Minnesota regulators delay decision over Big Stone II lines

By ELIZABETH DUNBAR , Associated Press

Last update: June 5, 2008 - 4:32 PM

ST. PAUL - Minnesota regulators said Thursday they will wait to make a decision on a proposed coal-burning power plant in South Dakota until they hear from an independent expert on the costs associated with the plant.

Two members of the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission were ready to approve transmission lines that would connect the plant to west-central Minnesota. Three others said they weren't ready to approve the lines and needed more information about the future costs of construction, carbon emissions and natural gas.

The five utilities that want to build the Big Stone II plant near Milbank, S.D., have said rejecting the transmission lines would kill the entire project.

The decision for delay came after the utilities' attorney, Todd Guerrero, said deferring the vote wouldn't necessarily jeopardize the plans. But he cautioned that any delay will increase the costs of building the plant and asked commissioners to consider the issue again before the end of September.

"Certainly delay adds costs, and costs are ultimately going to fall onto the consumers," Guerrero said following the 3-2 vote.

The commissioners all expressed concern over the cost to consumers but had different interpretations of what action would most benefit them.

Commission Chairman LeRoy Koppendrayer, who is set to retire from the body later this month, pushed his colleagues to come to a decision, saying that costs were going to rise no matter what and that waiting for more information about carbon emissions and other costs wouldn't help.

"From my perspective, there was adequate information in the record to make a decision today," Koppendrayer said.

But Commissioners Phyllis Reha and Thomas Pugh expressed frustration over the process, pointing out that the Minnesota officials were essentially being asked to say yes to a coal-burning power plant already approved by South Dakota officials even though Minnesota commissioners hadn't been a part of that approval process.

"We're put in the position that somehow because of the transmission, we have the ability to block their plant," Reha said.

Reha also said she was concerned that the Big Stone II utilities weren't willing to rely on their own data to protect ratepayers from future escalating costs.

Commissioner J. Dennis O'Brien, who made the motion for the delay, said he understands South Dakota's need for power. But he also took issue with the pressure posed by the neighboring state's officials.

"If the roles are reversed, if we had lines in place, would we go to South Dakota and say, 'You have to locate your power plant at the end of our lines?' I don't think we would do that," he said.

Afterward, the environmental groups opposing the transmission lines weren't exactly celebrating the delay.

"What we heard today is that the record's not there to approve this plant," said Janette Brimmer, legal director for the Minnesota Center for Environmental Advocacy. She added that having an outside expert provide the commission with more information wouldn't change much.

Michael Noble, director of Fresh Energy, agreed.

"Four years worth of debate couldn't persuade the commission today to approve this plant," he said. "It's too risky, too expensive and not consistent with the energy needs of this century."