Great River Energy (GRE) changed plans to close Coal Creek Station and now plans to sell it along with our most valuable asset, the high voltage transmission line for pennies on the dollar. 

The sale requires GRE to buy back coal fired generation from the plant for years to come. 

Dakota Electric’s board will vote on January 27 to support or oppose the deal. Other GRE member-owned cooperatives will have a similar vote later this month. Below is more information, including what you can do. The last contract to sell these assets expired on Dec. 31. If you are a member-owner, now is the time to speak up!

ISSUE:

• On May 7, 2020 GRE had a major press release announcing plans for closing the Coal Creek Station generation plant in Underwood, ND by 2023 and the development of new renewable energy investments that would provide 95% clean energy, at lower costs, for member-owners.
• The announcement provoked a backlash from local governments in ND, with McLean County adopting a zoning change prohibiting new wind energy transmission lines – a move that bans new wind farms access to Great River Energy’s  transmission line.
• It’s unfair that North Dakota government officials and investors are able to dictate that they will “consider” reversing their recently enacted renewable energy moratorium against clean, cost-effective wind production for Minnesota consumers only if we agree to their plans for continued operation of Coal Creek Station
• GRE is now planning to sell the coal plant and the High Voltage transmission line that carries electricity from the power plant to Minnesota customers.
• New details of this sale haven’t been shared with DEA member-owners yet but are on another coop’s website: https://clpower.com/sites/default/files/January%2013%20Member%20Briefing_redacted.pdf

• The Connexus Board of Directors unanimously opposed this Coal Creek Station sale, and a couple more more co-ops need to join them: https://www.connexusenergy.com/blog/2021/connexus-energy-board-votes-on-coal-creek-station/   

Recommended Actions If you have concerns about the transparency of this sale and how it will affect an affordable, clean energy future:

First and foremost, if you are a member of any of the 28 cooperatives with over 700,000 members that work with Great River, listed here, that means that YOU have a representative on a board of directors involved in this decision. Write them, call them, email them, and ask to speak at their upcoming meeting. 

For Dakota Electric Association members:
1st OPTION (PREFERRED): If member-owners want the DEA board of directors to vote to oppose the sale of the coal plant and transmission line to private investors, including a long-term contract to buy back the coal power from the plant, sign up to speak at the virtual board meeting on Thur. January 27 with Melissa Cherney at mcherney@dakotaelectric.com by Jan 20.

2nd OPTION: Contact DEA board members.

Other action: Take this resolution calling for legislative oversight of member-owned cooperatives to your precinct caucus.

SEE ALSO

How coal holds on in America

In North Dakota coal country, officials rally to save a coal-fired power plant at renewable energy’s expense.

 OTHER RESOURCES

Great River Energy should think again about selling Coal Creek

The transmission line being sold just underwent significant upgrades in 2019 and is an extremely valuable asset for member-owners with higher value than the sale price. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bSIumDVaZko&t=320s

Article: Minnesota co-op utilities must vote on approval of the plant’s sale. The new owner is betting on carbon capture to extend its life.

DFL Environmental Caucus Blog post on Coal Creek

Sierra Club, July 30 Statement

Sierra Club:on  Coal Ash

One of our DFLEC resolutions asks for increased oversight of member owned electric cooperatives in Minnesota.  The realization that this is needed came recently to several climate change activists, working across a range of organizations, when Great River Energy decided to sell, instead of close, a dirty coal plant  in North Dakota.  At the same time, GRE seemed poised to give up on the use of a very high tech DC transmission line that we all thought was going to be used to bring abundant wind-generated electricity from one of the most consistently windy parts of the world to the Twin Cities.

During that kerfuffle, outlined at the time here, activists, including citizen board members of some of the state’s coops, realized that a) these entities are not closely watched by the public utility commissions or any government agencies because b) member stakeholder citizens run them so why would that be needed, but c) somehow that was not working, and decisions were being made and pushed through that the members did not want.

Thus, the resolution: ” Support legislative oversight of Minnesota’s member-owned electric cooperatives to improve transparency and ensure there is opportunity for input from members before key decisions are made that affect asset management, member payments, or climate impacts. ” (PDF here)

In case this is an area of interest for you, and you want to support this resolution at your Precinct Caucus on February 1st, or otherwise advocate for this cause in our upcoming legislative sessions, here are some bullet points that go beyond those listed with our resolution here on our resolution page, or on the above referenced PDF.

• Rural electric cooperatives were created through the 1936 Rural Electrification Act as a part of the New Deal. At the time less than 10% of rural communities and farms were electrified, by 1950 electric cooperatives had electrified 80% of those communities. Rural electrification is one of the most successful federal programs in history. Today in Minnesota, 85% of the state’s geography gets its electricity from rural co-ops, 2 million Minnesotans dependent on that service.
• Electric cooperatives are run by boards elected from their members (their customers).Sadly, since their creation many cooperatives have not accomplished their mission as democratic institutions.
• Several decades ago a popular rural state senator wrote and led the passage of a law removing rural electric cooperatives from oversight of the MN Public Utilities Commission.  Today, he views this as “the worst mistake of his career.”
• Today Minnesota’s electric cooperatives are only accountable to their local boards, who in many cases have a failing track record of being transparent to the public and often make decisions outside of their members best interest. When they act negligently there is virtually no state oversight to hold them accountable.
• Currently Great River Energy (a group of 28 local cooperatives) is making a major energy decision that will impact Minnesota members and our climate for decades to come. The potential sale of member assets that will result in a long-term contract for a coal plant will lock nearly 2 million Minnesotans into coal generated electricity for years to come.
• The sale of Coal Creek is contingent on the PUC approving the transfer of ownership of the HVDC power line that members have paid for over decades with an additional $130 in recent upgrades. Some 800 members of GRE wrote to the MN Public Utilities Commission to voice their concern for the lack of transparency, climate, and financial impacts of the sale.
• The Build Back Better Act offers new programs and incentives for electric cooperatives to make the transition to clean energy. We need public oversight to assure co-op leaders are acting in the public interest.
• Electric cooperatives put up unnecessary barriers to their members wishing to generate their own electricity and to improve the energy efficiency of their homes and businesses.
• Electric cooperative Boards are democratic institutions that should be operating in the public interest and in the interest of their member owners.
• Standardized co-op transparency and democracy practices that will protect co-op democracy, accountability, and improve member involvement.
• Legislative oversight would create standardized co-op transparency and democratic practices that will protect co-op democracy, accountability, and improve member involvement. It would treat rural electric cooperatives like other utilities by applying similar oversight.
• Treat rural electric cooperatives like other utilities by applying similar oversight.

Carbon Capture and Storage technology is not an effective way to address the climate emergency.

Supporters of CCS have sent a letter to Senator Wyden, chair of the Senate Finance Committee, asking him to eliminate minimum capture requirements for CCS, claiming they will not be able to do CCS with the requirement that they capture 75% of emissions. Instead of abandoning this technology they are now admitting is ineffective, they are pushing to eliminate minimum capture requirements in the Build Back Better Act.

We hope you will contact Senator Wyden at (202-224-5244) and as well as leader Senator Schumer (202-224-6542) and tell them oppose subsidies for Carbon Capture and Storage technologies, and that you don’t appreciate fossil fuel energy industry attempts to remove guardrails on CCS that are currently included in the Build Back Better Act.

Pleas also contact our Minnesota Senators, Tina Smith and Amy Klobuchar and express the same thoughts.

• Proponents falsely claim that Carbon Capture and Storage projects can consistently capture 90% or more of emissions, yet the Build Back Better Act would allow companies to claim credits at rates as low as 75% and to not require a full lifecycle analysis of carbon capture technology. This is an admission that this technology does not work.
• We need to hold the fossil fuel industry accountable, not divert more subsidies for an industry that is destroying the planet for a technology that does not work.
• Carbon Capture equipment at power plants increases energy demand by nearly 20%, curtailing capacity and providing no new generation, while driving up cost and pollution for the public.
• Clean renewable energy investments do more to reduce greenhouse gases than carbon capture and storage (CCS) at power plants.
• The Build Back Better Act increases oil drilling subsidies by up to 271%, depending on the method used to capture CO2.
• Enhanced Oil Recovery (EOR) undermines any supposed benefit of capturing CO2 resulting in a net increase in greenhouse gas emissions.
• When you consider full lifecycle analysis, including energy to run the equipment, the capture rates can be as low as 39%.
• CCS will increase energy costs and cause harm in disadvantaged communities. In fact, the White House Environmental Justice Advisory Council recognizes the CCS does not benefit environmental justice communities and is an adverse introduction into environmental justice communities.