000 or more years. There is no long-term storage solution. Temporary casks on site can and do leak. Those would be located in Minnesota, often in the backyard of wherever that reactor sits. They require funding, maintenance, and are subject to climate disasters. The only interim storage now being considered before the Supreme Court is proposed to sit near the Permian Basin which experienced 185 earthquakes in 2022 because there's a lot of fracking that happens in that area. It's also near the Aala aquifer, which provides 30% of the groundwater for irrigation in the us. So it's also not a stable or safe site for all of this waste. The only attempted US long-term solution so far was at Yucca Mountain. It was near the homelands of the Western Shoshone and PEI people, and the cost was estimated to be 96 billion. However, after spending 18 years and$8 billion. They abandoned the project. So other proposed long-term nuclear waste storage projects right now are in the uk, one that might cost$83 billion and take 150 years to construct. And in Canada, they've picked a site that is only 90 miles northeast of Minnesota's Voyagers National Park. So the idea that you can run a nuclear reactor and then just send all the waste somewhere else and it won't be a problem, is not really a valid idea. As we see that the entire nation of Canada is now preparing to store their decades long reservoir or whatever accumulation of radioactive nuclear waste, only 90 miles northeast of Minnesota's National Park. Let's see, extreme weather and meltdown risks and proliferation risk. Nuclear reactors and waste storage casks can be subject to threats from climate, chaos, and increasingly extreme weather reactors require constant power to pump water for cooling their cores. And this prevents meltdowns like Chernobyl and Fukushima loss of onsite power due to a natural disaster. A storm flooding wildfire fires requires constant diesel generator backup. The Zia nuclear power plant in Ukraine was forced to rely on backup diesel many times due to threats in the war zone. The inner gut governmental panel on climate change has concluded that nuclear weapons proliferation concern is also a barrier and risk to increasing the development of nuclear energy. All right, so here's SMRs. These are the small modular nuclear reactors that Yani was mentioning. And there, there was a specific bill before the legislature this session that offered a carve out option. Okay, we can repeal instead of repealing the language entirely on the moratorium, we'll just suggest that these small reactors be allowed. And that died in committee. But the problem, so these small reactors are being touted as a silver bullet for climate change, but there are many reasons why that is just a fantasy and an inaccuracy. There are no commercialized small modular reactors in the world operating right now. New scale, which was the company to have the first ever approved SMR in the United States had their project fail after it was approved because the stakeholders pulled out the cost per megawatt hour, rose 53%, and they lost$4.2 billion in taxpayer funds for that project. Leading up to its failure. SMRs in China, Russia, and Argentina are all up to 300% over budget or over their schedules for completion. So SMRs are not cheaper or faster to build. They require the same uranium mining and processing and pose the same health and environmental risks. There's a link here in the middle of this slide for a fact sheet that's the Sierra Club has put out. It's a really good one pager about SMRs and SMRs are really I think something that the big data center. Operators or big tech companies are going to want to push because they'll say to Xcel Energy, for example, okay, if you can get this SMR built, we'll contract with you to promise to buy the power and it can sit right by our data center. But Minnesotans really are the ones who stand to lose with the threats to their water and with the waste of their rate payer dollars to, to fund these things. There was a 2022 study that showed that most SMRs increased the volume of nuclear waste by a factor of two to 30 times compared to traditional reactors. And the capital costs per kilowatt hour are actually 41% higher for SMRs than for large reactors because you don't have that economy of scale. On page 155 of Excel's 2024 to 2040 IRP. That's their integrated resource plan for energy Generation over the next 15 years. It was just recently passed by the PUC. But within that document they showed that the modeling encompass software, which Excel uses and the Department of Commerce uses. The software did not select for an SMR or a small nuclear reactor when given the option to select one as a future energy source, which proves that even excel's own modeling software cannot justify the huge cost of building new nuclear infrastructure. And at the bottom of this slide here, there's a link to a good article by a professor from British Columbia, who also recently did a webinar explaining more about small modular reactors, okay, energy democracy. Here's a book in this picture by a local, activist and educator who has been advocating before the Public Utilities Commission for decades to democratize energy with small and dispatchable energy resources. But anyway, there are several reasons why nuclear reactors are not do not represent energy democracy. They require huge amounts of capital and federal subsidies. They're not competing in the marketplace, and taxpayers are forced to cover the cost of accidents and meltdowns through the price and an act because no insurance company will underwrite nuclear power. They're not scalable or deployable rapidly and locally. To generate electricity in the community where it's consumed fuel must travel far and be mined and processed continuously in large, centralized facilities. Nuclear waste requires hundreds of thousands of years