View Case Record, AI-17-568
View Case Record, RP-15-690
Subscribe to This Case
I am a Minnesota Power customer. I believe the PUC should allow Minnesota Power to APPROVE the Gas Plant in Superior WI. Minnesota Power is a very responsible business in the transportation of energy. They have moved forward to incorporate clean energy and this is another piece of the puzzle to reduce there carbon foot print. It takes steps to get to 100% clean energy and i believe they will get there someday, this is right step in that pursuit. Thank you for your time and consideration.
Yes. Minnesota Power should be approved to build the NTEC natural gas power plant. Electricity prices in Minnesota are already too high due to the insistence on using unreliable solar and wind causing energy poverty and hurting the most vulnerable, the low income and the poor. Approving natural gas plants will help provide reliable less expensive energy, something lives depend on. Electricity is the only commodity that is consumed with in milliseconds of it being produced, and all of the unreliable sources like wind and solar must all be fully backed up by base load sources like natural gas that can be throttled up and down on demand.
Something people don't realize is that the more gas plants you have the higher your own heating bills will be due to supply and demand. What comes out of a coal plant stack is pretty clean, and there is 250 to 400 years of coal in the ground in the United States. I say we quit closing the coal plants we have because it is reliable and cheap power.
most big industrial users oppose this plant and think it will be counter productive for coal fired plants that comitted large amounts of money and materials to retrofit these plants to meet polution standards and the loss of jobs to minnesota workers . the new plant will end up paid for by consumers and gas plants employ far less worker to operate might be plus for wisconsin not minnesota.
As a resident of Minnesota and a consumer of Minnesota Power, I am opposed to the construction of the new fossil fuel- powered energy plant proposed by Minnesota Power and its partner Dairyland Cooperative. My research into the facts of this proposal have led me to the conclusion that this plant is not needed, it threatens clean air and water and it compromises Minnesota's greenhouse gas emissions reduction goals by utilizing fracked gas, a fossil fuel.
Minnesota Power has overstated its electricity needs, overestimated the cost of increased renewable energy and failed to implement the energy savings opportunities of efficiency programs such as Strategic Energy Management, which helps industrial and large energy customers integrate good management into their practices, policies and processes.
In order to meet Minnesota's goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions to a level at least 80 % below 2005 levels by 2050, Minnesota Power must do more than transition from coal to natural gas- it must begin a robust transition from fossil fuels to renewable solar, wind, and hydro energy sources immediately.
The health and environmental risks of continued use of fossil fuels such as fracked gas are enormous. The fracking process requires large quantities of water mixed with a toxic cocktail of lead, formaldehyde, benzine, methanol and other chemicals which remain in the groundwater to poison drinking water. The extraction of natural gas also releases methane gas which is 26 times more potent than CO2 as a greenhouse gas.
For all these reasons, I urge you to find that Minnesota Power's request for this gas plant, the Nemadji Trail Energy Center, must be denied.
Everyone deserves to breathe clean air, drink clean water, and benefit from a stable climate. This proposed plant would be powered primarily by natural gas- a fossil fuel derived from hydraulic fracturing.
In a study from Geology and Human Health, entitled Potential Health and Environmental Effects of Hydrofracking in the Williston Basin, Montana, “methane is a main component of natural gas and is 25 times more potent in trapping heat in the atmosphere than carbon dioxide.”
A recent study by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), monitoring gas wells in Weld County, CO, estimated that 4% of the methane produced by these wells is escaping into the atmosphere. NOAA scientists found the emissions from the Weld County gas wells to be equal to the carbon emissions of 1-3 million cars.
The NOAA study states that “ Some of the pollutants released by drilling include benzene, toluene, xylene, and ethyl benzine, particulate matter and dust, ground level ozone or smog, nitrogen oxide, carbon monoxide, formaldehyde, and metals contained in diesel fuel combustion -with exposure to these pollutants known to cause short term illness, cancer, organ damage, nervous system disorders and birth defects or even death.”
Inexpensive energy storage facilitates a supply of power on demand. According to EcoWatch, “batteries can smooth out the variability of flow of wind and solar power and store excess energy when demand is low and to release it when demand is high.
