Print this story | E-mail story | This story has 6 comments Add your own | iPod friendly

OTP: Big Stone II the best option

Published Wednesday, March 26, 2008

Ward Uggerud

Otter Tail Power Company, countering some environmental group opposition to Big Stone II, said the proposed coal-fired unit in northeastern South Dakota would be the best option to help meet what the company said is increasing electricity usage in this area of the Upper Midwest.

“Our mission is to produce and deliver electricity as reliably, economically and as environmentally responsibly as possible,” said Senior Vice President Ward Uggerud during an energy forum Tuesday evening at Legacy Hall on the MSCTC, Fergus Falls, campus. “We need new generation, and Big Stone II is our best option.”

Uggerud said he’s unaware of Native American (tribe) opposition to Big Stone II in Otter Tail Power’s service area of Minnesota and the two Dakotas. On the contrary, he said some tribes want to become participants in the project.

However, in a previous energy forum held at MSCTC on March 5, Winona La Duke, representing the White Earth Reservation of northern Minnesota and Minneapolis-based Honor the Earth, and Myrna Thompson of the Sisseton Wahpeton Community (Lake Traverse Reservation), said wind energy is a better option than building a new coal-fired station at Big Stone.

They also expressed concerns about emissions, water usage and health and environmental effects from the proposed Big Stone II coal-fired generation station near Milbank.

Uggerud, however, said that construction of Big Stone II would have positive environmental impacts on Big Stone I.

“There would be less mercury, less sulfur dioxide and less nitrogen oxide from the two plants than from one plant,” he said. “Building power plants is something we do in a collaborative effort.”

Video

OTP speaks during an energy conference held 3/25/08 part 1 of 2

OTP speaks during an energy conference held 3/25/08 part 1 of 2 Watch »

Otter Tail is one of five partners in the Big Stone II project. All of the partners are electric suppliers in this area of the Upper Midwest.

Uggerud and fellow speakers Mark Helland, vice president, customer service, and Kim Pederson, manager, market planning, said that wind energy is part of Otter Tail Power’s company’s energy mix. Otter Tail’s alternative sources of energy, which include wind, are expected to increase to 39 percent (280 megawatts) of the company’s energy mix by the year 2020.

The company’s purchased wind resources currently stand at 84 megawatts.

“But the wind doesn’t always blow,” Uggerud said. “Coal-fired generation is more reliable.”

He also said that power lines, an offshoot of the Big Stone II project, would be used to carry wind energy from the Buffalo Ridge of southwestern Minnesota.

New generation resources identified in the company's resource plan also call for 170 megawatts of coal (23 percent), 100 megawatts of demand-side management (14 percent), and 175 megawatts of natural gas (24 percent) by 2020.

The Otter Tail Power representatives addressed regulations and obligations that are behind a utility's decisions about how to provide energy for customers for the future. They specifically provided this background as it relates to the proposed Big Stone II. Energy efficiency and demand-side management also were discussed.

Uggerud said that in 1971 the average Otter Tail Power Company residential customer used an average of 5,000 kilowatt-hours of electricity on an annual basis. That usage, he said, jumped to 9,550 kilowatt-hours annually in 2007.

Video

OTP speaks during an energy conference held 3/25/08 part 2 of 2

OTP speaks during an energy conference held 3/25/08 part 2 of 2 Watch »

Helland said that it’s a balancing act managing energy while meeting customer expectations in a service territory that’s roughly the size of the state of Wisconsin.

Pederson said that Otter Tail has been a national leader in demand-side management and conservation. One example, she said, is a program initiated several years ago whereby Otter Tail — in coordination with customers — controls water heaters during peak times of energy usage such as suppertime between 5 and 7 p.m. Another example is load shifting with use of thermal storage.

