Wind energy is not a substitute for baseload generation
Editor, Herman Review
I am responding to a letter that appeared in the December 27, 2007, edition of the Review (“New testimony finds Big Stone II power plant proposal still a bad idea”). It was submitted by opponents of the Big Stone II Project and leaves your readers with misconceptions and half-truths.
Essentially, the letter asserts that, given today's concern about global climate change, Big Stone II has no place in helping meet the region's need for dependable power. The opponents cite comments by David Schlissel, a national energy planning consultant, to the effect that Big Stone II will be too costly and its energy could be provided by renewable resources such as wind. He also says other companies are abandoning coal plants in favor of other generation sources. He uses Great River Energy as an example.
Big Stone II will be a baseload plant, meaning its power will be available to consumers all the time except during repairs and planned maintenance. Because wind energy is both variable and intermittent, it cannot be considered a source of baseload generation – the wind doesn't always blow when people need energy.
On two separate occasions, Mr. Schlissel has testified (to Minnesota and North Dakota regulatory agencies) that wind energy is not a substitute for baseload generation . I was present on both occasions. In fact, area wind developers will tell you that, in order to develop the region's wind resource, both Big Stone II and its associated transmission are needed. In addition to the testimony of several regional wind energy developers, the regional transmission operator has also testified before the Minnesota PUC to the same need.
Regarding Great River Energy's dropping out of the Big Stone II Project in September 2007, it was not because Great River has abandoned plans for future coal plants as Schlissel says. To the contrary, on November 6, 2007, GRE broke ground for a 99-megawatt lignite coal plant at Spiritwood , North Dakota . North Dakota Governor John Hoeven led the ceremony. Hardly an indictment of coal.
While Schlissel's statement is true that future carbon emissions costs are likely, he misleads readers about the magnitude of those costs. In applying current federal carbon pricing proposals, we find Big Stone II will likely be a low-cost generator because the plant will use a boiler design that produces 20 percent less carbon dioxide than the regional fleet. It will certainly be more competitive than plants scheduled to be retired and replaced.
In December 2006, Minnesota Administrative Law Judges heard oral testimony from some 50 witnesses – both in support of and in opposition to the Big Stone II Project. Schlissel was one of those who testified. On August 15, 2007, after nearly eight months of intensive study and review, the ALJs recommended that the Minnesota PUC approve the Big Stone Transmission application for a certificate of need.
The Minnesota ALJs are holding additional, supplemental hearings this month on the five Big Stone participants' application for a certificate of need. A PUC decision is expected in April. The participants' energy models again show that, even when considering Minnesota statutes requiring renewable energy use and rigorous energy conservation goals, and a carbon tax of $9 per ton, Big Stone II is still the least-cost option for their customers.
I trust that when the ALJs again review the relevant testimony including Schlissel's, they will again find Big Stone II to be the best choice for meeting future energy needs.
Daniel Sharp
Communication Manager
Big Stone II Project
| << Return to viewpoints page |  |
Download pdf |
