Big Stone

The last remaining partners in the construction of the Big Stone II coal-fired power plant announced yesterday that they would not continue the project. They proposed a 500 to 600 megawatt expansion of an existing coal burning power plant located near Milbank, South Dakota. The expansion would have been built on the shores of Big Stone Lake, headwaters to the Minnesota River, near the Minnesota border.

“We are excited to see that the economic realities have finally been acknowledged,” said Darrell Gerber, Clean Water Action Program Coordinator. “Not only was this project bad for public health, the Minnesota River and the environment it would have been bad for the pocketbook of many rural communities.”

Partners in the $1.6 billion project were left scrambling to find investors after the project lead, Otter Tail Power, withdrew in September. This was preceded by the withdrawal of Great River Energy last year. The remaining partners, Montana-Dakota Utilities, Company Central Minnesota Municipal Power Agency, Heartland Consumers Power District and Missouri River Energy Services, announced yesterday the closure of the project.

Ottertail Power-- proposer and developer of the multi-utility coal power proposal Big Stone II-- today announced its withdrawl from the project. This news means the coal plant expansion project is likely dead.

Big Stone is an existing 300 megawatt coal burning power plant at Milbank, SD on the Minnesota-South Dakota border. It neighbors Big Stone Lake, a recreational lake that the Minnesota DNR spent millions rehabbing to improve fishing, boating and wildlife habitat. Ottertail and partner utilities from Minnesota  and the Dakotas proposed building a new coal-burning power plant on the existing site, which would have doubled power generating capacity to 500-600 MW.

Local residents and pro-environment advocates spent years opposing the project, which they said would increase air pollution, mercury contamination in Big Stone Lake and would use billions of gallons of water from limited local resources. Big Stone opponents urged the utilities to build renewable power generation like wind or solar instead of investing in coal.

Elk River Municipal Utilities yesterday rejected a proposal to become a partial owner in Big Stone II. Elk River’s rejection was the same day as a decision by Basin Electric Power in South Dakota to pull plans for a new coal-fired power plant.

Elk River's disavowal of coal is part of a trend. A string of 100 coal plants--with Intermountain Power coal plant in Utah as the landmark number 100-- have been defeated or abandoned since the beginning of the coal rush in 2001.  Activists calling for a transition away from coal call this a significant milestone in the shift to clean energy.

For the past six years pro-environment allies have been running a hard-hitting campaign to expose the dirty truth about coal. Tremendous grassroots pressure, rising costs, and upcoming federal carbon regulations all contributed to the demise of the 100 plants. In Minnesota hundreds of volunteers turned out to public hearings, held rallies and met with officials to push for cleaner alternatives to the Big Stone II plant.

At a June 29, special meeting of the Elk River Municipal Utility (ERMU) and the City Council to discuss alternatives for their energy supply in 2018, the Council moved to table discussion of investment the Big Stone II coal project until  July 13. 

One of the options presented was investing in 30 megawatts of the Big Stone II coal plant expansion for $90 million.  

The Utilites board will meet July 8 to discuss the proposal and have requested more detailed information from the proposers.

When asked about the liklihood of ERMU's approval Troy Adams, Director of Operations for ERMU, said "To tell you the truth, I don't know. We're waiting for more information about the finances and the risk of the project."

The Elk River Municipal Utility is considering buying into the Big Stone II coal-fired power plant proposed to be built near Milbank, South Dakota. While other utilities and other states across the Midwest and the nation are abandoning plans for building new coal plants, the Big Stone II proposers continue down this path, which critics call "uneconomic and environmentally irresponsible."