The energy forums March 5 and Tuesday evening were hosted by students from the MSCTC Sociology Service Learning Class. Student planners included Cortney Spiker, Evansville; Andrew Brue, Fergus Falls; Kathi Abel, Fergus Falls; Baird Miltich, Pelican Rapids; and Rebecca Odegaard, Morris. Their instructor is Sue Wika.

Comments

The Daily Journal is happy to host community conversations about news and life in Fergus Falls and the surrounding area. As hosts, we expect guests will show respect for each other. That means we don't threaten or defame each other, and we keep conversations free of personal attacks. Witty is great. Abusive is not. If you think a post violates these standards, don't escalate the situation. Instead, flag the comment to alert us. We'll take action if necessary. It's not hard. This should be a place where people want to read and contribute -- a place for spirited exchanges of opinion. So those who persist with racist, defamatory or abusive postings risk losing the privilege to post at all.

Posted by GrammarNazi (anonymous) on March 26, 2008 at 5:56 p.m. (Suggest removal)

An article like this does nothing to change the perception of the Daily Journal's position as the Official Mouthpiece and Apologist for Otter Tail Power Company. Just ONCE I'd like to see the Journal devote as much of their resources to covering the OTHER side of a controversy involving OTP as they do to letting OTP spin their propaganda for free. (Come to think of it, I'd like to see them do that a lot more than once. I'd like to see them do it FROM NOW ON.)
.
There are many people and groups who have legitimate concerns about the environmental impact of Big Stone II, but I have yet to see Mr. Hintgen show us that he's spent any time interviewing any of them. I suggest he contact the Minnesota Center for Environmental Advocacy, or go to this website:

http://www.mncenter.org/minnesota_center...

Posted by Thomas (anonymous) on March 26, 2008 at 10:22 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Native American concerns about adverse environmental effects from Big Stone II, and their promotion of wind energy, was covered in depth in the Daily Journal following the energy forum on March 5. To see the article, do a search on the Daily Journal web site: Native Americans, Big Stone II

Posted by lookitup (anonymous) on March 27, 2008 at 8:26 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Big Stone II concerns Native Americans
(Environmental issues raised at forum discussing South Dakota power plant) -
http://www.fergusfallsjournal.com/news/2...

Posted by thinkB4Uspeak (anonymous) on March 27, 2008 at 10:32 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Yes, by all means, it's important to educate yourself about this issue. While you're doing research to learn the facts, visit the Big Stone II web site:
http://www.bigstoneii.com
You will see there are answers for the many people and groups who have legitimate concerns. Like all issues, it's not black or white, good or bad. Those of us who consume electricity in our daily lives (if you're reading this, you do) all share the responsibility.
There is no source for baseload power that is totally clean, but OTP has proposed the cleanest, most dependable, most economical option possible. They are trying to take care of you and your needs in the most responsible manner.
Those groups who work to slow down the permitting process are not doing you or me any favors. Every day, week, month, or year that the construction is delayed adds millions to the cost of the plant. Those costs will have to be paid by you and me.

Posted by pilsnerurquel (anonymous) on March 27, 2008 at 5:52 p.m. (Suggest removal)

The only reason this generator would be located in South Dakota and not Minnesota is because of their lax environmental standards. This should tell you something...

Posted by thinkB4Uspeak (anonymous) on March 28, 2008 at 10:13 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I went to the forum at the MSCTC and they said it's being built there because when the existing plant was built there in the 1970s they were looking to the future. They designed it so it could be added onto. The coal delivery system and the cooling system are set up to handle the expansion. If you built the plant in Minnesota it would cost many, many millions more to find and buy the land and put the coal delivery and cooling systems in place.

It's like this - what's cheaper - to add on to your house or buy another lot and build another bigger house from scratch? It's a no-brainer.

Post a comment

(Requires free registration.)

Username:
Password: (Forgotten your password?)

Comment:



© 2009, Fergus Falls Newspapers, Inc.

Boone Newspapers, Inc. | About us | Subscribe | Printing | E-Edition | Contact us | Advertise with us