Sep 19, 2007 7:29 pm US/Central
Partners In Big Stone II Plan Smaller Version
Fargo, N.D. (AP) ―
-
-
The reasons cited by Great River Energy include a drop in electric demand, higher costs from inflation delays and uncertainty over changes in environmental requirements and technology. (File)
CBS
A smaller version of a proposed coal-fired power plant in South Dakota is being planned after two partners announced plans to back out, an official says.
The proposed Big Stone II plant now likely would have a generating capacity of about 500 megawatts instead of the 630 megawatts originally proposed, said Dan Sharp, a spokesman for the Big Stone II utility partnership.
Two utility partners, Great River Energy and Southern Minnesota Municipal Power Agency, have said they are withdrawing as owners in the $1.6 billion project, which would serve electricity customers in Minnesota, North Dakota, South Dakota and two other states.
It is being planned near Big Stone City in the northeast tip of South Dakota.
Great River Energy of Elk River, Minn., which serves 28 electric distribution cooperatives in Minnesota and Wisconsin, cited a variety of factors for its decision to abandon the project, which already has several permits. It faces intense opposition from environmentalists in Minnesota worried about increased carbon dioxide emissions.
The reasons cited by Great River Energy include a drop in electric demand, higher costs from inflation delays and uncertainty over changes in environmental requirements and technology.
"I think the entire project structure is in doubt," said Beth Goodpaster, a lawyer for the Minnesota Center for Environmental Advocacy. The rising costs and uncertainties cited by Great River Energy also confront the remaining partners, she said.
"I'm not saying it's dead," Goodpaster said. "I'm saying they have to go back and reanalyze everything."
Ward Uggerud, a senior vice president for Otter Tail Power Co., of Fergus Falls, Minn., the lead Big Stone II utility, said those costs and uncertainties are manageable. Most of the remaining permits, he said, will be unaffected by the plant's reduced size.
The five project co-owners are Otter Tail, Central Minnesota Municipal Power Agency, Heartland Consumers Power District, Missouri River Energy Services and Montana-Dakota Utilities Co.
Some of Great River Energy's reduced demand is because customers will get more electricity instead from Bismarck-based Basin Electric Power Cooperative, which relies heavily on coal-fired electricity, Uggerud said.
"That is not a repudiation of coal," he said.
Partners and environmental critics of the plant were gearing up to present oral arguments Oct. 4 over transmission lines. The Big Stone II partners are asking that the hearing, before the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission, be delayed.
If a 500-megawatt plant were built, electricity likely would cost 5 percent more to generate than a 630-megawatt plant, based on preliminary estimates, Uggerud said.
"The impact is relatively small," he said.
(© 2007 The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.)
Click to enlarge
Stumble It!
