June 3: Decision on Big Stone II draws near

Coal got its day in court Tuesday.

Four years after it was proposed, the Big Stone II coal plant continued to lay controversy at the feet of the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission in St. Paul. Lawyers, utilities officials and environmentalists overflowed the commission's weekly meeting, usually thinly attended, forcing some into a spare room set up with a telecast of the proceedings.

The $1.6 billion coal-burning plant planned just inside the South Dakota border has construction approval from regulators there. But its fate always has been tied to Minnesota because 45 percent of its estimated 500 megawatts of generated electricity would go to Minnesota consumers. That's why a five-utility partnership, led by Otter Tail Power Co., needs permission from Minnesota regulators to build two power lines into the state. The partnership has said the project likely would collapse without those lines.

To the end, the utilities commission heard radically different versions of whether Big Stone II fits in meeting Minnesotans' future energy needs. Within the past month, two administrative law judges recommended that the commission deny the lines. The commission's staff has spelled out six options -- four of them involving approval. The state Office of Energy Security advises approval, but tied to strict cost protections for rate payers. The commission is expected to rule on Thursday.

One key to the ruling is whether commissioners are convinced conservation and renewable energy sources obviate the need for more coal power, which creates CO₂ emissions that get much blame for global warming. Another is commissioners' faith in the involved utilities' future costs. They include rising construction expenses and the price Congress eventually will charge carbon dioxide producers -- with estimates ranging from $9 to $70 per ton -- which has the effect of making coal power more expensive.

"I've got huge unknowns to deal with," commission chairman LeRoy Koppendrayer said.

Another point of contention is the lines' value in overall energy transmission. The utilities argued that they will have space to carry other energy loads, including wind energy. But a collective of five environmental groups opposing Big Stone II, led by the Minnesota Center for Environmental Advocacy, argued that there are better ways to add transmission capacity.

H.J. Cummins • 612-673-4671