Environmental Impact Statement - radioactive monticello

Environmental Impacts of Alternatives
to switch load to customer-owned standby generators during periods of peak demand, and
include features like Saver's Switch that encourages customers to allow a portion of their load
to be interrupted during periods of peak demand.
In its order approving Xcel Energy's 2000 Integrated Resource Plan, the Minnesota Public
Utilities Commission (MPUC) adopted the DSM goal referred to as the 175 percent incentive
scenario for the 2000-2014 planning period. This scenario established aggressive targets of
3253 gigawatt-hours (GWh) of cumulative energy savings and 1174 MW of cumulative peak
demand savings in NSP's service area over this period. NSP surpassed its annual goals in the
early years of the program, but anticipates that it will become increasingly difficult to
cost-effectively maintain annual targets (50 to 80 MW) in the future.
Additionally, even if these aggressive annual DSM savings targets are achieved, the cumulative
savings through 2010 would be insufficient to replace generation lost as a result of Monticello
operations termination at the end of its current operating license. Moreover, NSP credits these
DSM goals in its demand forecasts; therefore, they cannot be used as credits to offset the
power generated by Monticello.
Therefore, the staff does not consider energy.efficiency, by itself, as a feasible alternative to
license renewal. However, the staff recognizes that energy conservation is promoted and
increases in energy efficiency occur as a normal result of replacing older equipment with
modern equipment. It is reasonable to include conservation in a combination of generation..
sources that could replace Monticello. Combined alternatives are discussed in Section 8.2.7.
8.2.7 Combination of Alternatives
Even though individual alternatives to renewal of the Monticello OL might not be sufficient on
their own to replace Monticello's generating capacity due to the small potential generating
capacity of the resource or lack of cost-effective opportunities, it is conceivable that a
combination of alternatives might be cost-effective.
There are many possible combinations of alternatives. As discussed previously, these
combinations could include baseload gas-fired or coal-fired plants, purchased power,
alternative and renewable technologies, and conservation. For the purpose of this discussion,
one combination of alternatives has been assumed: 300 MW(e) of combined-cycle natural
gas-fired generation using closed-cycle cooling, 150 MW(e) purchased from other generators,
50 MW(e) produced by new wind power facilities in southern Minnesota state, and 100 MW(e)
of energy conservation. The impacts of other combinations, such as those from combinations
that include solar power, would be different and possibly less than from the assumed i
combination. In some areas, such as the aesthetic impact of solar panels, the impacts would
be at least as large as the impact of the assumed combination of alternatives. In other areas,
such as waste, impacts would be smaller for these alternative technologies.
Table 8-7 contains a summary of the environmental impacts of the assumed combination of
alternatives. The impacts are based on the gas-fired generation impact assumptions discussed
August 2006 8-51 NUREG-1437, Supplement 26 1