Let me ask this question. We do not have any nuclear facility in North Dakota. We have some customers in North Dakota who are part of the NSP. NSP has a nuclear plant in Minnesota. So some of our customers in North Dakota have been paying into a fund for some period of time to handle their spent fuel. But as I am hearing the Senator, we could have here a transfer of costs to other taxpayers in North Dakota to take on what would be a Federal facility. In other words, the taxpayers of North Dakota, most of whom have not been benefited by nuclear power, would be asked to pay as Federal taxpayers the Federal share of this facility that would be located in Nevada. So would I be correct in assuming that North Dakota taxpayers would be asked to take on this burden which has been created by an industry that has been benefiting folks largely not in the State of North Dakota?
Kent Conrad: “Let me ask this question. We do not have any nuclear facility in North Dakota. We have some customers in North Dakota…”
On the recordJuly 10, 1996
Source
govinfo.govEditor's note · Context
Addressing the financial implications of a federal nuclear facility for North Dakota taxpayers.
Share
More from Kent Conrad
Apr 4, 2017
I would say personally I would not go to a company advising me on wealth management that did not have it because I think whoever is advising me ought to have as their highest responsibility to be giving me advice that is in my interest.
Sep 6, 2016
if we are going to make this whole system solvent, it is going to take everybody to give a little bit.
Apr 4, 2017
I wish I could look you in the eye and say, you know, if we just had the will, we could reverse this, and we could go back to a time when defined benefit plans were on the increase. I do not think that is in the cards.





