A new nuclear era? Minnesota revisits its three-decade ban

MINNEAPOLIS - Six decades ago, Sherburne County made history when it became home to the nation's first rural nuclear power plant.

Sitting uphill from the Mississippi River and towering over Highway 10, the Elk River facility ran for four years before being scrapped because of system defects and high costs. But it was considered a success - a federal pilot project that revealed small reactors weren't economical at the time.

Now, the same county at the forefront of nuclear 60 years ago hopes to assume that spot again: County leaders are vying to be among the first in the country to potentially house a nuclear reactor at a shuttering coal plant, specifically Sherco in Becker.

The possible nuclear revival follows local proponents' and President Donald Trump's championing of nuclear power as a sustainable energy solution that reduces greenhouse gases while bolstering the power grid as energy use rises.

But before any substantial planning takes place, officials say the state needs to repeal its 32-year ban on new nuclear power projects. Legislators made progress toward that goal this session by approving $500,000 to study the possibility of building new nuclear plants in Minnesota.

"It was a step - might have been a half step - but it's a step forward," said Bruce Messelt, Sherburne County administrator.

Last year, the Sherburne County Board voted to join an alliance advocating for the moratorium's reversal - something advocates say is necessary for the state to reach its goal of producing 100% carbon-free electricity by 2040.

Trump, making a concerted effort to boost the development of new nuclear power plants, is directing the U.S. Department of Energy to establish a new program that fast tracks the permitting process.

The President's interest has also spurred old uranium mines in the U.S. Southwest to restart their operations.

Renewable energy accounted for 33% of the state's energy use in 2025. Nuclear, which also emits zero greenhouse gases, accounted for 22%, while coal and natural gas accounted for 45%.

Nuclear proponents argue reactors provide baseload power, the continuous amount of electricity needed for the grid, that's traditionally been produced by coal and natural gas plants. Meanwhile, green energy often provides peak power to meet high-demand spikes during certain times of day.

"(Nuclear) is not a panacea. It's not a solution for everything," Messelt said. "But if it works, it could be part of Minnesota's future."

For the study, the nonprofit Great Plains Institute will examine costs of building new conventional nuclear power plants, as well as small modular reactors that require less space but are able to be scaled up.

The study will also look at environmental impacts, including how to store or reprocess radioactive waste, and assess the impacts of nuclear plants or related industries on the communities where they end up. The study is anticipated to be completed before next year's legislative session.

Reversing the moratorium is controversial for myriad reasons. Nuclear power has long been a third rail in environmental circles, largely because of its high costs compared to renewable sources like solar and wind, as well as the dangers associated with the radioactive fuel required to run the plants.

Many of the nation's most influential green groups, including the Environmental Defense Fund, Sierra Club and the League of Conservation Voters, continue to oppose development of new nuclear facilities today.

"Nuclear plants are expensive, pose unique and long-lasting risks, and would take many years to build," said Margaret Levin, director of the Sierra Club's North Star Chapter. "Any dollar spent to study or develop nuclear plants is one that could be better spent on affordable, safe, clean and renewable energy."

Small-scale nuclear technology is also still being dreamed up. While large nuclear reactors have operated in the country for more than five decades - including Xcel Energy's plants in Monticello and Prairie Island - the technology for small reactors is still in its early stages.

Small reactor technologies include smaller water-cooled reactors, which are used in most conventional reactors, as well as reactors that use molten salt or could be buried a mile underground and use the earth's crust to replace a containment dome.

In Minnesota, past misdeeds have haunted nuclear advocates for decades. The Legislature enacted the moratorium - which is one of the strictest in the country - in 1994 as part of a compromise that allowed Xcel Energy to store nuclear waste at its Prairie Island plant north of Red Wing, which started operating in the early 1970s.

"When this nuclear power plant was built, we didn't have the capacity to truly understand what was being built less than 700 yards away from our tribe - from our houses, from our community buildings - and the government at that time wasn't forthcoming about what was being built," said Prairie Island Tribal Council President Grant Johnson. "That started off a shaky relationship."

Johnson said the tribe's main concern is the radioactive waste, which is stored on site in casks that were meant to be temporary when first introduced. In the 1980s, the federal government proposed storing the country's spent nuclear fuel in Yucca Mountain in Nevada, but area residents opposed the facility and plans fell apart 15 years ago. The country still doesn't have any permanent waste storage sites.

"The federal government has promised to find solutions for us, but they haven't been fruitful," Johnson said. "We're not against nuclear power. We're trying to be realistic about it. We understand the demand for power is growing [but] we are also realistic about what happens with this waste."

Xcel currently has about 50 casks of spent fuel at Prairie Island and plans to add about three dozen more, which only amplifies tribe members' concerns.

Rep. Spencer Igo, a Republican from northern Minnesota, sponsored the bill for the study after spending months collaborating with Prairie Island tribal leaders.

Igo credits the tribe's participation for swaying some legislators to vote for the study. But even though tribal leaders supported the study, as of now tribal members do not support repealing the moratorium, Johnson said.

"That goes back to: We were promised a solution for the nuclear waste and we're still sitting here with it," Johnson said, "And it's growing."

In the last decade, six states including Wisconsin and Illinois, have repealed nuclear moratoriums.

Igo said he hopes the study is a stepping stone to repealing the state's nuclear ban, which he says "handcuffs" companies and utilities from planning for future energy needs and hinders the state from federal investment.

"If we get this moratorium lifted, that doesn't mean we're going to build more nuclear," Igo said. "But it also could mean we could get the support for the spin-off industries that support nuclear like a storage facility or component manufacturing or training."

Building and operating new nuclear power plants remains one of the most expensive options on the market today. Estimates by the federal government and leading financial analysis firms like Lazard show that constructing and running new nuclear plants can cost two or three times as much as new solar arrays or wind farms.

But nuclear energy offers carbon-free baseload power, which Igo calls the "backbone to the entire electrical grid."

"I represent half the Iron Range. I represent mines and mills and other heavy industry," Igo said. "They can't be dependent on intermittent power sources."

Another barrier to repealing the moratorium has been lawmakers' concerns about forcing a nuclear facility on a community that doesn't want one. So last year, a coalition of businesses, utilities and labor unions formed the Minnesota Nuclear Energy Alliance to promote the bans' reversal and see if there were places around the state that would welcome a nuclear facility.

Boards of commissioners in about one-third of Minnesota's 87 counties approved resolutions supporting lifting the moratorium.

Darrick Moe, president and chief executive of the Minnesota Rural Electric Association, helps lead the alliance.

"If you're going to [meet] the 2040 carbon-free goal for the state, nuclear is the resource available to do that," Moe said. "If you're telling us the law says we have to do it in 14 years, we just don't have another way of getting there."

_____

Reporter Kristoffer Tigue contributed to this story.

_____

Copyright 2026 Tribune Content Agency. All Rights Reserved.

This story was originally published July 7, 2026 at 5:57 PM.