GRE should retire its expensive Coal Creek plant as planned instead of selling it to an unnamed ND buyer
Great River Energy's Coal Creek plant was slated to be retired last year, but not because of environmental or health concerns--the plant simply wasn’t profitable. By GRE’s own reporting, Coal Creek lost member-owners at least $170 million a year. At the time, GRE couldn’t find anyone willing to buy the plant--not even the low, low price of a single dollar--prompting GRE’s President and Chief Executive Officer David Saggau to say, “We do not see market conditions improving to a point where we could keep the plant operational.”
Unfortunately, GRE-- which serves 28 smaller electric distribution co-ops and provides electricity to over 700,000 Minnesota residents--is now backtracking on its promise to retire this dirty, expensive coal plant and replace it with clean energy. Through backroom deals, the fossil fuel industry is attempting to bail out Coal Creek and potentially stick you and your neighbors with a bill to pay for it.
The costs to keep Coal Creek running keep mounting: If the coal plant keeps operating, it faces even more costs to clean up its air pollution to comply with the Clean Air Act and other federal environmental protections. According to GRE’s own consultants, controls for nitrogen oxides (NOX) and sulfur dioxides (SO2) could exceed $500 million in capital costs and a significant increase in annual operating costs. NOX and SO2 contribute to haze in our environment and impact respiratory health. A Sierra Club analysis also found that retiring the plant could save between anywhere between $35 million and more than $85 million in coal ash disposal costs; coal ash is the toxic, leftover byproduct that comes from burning coal, and if it’s not properly disposed of it can be toxic to wildlife and seep into groundwater. The potential buyer is reported to be planning to invest in Carbon Capture Utilization and Storage (CCUS) for Coal Creek, which would inject carbon pollution into the ground. CCS would only add more expense to the plant, the technology is risky for old coal plants, and it would require a significant increase in water resources to operate.
The climate impact of selling Coal Creek would be significant: Retiring Coal Creek and replacing it with clean energy will not only save customers money, but will mean cleaner air & water and progress towards reducing climate-disrupting emissions. Each year, Coal Creek burns approximately 7,500,000 tons of lignite coal, about the size of twenty Empire State Buildings. Burning that coal emits nearly 10,500,000 tons of carbon dioxide each year, equivalent to the emissions of over 2,500,000 cars. Minnesotans support a path to 100% clean energy and carbon emissions reduction, but if GRE sells the plant it would continue to operate instead of being retired in 2022, contributing to climate emissions and preventing clean energy development on the transmission line. And while ND is talking about trying to capture carbon emissions, most proposals include using that carbon dioxide to get more oil out of wells, perpetuating emissions and negating any climate benefits.
There is a better alternative in the American Jobs Plan: Sierra Club recently put forth a proposal on how President Biden’s American Jobs Plan for rural communities could support cooperatives like GRE as they transition from coal to clean energy. The plan would provide funding for rural electric cooperatives that retire expensive and polluting coal plants and replace them with cost-effective local clean energy, and provide direct support to impacted coal communities. This would spur investment of clean energy in rural communities, greatly reduce costs for member-owners now on the hook for older, expensive coal plants, and mitigate impacts for the workers at those plants.
You can take action: Click here to tell GRE that you oppose the sale, and urge them to honor the commitment to retire the plant for the good of member-owners, our air, water, and climate.
Great River Energy has made clear that Coal Creek is losing hundreds of millions of dollars and the costs of operating older coal plants continue to rise. Without public transparency on this backroom deal, member-owners don’t know what costs they will be on the hook for. Backtracking on the commitment to retire Coal Creek will mean continued carbon emissions at a time when we need to stop investing in fossil fuels to avert the worst impacts of the climate. And the American Jobs Plan proposal offers an alternative path to retire the plant and invest in the communities it serves. GRE needs to reject its backroom deal and maintain its commitment to retiring Coal Creek and replacing it with clean energy.
