Minnesota Appeals Court halts gas power plant, requires study of plant’s potential environmental impacts

ST. PAUL AND DULUTH, MINNESOTA -- Today, the Minnesota Court of Appeals overturned the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission’s (PUC’s) approval of the Nemadji Trail Energy Center (NTEC), a fracked gas power plant proposal in Superior, Wisconsin that would be jointly owned by Minnesota Power. The Court’s decision requires the Minnesota PUC to assess the impact of pollution it would create over its forty year lifespan, including greenhouse gas pollution, air and water pollution and other impacts.

Minnesota Center for Environmental Advocacy, Sierra Club, and the Union of Concerned Scientists appealed the PUC’s 3-2 decision approving the plant proposed by Minnesota Power and Dairyland Power. Honor the Earth separately appealed, and a group of students from Duluth named Friends of the Climate filed a “friend of the court” brief in support of both appeals.

The Court found that the Minnesota PUC must consider the potentially significant environmental impacts prior to approving contracts that would allow a fossil fuel power plant to be built. In this case, no environmental review was conducted by Minnesota regulators prior to the decision.

The Court’s decision means that Minnesota regulators must consider the impacts of pollution imposed on Minnesotans from this proposed plant before making a decision. This overturns the PUC’s earlier decision to approve the proposal and requires them to address environmental impacts before considering it again. The administrative law judge who oversaw the PUC hearing had found that renewable energy and energy efficiency could meet the power needs of Minnesota Power customers at a lower cost and with less environmental impact, but the Commission did not adopt her recommendations.

“This decision is a win for Minnesota Power customers and everyone who wants a livable climate for our children,” said Kathryn Hoffman, Chief Executive Officer of the Minnesota Center for Environmental Advocacy. “This proposal was inconsistent with Minnesota’s climate goals, expensive, and unnecessary.”

“This plant would have added millions of tons of greenhouse gas pollution to the atmosphere, for decades” said Izzy Laderman of Friends of the Climate. “We do not want to pay for another fossil fuel power plant and we do not want to suffer the consequences of its pollution for the next 40 years.”

“This ruling sends the strong message that Minnesota utilities can’t ignore or sidestep the environmental and public health risks of burning fossil fuels,” said Jessica Tritsch is the Senior Campaign Representative with the Beyond Coal to Clean Energy Campaign in Minnesota. “We hope Minnesota Power will take this signal from the court and develop a new plan that meets our state’s energy needs with clean, renewable energy rather than dirty, risky gas.”

"We are pleased the court has ordered additional analysis of this risky gas plant proposal," said James Gignac, lead Midwest energy analyst for the Union of Concerned Scientists. "Minnesotans deserve a full assessment of cleaner energy options that don't emit dangerous carbon pollution and are less expensive than fossil fuels."

ADVISORY: Izzy Laderman (Duluth East H.S.) of Friends of the Climate and JT Haines of MCEA are available in Duluth. Contact JT Haines (MCEA) jhaines@mncenter.org, (m) 612-743-7781.