PUC considers whether to approve Big Stone II

Associated Press

Published 12:00 p.m., June 4, 2008

ST. PAUL — All eyes are on the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission as it decides whether to make way for a coal-burning power plant in South Dakota.

If it approves transmission lines in west-central Minnesota connecting to the Big Stone II plant, the utilities behind the energy project could move forward with the new coal-fueled project next to an existing plant near Milbank, S.D. Regulators in South Dakota have already approved the $1.5 billion plant.

But approval would also go against the recommendations of two administrative law judges in Minnesota, who said the utilities failed to show that the demand for electricity couldn’t be better and more cost-effectively met in other ways.

If the commission accepts the judges’ recommendations and rejects a “condition of need” certificate for the transmission lines, the utilities say they can’t build the plant and would be forced to go back to the drawing board.

The commission is expected to announce a decision Thursday.

On Tuesday, the five utilities behind the plant made their case to the commission, arguing that the transmission lines are needed in the face of growing energy demands. The future demands can’t be satisfied by conservation and renewable sources alone, said Big Stone attorney Todd Guerrero.

“We believe we’ve struck the right balance in light of the challenges we face,” he said. “These transmission facilities are needed and greatly needed.”

South Dakota and North Dakota are putting additional pressure on Minnesota officials to approve the transmission lines. In a rare move, a member of South Dakota’s utilities commission traveled to Minnesota to urge Minnesota regulators to approve the transmission lines.

“The denial of this line would be a tremendous blow to development in our region,” said Dusty Johnson, a member of the South Dakota Public Utilities Commission. “We’ve got to keep the lights on.”

But environmental advocates who have opposed Big Stone II are pressuring the Minnesota PUC in the other direction. They want members to think about the carbon emissions the plant would give off, and they said approving the lines could be seen as a step backward in the fight against global warming.

Dozens of protesters stood outside before the hearing, chanting and holding signs opposing Big Stone II. Many of them attended the hearing, which lasted most of the day.

Jeanette Brimmer, an attorney for the Minnesota Center for Environmental Advocacy, argued before the commission that the demand for energy from coal is decreasing in the region and that the planners haven’t looked at conservation and renewable energy options seriously enough.

And David Schlissel, a consultant working on behalf of the groups opposing the power plant, argued that the utilities have failed to estimate the potential costs of carbon emissions, which could face heavy federal regulation in the future. With the cost of carbon emissions expected to rise, the utilities would place that risk on ratepayers, Schlissel said.

Guerrero and Peter Glaser, another attorney for the utilities, agreed that developing new energy resources is becoming more difficult and complex.

“It’s tough. We understand this. But any road you walk is a risk for the ratepayers,” Glaser said.

He added that while the transmission line would be made available to carry wind energy, the region must be backed by a more reliable power source.

“(Wind) cannot meet our future resource needs. We must build something else,” Glaser said.

Backers of the project have also pointed to new technology that would capture much of the mercury that’s now being emitted from the Big Stone I plant. Supporters contend that the pollution generated after Big Stone II is complete would actually be less than what’s emitted now by Big Stone I alone.

The conservation groups didn’t buy it.

“Federal law is going to require the emissions reductions whether we build Big Stone II or not,” said Bill Grant, Midwest director of the Izaak Walton League.

Brimmer said Minnesota’s decision would affect generations to come.

“This kind of power is really old and a bad environmental decision that consumers could end up paying for,” she said. “(The commission) needs to make a decision that’s in the public’s interest and not in the utilities’ interest.”

---

WOULD YOU LIKE TO SHARE THIS STORY?

---