By Jessica Tritsch
A proposed fracked gas power plant near the Twin Ports puts our health—and the natural environment—at risk. This article will cover why the Sierra Club is against this proposal, where we are in the (long, slow, and bureaucratic) approval process, and what you can do to get involved.
Two utilities, Minnesota Power in Minnesota and Dairyland Power in Wisconsin, have asked regulators for permission to build a $700 million new fracked gas power plant, the Nemadji Trail Energy Center (NTEC), in Superior, Wisconsin. The proposed gas plant would be built along 31st Ave E, between Grand Ave and E 10th St, close to people’s homes, schools, and businesses, and only a few miles from Lake Superior. The utilities must receive approval by regulators in both Wisconsin and Minnesota, because the plan is a joint venture between utilities from each state.
THAT’S A LOT OF MONEY
Minnesota Power and Dairyland never seriously considered alternatives to fossil fuels when proposing this plant, and they ignored better options like low-cost energy efficiency, renewable energy, and storage. Because of NTEC’s high and unnecessary cost, lots of folks are worried: environmental groups, industrial customer groups, student groups, and consumer groups were aligned in opposition to the plant. Likewise, the Administrative Law Judge overseeing the hearing in Minnesota recommended the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission reject the proposal. In fact, a 2019 study published by Rocky Mountain Institute looked at 88 proposed gas plants around the country and found that 90% of them, including NTEC, would provide electricity that costs more than if the utilities instead invested in wind, solar and energy efficiency. A November 2019 analysis, conducted by the Sierra Club using the Rocky Mountain Institute's methodology, came to a similar conclusion: this proposal is just too expensive.
WE NEED TO STOP THE CLIMATE CRISIS, NOT MAKE IT WORSE
If Minnesota Power and Dairyland Power succeed in constructing this proposed gas plant, they would commit the Northland to burning fossil fuels for decades to come. To break even on paying back its costs, the plant would need to operate at least into the 2050s—way past the point that scientists tell us our electricity grid must be carbon-free. This plan would seriously harm efforts to truly reduce greenhouse gas emissions and address the climate crisis.
First, extracting fracked gas releases methane into the atmosphere. Methane is a greenhouse gas that traps more heat than carbon dioxide, although it also breaks down more quickly than CO2. Experts agree that methane is 30 to 80 times more potent than carbon dioxide, and that’s not a good thing.
Burning fracked gas for power produces greenhouse gases, too. While burning coal continues to be the most environmentally dangerous source of electricity, burning fracked gas is not a source of “clean” energy, especially when compared to renewable sources like wind or solar. When both carbon and methane emissions are considered, the latest science shows that the build-out of gas infrastructure will prevent us from reducing greenhouse gas emissions enough to avoid the worst impacts of climate change.
I LIKE MY DRINKING WATER TO STAY CLEAN, PLEASE
Constructing the plant would require the utilities to destroy nearly 20 acres of wetlands along the Nemadji River. Wetlands are critical resources for reducing flooding risks for communities, and those risks have increased as climate scientists predict more heavy rain events due to climate change. The proposed plant would be located at the top of a steep slope with a historically high risk of erosion, potentially causing stormwater runoff. The utilities also estimate they would need to pump almost 3 million gallons of water a day to operate the plant, rivaling the total daily water usage of the entire City of Superior. The Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources even said that pumping that amount of groundwater may not be sustainable
PROPOSAL STATUS: MINNESOTA
Big Takeaways: The Minnesota Public Utilities Commission is looking at how much this plant would pollute, and Minnesota Power is in court trying to stop them.
Details: This plant was initially approved by the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission (PUC) in a 3-2 vote, despite the Administrative Law Judge’s recommendation that the proposal be rejected. On Monday, 12/23/2020, the Minnesota Court of Appeals overturned the Minnesota PUC’s approval because the PUC had refused to consider the environmental impacts of the plant. The Court’s decision requires the Minnesota PUC to assess the impact of pollution the plant would create over its forty year lifespan, including greenhouse gas pollution, air and water pollution and other impacts. Minnesota Power has appealed this decision to the Minnesota Supreme Court; the Court will decide whether to accept the appeal this year.
PROPOSAL STATUS: WISCONSIN
Big Takeaways: The Wisconsin Public Service Commission has given Minnesota Power the green light, but the Sierra Club and Clean Wisconsin are appealing the decision. Meanwhile, the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources is deciding whether or not to issue the necessary water permits for the proposal.
Details: In Wisconsin, the Sierra Club and others have repeatedly raised concerns about NTEC’s environmental impacts. Clean Wisconsin opposed the project, citing impacts to wetlands, the unsuitability of the site, and stormwater runoff risks. The Red Cliff Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians also opposed the proposed plant, and the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (DNR) raised concerns about impacts to groundwater supply due to the large amount of water needed to operate the plant. Public hearings were held by the PSC in Wisconsin in late October, 2019, where dozens more of members of the public expressed concern about the environmental and financial impact of the proposed fracked gas plant.
The PSC, however, ultimately decided not to consider the full scope of climate impacts associated with the plant. In early 2020, Dairyland and South Shore Energy, a subsidiary of Minnesota Power, received approval for the proposed gas plant from the Wisconsin Public Service Commission (PSC). Sierra Club and Clean Wisconsin filed an appeal in Dane County Circuit Court on Friday, February 28, 2020, for review of the PSC’s decision to approve construction.
The DNR has not yet issued permits needed for the proposed plant. A hearing for the facility’s air permit was held in January, 2020, and another hearing for NTEC’s water permit has yet to be scheduled. More information from the DNR is available at https://dnr.wi.gov/topic/WaterUse/ntec.html.
LOOKING AHEAD
Currently, regulators in both Wisconsin and Minnesota are reviewing plans for the proposed gas plant. The timeline on those reviews is still evolving, and we’re not sure how long everything will take. In the meantime, you can submit comments about why this plan would be bad for Wisconsin and Minnesota. We’ve already submitted thousands of your comments opposing this fracked gas power plant, and more keep coming every day. Add your voice, and we’ll keep you posted as things move forward. Click here to share your thoughts with Dairyland Power.
ADDITIONAL BACKGROUND INFORMATION AND RESOURCES
-
Rocky Mountain Institute, “A Bridge Backward? The Risky Economics of New Natural Gas Infrastructure in the United States”
-
Utility Dive, “'Eyes wide open': Despite climate risks, utilities bet big on natural gas”
-
New York Times, “As Coal Fades, Natural Gas Becomes the Climate Battleground”
-
The New England Journal of Medicine, “The False Promise of Natural Gas”