Partly Cloudy / 59° F
Big Stone II: Who wins, loses
Published 12:00pm Thursday, September 13, 2007Last year, The South Dakota Public Utilities Commission heralded news of a ‘deal’ with the utilities proposing to build the 630-megawatt coal-fired Big Stone II, citing environmental benefits and room for wind.
The commission said the utilities could commit to just 189 lbs of mercury emissions per year.
On Friday August 31, Otter Tail Power, on behalf of Big Stone II, struck a deal with the Minnesota Department of Commerce indicating it would limit mercury emissions up to 90 percent.
Otter Tail filings with the South Dakota Public Utilities Commission to date reveal no power purchase agreements nor any wind farms planned in the state.. Why should the Minnesota Department of Commerce expect otherwise?
Unfortunately, what South Dakota regulatory filings do show is an Otter Tail water permit, on behalf of BSII, of 3.2 billion gallons (10,000 acre-feet) per year from the Veblen aquifer underlying northeast South Dakota.
Otter Tail already received a permit last year to draw 3.2 billion gallons per year of surface water from Big Stone Lake, a shared, walleye rich Minnesota and South Dakota gem.
On July 11, witnesses for Otter Tail testified in Milbank, South Dakota that Otter Tail water permits totaled 15,000 acre-feet more per year than that needed to operate both Big Stone Plant Unit 1 and the proposed BSII (13,000 acre-feet). In total, Otter Tail water permits equal approximately 28,000 acre-feet per year.
Other industry-to-industry deals reveal that Otter Tail, at its sole discretion, has authority to cut off the water supply to the recently expanded Poet Ethanol Plant in times of drought.
Does this signal that even Otter Tail knows that South Dakota does not have an endless supply of water to support the up-and-coming ethanol industry in addition to another coal plant?
How is it then that South Dakota agencies approved, without a public hearing or final environmental impact statement, two water permits for Otter Tail totaling 15,000 acre-feet more than what even Otter Tail testified it needed?
How does a Minnesota investor-owned utility, on behalf of BSII, get access to a limited, precious South Dakota resource?
Of the projected 2.3 million BSII customers, approximately 2 million reside in Minnesota.
In South Dakota, the water belongs to the people. How can using our water to burn coal trump using water to produce ethanol?
Will South Dakota farmers let this stand? What about irrigation needs in times of drought?
Safeguarding the public interest requires due diligence on the part of state agencies and public officials entrusted to protect and preserve our health, our environment and our resources.
Otter Tail does have a good side and could help usher in a clean energy era providing jobs and development and sooner than the completion of the proposed BSII. Moreover, make money doing it.
For example, DMI Industries in West Fargo— an operating company of Otter Tail Corporation — announced last May a plant acquisition in Oklahoma that will employ 450 in wind tower production.
DMI already has a profitable production line in Fort Erie, Ontario in a plant purchased in 2005 and producing by 2006.
Nevertheless, why should Otter Tail present the options for wind turbine manufacturing plants or clean, electric generating facilities, or wind partnerships with South Dakota or Minnesota farmers when it knows it can get the state permits to continue burning coal?
Too many places across America have already depleted or poisoned both water and land. Do we want that to happen here?
Otter Tail obviously sees profit in the continental and worldwide growth in wind development and is willing to go that route. Why did South Dakota and now the Minnesota Department of Commerce settle for less?
We do not have to do something bad (more coal) to get something good i.e., clean, renewable generation with twenty-first century high-tech, skilled labor jobs.
Send BSII back to the drawing board to consider a wind/gas or wind/hydro combo to meet what Otter Tail says is base-load need. If the BSII utilities cannot do it, get someone who can. A wind/hydro or wind/gas combination for base-load need would help keep the natural beauty of both South Dakota and Minnesota for all to enjoy – including future generations.
Mary Jo Stueve is State Program Coordinator with South Dakota Clean Water Action.
