SUPERIOR, Wis. -- Legal proceedings continue involving a proposed natural-gas plant for northwestern Wisconsin. The plans have been approved by state regulators, but opponents say there are still several ways the facility could harm residents, including their pocketbooks.

Dairyland Power Cooperative and Minnesota Power want to construct the $700 million plant in Superior.

Groups such as the Sierra Club say recent studies, including one from the Rocky Mountain Institute, have shown natural-gas facilities are more of a cost burden as opposed to clean-energy projects.

Jadine Sonoda, campaign coordinator for the group's Wisconsin chapter, said the effort would be a waste of resources.

"This plant would be a stranded asset, meaning it's uneconomic to operate, by the early 2030s," Sonoda asserted.

As clean-energy costs trend lower, Sonoda pointed out how researchers found options such as wind and solar would save utility customers more money. Opponents argued there are broader environmental concerns for all of Wisconsin, including methane emissions.

The Sierra Club is part of a lawsuit seeking to overturn permits approved by the state. The utilities contended the plant could serve as a bridge fuel as they transition from coal plants to clean-energy sources.

Mark Dyson, senior principal with the Carbon-Free Electricity Practice at Rocky Mountain Institute, said his 2019 study found 90% of 88 proposed gas plants in the U.S., including the Superior facility, would not be economically feasible.

"The costs that a utility would incur to build and run a gas plant generally exceed the cost that the same utility would incur to build and operate a portfolio of clean-energy sources," Dyson reported.

Dyson added he is in the process of updating the analysis, which is expected to show the 2019 findings still hold true.

The Nemadji Trail Energy Center recently cleared a legal hurdle on the Minnesota side, but Dyson said the public should look no further in finding examples of a project losing steam. He pointed to Minnesota's Xcel Energy downsizing plans for a proposed gas plant earlier this year, amid public pressure.

"In part, it's due to the continued cost declines of renewables," Dyson stated.

Aside from the legal challenge, Wisconsin groups opposed to the project hope concerned residents appeal to Dairyland Power in hopes of a similar outcome.

Oregon Gov. Tina Kotek has signed into law the first set of statewide policies in the country supporting community-owned microgrids.

Microgrids are local, self-contained energy systems that use renewable energy sources, such as wind or solar power.

Dylan Kruse - president of Sustainable Northwest, a nonprofit involved in drafting the legislation - said microgrids can help mitigate the uptick in power outages caused by wildfires and extreme weather, especially in rural parts of the state.

"We're seeing an increased interest from small towns, from communities, from tribes," said Kruse, "saying 'look, if the lights go out, we need to have options so we can continue to provide emergency services, we can provide communications.'"

Microgrids can power critical facilities, such as hospitals or fire stations, operating either connected to the main grid or independently during emergencies.

Joshua Basofin - clean energy program director with Climate Solutions - said that while some microgrids are being developed in Oregon alongside utility companies, they are most valuable when communities reap the economic and resiliency benefits.

"When communities own those systems themselves," said Basofin, "they actually have the ability to control those microgrids as they need for their own purposes."

Oregon's new law requires the state Public Utility Commission to establish clear rules for the operation and ownership of community microgrids, which Kruse said he believes will expedite their construction.

He said while other states have considered moving in this direction, Oregon is the first to take this step.

"This legislation," said Kruse, "is the most ambitious, comprehensive legislation in the country of its kind."




get more stories like this via email

Rural Alaska power customers are likely to pay higher electricity rates as a result of the elimination of incentives to switch away from traditional fossil fuels.

The new Trump administration budget eliminated tax credits designed to encourage investment in wind and solar projects.

More than 90% of Alaska residents rely on power cooperatives for their electricity, which have made an effort in recent years to invest in wind and solar - especially in the most remote areas.

Alaska Energy blog author Erin McKittrick said rate payers will pay higher prices as a result of fewer alternative energy options.

"Renewable energy is holding out this promise to maybe keep rates down, but the way things are going we may not get that option, or if we get it, it might be more expensive than it is otherwise," said McKittrick. "So, everybody is going to see their rates go up."

U.S. Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-AK, tried to negotiate some alternative energy tax credits back into the bill for her state just prior to a final vote - but was not able to secure money for Alaska's indigenous whale hunters to buy equipment they rely on for subsistence hunting and fishing.

Beyond affecting larger power co-ops, McKittrick said the elimination of the tax incentives will also hurt small companies that install wind and solar power in Alaska's remote locations.

"They don't have this position where they have a huge portfolio of lots of things going on and they can handle uncertainty for one or another project," said McKittrick. "Whether they exist at all in the future is questionable I would think."

The League of Conservation Voters is working at the grassroots level in Alaska to find ways to keep wind and solar projects alive in the state as it tries to move away from a heavy dependence on diesel fuel and a dwindling supply of natural gas.

More than $7 billion in Colorado's GDP and 9,600 jobs are projected to be lost under President Donald Trump's signature tax and spending bill which cuts incentives for clean energy, according to a new report by the nonpartisan think tank Energy Innovation.

Solar and wind capacity is expected to drop by 340 gigawatts, raising home energy costs by an extra $170 per year.

Margaret Kran-Annexstein, director of the Colorado chapter of the Sierra Club, said the new law reverses years of work transitioning to a clean energy economy.

"We have seen how investments in clean energy programs can attract more jobs, and can help people lower their electricity costs," Kran-Annexstein pointed out.

Trump campaigned on promises to end climate mitigation efforts and to bring down energy costs by increasing the use of fossil fuels. Republicans critical of clean energy tax credits have argued they amount to the government picking industry winners and losers. According to a separate industry analysis, just 30% of U.S. solar and 57% of wind projects are expected to survive under the new GOP law.

Oil and gas companies have benefited from taxpayer subsidies for decades and currently receive $170 billion a year. Kran-Annexstein noted efforts to boost clean energy, to slow climate change and reduce air pollution, pale by comparison.

"This bill is going to be giving polluters an additional $15 billion tax break, while gutting clean energy programs," Kran-Annexstein explained. "We need to be investing in solutions, and we also need to not be giving tax breaks to the companies that are causing these problems."

The new GOP law cuts more than $1 trillion from Medicaid and SNAP to finance Trump administration priorities including extending 2017 tax cuts. Kran-Annexstein worries ramping up fossil fuel production and limiting health coverage will produce dire consequences.

"If we're revoking people's access to health care, and we're going to be seeing increases in the amount of pollution, people are going to be sick and people are going to die," Kran-Annexstein contended.