Great Lakes Article:

MN Power Looks to increase pollution

03/12/2002

Plants pit jobs against pollution Proposed power facilities would bring jobs, increased emissions BY JOHN MYERS AND PETER PASSI NEWS TRIBUNE STAFF WRITERS

A slew of new power plants proposed for Northeastern Minnesota could bring hundreds of jobs and a spurt of economic growth to an area that could use both.

But the projects also promise a load of air pollution, leading some to ask whether the benefits of new power plants are worth the cost.

Northland projects in the works include:

A 225-megawatt power plant that could employ 50 to 60 people in Grand Rapids and would burn mostly coal, supplemented by wood and gas.

A 2,000-megawatt power plant that could employ about 600 people in Hoyt Lakes and would turn coal into combustible gas.

Copyright

*** NOTICE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.

A 2,000-megawatt coal-burning plant and "energy park'' near Hibbing that could employ more than 500 people.

Power plant employees at Minnesota Power earn anywhere from $15 to $28 an hour, depending on experience and skill. Tom Micheletti, a princi- pal partner in Excelsior Energy, said jobs that could be created in Hoyt Lakes would offer comparable pay.

The plants would create sought-after jobs, but they also would generate unwanted pollution -- tons of acid rain-causing sulfur dioxide and nitric oxide; particulates and ozone that cause respiratory problems; pounds of mercury that contaminate fish; and carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas most scientists agree is changing the world's climate.

Supporters say the environmental and health impacts will be minimal. Opponents counter that there are cleaner alternatives to meet the region's energy and economic needs.

The debate will play out over the coming year as projects move off the drawing boards and into the permitting process. Government regulators are preparing for a busy time, with companies already lobbying local residents and the state.

"We certainly are seeing a push for more energy, more projects up in northern Minnesota. It's happening rather quickly,'' said Ann Foss of the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency.

Some of the projects produce far less pollution than others and less than older, existing plants. And those that are built will be held to state and federal standards requiring the latest pollution control technology.

Because some of the projects are so close to federally protected areas, such as Voyageurs National Park and Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness, stricter federal laws will apply that might add pollution control costs or even scuttle projects altogether.

Still, all the projects would increase air pollution -- locally, regionally and even globally.

"There's a lot of misinformation about so-called clean coal, or that burning other fossil fuels somehow doesn't pollute,'' said Michael Nobel, executive director of Minnesotans for an Energy Efficient Economy. "If you burn something, something goes up in the air.''

NEED OR GREED?

Few deny that the Upper Midwest will need more electricity in the next 20 years. But some question how much power is needed and how to meet the demand.

"We could easily meet half the state's increased need through conservation. The other half can be filled through a combination of increased wind power and a few, smaller, natural gas peaking plants,'' Nobel said. "I'm not saying we may never need another large, coal-burning power plant. But, as of now, there's no need to go back to basically 1930s technology (burning coal) when we have so many alternatives.''

Nobel said Minnesota could meet 20 percent of its electrical need with wind-powered generation by 2020. Today, wind provides about 2 percent of the state's power.

In addition to the coal-gasification plant it wants to build in Hoyt Lakes, Excelsior Energy plans to put up wind turbines capable of churning out 1,000 megawatts of power.

Those turbines likely would be deployed on the Buffalo Ridge in Southwest Minnesota, but Mike Larson, director of the Iron Range Resources and Rehabilitation Board's energy initiative, said his agency has considered testing the feasibility of building turbines on wind-exposed mine tailing basins.

By and large, however, the new power plants proposed for the Northland are large coal-burning facilities.

"The problem is, our power companies can't get out of the mind-set that big is better. It's in their culture,'' Nobel said. "It's not that northern Minnesota needs more electricity. It's just that companies up there want to make more money on more electricity.''

And more people are questioning why any of the region's new power should come from the Northland where demand for electricity is actually declining.

Almost all of the new electricity produced here would be sent to metropolitan areas such as the Twin Cities, southern Wisconsin and Chicago.

Traditionally, power plants are next to a source of either fuel or demand. These projects would be near neither, and there's little precedent for plants being constructed for the sake of economic development.

But Micheletti of Excelsior Energy said these are far from ordinary times.

"We are in crisis with respect to northeast Minnesota's economy, and it's also very important for the state to get more power facilities like this built,'' he said. "It makes sense. Let's get on with it.''

Hoyt Lakes Mayor Marlene Pospeck shares Micheletti's sense of urgency. "It can't be built fast enough, as far as I'm concerned,'' she said, pointing to the 1,400 people who lost jobs when LTV Steel Mining Co. in Hoyt Lakes closed last year.