of taxpayer subsidized infrastructure, funding and maintenance, and the public covers the cost of health and environmental harm to an unknowable number of future generations while the nuclear companies profit. So anyway, Minnesotans can have access to safe, clean, local, secure, affordable energy for their communities with less harm, lower bills, more jobs, no need for the same degree of federal taxpayer subsidies, no radioactive waste or radiation illnesses and associated medical costs. So here on this slide are a host of links and resources. There's a professor from Stanford named Mark Jacobson, and this is my last slide. And he actually testified in this legislative session before the house he was given 90 seconds, which was really too brief for him to go through all of the research that he is done over the years. But one of the things that he was presenting on. He came back and did a follow-up webinar. The DFL Environmental Caucus in Minnesota organized it and several legislators were in attendance at the follow-up webinar, but he was talking about what he calls his roadmaps to transition city, states and countries to a hundred percent wind, water, and solar. And so he has mapped, I think for 140, maybe different countries around the world and all 50 US states, including Minnesota, how the current or and projected demands of those grids can be met using wind, water, and only existing hydroelectric power. So not building new mega dams and not requiring nuclear energy or new nuclear energy. So for people who think that it is necessary to keep the grid running or to meet what some people call base load demands this researcher from Stanford's really done a lot to debunk that for people who want. Any of the resources for the material that I compiled, or there's a one page front and back fact sheet that hits the major bullet points of this presentation that we provided to legislators in this session. And those things can be found at the link at the bottom of this screen, on this slide. Otherwise I can send things via email or through Yani. Would you email me your presentation so I can forward it out to the board if they would like those links? Sure. Yeah. That would be fine if you would share with me your email address. I'm not sure that I Okay. Yeah we'll get it to you. Okay. And be patient with me while I stop the sharing. And let's see. I may be able to help you. That was great. I learn something new every time. Okay. Curious, ask the last, a nuclear submarines or ships, is that like a, one of those small modular reactors? And what do they do with the waste? Lindsay, did you hear the question? I did hear the question. I know that nuclear reactors on ships have been a lot around longer than these proposed new small modular reactors. So I'm not sure that they're the same technology and I do not know what they do with the waste from nuclear submarines. But thank you for asking. Margaret Levin from the Sierra Club has joined us too. Margaret, do you know the answer to that question? Can you repeat the question? It was about small reactors. Yeah. Are nuclear submarines and ships are those are very reactors similar to these small modular reactors? Or what do they do with the waste? That's a really good question. I don't know. I don't know the comparison. I. I'd love to look into that and just wanted to say Yani invited me to join Lindsay. I was so glad to catch the tail end of your presentation, which was so thorough. And we've as part of the Rise and Repair Alliance, we've been all working to keep the nuclear moratorium in place at the state level. So thank you for all of your interest in this issue. Also, I was wondering you mentioned the inherent racist nature of the, our lands. The resources are in native indigenous areas. It is, but isn't batteries for wind and solar? They require cobalt and lithium. Isn't that inherent racist also, since it's typically mined and the Congo by black children, they're slave labor or in, china where everyone under communism, a slave of some sort. Yes. I would say absolutely the working conditions and the trade inequalities that are present and things like cobalt mining are horrific human rights abuses and are definitely issues of environmental racism and justice. I think nobody I'm not here to tell you that issue is not present in some way, in each of the ways in which we extract energy, or for that matter, in, in all of the ways in which we choose to consume energy as a very, a country with a very privileged infrastructure and access. I think, really addressing that is gonna, would take a restructuring of the entire way that, that our civilization functions. But what I do think is that people who are advocating for no longer requiring the mining and processing of uranium, the comparison is really like an apples to oranges sort of thing, because the scale on which you have to mine uranium and the consistency with which you have to do it, which is, it must be done constantly. It's not, the fuel for. Solar panels is sun and the fuel for wind turbines is wind. And those things are renewing themselves through nature's cycle constantly. Yes, there are minerals that are mined in ways that are deplorable, that are required for some of the pieces of that infrastructure, but they might only need to be built or replaced every 30 years, for example. So there's a big difference. There are other parts, there are other components of building nuclear reactors that also have environmental implications. For example, the reactors I mentioned that were built in Georgia in the last 30 years required enough concrete, I think to pave a sidewalk from Miami to Seattle. So I, but it's different when you're talking about the fuel source versus the requirements for building that infrastructure. And I think that cobalt falls under the ladder. Coal is mined constantly. It's endless. And with any energy, we're