MCEA in the News—Big Stone II

The proposed Big Stone II coal-fired power plant is located on the banks of the Red River in Millbank, S.D., across the river is Ortonville, Minn. MCEA has fought the power plant on behalf of ourselves and clients Union of Concerned Scientists, Izaak Walton League of America—Midwest Office, and Fresh Energy. Click the link below to read media coverage of the issue.

From the Fargo Forum:

Critic of Big Stone II project did not tell the whole story
By Bruce Imsdahl,
Published Friday, September 01, 2006

In response to Beth Goodpaster’s commentary, which was published in the Forum’s August 25, edition – “Big Stone II wrong project, wrong time, old technology”:

Goodpaster left Forum readers with the impression that the Big Stone II participants have been irresponsible in planning to construct a 600-megawatt, coal-fueled power plant in northeastern South Dakota. Her contentions need clarification.

For the past several years, seven regional energy suppliers have been analyzing the feasibility of building a large, baseload generating facility. We found the site of the current 440-megawatt Big Stone I plant to be the most feasible from the standpoint of transmission access, rail service, water availability and other considerations. Earlier this summer, following a week of public hearings, the South Dakota Public Utilities Commission approved the plant siting permit. The water appropriation and waste disposal permits have also been approved by other South Dakota state agencies.

Big Stone II will be a baseload facility, which means, aside from repairs and scheduled maintenance, it will operate around the clock to supply our customers’ electricity needs. Electricity suppliers have four baseload options: natural gas, nuclear, coal or hydro. For cost and permitting reasons, coal is our best generation option.

In contrast, Goodpaster asserts that wind energy would be a better baseload alternative. This is simply not true. (By the way, as I am writing this letter, the flag outside my window is not waving.) Wind energy is unreliable and, therefore, cannot be considered a baseload generation option. In fact, in order to use wind energy, we would have to construct a back-up generation facility or facilities – most likely fueled by natural gas. The added cost of both generation sources – wind and natural gas – would be passed on to our customers.

Wind energy advocates rarely acknowledge the need for investing in back-up generation – it’s a hidden, yet very real, cost of using wind.

The estimated cost of Big Stone II has increased from our original figure of $1 billion for the plant alone to about $1.6 billion for the plant and electric transmission. Montana-Dakota’s portion of this is less than 20 percent. The increase is due to a worldwide increase in the cost of concrete, steel, labor and other plant input – driven mainly by the robust economies of India and China. However, since we received the original cost estimates, we have increased the electrical output of the plant as well as its efficiency and emissions capture. With these design modifications, we expect the cost increase per installed kilowatt to be about 23 percent, not 50 percent as Goodpaster states.

Goodpaster further contends that it is likely Congress will pass a carbon tax, which would increase the cost of coal-fueled electricity generation. I can’t predict Congress’ actions, but it should be noted that, during the Clinton administration, Congress defeated such a bill. The Minnesota legislature has defeated similar bills in the past 10 years. Incidentally, concerning unpredictable energy costs, it should also be noted that the wind energy industry is dependent on federal tax credits to keep its costs feasible. Two years ago, when Congress was slow to renew the tax credits, new wind energy development stopped. What’s to say Congress won’t discontinue the tax credits altogether? Again, I can’t predict Congress’ actions, but it’s safe to say that future cost increases are inherent with any large project – including wind energy.

Finally, Goodpaster’s contention that Big Stone II will be a dirty coal plant … Big Stone II will use the best coal combustion technology now available for a plant of its size. It will meet or exceed all state and federal emission standards. In fact, by constructing the plant next to Big Stone I, we will actually reduce sulfur dioxide emissions, nitrogen compound emissions and mercury emissions below the current levels of Big Stone I.

Furthermore, the gypsum and fly ash produced at the plant are planned to be marketed to the wallboard and concrete industries thus reducing landfill needs and CO2 emissions.

The Big Stone II participants will use the best available technology to get electricity from a ton of coal. We’ll do it as cleanly and as cost-effectively as possible and provide our customers with the reliable and affordable energy they want and need.

Imsdahl, Bismarck, N.D., is president and CEO of Montana-Dakotas Utilities Co.
http://www.in-forum.com/articles/index.cfm?id=138271

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
The following Letter to the Editor ran in the Marshall Independent and the Bismarck Tribune

Letter to the Editor - Tuesday, August 22, 2006

Better alternatives than Big Stone II

To The Editor:

The letter to the editor from seven utility company leaders lauding the proposed Big Stone II project smacks of desperation on the part of highly-paid executives who fear their plan to continue using old-fashioned technology might be in danger.

