For Immediate Release:
Contact:
 Beth Goodpaster
Minnesota Center for Environmental Advocacy
                                    651.223.5969
Timothy Rose
Fresh Energy
651.587.6571

(Saint Paul, MN …) Clean energy, scientific and environmental groups today denounced the decision by the South Dakota Public Utilities Commission to approve a siting permit for the dirty coal-fired Big Stone II power plant and vowed to continue the fight against the unneeded plant.      

           The proposed power plant, located in Milbank, S.D., was approved despite evidence presented by groups opposing the plant showing emissions from the facility would cause serious harm to the environment, particularly through its long-term contribution to global warming. The proposed facility using old-fashioned dirty coal will produce pollution such as mercury or carbon dioxide, a universally acknowledged major contributor to global warming. In addition, the plant’s owners failed to account for an escalated cost to ratepayers if likely new regulations against carbon dioxide are enacted during the 40-year life of the power plant. Also, cleaner electricity producing alternatives such as wind power would create greater economic benefits.

 “The commission’s decision will saddle customers with potentially huge costs down the road,’’ said Steve Clemmer, Clean Energy Research Director with the Union of Concerned Scientists, one of four groups that testified against Big Stone. “Using South Dakota’s exceptional wind energy resources instead of coal could prevent a large increase in global warming pollution while creating considerably more jobs and saving consumers money.’’

            Besides the Union of Concerned Scientists, Minnesota Center for Environmental Advocacy, Fresh Energy and the Izaak Walton League of America all presented evidence that a combination of wind turbines and energy efficiency improvements were a viable alternative. As the experts testified in South Dakota, the wind alternatives alone also would produce seven times as many long term jobs and more than five times as many dollars in the South Dakota economy than would building and operating Big Stone II.

           In their public comments, Commissioners Bob Sahr, Dusty Johnson and Gary Hanson mentioned their concern with the carbon dioxide that would be emitted, but felt they were powerless because there are no federal regulations restricting such pollution. They also acknowledged that energy efficiency and wind energy were important and suggested that the necessary transmission lines for the coal-fired plant would have extra capacity which might be used by electricity from wind generators.

“That’s ridiculous,’’ said Beth Goodpaster, MCEA’s lawyer and energy project director. “The Big Stone plant would push wind generating companies to the sidelines for the foreseeable future.’’

           However, other opportunities for blocking the power plant are coming quickly. The best chance will be the certificate of need hearings for new transmission lines to carry the electricity from Big Stone into Minnesota. The hearings will be before the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission this fall.

“We will argue that there is no need for transmission lines because there is no need for the power plant,’’ Goodpaster continued. “Technically, the South Dakota PUC did not have to consider need, although we argued it, but the Minnesota PUC does have to consider need and conduct a thorough analysis of alternatives.’’

            The groups will continue to stress the plethora of alternatives. Needs for electricity can and should be met with a combination of wind turbines, energy efficiency to cut demand and other options in both South Dakota and Minnesota more in keeping with 21st Century technology and innovation.

“This plant should never be built,’’ said Michael Noble, Executive Director of Fresh Energy. “Its bad economically and an obsolete and antiquated idea before the doors would even open. We are now demanding that the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission show leadership that provides for clean, efficient and renewable energy use for the 21st Century. The legacy we leave our children and grandchildren cannot include more global warming pollutants and the wasting of money on old-fashioned thinking and technology.”

           In addition, the federal Western Area Power Administration already has released a draft environmental impact statement and the groups who testified against the coal plant before the utilities commission will submit comments on that document by July 24, Goodpaster said.

            Those groups, as well as the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, also weighed in with comments to the South Dakota Water Management Board opposing Big Stone’s plans to siphon large amounts of water from the shallow Big Stone Lake, which forms a boundary between Minnesota and South Dakota.

- END -