[ exact phrase in "" • results by date ]

[ Google-powered • results by relevance ]


LOCATION/TYPE

News Home
Archive
RSS

Subscribe to RSS feed

Add NWW headlines to your site (click here)

Sign up for daily updates

Keep Wind Watch online and independent!

Donate $10

Donate $5

Selected Documents

All Documents

Research Links

Alerts

Press Releases

FAQs

Publications & Products

Photos & Graphics

Videos

Allied Groups

Minnesota natural gas plant serves public interest better than renewable-resource alternatives, state Appeals Court rules  

Credit:  August 26, 2021 - Jonathan Barnes - Disputed $700M Minnesota Natural Gas Plant Is Needed, State Appeals Court Rules - enr.com ~~

The Minnesota Court of Appeals has upheld state regulators’ approval of a power company’s proposed $700-million natural gas power plant as being necessary and more reliable than renewable energy sources. The Aug. 23 ruling supporting construction of the estimated 525-MW Nemadji Trail Energy Center comes after a challenge from project opponents who said it would accelerate climate change impacts.

The three-judge panel said Minnesota Power and the state commerce agency “offered extensive evidence and analyses that … transition to intermittent renewable resources impairs reliability” and could increase costs.

The plant is a joint venture between the company and Wisconsin-based Dairyland Power that is proposed to be built in Superior, Wis. It needed Minnesota regulatory approval because Minnesota Power wants to charge state ratepayers for its construction and operation.

The plainitffs, which include the Minnesota Center for Environmental Advocacy, Sierra Club, and the Union of Concerned Scientists, termed the ruling “disappointing,” contending that no new fossil fuel plants should be built. They point to Minnesota Power’s own plan to be carbon free by 2050 as evidence of the need to address climate change issues.

“This decision may have upheld Minnesota Power’s financial agreements, but it does not show that a $700 million investment in fracked gas infrastructure … best serves the public interest,” said Stephanie Fitzgerald, staff attorney for the Minnesota Center.

Minnesota Power said the center “will facilitate the transition of the company’s planned coal unit retirements” and is is part of its plan to reduce carbon by 80% and achieve coal-free operations by 2035. The company said it is the first utility in the state to achieve delivery of 50% renewable energy to its customers.

“Natural gas … provides a flexible and efficient means to support additional intermittent renewable resources while maintaining reliability and affordability,” the company said.

Opponents note, however, that the project has additional hurdles, including a pending petition to the U.S. Department of Agriculture that challenges the absence of climate change impacts in the environmental review of a federally-subsidized loan for Dairyland Power’s portion of the project. The plant also has not obtained all necessary approvals from Wisconsin, and faces pending lawsuits there.

The ruling comes as battles escalate between developers and opponents of fossil fuel infrastructure in the state.

The Minnesota Supreme Court declined on Aug. 24 to hear an appeal by opponents of Enbridge Energy’s Line 3 oil pipeline replacement project, which now lets stand the June appellate court ruling that upheld regulators’ approval for construction to proceed. The 337-mile Minnesota link, the last in the oil firm’s major replacement of the 1960s-era pipeline from western Canada, could start operating as early as next month, the company has said.

Even so, opponents have been protesting for months at Line 3 work sites and appeared in late August at the Washington, DC headquarters of the US Army Corps of Engineers. They want President Joe Biden to order the agency to cancel the project’s key water crossing permit.

Source:  August 26, 2021 - Jonathan Barnes - Disputed $700M Minnesota Natural Gas Plant Is Needed, State Appeals Court Rules - enr.com

This article is the work of the source indicated. Any opinions expressed in it are not necessarily those of National Wind Watch.

The copyright of this article resides with the author or publisher indicated. As part of its noncommercial effort to present the environmental, social, scientific, and economic issues of large-scale wind power development to a global audience seeking such information, National Wind Watch endeavors to observe “fair use” as provided for in section 107 of U.S. Copyright Law and similar “fair dealing” provisions of the copyright laws of other nations. Send requests to excerpt, general inquiries, and comments via e-mail.

Wind Watch relies entirely
on User Funding
Donate $5 PayPal Donate

Share:


News Watch Home

Get the Facts Follow Wind Watch on Twitter

Wind Watch on Facebook

Share

CONTACT DONATE PRIVACY ABOUT SEARCH
© National Wind Watch, Inc.
Use of copyrighted material adheres to Fair Use.
"Wind Watch" is a registered trademark.
Share

 Follow: