From Katharine Plowman
Hutchinson
Big Stone II, for those who are not familiar with the topic, is an extension to an existing coal-burning power plant, Big Stone I, in Millbank, S.D. Plant Manager Mark Rolfes stated in a letter to this page on Dec. 16 that Big Stone II has been put under “rigorous scrutiny about how it will impact the environment ... responsibly use public natural resources and honor others’ rights.” But are these statements true?

In regard to impacting the environment, Big Stone II is the exact opposite of the renewable energy our state and national policymakers are looking toward. The new appointment to head the U.S. Department of Energy, Steven Chu, has stated “coal is my worst nightmare,” and the “fly-ash emissions from coal-fired power plants amount[ing] to 100 times more radiation than is released by nuclear power plants.” Furthermore, Minnesota’s own Gov. Tim Pawlenty has recently signed legislation promoting alternative energy. Minnesota must have 25 percent of its energy produced from renewable resources by 2025 with an increase in the state’s green jobs by 10 percent.

Big Stone II poses problems economically because it does not provide in-state jobs for Minnesotans. With the economic downturn, jobs are being cut state and nationwide daily. Instead of putting money toward dirty coal, there are new energy jobs from clean renewables like wind that can provide energy opportunities in Minnesota and the Midwest. Big Stone II is projected to provide only 29 permanent positions, while investments in wind-based energy has the opportunity to create 172 permanent jobs with the addition of $3.5 million in annual land lease payments testified one South Dakota policy analyst for the federal government’s National Renewable Energy Laboratory. More help for more people with renewables.

Finally, Big Stone II is socially unacceptable because its facilities spew mercury and other particulates into the air which decrease Minnesota’s, the Midwest’s and the nation’s air quality. Westerly winds from Big Stone II would bring decreased air quality which leads to higher rates of asthma and increased health problems. Fewer days are spent outdoors for children, elderly and athletes due to increased air quality index warnings and fish consumption must be limited due to increased mercury toxicity in fish populations.

As Minnesotans who love our outdoors and the ability to breathe clean healthy air when we are biking, walking, fishing and so on, we should not support Big Stone II. Our state, region and nation are heading toward a renewable future. We need to say “no” to Mark Rolfes and dirty coal producing power plants like Big Stone II. Coal is in the past. Our future generations need to continue enjoying Minnesota and its neighbors’ natural bounty. They need jobs to support themselves and as responsible citizens we are owe it to ourselves and to them to move toward a clean, healthy and more sustainable future.