Print this story | E-mail story | This story has 11 comments Add your own | iPod friendly
Judges deliver major setback to Big Stone II
Published Saturday, May 10, 2008
ST. PAUL (AP) — The proposed Big Stone II power plant suffered a major setback Friday when two administrative law judges recommended against allowing transmission lines from the plant to be built across west-central Minnesota.
If the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission accepts that recommendation, the project could be doomed, said Dan Sharp, a spokesman for the five utilities that are seeking to build the plant.
"The transmission lines are critical and unless we can build the transmission lines in Minnesota, the project can't go," Sharp said.
The administrative law judges held that the five utilities had failed to show that demand for electricity couldn't be better and more cost-effectively met with renewable energy and greater energy efficiency. And they also wrote that the utilities had not adequately considered the impact the coal-fired plant would have on global warming.
The utilities want to build the plant next to an existing plant near Milbank in eastern South Dakota, a few miles west of Ortonville, Minn. It would serve 1 million people, about half of them on the western plains of Minnesota. The power lines in question would run to Granite Falls and Willmar.
A coalition of environmental groups that oppose the plant welcomed Friday's recommendation.
Michael Noble, executive director of Fresh Energy, said he expects the PUC will follow the judges' advice.
"It would be almost impossible now for the state Public Utilities Commission to approve this new coal plant," Noble said. "There's been years and years of testimony and thousands of pages of evidence, and all of it gets summed up by saying that energy efficiency and renewable energy are better for consumers."
Sharp said the utilities will now make the same arguments to the PUC that it did to the judges: that the plant would go a long way toward addressing the region's growing need for power, and that Big Stone II is the lowest-cost option. All the alternatives would cost consumers more, he said.
"It's going to show up in their electric bill just like they're facing at the gas pump," he said.
Sharp pointed out that the PUC is not bound by the judges' recommendation. He said he expects the PUC will hold hearings in early to mid-June and deliberate what to do by the end of June.
South Dakota officials have already approved major permits for the $1.5 billion plant.
The five utilities backing the plant are Otter Tail Power Co., the Central Minnesota Municipal Power Agency, Heartland Consumers Power District, Missouri River Energy Services, and Montana-Dakota Utilities Co.
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 ghostly_1 (anonymous) on May 10, 2008 at 5:43 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Haven't the gas prices taught us anything? These environmentalists will be our deaths. Wake up people, the electric company needs the added capacity, we will need the electricity in the future, do you think they would want to spend millions of dollars on the development if the demand won't be there?
Where are we going to get the electicity to charge up the electric cars the 'viros' want us to use? "Conservation and renewable sources" Anyone who has half a brain is already trying to conserve to save money. And renewable? Oh you mean like the claims that ethanol was part of the answer to oil prices. Yeah right! Doesn't matter a rats rear to the oil and gas prices, but we have done a bang up job of driving up food prices, guess what you brainiacs, there is corn in or used in producing almost everything we eat!
Ask yourself a question. What political group beats us over the head with global warming, but since we had almost no hurricanes last year, and one of the coldest and snowiest winters on record now says global warming is taking a ten year hiatus? Such an inconvenient truth.
Ask yourself another question. What politicians seem to be most dead set against drilling in the Arctic, new oil wells in the Gulf of Mexico and yet scream the loudest about oil companies profiting from market shortages and scares they help cause?
And one more. What group has for years, and continues unrelentingly, to beat us over the head that the U.S. is bad, that we are evil, we consume too much, produce too little. They want free speech for themselves but nobody else. They dislike the military and its use when needed. They are so disgusted at the violence in the degenerating society they helped create through permissiveness and claims of no black and white, no right and wrong, that now they want to take your guns away from you, who have broken no laws, yet they do nothing but lip service to take the guns from criminals.
Who are these self hating, anti U.S., anti gun, anti freedom, anti oil drilling, anti nuclear plant, anti Big Stone II coal fired plant, anti anything they that makes sense people?
I don't care who you vote for. But if you figure out the answers to these questions just don't vote for them this next election. Write in your vote for the Iranian president to be our president, at least he is honest about what he wants, and thats for us to cease to exist.
Posted by PeterJennen (anonymous) on May 10, 2008 at 6:51 p.m. (Suggest removal)
To ghostly_1,
I couldn't have written what you wrote any better, and I would add:
Love God and keep His commandments and you will be blessed. Hate God and don't keep His commandments and you will be cursed. Who's trying to take God out of our society?
Posted by boom (anonymous) on May 10, 2008 at 8:57 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I see the connection: Big Ston II, environment, global warming, oil, guns, God. Makes perfect sense. The word of the masses, the power behind the keypad.
