Pawlenty Energy Aides Assert New Coal Plants Will Actually Help Reduce GHG Emissions

[hatrack]

Legislators involved in energy policy are increasingly doubtful that Gov. Tim Pawlenty will push, or even support, the kind of "bold" energy initiatives that he urged of his fellow governors in national speeches just two years ago. Meeting in St. Paul last week, legislators were surprised when administration officials suggested that further action may not be needed to reduce carbon emissions linked to climate change, as required in a law the governor signed in 2007. At the time Pawlenty had said, "… here in Minnesota we are kick-starting the future by increasing our nation-leading per capita renewable fuel use, boosting cost saving measures and tackling greenhouse gas emissions."

Pawlenty's top energy-policy officials further surprised legislators by saying that millions of tons of added carbon (a key greenhouse gas) from two major coal-fired power plants being planned – Big Stone II on Minnesota's western border and Excelsior Energy on the Iron Range – could actually reduce greenhouse gases. An energy-policy expert – earlier appointed by Pawlenty to major carbon-reduction study groups – dismissed that assertion as "preposterous."

David Thornton, assistant commissioner for air quality at the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA), told the Senate Energy Committee last week that models show the two plants with state-of-the art emissions technology would replace older plants that emit proportionately higher carbon amounts.

However, Bill Grant of the Isaac Walton League and who Pawlenty named to the Minnesota Climate Change Advisory Group (MCCAG) and to a carbon-reduction study panel of the Midwestern Governors Association, said that when utilities were asked if they'd close older plants when – and if – Big Stone and Excelsior start up, they all said no. Grant said utilities typically keep power plants running as long it's profitable to fulfill energy demand by the regional energy grid. Besides, he and others have noted, if the Big Stone plant would merely replace existing plants it wouldn't qualify for a "certificate of need" that was granted last month 5 by the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission.

EDIT

http://www.minnpost.com/stories/2009/02/18/6763/legislators_surprised_by_extent_of_pawlenty_backtracking_on_energy