endlessly. For more, but I'd like to propose to activists, the environmental activists and salaries why aren't we promoting these small little windmills that you can put on all four corners of a square building all over the place? Micro grids. That's the next step. Yeah. Then, and we can have more independent energy at each property and we don't have to depend on all these things. It might destroy the world or people or, just and I think that brings us back to what we're talking about today. There is a proposed legislation to quit the moratorium on new facilities. Can you either Lindsay or Margaret give us an idea of where that is at session and, what is the likely results this year? Lindsay, I don't wanna step on your toes, but I'm glad to chime in and then, and have you add an update. So I think both I'll just mention a few things. I think there's both some good news and some troubling news in terms of the repeal of the nuclear moratorium that is, does not appear to currently be moving forward in part for good reason. I think, I hope that legislators have taken seriously the input of the Prairie Island Nation and which is a really significant component where, because of their proximity to the one of the nuclear reactors. And so that while that bill was brought forward, it's not currently moving through the legislative process. However, to your just. Comments, good comments and questions just now. Lindsay talked about energy, democracy and it is so important. You mentioned microgrids. When we think about needing to generate as much distributed clean energy as possible to make the transition away from dirty and toxic fuels we are seeing some provisions that are still moving forward through the legislative process that would harm our ability to do that. There's a couple of provisions that would and I'll mention them. One would end the community Solar gardens program and another would drastically gut a program called net metering in rural communities, which is what makes it viable and, economically possible for folks, for many folks to invest in rooftop solar generation. So we are with many other organizations, we're really concerned with in the Minnesota Senate, some of the provisions that are moving forward in what's called the Energy Omnibus bill. While the nuclear moratorium seems to be in place for now, these other proposals could really take us back from the vision that Lindsay is talking about. So I think there will be some more work for us to do in the next few weeks. Any other questions, comments? My question would be, has Hascel Energy said that they need to step a step away from, or move back their. Goals and promises for complete renewable energy generation by 2035, I think it is, unless they have more nuclear power. Oh, go Yani. If you'd like to answer, that's fine. Or I can, yeah. We just, the PUC, so they have to update their plan every three years and the PUC has to cleared up. And that just happened. There were one of us that Wireman closed Monticello down'cause the end date for Monticello was extended. And that's what they did. They extended the Monticello plan and Monticello falls under renewable energy. As but it doesn't this time even though it shouldn't be, but. Yeah they they, in the current the IRP that was currently just approved by the PUC, they just extended the they approved the extended operation of Xcel's, currently operating three reactors. So that's one reactor at Monticello and two reactors at Prairie Island. And all three of those are extended to operate through 2050 for Monticello and 2053 and 2054 for Prairie Island. Though the Prairie Island reactors are still pending, that license extension being granted at the federal level by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, they excel did not ask for any new nuclear infrastructure at this time. So Excel has not proposed to that. But it's just that the possibility to repeal this moratorium. The desire to repeal this moratorium was presented in several different pieces of legislation that, as Margaret mentioned, have now stalled out before the current legislative session. However, it's the repeal of that moratorium has been brought up in previous sessions. This is not the first time that it's been brought up and stalled out. And so there's good reason to believe that it will be brought up again in future sessions. And so I think what Yani was getting at the beginning of this presentation about having other local roadblocks to that is an important thing. And I'll just really briefly speak back to what your other participant was saying earlier about wind turbines on everyone's houses. I really agree with you. I think that absolutely the most localized. Pro proliferated small energy infrastructure so communities can generate their own energy as much as possible, as close to home as possible with infrastructure that doesn't require things that are mined far away and travel far away like that gives more power to the people who need that energy, and it's better for the rate payers, right? It's the most affordable and less monopolized way to do this. But in order to have that happen, you need guardrails within the legislation that keep. Power monopolies who stand to profit a lot from a different type of really like vertically iterate, integrated energy infrastructure from coming in and advocating for that. Because if meta or Facebook wants to come in with a data center that's gonna use all of the nuclear power and Excel stands to make a million dollars a day running that reactor, once the federal government subsidies pay to build it, really what's gonna happen is rate payers are just gonna get robbed for the benefit of Excel and meta. It's not gonna help the communities generate the electricity they need. So that's why keeping this legislation in place is actually about protecting people so they can get the energy they