By Jessica Tritsch, Senior Campaign Representative, Sierra Club’s Beyond Coal Campaign
On May 1st, Sierra Club, Minnesota Center for Environmental Advocacy, and Union of Concerned Scientists appealed the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission’s (PUC) approval of a plan to build a new gas power plant in Superior, Wisconsin. This 525 MW fracked gas plant would commit the region to decades of greenhouse gas pollution and lock Minnesota Power customers into a $350 million fossil fuel plant that experts found was not necessary to meet customers needs.
Minnesota Power, the utility that provides electricity to much of Northeastern Minnesota, partnered with Dairyland Power, based in Wisconsin, to propose this fracked gas plant - the Nemadji Trail Energy Center (NTEC) in Superior Wisconsin. They estimate the plant will cost $700 million to build, half of which would be paid by Minnesota Power customers.
In early 2018, Minnesota Power asked the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission (PUC) for approval to build this new fracked gas plant. Sierra Club and partners expressed strong opposition. Expert studies show this gas plant is unnecessary, a waste of customer dollars, and that Minnesota Power could more affordably meet customer needs with common-sense energy efficiency and renewable, home-grown energy. Large industrial customers (including mines and paper mills) and consumer groups have also opposed the construction of the new power plant on the grounds that it is too expensive and will unnecessarily raise electrical rates for Minnesota Power customers.
Hundreds of Northland residents submitted comments to the PUC, attended the public hearing, wrote letters to the Duluth paper and took other actions to show opposition to the plant, including many Sierra Club members and supporters.
In July 2018, the administrative law judge overseeing the PUC process, Jeanne M. Cochrane, recommended that the PUC deny Minnesota Power’s request to build the new gas power plant in Superior, finding that it was not “needed and reasonable.” But in October 2018, the Minnesota PUC voted 3-2 to approve the proposal, against Judge’s Cochran’s recommendation.
Last month, the Minnesota PUC refused to reconsider the decision, leading to this appeal to the Minnesota Court of Appeals.
In a separate proceeding, the Public Service Commission of Wisconsin is also reviewing the proposal.
Minnesotans want a path to 100% clean & equitable energy, not new investment in fossil fuel plants. This was made clear last month, when the Minnesota House passed an energy bill that puts Minnesota on the path to 100% carbon-free electricity by 2050. Meanwhile, fracked gas is expensive, unnecessary and risky. Instead of spending millions on fossil fuels, we need to be investing in common-sense energy efficiency, storage, and renewable, home-grown energy that costs less, creates more sustainable jobs and protects Minnesota’s environment.
Bottom Line: This fracked gas plant is a bad deal for the Northland!
It’s a bad deal for customers: Minnesota Power has not proven that this gas plant is needed to meet customer’s electricity needs and it has not thoroughly looked at alternatives, like low-cost energy efficiency, renewable energy, and storage. Customers would be on the hook to build a $350 million plant that is not needed plus all the future costs of the gas to run the plant. That’s a risky proposition.
It’s a bad deal for our health: Fracked gas pollution threatens our water, air and climate. Communities impacted by fracking have seen flammable water from toxic chemicals, increases in earthquakes from mining, and increased air pollution.
It’s a bad deal for our climate: We cannot meet Minnesota’s science-based bipartisan greenhouse gas reduction goals by investing in fossil fuels like coal and fracked gas. Instead, we should be moving down a path to 100% renewable energy for all Minnesotans by investing in wind, solar and energy savings.
