ND regulators asked to suspend review of Big Stone II

Originally published 08:47 p.m., May 14, 2008
Updated 11:41 p.m., May 14, 2008

BISMARCK, N.D. (AP) — Opponents of a proposed South Dakota power plant are asking North Dakota regulators to suspend their own review of whether the project is the best option for providing low-cost electricity.

North Dakota ratepayers could be stuck with some of the planning bills for the Big Stone II plant if the state Public Service Commission endorses the project and it is not built, two environmental groups said in a commission filing Wednesday.

Big Stone II is in jeopardy because the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission may deny a request by its developers to build new power lines in southern Minnesota to carry the plant's electricity to customers, their documents say.

North Dakota Public Service Commissioner Tony Clark said the PSC could consider the request as early as next week. It was filed by Plains Justice, of Cedar Rapids, Iowa, and the Dakota Resource Council, of Dickinson.

"It certainly sounds like if they can't get the transmission built in Minnesota, that the project won't go forward," Clark said. "That's been the assumption that I've been operating under, and I think everybody else has, from the beginning."

Last week, two Minnesota administrative law judges recommended that the Minnesota PUC block construction of the requested power lines. The commission will make its decision later. It is not bound by the judges' conclusions.

Five utilities are backing the Big Stone II project, which would put a new coal-fueled power plant next to an existing plant near Milbank, S.D.

Two of the utilities, Montana-Dakota Utilities Co., of Bismarck, and Otter Tail Power Co., of Fergus Falls, Minn., have asked North Dakota regulators to decide the project is a good option for meeting increased electric demand.

If the North Dakota Public Service Commission goes along, the utilities will have an easier time getting North Dakota ratepayers to shoulder part of Big Stone II's cost, which is estimated at $1.6 billion.

Plains Justice, the Dakota Resource Council and other opponents of the project say its developers have not adequately considered the potential cost of new regulations that would make coal-fired electricity more expensive.

Carrie La Seur, an attorney for Plains Justice, said the increased electric demand can be met by wind energy generation and conservation measures.

The request by MDU and Otter Tail for North Dakota regulators' blessing for Big Stone II "no longer contained a credible representation of the estimated costs of the project," La Seur said in documents filed with the North Dakota PSC.

"The projected commercial operation date is thrown into uncertainty, and a serious question arises as to whether Big Stone II will be viable at all without the proposed Minnesota transmission lines," La Seur said.

If the North Dakota PSC determines the project is prudent, North Dakota ratepayers could be made to compensate the utilities for some of their development expenses even if Big Stone II is never built, she said.