Court recommends Big Stone II permits be denied
Two administrative law judges recommended today that power lines should not be built across west-central Minnesota from the proposed coal-fired plant on the South Dakota side of Big Stone Lake. The decision is a major victory in the fight to combat climate change.
The judges found that the applicant power companies failed to show that demand for electricity could not be better and more cost-effectively met through renewable energy and energy efficiency. The judges also found that the power companies had not adequately considered the costs of global warming pollution. Without the power lines, the proposed Big Stone II power plant could not be built.
Five environmental and clean energy groups provided experts to testify that the power plant’s electricity was unneeded, would add four million tons per year of global warming pollution and would cause a rate hike to its Minnesota electricity customers. Further, they testified that clean energy, such as wind, was a viable alternative.
The final decision on whether to grant the certificate of need for the power lines to the utilities is with the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission. They are expected to rule sometime next month.
“It would be almost impossible for the state commission to approve this coal plant now after years of testimony and evidence show that efficiency and renewable are better for Minnesota consumers,” said Michael Noble, Executive Director of Fresh Energy.
The experts testified on behalf of Fresh Energy, the Izaak Walton League of America-Midwest Office, Minnesota Center for Environmental Advocacy, Union of Concerned Scientists and Wind on the Wires. The tide has been turning in their favor of late, especially when two of the original utilities dropped out last summer and the remaining Big Stone utilities were forced to cut the proposed plant from 630 megawatts to either 500 or 580 megawatts.
“The days of polluting for free are numbered,” said Barbara Freese, a clean energy consultant for the Union of Concerned Scientists. “Soon utilities will have to pay to pollute, and when you accurately account for that cost, coal plants aren't a sound investment.”
The judges agreed with experts who testified on behalf of the environmental and energy groups pointing out major flaws in the calculations done by the Big Stone II utilities. For instance, the carbon penalty figure the utilities used was smaller than those being debated in bills before Congress.
Those experts also testified that regulatory commissions in Oregon, Oklahoma, Kansas, Florida and North Carolina have all voted down coal plants in the past year. Other utilities, including Xcel Energy in Colorado and Minnesota, and the Idaho Power Co., have voluntarily moved away from coal. Both Xcel and Minnesota Power Co. officials have said they won’t build new coal-fired plants in Minnesota during the next 20 years because of the coming regulations on carbon dioxide and the state’s recently passed laws requiring dramatically more use of renewable energy and energy efficiency.
It wasn’t just the environmental and energy groups who found flaws in the utilities’ testimony. Gov. Pawlenty’s Department of Commerce agreed that the carbon penalty was too low. The department’s witnesses testified that in analyzing the five utilities’ numbers that only two of the companies—Otter Tail Power, Co. and Missouri River Energy Services, Inc.— could justify a need for additional baseload from the proposed power plant, and then only 315 megawatts. That’s less than half of the original project request.
Beth Goodpaster, a Minnesota Center for Environmental Advocacy attorney representing the environmental and clean energy groups, noted that the judges found that the utilities had a need of, at most, 170 megawatts.
“Commissions, utilities and banks that finance power plants are stepping back by the dozens from coal, viewing it as an unbearably risky investment, both financially and environmentally,” Goodpaster said. “The Minnesota Public Utilities Commission should protect Minnesota customers from these risks.”
The administrative law judges generally agreed.
The tide has been turning lately against coal nationwide. Since 2006, more than 30 coal plants have been canceled due to rising construction costs, according to Platts, a division of the McGraw Hill Co., a leading provider of energy information. Two of the original utilities behind Big Stone II dropped out last summer due to rising costs and the remaining owners were forced to cut the proposal from a 630-megawatt plant to a 500 or 580 megawatt plant.
Still, its annual carbon dioxide emissions would double the amount of global warming pollution from coal in South Dakota. That is the equivalent of the carbon dioxide produced by all the cars, trucks and trains in South Dakota.