need. Margaret, I saw that you put a couple of links in the chat. Could you email them to me so I can forward them to the board? Sometimes things get lost in the recording. Thanks. Can I ask a question? Can you guys hear me? Yeah, you and Winona. Hey, I'm Winona. I am the assistant to Ramsey County Commissioner Ma Chong. And like at Ramsey County we have the Climate Action Equity plan, and Yanis already reached out to us about the moratorium. My question to you is, with your experience working with the DFL environmental, I think caucus, it was is there a particular like language or like advice that you could give us for us to relay back to our governmental relations team to have that in our climate action equity plan regarding whether that's the moratorium or nuclear energy or even like the water, the river? That's a really great question. I do not have language right now that I could provide you with. I don't know if there are other states that have that language in place. But I do think that Yani I, is that something that you're thinking about? Working on, it's something we've talked about drafting. If not, that's okay. I can always go back to our government relations team and just make sure that they're following this and to see if, there's language that they can, start preparing for the, for our county plan. But if anything does come up, please let us know and we're, we will be following. I would say Winona a good a good way to pursue that. I think we could work together to create some language like that and it might be useful for other organizations Yeah. That want to use that. But the, maybe we should be in touch with each other. So is there some way to know how to contact you? Yes, I reach out. I'll connect you. Okay, great. Okay. I'll connect you. Thank you. And I have another question. Who are the authors of these bills? Who authored that bill this year? Or who's leading? Who's the chief author? There were there were several different bills. There were, I think as many as four Senate files and one house file. I think the people primarily in the Senate primarily authoring the Nu Nuclear moratorium repeal bills were Senator Matthews and Senator France. Okay. And they have offered those in previous sessions too. Oh, okay. Matthews and France. Okay. Thank you. We have about five more minutes on this. One or two more questions, Mike. One more question. Going back to energy democratization for those of us who live in townhouses or apartment buildings and don't control our own ropes for solar panels or wind turbines of any type. An an alternative that's been held out to me is the Excel energy or renewable connect program. Are you familiar with that and do you think that's viable or something worth participating in everyone? Yeah, I can say I'm not familiar with all the details. I know Excel and other utilities offer opportunities. We used to call it green pricing for rate payers to, or customers to pay a little bit more to invest in clean energy. I guess I would say, something to focus on is advocacy so that we can hold utilities accountable and push them through grassroots pressure, through advocacy at the Public Utilities Commission, which Yani and Lindsay you mentioned. I think that policy changes will be more important and as well as preventing steps backwards. So just to, to circle back to my, one of my comments previously, the importance of community solar gardens is allowing people who aren't homeowners or who otherwise don't, may wanna invest in clean energy and solar energy, but don't have the ability to do it where they live. Can buy into larger projects and there were just some changes made to that program. Very recently that improved access for low income residents. So we're very worried about as I mentioned the bill that would actually end that program in just a few years and take away that opportunity to better democratize our energy. That's something add. Yeah. Solar gardens, like you were saying, are a great option, I think over the Excel program. And part of the Pro Solar Garden and they just, beginning of this year now, put everything on one bill. It used to get two bills and it just changed this year, so now get everything up. The one bill at the fourth was much more of a hassle. Lindsey, Margaret, thank you so much for coming in tonight. We really appreciate your presentation. I did just email Lindsay your my information so you can send it over to me and then I'll connect you with Winona as well. Thank you, so thank you. All right. We do have a couple of updates. First off, this building is not available for our June meeting, and so Annie's gonna be preparing a survey of what you wanna do. I'm leaning to a board picnic versus a board meeting in June, but that's just me'cause I like a picnic. So like I say, watch your email. She's gonna be sending out a survey on that. Second of all Ms. Jessica, I can't quite see you has a cleanup coming up on May 17th. Do you wanna just give us a few. Details on that. It's a cleanup on May 17th, and it's happening at Vanessa's. We're meeting at Vanessa's house at Etna Street, and we run through s like behind what her street up to Maryland and goes to the side streets over. It's from 10 to 12. So primarily in those kind of wooded areas behind Walgreens and the shopping center and stuff. Yeah, and the cemetery. And cemetery, which, yeah. I'll work on that. No idea. Yeah. Homestead. How you doing? Chicken? Yeah, that was my next, yeah, that this go on the re county tax. They buy garbage bags and we'll have some water and donuts. Please bring it to our. Yes. We don't wanna create more garbage than we pick up that day. That's the idea. Yes. And there will be probably three other cleanups throughout the neighborhood this year. As well as some other things that we're partnering with the city of St. Paul Launch. Yeah. Yeah. Thank you Jessica, for organizing