Posted by whatthe (anonymous) on May 10, 2008 at 10:40 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I think it's a little irresponsible to suggest that we should approve a proposal such as this without considering the consequences. I'm grateful that the judges thoughtfully considered the requirement for the utilities to demonstrate that they had considered ways to satisfy the growing electricity demand without continuing the unabated depletion of resources and contamination of the environment. Now, more than ever, we need to give some thought to those who will come after us and establish a standard where renewal of resources keeps pace with or exceeds their consumption.
However, I'm greatly disappointed at the coalition of environmental groups who have grasped at - and secured - a seemingly last-ditch effort to throw up obstacles in the path of this improvement. I have no doubt that this coal plant will be cleaner, more efficient, and safer than its predecessor, and sparing no expense to fight its development will achieve at least two sad truths. The old, inefficient plant will continue consuming and polluting as long as the energy demand exists, and the power companies will pass their legal bills back to consumers in the form of higher energy rates.
I believe there's a compromise here that would benefit the energy companies as well as mother nature. While I actively support and promote measures to require the consideration of renewable energy source development, I fear the radical environmentalism that righteously forces an agenda and timeline and fails to celebrate substantial steps toward this objective. Perhaps in the future, the utility will proactively do the assessment without a court order, and the coalition will celebrate the final proposal as substantial and reasonable progress towards a long-term goal.
Posted by ANonnyMoose (anonymous) on May 11, 2008 at 11:19 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Not every environmentalist is a radical. The guidelines that the Big Stone II partners failed to meet were lobbied for and enacted by sensible citizens and lawmakers with consideration for future resources. The finding that the utilities essentially "cooked the books" in their analyses -- to make BSII appear to be more cost-effective than it actually will be -- speaks volumes.
...
Some further information on the case with respect to BSII's cost-effectiveness, the arguments made by the environmental groups, and even the Pawlenty administration's findings on the matter can be found in this article:
http://www.mncenter.org/minnesota_center...
...
Your final sentence, Whatthe, hits the nail on the head. If a desirable end result is to have utilities being active partners in environmental stewardship, it appears as though they will need their hands held for awhile at the outset. I see this development as part of that process, and maybe someday they'll be able to walk on their own.
Posted by randlars (anonymous) on May 11, 2008 at 9:45 p.m. (Suggest removal)
The opening entry by Ghostly_1 reflects my thoughts too except for one statement, you have bought into the lie that ethanol is responsible for high food prices. I just listened to a tv announcer lead-in his report with the talk of soaring food prices and then stated that food prices are up 4.5 - 5% for the year. That is not what I would call soaring. Compare that to the "soaring" price of energy and the "soaring" price of farm imputs (it will probably end up being 30-40% increases, fertilizer alone is doubled). Food prices are up because of increased transportation costs thanks to fuel prices and the lower value of the dollar allowing other countries to more easily purchase our crop commodities. Fuel prices would certainly not be cheaper with no ethanol, and our dollar would certainly not be stronger with a further dependence on foreign oil because we don't have ethanol. Furthermore, the vast majority of the corn crop in the US is used for livestock feed and after making ethanol, most of the feed is still there as a by-product. Ethanol uses up the starch that isn't that valuable as feed. Corn is not used in virtually everything we eat as stated. Milk is expensive now, well the dairy farmer still isn't getting it. Bread is up, but it isn't the wheat farmer getting it. Some wheat farmers did get a unbelievably high price for wheat this winter, but guess why it was so high, there was hardly a farmer who had any. Prices of wheat have dropped way back now but has your bread price? Check out the profits that General Mills had the last quarter of last year and the first quarter of this year. Energy costs and the weak dollar are responsible for the higher food prices, leave ethanol out of it.
But for the rest of what was written, I agree. I made a statement a couple years ago that the biggest threat to the United States is not Al Qaida, but environmental activists. I see no reason to think I'm wrong. There is a planned oil refining plant for South Dakota, none has been built in the US for a long time but guess what? The environmentalists are going to fight it. Go figure.
Posted by NatureFreak2 (anonymous) on May 11, 2008 at 11:28 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Greater energy efficiency? How can the power companies be responsible for greater energy efficiency? They can't control how their customers use the electricity. When their customers demand the power, they have to supply it. They have no choice. Those judges are insane. They could care less about how much we pay for electric power. Somebody should go monitor the JUDGES energy efficiency. They probably have huge houses and waste tons of energy. But since they're rich, they don't care if they make us poor people pay extra for heat and refrigeration and stuff we can't live without. They can sit and watch their big flat screen TVs and crank their heat and air conditioners up and the rest of us poor folks can kiss their behinds.
