SUMMER 2008     

Big Stone II decision delayed…again
Minnesota Public Utilities Commission asks for more study

If built, the Big Stone II plant would be next to the existing 450-megawatt Big Stone plant. Photo: Otter Tail Power Company

Fresh Energy and its allies have been fighting Big Stone II—an old-fashioned coal plant slated to be built in South Dakota on Minnesota’s border—since the plant was first proposed in 2004. If built, the plant would dump almost 5 million tons of global warming pollution into the air every year for the next 50 years.

The battle has been anything but short or sweet. Over the past year, regulatory decisions have trickled in one by one. But in early June 2008, the battle over construction of the Big Stone II coal plant reached what was expected to be the endgame at the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission (PUC).

SPLIT DECISION
The commission met to either approve or reject planned transmission lines to deliver the plant’s electricity to Minnesota. Big Stone II is unlikely to be built without that approval.

Commission chair Leroy Koppendrayer led the charge for approval, passionately arguing that “you hear all the concerns about carbon, but this is the newest technology we have right now to burn coal.” He asked, “When do we stop analyzing, and when do we start building?” As debate progressed, the chair talked about his 10-year tenure on the commission, realizing that he may not be making this final and momentous decision before his June 30 retirement. Commissioner David Boyd agreed, for a vote of two in favor of Big Stone II.

Commissioner Tom Pugh argued that rejecting the powerlines was the courageous move. According to Pugh, if the commission approved the project, it would “ignore the policy that’s been set for us by the legislature,” referring to Minnesota laws that mandate preference for energy efficiency and renewable energy and laws that set goals for deep reductions in global warming emissions over time. He continued, “We should strictly apply the standard and find that the applicants did not prove their case. I feel that we should apply the laws as written.” Proponents of the plant are required to establish that the plant is needed and that the demand for electricity cannot be met more cost-effectively through energy efficiency and renewable sources. Commissioner Phyllis Reha also voted against the coal plant, leaving a 2-2 split.

A VOTE FOR FURTHER STUDY
Speaking last—and casting the decisive vote—was the newest commissioner, J. Dennis O’Brien. O’Brien joined the Pawlenty administration in January 2007 as executive director of the governor’s health cabinet and also served as director of strategic planning for the administration. He was appointed to the PUC in February 2008. O’Brien spoke neither for nor against the plant, noting instead uncertainty about construction costs, fuel costs, and the future costs of carbon regulation—acknowledged as inevitable even by plant proponents.

In the end, the commissioners neither approved nor rejected the powerlines. Instead, they chose to hire an independent expert to analyze the likely costs of global warming regulations, coal plant construction, and natural gas. With the retirement of Koppendrayer at the end of June, Governor Pawlenty appointed David Boyd as chair and state senator Betsy Wiggum to fill the vacant seat.