Big Stone II and its transmission ARE needed.
Let's look at the facts.
November 16, 2007
This is in response to an article in the November 16th edition of the Marshall Independent ("Revised plan for Big Stone II").
I first want to thank the Independent and Reporter Robert Wolfington III for their continued interest in Big Stone II and their willingness to talk to our representatives when new developments arise.
My reason for writing has to do with a statement attributed to Duane Ninneman with CURE. Mr. Ninneman stated that there are alternatives to Big Stone II, including utilizing existing transmission. Apparently, Mr. Ninneman knows more about regional electric transmission needs than the Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator (MISO), the agency responsible for managing the regional grid.
In recent oral statement to the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission, and in written form to the Minnesota Department of Commerce, MISO representatives emphasized that Big Stone Transmission is needed . In fact there are 79 generation projects that have applied for an interconnection permit with MISO (mostly from renewable sources) that assume Big Stone II and its transmission will be built. Without Big Stone transmission, MISO says the viability of all of those projects would need a major re-study. In addition, MISO characterizes the regional transmission grid as "severely restricted."
But, it doesn't end there. A prominent wind energy developer has recently urged the PUC to approve the Big Stone Transmission project, which has been sized to help accommodate up to 1,000 megawatts of renewable energy. Last December, FPL Energy, the nation's largest wind energy developer, testified on behalf of the Big Stone Transmission project's acquiring a Minnesota transmission certificate of need.
And, finally, as the Midwest Reliability Organization has stated to the PUC, this region's reserve generation capacity will vanish in 2011. Even once Big Stone II goes on line in 2013, MRO states reserve capacity will still be well below acceptable levels.
Mr. Ninneman's cavalier statement that Big Stone II and its transmission are not needed is not only uninformed, it is irresponsible.
Daniel Sharp
Communication Manager
Big Stone II Project
| << Return to viewpoints page |  |
Download pdf |
