Big Stone II: clean and environmentally responsible
There is a certain inconsistency in the opinions that Sen. Ellen Anderson expressed in the Sept. 18 editions of the Star Tribune. After championing a strong environmental agenda during the 2007 session of the Minnesota Legislature, she apparently has chosen to criticize electric utilities that are seeking to comply with the new environmental mandates.
It appears as though Sen. Anderson does not know how to win.
While she insists that the proposed Big Stone II power plant will be "dirty," she ignores the fact that the utilities involved in the project are committed to cleaning the air emissions from both the new and existing generating units. When the expansion is complete, the generating station will produce more than twice as much electric power with less pollution.
That's not a "dirty" operation. It's clean and environmentally responsible.
Based on her column, it is clear that Sen. Anderson wants electricity produced by a technology that does not exist. In rural Minnesota , we cannot wait for some technological breakthrough to address our growing need for dependable electric power. Our needs are today.
The Big Stone II participants are using cutting edge technology to address that need in a way that does not cause undue damage to the environment. It will use the same technology as other Minnesota power plants to address the state's 90 percent mercury reduction standard. The plant's carbon dioxide emissions will be 20 percent less than other coal-fired plants.
Moreover, the participating utilities have entered into an agreement with the Minnesota Department of Commerce that identifies nine different methods for offsetting the carbon dioxide produced by Big Stone II. Critics now insists the carbon dioxide offsets are "phony," but she and other proponents of the 2007 Next Generation Energy Act insisted that all new fossil-fuel power plants be required to offset the carbon dioxide emissions.
Sen. Anderson should be pleased with the project's agreement with the commerce department agreement, not critical of it.
Clearly, there is more to the issue than what Sen. Anderson included in her column. While she trumpeted the need for more renewable energy, she failed to tell readers that the Big Stone II project plays a critical role in the development of more wind energy in southwestern Minnesota .
In fact, the Minnesota Wind Integration Study - the same study that Sen. Anderson held up before a legislative committee as justification for the Minnesota Renewable Energy Standard - assumes construction of the Big Stone II transmission lines and new baseload power plants. The Big Stone II power line upgrade will provide capacity for 800-1,000 megawatts of electricity from other sources, most likely from wind.
Eventually, as Sen. Anderson claims, a federal law will be put in place that regulates carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions. But such a law will have greater impact on older, less efficient power plants than it will on Big Stone II. Indeed, it will encourage the industry to phase out its fleet of older power plants in favor of modern plants like Big Stone II.
The issue is not whether our electric power needs should come from coal-fired power plants or other sources. We must get power from a variety of sources. We have no silver-bullet solution to solve our energy shortage, and Sen. Anderson knows that.
Sincerely, ,
Keith Langseth
State Senator, District 9
| << Return to viewpoints page |  |
Download pdf |
