Big Stone II sinking fast

Administrative law judges give controversial coal plant thumbs down—final decision up to PUC 1

One of the most controversial coal plant proposals in the country just took yet another big hit.

Minnesota's two administrative law judges on the hearings for the Big Stone II plant in South Dakota, Steve Mihalchick and Barbara Neilson, recommended today that the state Public Utilities Commission deny a certificate of need for the plant's transmission lines in western Minnesota. If adopted by the PUC, the ruling will kill the highly controversial project.

According to the ALJs' recommendation [PDF], the sponsors of the plant "have failed to demonstrate that their demand for electricity cannot be met more cost effectively through energy conservation and load-management measures ..."

In September 2007, two of the co-sponsors of Big Stone II, representing about 27 percent of the plant's capacity, pulled out of the project. The withdrawal rocked the project, but the remaining sponsors announced plans to redesign it and continue seeking permits.

Today's ALJ recommendation, which has been closely watched by the broad multi-state coalition that had gathered against the plant, is not curtains for Big Stone II -- but we may be in the final act. The demise of the plant promises to unlock the huge wind potential of the Upper Midwest region, which to date has scarcely been tapped.

Ted Nace is the director of CoalSwarm, a collaborative information clearinghouse on U.S. and international coal mines, plants, companies, politics, impacts, and alternatives.

Advertisement
Advertisement
  1. Michael Noble Posted 3:04 am
    10 May 2008

    Last Coffin Nail for Convential Coal in Heartland?The decision on Friday by the administrative law judges is well worth reading. Although the final say on Big Stone II belongs to the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission appointed by Governor Tim Pawlenty in coming weeks, the judges say that if it were approved, that "would render statutory requirements meaningless."
    The problem is cost. The central issue in hundreds of hours of testimony and expert witness documents is whether efficiency and renewable energy will be cheaper. The regulatory costs of carbon loom large, and largely unknown. As I have said, the utilities CEOs backing the plant seem to have the attitude about the cost of the power: "we don't know what it will cost, and we don't care, 'cause we ain't paying it, our customers will."
    Key players in the victory (alphabetically):
    Clean Up Our River Environment, Clean Water Action, Fresh Energy, Izaak Walton League (Midwest Office), Minnesota Center for Environmental Advocacy, Sierra Club Northstar Chapter (and national Coal Campaign), Union of Concerned Scientists, Wind on the Wires.

    Michael Noble

    Executive Director

    Fresh Energy, Saint Paul, MN

Add a Comment

You are not logged in. Thus, you cannot post a comment. If you have an account, log in. If you don't have an account, well, by all means go make one! Meet you back here in five.

Hello, Visitor!    Why not register?

Advertisement