Clean Energy

Otter Tail Power Pulling Out of Big Stone II
Duane Ninneman, CURE Renewable Energy Consultant

In early 2005 the CURE board of directors began a discussion about the proposed Big Stone II power plant.  The 580MW plant was to be sited on the west shore of Big Stone Lake, just across the South Dakota border from Ortonville, Minnesota.  Learning that the new plant, like its partner Big Stone I, would also burn coal and deposit mercury into the Minnesota River Valley, CURE president Brian Wojtalewicz wrote to the president of Otter Tail Power registering the board’s concerns.  Unsatisfied with the response, it became clear to the board that the public would only hear a one sided story.  Without CURE taking a stand, broader concerns about this new coal plant might never be raised.  That was four and a half years ago and we’re still at it.

The road leading to the planned construction of Big Stone II hasn’t been smooth for the investing partners and lead project developer, Otter Tail Power.  Permit delays and opposition challenges, two investor utilities pulling out, and the stigma of being a bad actor under the looming threat of climate change have complicated the process. And yet, the project has now received every necessary permit and approval to begin construction, law suits and conditional permit compliance not withstanding.  Both opponents and supporters had expected a ceremonial ground breaking to happen this year.

But last Friday, September 11, 2009, Otter Tail Power Company President, Chuck MacFarlane, announced that his company was pulling out of the project as both investor and lead project developer.  MacFarlane cited “challenging credit and equity markets” as well as the economic turn down and pending federal legislation requiring utilities to cut greenhouse-gas emissions. Analysts are saying that Otter Tail’s decision makes the plant construction difficult for the remaining Big Stone II partners.

For CURE, this turn of events is a long hoped for outcome, but two challenges remain.  The first is that we have to acknowledge that the remaining partners in Big Stone II intend to continue.  According to Tom Heller, CEO of Missouri River Energy Services, the remaining partners are in discussions with potential new participants interested in joining the project.  For groups and individuals opposed to Big Stone II, the work is not done.

The second challenge is to deliver on the promise of clean energy and the green economy. Watershed energy stakeholders must enter into a dialogue that considers progressive energy thinking; efficiency and conservation, distributed renewable generation, smart grid transmission, and broad local ownership of energy resources.  The true cost of coal generation to human health and the environment must be acknowledged and energy decisions must strategically reduce greenhouse-gas emissions. Finally, when CURE is at the table, energy stewardship in the watershed will include the sustainable development of rural towns and farms.  For us to do right by the land, we have to do right by its people.  Our job is to plot and navigate the energy matrix to reach this goal - the promise of a clean energy future.

We invite you to join us as we continue to press for clean air, clean water, and locally owned clean energy in the months and years ahead. Call us at 866-269-2873 or e-mail us at rivervoice@cureriver.org with your ideas and willingness to keep bringing about the changes we expect.