Posted by Newshound (anonymous) on May 12, 2008 at 7 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I cannot imagine what this country would look like today WITHOUT the environmental movement of the past thirty years. If "they", the environmental folks, go a little over the top at times it is because they are desperately trying to slow the efforts of enormous corporations that for decades have written their own tickets' gone where they wished to go and done what they wanted to do, without ANY concern for the fallout.
It is interesting to read through these comments to see the Rush Limbaugh effect on some of our citizens. He really DOES have the ability to poison minds.
And finally, if it is TRUE that the PUC does not have to be governed by the action of the judges, then what was the point about taking it to the judges in the first place?
Posted by ghostly_1 (anonymous) on May 12, 2008 at 11:19 a.m. (Suggest removal)
First I would like to thank the Journal for providing this space for us to debate issues. Secondly its my opinion that there are some better writers here than on the Journal's own staff. Thats a shame.
randlars I appreciate your agreement with most of what I wrote but I have to take issue with some things you said. If you don't think there is corn used in almost everything we eat, or everything we produce to eat, your just plain wrong. I have done some research on this issue. I can appreciate farmers or people with a vested interest in ethanol production to defend it. It doesn't save us money, its less expensive at the pump but your gas mileage falls significantly. It deverts corn from going into the food supply and production. Its only saving grace is its cleaner. But if cleaner is better, and I think it is, then we should be devoting all of our efforts into hydrogen fuel cells, and or electric, powered by either clean coal plants or nuclear.
And newshound, your comment about the "Rush Limbaugh" effect and his poisoning minds. I suspect you believe that anyone who doesn't agree with you has a poisoned mind, a typical example of my previous comment regarding free speech, but only if you agree with me, thinking. But I do agree with you in part when you say you would "hate to see what this country would look like without environmentalists" We have a system of checks and balances for a reason, whenever one side or the other goes "over the top" they need to be held accountable. The problem is for the last several decades these environmental radicals have held almost complete sway. Its high time that the good of the people be considered economically as well as protecting us from pollution. Not even to meniton energy independence from people who hate the U.S. and want to destroy us. I think for the foreseeable future, perhaps a long time, that we need to consider that first priority while trying within reason to protect the environment as best we can.
Posted by randlars (anonymous) on May 12, 2008 at 10:23 p.m. (Suggest removal)
For what it's worth Ghostly_1, I really appreciate a civil response. I don't write much here just because you get lambasted by some of these writers. You seem to be very knowledgeable, I think we could have a very fun and constructive debate. There is alot of bad info out there on ethanol and I can't claim all of what I've learned is right either, but I have been in agriculture for 30 years and I will stick by my statement that food prices have risen because of fuel prices and the weak dollar. I am actually what some people would call an environmentalist. I assist farmers in using as little pesticides as necessary, I have headed up a citizen committee to clean the water up in our area watershed. I serve on a soil and water board. I even have invested in wind farms. I don't do this out of idealism but out of a desire to make some money or help others make make some too. But I have come to detest environmental activists as they are not interested in anything but their agendas and inflicting damage to progress. They see nothing but what they want. I am not one of them. There are other ways, your fuel cells and nuclear plants are two of them. Keep preaching! Also, one last thing about food prices; the high farmer prices for grains really haven't hit the market that much yet. Most of the grain produced by my clients were sold at prices way below what they are now as they had contracted the prices a long time ago. It is the nature of farming. This fall's crop will be sold at much higher levels on the farm. It will be interesting to see what food prices do this next winter.
Posted by ghostly_1 (anonymous) on May 13, 2008 at 9:25 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Hi randlars, and thanks to you for your civil response, we don't see much of that these days do we? You have good points, I agree that fuel prices, the weak dollar and troubled economy we seem to have, have all contributed to the higher food prices. Its almost a what came first the chicken or the egg scenario.
I hesitate to sound like an alarmist, but we seem to be entering one of those times in our history when we are on the brink of major changes that will affect all of us for better or worse. I saw yesterday where a major financial concern predicted a big bust in the oil market with per barrel prices falling drastically. If that happens things may stabilize for a while but I don't know if I believe it will happen. If as you say this years crops are marketed at a much higher price, and the fuel continues to go up its pretty scary. When you consider food and heating fuel for next winter and what those costs may be, many are just beginning to feel the pinch.
Lets hope for the best. Stay involved like you are, we need people like you.
Post a comment
(Requires free registration.)