Nuke the Mandate, Free the Nukes! Have your say by September 14

August 18, 2026

As I first wrote on June 17, Minnesota is finally revisiting the ban, since 1994, on building any more nuclear power. The vehicle for this is a $500,000 study, approved and funded by the state legislature. The study will be conducted by the Great Plains Institute (GPI), on behalf of the MN Department of Commerce, with initial input from the public by September 14.

Have your say

The initial public comment period is from August 14 to September 14, 2026. I say initial, as a typical government study will usually allow for one or two more opportunities for public input, such as on a draft report before it becomes final, along with perhaps a public hearing.

GPI has devoted a part of their website to this Minnesota Nuclear Energy Study, which states:

At the direction of the Minnesota Legislature, the Minnesota Department of Commerce has contracted with the Great Plains Institute (GPI) “to conduct a study to inform policymakers regarding the potential impact of new nuclear generation on the public interest of Minnesota, including affordability, reliability, environmental protection, and public health.” The study must be completed by January 2027 and will reflect a balanced representation of perspectives.

GPI also has an online Request for Information (RFI), that includes the following comments:

The RFI is intended to help GPI identify information to consider in its research and analysis. GPI welcomes relevant information from organizations and individuals who have knowledge or expertise in these topics. … Responses must be submitted by 11:59 p.m. CT on September 14, 2026. … Responses may be made public and attributed to organizations or respondents. … Questions about this RFI may be submitted by email to GPI at [email protected].

Matters to consider

GPI’s RFI is available for download as an eight-page Microsoft Word document. The second half of the RFI document is devoted to asking 32 questions under 13 topic headings. The topics are as follows:

Federal licensing (Q1);
Technology and costs (Q2-Q8);
Small modular reactors and other advanced technologies (Q9);
Siting and infrastructure (Q10-Q16);
Nuclear waste (Q17-Q20);
Host community economic impacts (Q21);
Public safety and emergency planning (Q22);
Minnesota energy and climate goals (Q23);
Development timelines (Q24);
Minnesota laws and regulations (Q25);
Replacement of retiring generation (Q26);
Workforce and training (Q27-Q29);
Additional Information (Q30-Q32).

The list of 32 questions includes the following top ten highlights:

(Q3) What information should the study consider when evaluating the full lifecycle costs of nuclear generation compared with alternative baseload resource options?
(Q6) What information should the study consider when evaluating how the development of new nuclear generation could affect Minnesota ratepayers and electricity rates?
(Q7) What public subsidies, tax expenditures, financial incentives, or financing mechanisms could apply to new nuclear investments in Minnesota?
(Q11) What is the potential for colocating new nuclear facilities with businesses or facilities that use very large amounts of electricity?
(Q14) What factors could affect whether a host community would support or oppose a new nuclear facility?
(Q16) How could electric transmission capacity, grid interconnection requirements, or related infrastructure affect potential locations and development timelines for new nuclear facilities?
(Q21) What economic impacts could different nuclear technologies have on a host community?
(Q23) How would new nuclear generation affect Minnesota’s statutory greenhouse gas reduction and carbon-free electricity goals?
(Q30) Are there additional studies, datasets, models, projects, experts, or other sources relevant to the questions above that GPI should consider?
(Q32) Is there anything else GPI should consider when evaluating the potential impacts of new nuclear generation on the public interest in Minnesota?

Ten preliminary thoughts

As the Policy Fellow for Energy and Natural Resources, I intend on officially responding to GPI’s RFI, on behalf of the Center of the American Experiment, by September 14. However, in the meantime, my ten preliminary thoughts below are in answer to the questions above:

(Q3) The key comparison should be to the full economic costs of wind and solar power, that goes beyond the incomplete measure of the Levelized Cost of Energy (LCOE), to include those like the Levelized Cost of Blackouts (LCOB) and Levelized Cost of Energy (LCOE) as well as the environmental costs of wind and solar.
(Q6) Price information should be the prime focus, as it is the key affordability metric. The two best sources for that are the: 1.) Energy Information Administration (EIA), for prices, quantities and bills, at state and national levels; and 2.) Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), for energy-related Consumer Price Index (CPI), at urban and regional levels.
(Q7) The first best policy should be to remove mandates, subsidies and tax breaks for wind and solar power, so that nuclear and all other energy sources can compete on a level playing field. If that cannot be done, in the meantime, the second best policy is to offer nuclear power the equivalent mandates, subsidies and tax breaks.
(Q11) Colocating has, not only been often feasible in recent times, but increasingly preferable. This is called Consumer Regulated Electricity (CRE) or Bring Your Own Power (BYOP). It is consistent with both the President’s executive order on Ratepayer Protection Pledge and FERC’s show cause order to Speed Large Load Integration.
(Q14) The best guide to understanding special interest and community support or opposition (including NIMBY) to nuclear power, data centers or anything else is through the economic lens of Public Choice Theory especially that of “Bootleggers and Baptists.”
(Q16) Nuclear power needs to be compared to the economic reality of wind and solar not the cheap myth. The latter is the case because of such factors as: additional transmission expenses; green plating costs; additional property taxes; load balancing costs; overbuilding and curtailment costs; and Levelized Cost of Intermittency (LCOI).
(Q21) Economic impacts should be assessed in a balanced way using sound Cost Benefit Analysis (CBA). This includes not using Keynesian Multipliers nor the Precautionary Principle in a one-sided manner. Better yet, CBA usually precludes both. The ‘gold standard’ of guides is the Australian Government’s 2006 Handbook of CBA.
(Q23) It has been reasonable to question, for at least 35 years, that the greenhouse gas (GHG) of CO2 drives climate change, is largely human in origin, and is net catastrophic. Even the UN recently backed away from the latter. However, be that as it may, and given current MN law, nuclear power is superior to wind and solar from a GHG perspective.
(Q30) I particularly recommend NARUC‘s Advanced Nuclear Resource Library, including their Nuclear Reactor Cost Estimations report, and the Productivity Commission, including their Cutting Red Tape report. I also recommend the following websites: aei.org; aoenergy.org; cei.org; co2coalition.org; heartland.org; ipa.org.au; and nei.org.
(Q32) Support for new nuclear power, almost overnight, went from coming almost exclusively from the right, to including many in the center and on the left too. What changed? Big Tech needed and want cheap, reliable and ‘clean’ electricity for hyperscale data centers. Wind and solar cannot provide all three. Nuclear can and will.