Big Stone II: A Reckless Financial Gamble

Carbon Risk and What you Can Do About It

Power plants are the largest source of U.S. CO2 emissions, accounting for 39 percent of the nation’s energy-related emissions, and most of these emissions come from coal plants. In fact, coal plants produce one-third of America’s CO2 emissions—about the same amount as all our cars, SUVs, trucks, buses, planes, ships, and trains combined.

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 would be dirty. The proposed plant would burn enormous amounts of coal--the fossil fuel with higher carbon dioxide emissions and more environmental impacts than any other energy source.

Big Stone II is not just environmentally risky but financially risky. While coal is currently considered cheap energy, emerging global warming laws will drive costs up for coal plants. The good news is better alternatives exist.  Visit the Big Stone II background information page for more information about this project.

Use the index below to learn more about how you can get involved to stop Big Stone II.

What you can do about Big Stone II:

  1. Write a letter to the Public Utilities Commission
  2. Write a letter to your local utility
  3. Learn more about carbon risk and Big Stone II
  4. Alternatives to Big Stone II and new coal power plants
  5. Other organizations working to stop Big Stone II
  6. Additional resources and links

Write a letter to the Public Utilities Commission

Minnesotans can write a letter or email to let the Minnesota Public Utility Commission know that new coal plants are not in the public's interest when cleaner and cheaper sources of electricity are available.  Letters or emails must be received by the Administrative Law Judges by October 31, 2006.   For help writing a letter you can download our talking points  or contact Ben Larson, Clean Energy National Field Coordinator: blarson ‘at’ ucsusa.org.

The two Administrative Law Judges with oversight of the Big Stone II proceedings are:

Judge Steve M. Mihalchick, steve.mihalchick@state.mn.us
Judge Barbara L. Neilson, barbara.neilson@state.mn.us

Fax: 612-349-2665

Mailing Address:
Office of Administrative Hearings
100 Washington Square
Suite 1700
Minneapolis, MN 55401-2138

For more information see the Notice of Public Meetings and Public Hearings from the MN Public Utilities Commission. 

Write a letter to your local utility

If you know that your utility is proposing to get power from Big Stone II, send a letter to the president of and let them know that you want your power to come cleaner, cheaper alternatives.  For help writing a letter you can download our talking points  or contact Ben Larson, Clean Energy National Field Coordinator: blarson ‘at’ ucsusa.org.

If you are not sure whether your utility is a member of one of the seven utility groups supporting the Big Stone II proposal, click through the links below to see if your utility is listed.

Learn more about:

Carbon Risk to Coal Plants

 

In this thoroughly researched and documented report UCS discusses the very real threat of global warming, shows how the necessary policy response will inevitably impose new costs on new coal plants, and makes quantified estimates of those new costs. 

On December 16, 2004 the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) decided that the state’s electric utilities were required to account for the future cost of reducing carbon emissions in choosing energy sources.  See our related website for more information on the California decision to incorporate carbon risk into utility planning.


Why Big Stone II will cost more than wind-based alternatives

UCS, along with the Minnesota Center for Environmental Advocacy, Fresh Energy, and Izaak Walton League of America – Midwest Office, sponsored expert analysis of the Big Stone II proposal as part of a recent proceeding in South Dakota. This testimony demonstrates that consumer needs could be met for less cost using wind-based alternatives.

How carbon risk will increase the costs of Big Stone II:

A brief summary of how wind-based power would be cheaper than Big Stone II:

Testimony

News: Project proponents admit that Big Stone II will cost more than originally estimated

“The largest power plant in South Dakota history, a proposal already under fire from environmental advocates for using coal instead of wind, would be 50 percent more expensive than previously estimated, according to utility executives . . . 

Austin Utilities, which has 10,000 electricity customers in southern Minnesota, has asked [the Southern Minnesota Municipal Power Agency] to withdraw from the project even if it means facing penalty fees.”

- Star Tribune (Minneapolis, MN), July 27, 2006

Alternatives to Big Stone II and New Coal Power Plants

UCS and its allies also sponsored an analysis of the economic benefits of investing in wind rather than Big Stone II, which showed, among other things, that the region would enjoy several times more new jobs from wind than from the coal proposal:

For more general information about alternatives, click on the links below to learn about:

Other organizations working to stop Big Stone II

Additional Resources and Links

Last Revised: 09/28/06