And it is.

Let’s review for a minute. The testimony we brought forth during the South Dakota hearings established that global warming will continue to cause significant harm to the world and the region. Carbon dioxide is the main global warming pollutant and Big Stone II will emit enormous amounts of it.

How much? Try 4.5 million tons every year, or substantially more carbon dioxide than is produced by all the cars in South Dakota.

But we didn’t just say, "don’t build Big Stone II" and then sat down. We showed that a portfolio of responsible alternatives emphasizing energy-efficiency and wind energy is a cleaner, more cost-efficient alternative. The testimony showed wind energy investment would create seven times as many jobs and add five times more money to South Dakota’s economy. With its developed wind resources, southwestern Minnesota farmers are poised to be big players in this alternative.

Our plan produces little or no global warming pollutants and none of the mercury and other emissions the Big Stone II gang is struggling to reduce from its smokestacks.

As for their talk of a "looming energy crisis,’’ there isn’t one. The last time we heard talk like that, it was by Enron folks mocking California for its rolling blackouts. Only later did we learn Enron caused the "crisis" by manipulating the energy markets. There is plenty of electrical energy for these utilities’ customers and we have suggested a plan that would provide plenty more.

These utility executives want you to believe that at no time in the next 30 years will Congress slap costly carbon controls on Big Stone II. However, these are the same people who two years ago couldn’t even foresee the cost of their own proposed power plant jumping 50 percent to its current $1.8 billion. If they are wrong again and Congress does what seems very likely, all of us, the utility customers, will be paying for it through higher electric rates.

We all have a right to expect our utilities to invest in modern and innovative energy technologies that are efficient, clean and reliable. The Big Stone II executives have offered an antiquated solution that is irresponsible and far too costly. We can do better and look to the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission to provide the leadership. We also encourage you to call Marshall Municipal Utilities and urge them to reconsider their involvement with Big Stone II.

Beth Goodpaster, attorney, Minnesota Center for Environmental Advocacy

Bill Grant, Associate Executive Director, Midwest office of the Izaak Walton League

Michael Noble, Executive Director, Fresh Energy

Marie Zellar, Midwest Regional Director, Clean Water Action
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Pioneer Press
Posted on Sat, Jul. 15, 2006

Coal-fired plant moves forward
Environmentalists to keep fighting facility

BY DENNIS LIEN
Pioneer Press

A large and controversial coal-fired power plant near the South Dakota-Minnesota border was unanimously endorsed Friday by South Dakota regulators.

That state's Public Utilities Commission voted 3-0 to approve a permit to build the plant there after requiring it to limit mercury emissions and to study ways to limit another pollutant, carbon dioxide.

The $1 billion project, called Big Stone II, is a cooperative effort involving seven companies, led by Minnesota's Otter Tail Power Co. of Fergus Falls and Green River Energy of Elk River. The coalition, which includes municipal and cooperative operations, wants to build the 600-megawatt plant next to an existing 425-megawatt plant near Milbank, S.D., across the border from Ortonville, Minn.

Although South Dakota approved the construction permit, other state regulators still must approve environmental permits, and Minnesota still must decide whether to bring the power into the state and where to put transmission lines. The Minnesota Public Utilities Commission is expected to decide those issues by next winter.

Several environmental groups criticized the decision, contending the new plant is uneconomical and will contribute to global warming. They cited better alternatives for electricity, such as wind power.

Beth Goodpaster, a lawyer for the Minnesota Center for Environmental Advocacy, said the groups would fight the proposal in Minnesota, arguing there's no need for the transmission lines because there's no need for the plant.

South Dakota Public Utilities Commissioner Dustin Johnson said Friday's decision was about where to locate the plant.

"It's not necessarily about solving all of the environmental ills in the world,'' he said.

After a three-year adjustment period, he said, the two plants must limit emissions of mercury, a toxic metal that can cause nerve damage, to the existing plant's current level. Moreover, he said the two plants must study and consider ways to limit emissions of carbon dioxide, an unregulated greenhouse gas that contributes to global warming.

Dennis Lien can be reached at dlien@pioneerpress.com or 651-228-5588.

http://www.twincities.com/mld/twincities/news/15043649.htm