Response to Minneapolis Star-Tribune editorial
I am responding to your April 4, 2007 editorial—“Big issues ahead for Big Stone plants” —wherein you characterize the Big Stone complex as a “bad bargain overall” for Minnesotans.
As a 36-year veteran of operating electric delivery systems, I want to point out why Big Stone II is indeed a good deal for everyone who will receive its power and how your editorial and the recent Supreme Court decision on carbon dioxide control actually support my point.
As environmental scrutiny becomes more focused, those plants that are the most fuel efficient and the best environmental performers will be advantaged as compared to those that do not perform as well. With a view to that future, Big Stone II is specifically designed to be a top performer with respect to fuel efficiency, price, reliability and environmental responsibility.
In a recent letter to Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), Rep. John Dingell (D-MI), Chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, stated “. . . the continued use of our Nation’s abundant coal reserves must be part of our climate change strategy . . .” Representative Dingell represents Michigan—a state that produces no coal.
We support additional renewables and energy conservation envisioned by other bills in this legislative session. However, the filed climate change bills in their total prohibition on new fossil-fired power plants simply go too far and they do that without thoughtful study or consideration of associated impacts on Minnesota consumers or businesses.
The climate change mitigation legislation now being considered by the Legislature, if passed, will have no discernable impact on global climate change. It will, however, penalize the Minnesotans the legislature serves by inhibiting their access to reliable and affordable electricity. Delaying the Big Stone II project will not only add to the cost of the project, but will force the participants to acquire other, more expensive generation sources that will burden Minnesotans with higher electricity prices than they deserve. Prohibition of plants like Big Stone II would cost Minnesota citizens billions of dollars more—essentially, a “carbon tax” that would appear on electric bills affecting economic development and jobs across the state. Other states and countries would surely take business advantage of Minnesota imprudently and unilaterally going too far and disadvantaging its economy and electric reliability.
Regardless of one's viewpoint on the global warming issue, one point is undeniable—the public's perception of the climate change threat will drive public policy concerning carbon dioxide emissions. We are entering a carbon-constrained era. But, the transition must be accomplished in a common sense manner—one that preserves our economic well being and allows us to maintain our high standard of living. A global warming mitigation strategy that falls short in that area just replaces one problem with a set of new ones.
In planning for Big Stone II, the seven participating companies made the right decision with regard to the transition and their obligation to serve their customers’ best interests. They selected a boiler technology that will emit 20 percent less carbon dioxide than a comparable coal-burning plant.
In addition, the participants, in conjunction with other planned transmission, have planned transmission upgrades that will allow for 800-1,000 megawatts of additional wind energy development. The region already has more than enough proposed wind energy projects to use the needed transmission capacity. In fact, the recently issued Minnesota Wind Integration Study assumed that the Big Stone II generation and transmission projects would be in place to help foster more wind energy development. The recently passed Minnesota Renewable Energy Standard (“25 by 25”) is based on the Wind Integration Study.
As we move forward, we cannot deny the need for additional new thermal generation like Big Stone II to ensure the stability of our electric grid. Again, in a carbon-constrained economy, those plants that are most efficient will be the ones that are most valuable and the ones that will best help keep electricity affordable. Together with additional renewables and energy conservation, Big Stone II will meet that test for the 2.3 million people it will serve.
Ward Uggerud
Senior Vice President
Otter Tail Power Company
(218) 739-8210
| << Return to viewpoints page |  |
Download pdf |