Larson of the IRRRB said the power plants could provide wages and benefits comparable to those miners earned. Many former taconite workers have technical abilities and aptitude that could make them good candidates for careers in the power industry, he said.

And for every job created in a power plant, an additional one to three could open up in businesses that supply and support its operation, Larson said.

Some people say the power industry is taking advantage of the Northland's stagnant economy and zeal for new jobs.

"The cost of trying to locate one of these big plants near a large population center would be astronomical, mostly because of the opposition,'' said Bill Grant, energy expert for the Izaak Walton League of America. "No one in the suburbs wants one of these in their backyard. By (locating) it in an area that may be in need of economic development, they can really speed up the process.''

Jim Kochevar, general manager of Hibbing Public Utilities and chairman of the Hibbing Chamber of Commerce's board of directors, agreed that Iron Range residents are more likely to welcome a power plant than people living in other parts of the state.

"Most folks up here are accustomed to large industry, like the mines,'' Kochevar said. "We're an industrial area, and lots of people think industry and the jobs it brings are good.''

GRAND DEBATE

Rapids Power, the proposed Grand Rapids power plant, is farthest along in the process, already having applied for preliminary state permits. It's a joint project of UPM-Kymmene, owner of the Blandin paper mill that employs more than 800 people in Grand Rapids, and Duluth-based Minnesota Power.

The partnership wants to build a 225-megawatt coal/gas/wood-burning plant adjacent to the paper mill to provide steam for the mill and excess electricity to sell on the open market.

The proposed plant would displace more than two dozen homes and could sport a 400-foot-tall smokestack that opponents fear will soil the air and spoil downtown Grand Rapids. The city already sits a few miles downwind of Minnesota Power's Clay Boswell facility in Cohasset, the second-largest coal-burning plant in the state.

"Why do we have to become the merchant power center for the Midwest?'' asked David Lick of Grand Rapids. Lick is part of a growing group, Citizens Advocating Responsible Power Production, that's working to find cleaner ways to solve the paper mill's needs without burning coal.

"Our community is really polarized on this issue. Everyone wants to meet Blandin's needs. But we also want clean air for our community. We're simply asking if there might be a way to do both,'' said Gary Prokop of Grand Rapids, also a member of the group. "Our first priority is to keep those 800 jobs here at Blandin. But we think there's got to be an alternative to a coal-burning power plant in our downtown, right on our riverfront.''

Supporters say the new system of burning coal at the Grand Rapids plant would be cleaner than traditional coal plants. The plant would replace a 35-megawatt generator that's been in operation since the 1960s, burning 1,000 pounds of wood waste daily.

Minnesota Power's Vice President of Public Affairs Jim Roberts said the project is sized to make economic sense. Any smaller and the costs become prohibitive, he said, noting the new plant will be built under tougher new environmental standards. Simply adding capacity to an old plant would create even more emissions. And it's not feasible to ship steam very far, which means the plant needs to be near the paper mill.

The push to burn mostly coal in the plant stems from the unreliable price, availability and public policy surrounding natural gas, Roberts said. While gas is less polluting, coal is much cheaper and more reliable -- key points for a paper mill competing in a tight global market, he said.

George Rudins, deputy assistant secretary at the U.S. Department of Energy, says coal has come a long way in recent years. The federal agency helped launch two prototype combined cycle power plants that run on gasified coal: one in Tampa, Fla., and another in West Terre Haute, Ind. Excelsior Energy aims to build its 2,000-megawatt plant in Hoyt Lakes using similar technology.

Many emissions -- sulfur dioxide and particulates, for example -- appear negligible in the system. And the federal Department of Energy is studying whether mercury can effectively be captured in the coal gasification process.

The Izaak Walton League's Grant said coal gasification may fill a niche in the region's energy needs, but not at such a large scale as originally proposed by Excelsior Energy. Similar small gasification plants now running produce fewer emissions than conventional coal plants and may be able to operate as cleanly as gas-fired plants, Grant said.

Rudins of the Department of Energy, says the nation's ample reserves of coal and emerging technology make it an attractive fuel of the future. "By 2015, the Department of Energy is shooting to develop technology that would allow coal-powered plants to achieve more than 60 percent efficiency with virtually no emissions,'' he said.

Still, Grant said, there's the problem of increased carbon emissions -- invisible pollution that contributes to climate change. So far, there's no viable way to capture carbon when its burned.

"The president (recently) announced his plans for reducing carbon and here we are still talking about adding more,'' Grant said. "We really shouldn't be talking about coal at all.''