Big Stone II officials waiting for completion of study
By Robert Wolfington IIIAn independent study on the proposed Big Stone II coal burning power generation facility is expected in the next couple weeks.
The Minnesota Public Utilities Commission contracted with independent consultant Boston Pacific Company to review the cost benefits and other alternatives for the Big Stone II project.
The Big Stone II project is a 500-580 megawatt coal burning power plant that would be built near Big Stone Lake on the Minnesota and South Dakota border.
The project is being proposed by five groups, including Missouri River Energy Services, a company Marshall Municipal Utilities contracts with.
Dan Sharp, communication manager for Big Stone II, said the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission brought in an independent consultant to review.
"In September the PUC hired a company called Boston Pacific Company, a Washington consulting company that works primarily with state public utility commissions," said Sharp.
"They are due to issue their final report in mid-October of this year. They will submit their report and they are scheduled for the third week of November. The Administrative Law Judge in Minnesota will allow both the applicants and the opponents to cross examine the Boston Pacific Company."
Sharp said the company is reviewing three aspects of the Big Stone II project and alternatives.
"One is the cost of natural gas versus coal for generation," said Sharp. "The second is the cost of building a coal plant versus building a combination of natural gas and wind facilities. The third area is what are the probable federal costs of carbon dioxide emissions."
Later this month Boston Pacific is scheduled to submit its findings to the Public Utilities Commission on Oct. 20.
The Minnesota Center for Environmental Advocacy, an opponent of the project, will review the results of the Boston Pacific findings.
Beth Goodpaster, clean energy program director for the MCEA, said a meeting will be held shortly after Boston Pacific submits its findings followed by a meeting yet to be scheduled for rebuttals.
"The general idea of the schedule is parties to the proceedings would have several weeks to submit rebuttal to the expert report," said Goodpaster.
Sharp said the results of those meetings should result in a final decision from the PUC on the project.
"The PUC will have everything it needs to make a decision and we expect them to have a Big Stone II certificate of need on their agenda sometime in mid- to late January because of the holidays," said Sharp.
The PUC results may not be the end of the process in Minnesota.
Goodpaster said it is possible for either side to appeal the PUC decision.
Sharp said the Big Stone II project has seen a number of delays since it was initially proposed in 2005.
The setbacks, including the departure of two public utilities that initially supported the project, have moved back the proposed completion day by nearly four years.
"We applied for the transmission certificate in Minnesota three years ago in October of 2005. Delays in getting other permits have put the project online date back in time. We originally were hoping to be online in 2010 and now it looks like 2014."
Sharp said the cost of the project will continue to rise until a final decision is reached.
"Every month the project is delayed, that's about $8 million to the final project cost. It really is a case where time is money. Our customers from the five companies that are developing Big Stone II will eventually be paying that," said Sharp. "That's why getting permits on a timely basis is so important."
A decision by the Minnesota PUC isn't the only ruling the supporters and opponents to Big Stone II are waiting for. Sharp said a South Dakota regulatory board is also expected to make its ruling in late November.
"The South Dakota Board of Minerals and Environment conducted hearings in August and September," said Sharp. "They are scheduled to make a decision on our application for the air quality permit on Nov. 20."
Sharp said he is also waiting for a federal ruling for an environmental impact statement.
"There is also a federal environmental impact statement that has to be completed. The completion date for that is scheduled for Nov. 21," said Sharp. "That process has been going on for three years now."
