For immediate release
November 30, 2006
News Release …News Release … News Release
Contact:
Bill Grant, Associate Executive Director
Izaak Walton League of America
(651)649-1446
billgrant@iwla.org
Chuck Laszewski, Communications Director
Minnesota Center for Environmental Advocacy
(651) 223-5969
claszewski@mncenter.org
Beth Goodpaster, Lawyer
Minnesota Center for Environmental Advocacy
(651) 223-5969
bgoodpaster@mncenter.org
Coal-fired power plant electricity unneeded, renewable alternatives cheaper, experts testify
Minnesota Public Utilities Commission should reject proposed Minnesota power line from South Dakota’s Big Stone II power plant
ST. PAUL, MN— The utilities proposing to build the coal-fired Big Stone II power plant have not proven the electricity is needed, nor did they seriously examine renewable alternatives, a coalition of environmental and scientific organizations said in testimony filed Wednesday and Thursday.
One of the biggest flaws in the utilities’ analysis is their failure to recognize the likelihood that future global warming laws will impose substantial new costs on the plant.
As a result, the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission should reject the utilities’ application to build new power lines in the state for transporting electricity from the proposed plant just across the border near Milbank, S.D.
In their filing, the five organizations—Fresh Energy, the Izaak Walton League of America-Midwest Office, Minnesota Center for Environmental Advocacy, the Union of Concerned Scientists and Wind on the Wires—said the computer modeling done by the utilities to determine what alternatives would provide the lowest cost electricity was severely flawed.
Even with those flaws, in some cases the models showed the polluting power plant would provide significantly more electricity than the utilities’ customers could use.
“The Big Stone utilities are putting all the risks on their customers, just so they can get another coal plant,’’ said Beth Goodpaster, the Minnesota Center for Environmental Advocacy lawyer arguing the case. “The economic risks and environmental risks are astounding, and the utilities refuse to consider those risks – indeed are trying to hide those risks -- in the Big Stone project proposal.”
Energy experts hired by the environmental groups found the utilities:
- Refused to add the costs of carbon regulation when running their models, even though at least one of the utilities admitted federal global warming regulations are likely soon;
- Used artificially low amounts of energy-efficiency and wind power investments in their models;
- Did not consider coal-supply disruptions, which began occurring this year;
- Have not accurately forecasted the potential increased construction costs of the Big Stone II power plant, which already has gone up 40 percent from its original $1 billion cost.
- Several times have refused to turn over documents or claimed not to have them, even after ordered to provide the documents to opponents.
After reviewing the evidence, the energy experts determined that the modeling was biased against non-polluting alternatives such as wind and increased energy efficiency. Further, when those biases were corrected, building Big Stone II and the new power lines was usually not the cheapest alternative for the homeowners and businesses using the electricity.
“This plant is not the least-cost option for new power supply,’’ said Bill Grant, associate executive director of Izaak Walton League of America. “Our case in South Dakota, and now before the Minnesota regulators, demonstrates that the Big Stone utilities left cheaper options on the table, options that offer greater stability for electric rates as well as cleaner electricity.’’
The biggest flaw was not including in the computer models any costs due to future federal regulation of carbon dioxide, the main pollutant causing global warming. Several bills have already been introduced in Congress, as global warming becomes an increasingly urgent concern for the public and elected officials. All of the bills would put new costs on coal plants, our nation’s biggest source of global warming pollution.
“The utilities have a chance to reduce their exposure to these inevitable regulatory costs by investing in clean alternatives. Instead, they’re risking ratepayers’ money building a huge new source of global warming pollution,” said Barbara Freese, consultant for the Union of Concerned Scientists. Big Stone II would emit 4.7 million tons of carbon dioxide yearly, or roughly as much as 700,000 average cars. It represents the largest new source of carbon dioxide built to serve Minnesota electric customers since the 1980s.
The organizations have been fighting the proposal all year, first in South Dakota and now in Minnesota. In addition to carbon dioxide, the plant also would emit hundreds of pounds more of mercury over its operating life. That, in turn, is likely to fall on Minnesota’s lakes, further contaminating the fish which already come with health advisories due to mercury accumulation.
The best method for stopping pollution is not to produce it in the first place, and according to the energy experts’ testimony, the need to build Big Stone II has been badly overstated by the utilities.
For instance, Great River Energy is projecting a decline between 2006 and 2029 in its need for baseload, or average daily electricity output. Instead, its own figures indicate it will need more peaking power, electricity that is needed occasionally, such as hot summer days with high demand. Big Stone II is not a peaking plant so it “would provide energy that Great River Energy does not need,’’ the experts said.
Utility models repeatedly excluded important factors that could drive the cost of a coal-fired plant higher and make wind and other alternatives even more attractive options. For instance, they did not factor in coal supply disruptions that occurred this year because of disputes among coal shippers, utilities and railroads, forcing some power producers to import coal from Indonesia and South America.
Evidentiary hearings on the transmission lines before an administrative law judge are scheduled to begin Tuesday.
Earlier this year, the coalition of environmental and scientific groups asked the South Dakota Public Utilities Commission to deny a siting permit for Big Stone II, saying that alternatives such as wind would be cleaner and produce more jobs and revenue for the state. The commissioners, however, approved the permit and the organizations have appealed that decision in South Dakota District Court.
###
|
