Why Big Stone II is a Reckless Financial Gamble

In one of the most wind-rich areas of the country, seven power companies are proposing to build a new coal power plant called Big Stone II.  Sited near Milbank, South Dakota, right across from the Minnesota border, this plant would primarily provide electricity for Minnesota, with smaller portions of electricity sent to other states in the region.  

Big Stone II is not just environmentally risky but financially risky. Emerging global warming laws will certainly--and necessarily--target coal power, increasing the plant’s operating costs.  Despite widespread recognition that these laws are coming in the next few years, the utilities are ignoring these future costs by making the insupportable assumption that Big Stone II, South Dakota’s biggest source of global warming pollution, would be allowed to keep polluting for decades for free.

Better alternatives exist.  By investing in energy efficiency, the region’s world-class wind resource, and other cleaner power sources, the utilities could get the same amount of electricity at a lower cost.  This would not only reduce the amount of pollution from the power plant, especially the emission of heat-trapping carbon dioxide (CO2), but would also provide several times more jobs and economic development for the region than would a coal facility.

Big Stone II can be stopped. While it has received a siting permit from the state of South Dakota, the proposed plant still needs a Certificate of Need from the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission. 

Click to learn how you can get involved

What is carbon risk?

Carbon risk is the financial burden a new conventional coal plant, such as Big Stone II, assumes as a likely cost of business associated with the regulation of its carbon dioxide emissions.  The world scientific community warns that carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from our use of fossil fuels, especially coal, is leading to dangerous global warming. Policies to reduce CO2 emissions are emerging at every level of government, including in the US Congress, which is actively considering several mandatory, market-based CO2 proposals with increasing support from the private sector. It is virtually certain that laws requiring coal plants to pay to emit CO2 will be adopted in the next few years, substantially raising the costs of coal power.  These future costs make building new, conventional coal plants a reckless financial gamble.

Read UCS Reports and testimony detailing carbon risk and its impact on Big Stone II

[Return to the Big Stone II home page]