Big Stone II Coal Plant is (Probably) Dead!

This is fantastic news. Plans for a new, massive coal plant to be built in South Dakota next year, near the Minnesota border, are now (apparently) dead, or at least in a coma.  The main partner for the project has pulled out because they feel it’s no longer worth the cost. (I wrote about this coal plant here in August.)  Environmental groups in several states have been trying to stop this plant, Big Stone II, from being built, for a long time now, and it looks like they have finally succeeded. Individuals have also weighed in and that may have made an impact.  (See my comments after the break).  One new coal plant down — and many to go.

Big Stone I, photo by Shelly T.

Big Stone II Coal Plant Dead? Proposer Utility Ottertail Backs Out

Ottertail Power– proposer and developer of the multi-utility coal power proposal Big Stone II– today announced its withdrawl from the project. This news means the coal plant expansion project is likely dead.

Big Stone I is an existing 300 megawatt coal burning power plant at Milbank, SD on the Minnesota-South Dakota border. It neighbors Big Stone Lake, a recreational lake that the Minnesota DNR spent millions rehabbing to improve fishing, boating and wildlife habitat. Ottertail and partner utilities from Minnesota  and the Dakotas proposed building a new coal-burning power plant on the existing site, which would have doubled power generating capacity to 500-600 MW.

Local residents and pro-environment advocates spent years opposing the project, which they said would increase air pollution, mercury contamination in Big Stone Lake and would use billions of gallons of water from limited local resources. Big Stone opponents urged the utilities to build renewable power generation like wind or solar instead of investing in coal.

Other reasons opponents cited for blocking the construction included uncertainty about costs from building the new site, coal prices and the unknowns about  costs to meet future Global Warming and clean air standards.

According to Otter Tail Power Company President and CEO Chuck MacFarlane, cost factors led to the death of the project. “The broad economic downturn coupled with a high level of uncertainty associated with proposed federal climate legislation and existing federal environmental regulation have resulted in challenging credit and equity markets that make proceeding with Big Stone II at this time untenable for Otter Tail’s customers and shareholders. Given the legislative and regulatory uncertainties and current economic conditions, Otter Tail Power Company is unwilling to create a binding financial obligation of approximately $400 million for its share of the project at this time.”

Big Stone II had been scheduled to be on line in 2011, and now the plant would not begin operating until late 2015 at the earliest.  [Hopefully not at all!]

When I found out this coal plant was still on track to be built I contacted them in August and told them I was angry it was still going to be built, and then gave them all the many reasons why it shouldn’t be built.   (On a personal note, Ottertail Power is the power company that covers my home town and where my parents live).   I was contacted by a PR man from Ottertail Power company, the main partner in the project, and that person gave me the “clean coal” spiel. From his email:

“We understand the debate about environmental issues, and we take our environmental stewardship responsibility seriously. After all, we live here too. If Big Stone II is built, electric energy output at the Big Stone site will more than double with no net increase in regulated emissions-sulfur dioxide (SO2), nitrogen oxide (NOx), or mercury (Hg). We will install emissions-control equipment that is most likely to result in the removal of at least 90 percent of the mercury emitted from both Big Stone I and Big Stone II. The advanced boiler technology planned for Big Stone II will be 18 to 20 percent more efficient than existing plants, which means that the plant will emit 20 percent less carbon dioxide (CO2) than the older plants.”

“The debate about environmental issues.” His words did not exactly placate me.  I responded that he was lying to the public and that there is no such thing as clean coal, and that this increase in efficiency was not nearly enough. He responded that if I thought he was lying, there was no further point in communicating with me.   And so he didn’t.  And a month later, the project is all but cancelled.   If he got 100 emails like mine, perhaps we all made a difference in Ottertail Power’s decision. It looks like public opinion does matter.