In other words, storage extends the range of hours a renewable energy project is able to operate.” We know that Excel Energy's 85% carbon-free projection indicates that renewable energy is best plan for consumers.
If the Public Utilities Commission determines that a need exists for this power plant, I urge the PUC to require that this plant be powered by 100% renewable energy.
As a Minnesota Power customer, shareholder and resident of Duluth, I oppose the approval of the natural gas plant which MP deceptively labels "renewable-enabling". I am concerned that the gas plant will end up a major liability to the company which will affect both customers who will need to pay more for decades to come, and shareholders who will suffer from the results of poor long-range planning. Newer, cleaner technologies - including battery storage which can even out production, improved grids allowing energy purchases on demand from across the region, advances in energy efficiency/conservation and timed usage, and developments in wind and solar technologies - need to be considered before approving this mammoth new fossil fuel plant. Throughout the life cycle of natural gas from production through transport through burning, it also produces sufficient methane so that its greenhouse gas emissions are arguably no better than burning coal. For all these reasons - cost to customers and shoareholders, non-consideration of alternative ways of meeting (flat) energy demand, and the dangers of continuing to burn fossil fuels to all of us - I urge the PUC to deny this permit and instruct MP to look at more positive alternatives.
comment...I am speaking for my great grandchildren , when I oppose the construction of the proposed natural gas plant. They are the ones who are going to face the consequences of our generation not sufficiently addressing the issue of climate change.
It is my understanding that this plant simply is not needed to provide the needed energy.If more energy is needed, then we should go in the direction of renewables such as wind and solar.
The gas must come from fracking, which is environmentally dangerous and is poison to our water.
Going in the direction of gas versus renewables, doesn't help in meeting Duluth's and Minnesota's carbon reduction goals.
It is my understanding that the main reason Minnesota Power is presenting this proposal is based on their budget plans which calls for them to depreciate the costs of construction and operation. This may help their bottom line, but doesn't take into account the health of Mother Earth. Their is no plan B!
The project isn't needed and isn't wanted.
I do not believe that approval of a natural gas powered electrical plant in Superior, Wisconsin is needed according to studies conducted by the Sierra Club and supported by multiple major industries as listed in an issue of the Duluth News Tribune during the week of March 5, 2018. This is a new day and age and we need to be thinking of the people that will come after us and how our decisions today will affect them. Before building new plants we need to exhaust every possible conservation method and financial incentive for customers like me and the industries that use the power. If a plant is needed then the first option should be renewable sources that will not increase the use of fossil fuels. Natural gas is cleaner than coal but it is extracted using fracking techniques that contribute to water pollution, seismic events, use of large quantities of water and sand, resulting in additional pollution and degrading the quality of life of people living in the area. This plant is not neccessary and the technology that would be used to operate it is outdated.
I oppose the construction of any new fossil fuel power plants. We need to do all we can, starting immediately, to increase our use of renewable energy and decrease our production of carbon dioxide. Renewable energy is already competitive with fossil fuels, and by the time this plant comes on line it will already be obsolete. Let’s stick with the power plants we have, for now, and continue to work toward a livable environment. Thanks,
I oppose the construction of the proposed MN Power/Dairyland Gas Plant. Minnesotans and Duluthians have committed to reduce carbon emissions by 80% by 2050. Constructing another Gas Plant to function in addition to the Plants we already have will just generate more carbon emissions. We are at a crucial juncture at this time in addressing the health needs of the planet and communities. We need to drastically reduce carbon emissions. As all of the MN female Gubernatorial Candidates have voiced, "It is time to make radical change in the way we create and use energy..we need to start with new sustainable practices NOW to address the environmental challenges of today and tomorrow." Building this Plant would be addressing a problem with another problem. It is not in alignment with Minnesota's/Duluth's vision for a sustainable energy future. It is a proposal that is too risky for tax payers- as many of these old energy systems are. Cleaner, cheaper options are available for more energy. Wind and Solar clean energy options will increase grid capacity for less money and help create more sustainable jobs in MN than the proposed natural gas plant. There are too many environmental and financial risks involved using an antiquated response to meet an energy need. We can do better and we need to do better.