coal091709

On the homepage

Sunday's paper

Olympic moms get all-around gold

Out There

Scanners

Full-body scanners headed for MSP

Gas lines

10 years later, same fire, anger

Home | Opinion Exchange | Commentary

Do we need coal for power? No

No: Logic finally succeeds in the battle over new plant

By PAUL AASEN and MICHAEL NOBLE

Last update: September 16, 2009 - 7:06 PM

Print this story

Follow Opinion Exchange on Twitter

More from Commentary

Last Friday, on a day when the Star Tribune reported that two German ships were going to take cargo through the Northwest Passage for the first time because global warming had shrunk Arctic ice, the main backer of the Big Stone II coal-fired power plant pulled out of the project.

This is a victory for Minnesota, a victory in the battle to slow global warming -- and an example of why the U.S. Senate should pass a carbon dioxide cap-and-trade bill this year.

In 2005, seven utilities proposed building a 630-megawatt dirty coal-fired power plant just across Big Stone Lake in South Dakota, with new transmission lines to bring half of the electricity produced into Minnesota. The plant would put more than 4 million tons per year of carbon dioxide into the air. We need to be cutting the amount of the global-warming pollutants going into the atmosphere, not adding huge new sources.

Along with our allies at the Izaak Walton League of America, the Union of Concerned Scientists and Wind on the Wires, the Minnesota Center for Environmental Advocacy and Fresh Energy argued -- first in South Dakota, then before the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission (PUC) -- that the new plant was a bad idea. Our message was simple: The utilities had not proven the need for the energy, and what energy they did need could be acquired less expensively through energy efficiency and wind.

We kept losing, but a funny thing happened. With each passing year, it became clearer that we were right. In 2007, two of the Minnesota utilities dropped out, citing some of the same points we had been making. The remaining utilities had to go through the process again with a scaled-down 580-megawatt plant.

This time around, the administrative law judge ruled in our favor, saying the utilities had proven the need for, at most, 160 megawatts and had failed to prove that coal would be the least expensive way of providing the electricity. The Minnesota PUC approved the transmission lines into Minnesota, and we filed an appeal that is pending with the Minnesota Court of Appeals.

On Sept. 11, the lead developer, Otter Tail Power Co., dropped out of the consortium. That should kill the plant. The company cited the tough economy and the likelihood of federal law that would penalize carbon dioxide pollution.

For Minnesota, this decision should be an economic boon. Without Big Stone II, the wind farms of southwest Minnesota will be even more in demand and will likely expand. That will mean more jobs and economic activity in the state, rather than the few jobs that would have been added (in South Dakota) by building the coal-fired plant. It will also mean more jobs and economic activity in Minnesota's energy-efficiency industry.

The demise of Big Stone II is a big victory in the fight against global warming. We are running out of time if we are going to stop ice caps from melting, sea levels from rising, and droughts and temperatures from increasing and hurting Minnesota farmers. The first order of business is to do no more harm. By stopping construction of a coal-fired power plant in our back yard, we have accomplished this.

Finally, this is Exhibit A on why U.S. senators must pass the global warming bill before them. We kept telling the utilities that a cap-and-trade system, which will require large cuts in carbon dioxide, was coming and that they were underestimating the cost to their customers. Once the Waxman-Markey bill passed the U.S. House earlier this year, the utilities could no longer ignore or downplay the shifting marketplace.

In order to get all industries rethinking their carbon dioxide pollution, and focusing on ways to cut that pollution and save themselves money, we need to pass this bill. The Big Stone II debate proves that it works.

Paul Aasen is the interim executive director of the Minnesota Center for Environmental Advocacy. Michael Noble is the executive director of Fresh Energy. Both organizations are based in St. Paul.

Recent Commentary stories

Google roundup: Hear, hear, for standing up against evil - September 16, 2009

Google roundup: Hear, hear, for standing up against evil - Google may not win its fight against the Chinese government, but bless it for trying. More

Comment on this story | Read all 25 comments | Hide reader comments

About Opinion Exchange

Opinion Exchange is produced by the Editorial Department, which is dedicated to hosting the discussion on a range of issues of interest to Star Tribune readers online and in print. In its new format, it's our hope that Opinion Exhange will create a more dynamic dialogue between Star Tribune readers and the Editorial Board. Many individual posts will be written and signed by members of the Editorial Board and will reflect their own opinions. Daily editorials will continue to represent the institutional voice of the newspaper and be researched and written by the Editorial Department, which is independent of the newsroom.

Subscribe to RSS|Learn more about RSS