this and for listening to other concerns of court. Thank you, Mr. Thanks, Jess. Speeding. Are, should we comfortable warm when we're done? No, you honor, tell you. Okay. I'm Megan. Thanks for coming. I'm like four blocks from here. Thank you. I, and at. Bakery. Oh, Liz. Very cool. Very cool. All right. Can I go back to legislation legislative stuff? Sure. We got a few minutes. There's two urgent, like city legislations that they're doing now. They failed in 2020 with their 20 fx ordinance, 2014. They call the tenant's rights, but it's really felons rights that strips landlords of their boundaries to be able to say no to even the most predatory felon. That's what keeps the tenants safe. And the state doesn't really, it's not without empathy for felons, but they, even though they haven't had empathy for victims in society, that elected legislators to make more boundaries called laws. They broke to end up in prison, but that's even more traumatic for them. But the state doesn't successfully rehabilitate them, help them heal from whatever made them so narcissistic or sociopathic or whatever. They get'em in prison where it's even more traumatic when they exacerbate those offensive defense mechanism. But that shouldn't fall on landlord's, laps and all of their little communities. That's, that they govern essentially with their rules. And this is, I don't want unfettered immigration into my house. My five bucks, my anything. I choose to buy it, it will serve and has it to push the little guy out who moves in that corporations that don't care and don't answer the phone and don't fix things. That falls into the other thing that they're trying to push. They're, it is package, an omnibus package of a few good things that they could slide through. They could just easily push through. Just one don't judge a prospective tenant by their credit schools. I've always looked at the content to their credit report. That's a year of when came about. If something goes no, don't give them what Score a number come and don't, you can't say no to someone for being convicted of a crime that's no longer a crime that could slide through on one simple bill, one simple bill, one simple ordinance. But if y'all could part of the struggle is if it was split.'cause we had a referendum, people voted. And the 3% And that's the other issue. That's the, exactly, that's exactly. So that's why this has come on. And this has been tabled about four years now. The rents rights. Oh, because judge now it's being offered just deposed to the 3%. A judge in his injunction in 2021 held it unconstitutional taking of property. And so they revealed it in July because the sheriff could actually arrest him, put that constitutional violation charge. But now they want to shove it through again, see if another landlord will get another hundred thousand dollars for winning. Or maybe they'll get a more Marxist judge.'cause it is an attack on property and contract rights. You can also text your contract rights, whereas every lease. It's the word of lease is let, in England, they written, they still say, I will let you like that. It's letting someone use your buy the property, but, and there's no escape clause in every unit. And we, the notice period, 30, 60 days, a hundred days if you want whatever number of days you put on there. But I'm open out or this isn't working out well, that avoids evictions. So people don't get that tarnish on their record. Whereas Is this city legislation? Yep. Oh, so the city council is looking at this right now, trying to push at another meeting on May 7th that he is had a meeting last week. Okay. And as Yani mentioned, there's also the we have the more or the referendum on. Rent control. Can't raise a rent more than 3% per year. Whereas taxes go up double digits. So it's eventually gonna squeeze the little guys up, comes in, picks it up. The corporations wise, investors are leaving. They have been leaving. They're sick of a lot of these things. And the saving and estate. And I think a lot of them that are benefiting from the developers, the big guys they're benefiting from the politicians or getting kickbacks or favors on their campaigns or whatever. But that's a subject. But the what they wanna do now is anything new in the 2004 where the certificate of occupies will, the 2004, I'm not sure which, but they'll be exempt from the failure that they have now of wreck control is killed. Development and it's actually made the defensive reaction of landlords immediately. I raise rents 200 bucks and everybody I talked to there's a landlord, they did similar things. The bigger place up the street from me, they have seven vacancy of next year.'cause they were, they'd rather not, they'd rather lose that immediate revenue to be able to survive in the future with a rent rate that you can, because you can't raise a, to be able to kill property taxes because if you can't, who takes your property tax? Let's city. We do have a five minute warning we've been given from the library. For more information like that could the opposition letter, we cannot do that.'cause that's considering lobbying, but we could do it as individuals if they chose to. Okay. And also renter interviews, things that have been going on. The survey, the rent survey. Yep. There's no question that it is has your landlord ever given you grace? They're very biased. That was that Those questions were all developed by the human rights department of the city. We distributed it on their behalf. Couldn't more unbiased questions would added. That would be the city, that would be the city's decision, not ours. Okay. So we put soldiers for a lot Biased. That was the grant that we received. I gotta say no to money there. It was something that's wrong. Okay. A lot biased, but that's part of the reason we got court. Thank you for your opinion. Let's do adjourn. Motion adjourn. Second. Second. Yeah.