Rep. Mike Beard (R-Shakopee) is pushing for more new coal-fired power plants in Minnesota, but the Shakopee Republican is undeterred by reports about the effects of carbon-emitting energy production on global warming. His reason: He believes God will prevent the planet from running out of fossil fuels while also eliminating the harms associated with climate change. While Beard speaks from his religious tradition, many others in Minnesota’s faith communities believe it’s dangerous to wait for divine intervention to solve our environmental problems — and they say it’s the duty of people of faith to preserve the planet for future generations.

In an interview with MinnPost’s Don Shelby on Tuesday, Rep. Beard explained his recent push for new coal-burning power plants in Minnesota.

In the Minnesota House, Beard has taken aim at clean air standards — in particular those that curb carbon dioxide emissions by power plants. He introduced HF72, which would lift the ban on new coal plants, and he also introduced HF509 to repeal the 2007 plan — touted by Gov. Tim Pawlenty — to curb greenhouse gasses and build Minnesota’s renewable energy infrastructure.

“A lot of what Beard knows he learned in church,” wrote Shelby. “One Congressman, talking about global warming, recently said that God wouldn’t allow man to do anything to destroy the planet. Beard told me, ‘It is the height of hubris to think we could.’”

That congressman, Rep. John Shimkus of Illinois, made his remarks before the House Energy and Commerce Committee in November. “The Earth will end only when God declares it’s time to be over,” he said. “Man will not destroy this Earth.”

Rep. Mike Beard

Beard also told Shelby that God would prevent the planet from running out of fossil fuels like coal: “God is not capricious. He’s given us a creation that is dynamically stable. We are not going to run out of anything.”

While the view that humans can have negative impacts on the earth is prominent among some conservative evangelical Christians, it’s not the view of the majority of faith traditions in Minnesota.

It’s certainly not for Chuck Dayton, a retired environmental lawyer who has been following the push for more coal-fired power plants in the state. He says there are no pending applications for coal plants in Minnesota and that specific exemptions exist that already allow for new coal plants in some cases.

He pointed out that coal has become expensive “because of the cost of transportation fuel, and that the cost of natural gas had plummeted.”

“Minnesota does not need new coal-fired power,” he said.

Dayton is co-chair of a new coalition of faith groups in Minnesota called Minnesota Interfaith Power and Light. The group works to educate congregations about how they can reduce carbon dioxide emissions, provide educational opportunities for people of faith on the issue of global warming and contribute a faith-based voice to public policy surrounding climate change issues.

He said that many people of faith view the Genesis commandment of “dominion” as a call to exercise stewardship of the earth. “There are a number of devout evangelicals who believe that it is the command of God to protect the earth, and eminent theologians have identified compassion as the the main common element in all religions.”

“We are already beginning to see the devastation that a warming world can bring to human beings,” he told the Minnesota Independent, citing wildfires in Russia and floods in Pakistan as recent examples of human suffering from a changing climate.

“So the question for congregations in America is, ‘How can we Americans, who are more responsible per person than any nation on earth for the growing burden of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere, sit by while our country does nothing to try to solve the problem?’” he asked.

Of the thought that God will prevent humans from negatively impacting the Earth, as Beard and Shimkus have argued, Dayton is not convinced.

“It’s just plain wrong-headed to think that divine intervention will fix everything,” he said pointing to the six great extinctions thus far in the planet’s history. “One could say, ‘Well, life persisted and got better, ’cause here we are, the pinnacle of creation, so that was all a part of God’s plan.’”

He continued, “But suppose that immense human suffering results from global climate change, that tens of millions and perhaps hundreds of millions of human deaths occur because of it, not to mention the loss of a quarter of all species on the planet?”

“Life will continue, of course, but this is a harm that we have the power to prevent,” he said. “Most religions believe that we have free will. We can sin and we can do bad things to the earth; its our choice and we must suffer the consequences.”

Dayton pointed out that many large Christian denominations have already taken a strong stance on the issue of global warming.

The United Methodist Church said, “We, as stewards, have failed to live into our responsibility to care for creation.” The U.S. Catholic Bishops said that the Church’s “response to global climate change should be a sign of our respect for God’s creation.” The Evangelical Lutheran Church in America said, “We see the despoiling of the environment as nothing less than the degradation of God’s gracious gift of creation.”

The Southern Baptists, Episcopalians, Quakers, Presbyterians, prominent Muslims and many Jewish traditions have spoken of the urgent need to curb greenhouse gasses.

Dayton’s group is part of a national network of Interfaith Power and Light, and last weekend congregations across the country spoke about the issue during their worship services. “Minnesota’s response was very strong with over 30 churches talking about the subject,” he said.

And some religious leaders are even exploring a return to non-violent civil disobedience over the issue as a sense of urgency has been growing.

“By the time the worst disasters begin to appear, the burden [of greenhouse gasses] in the atmosphere is there and will remain,” said Dayton. “We could not then change it by stopping all carbon emissions. So the need is to act now.”

A mountaintop mine in West Virginia. Photo: Rick Eglinton, Toronto Star/ZUMA Press

Most of us take it for granted that when we flip the switch, the lights will go on. Sure, we write the electric company a monthly check, but otherwise lend no thought to the source of the power — like urban kids clueless that chicken originates someplace other than the freezer aisle of chain groceries.

But this month, an energetic author from the rugged, coal-laden hills of southern Illinois hopes to relay the message — utterly apropos in a country where coal generates nearly half the electricity — that a consequence of that national dependence is the outright decimation of the communities surrounding the mines.

Jeff Biggers, a civil rights activist and cultural historian, watched helplessly a dozen years ago as the hollers of Eagle Creek, Illinois — a corner of the Shawnee National Forest and his family’s home for roughly 200 years — were blasted away, the forested hills bulldozed under by companies intent on harvesting the lucrative coal seams beneath — a scene from Avatar playing out in real time.

“They’ve strip-mined your heritage,” Biggers’ uncle told him at the time.

The tragic episode launched Biggers on a decade-long examination of the history of the coal industry’s impact on local communities — not only the environmental imprint, but the effects on culture, health and family history as well. The result is “Reckoning at Eagle Creek — The Secret Legacy of Coal in the Heartland,” released last week, in which Biggers describes the industry’s utter disregard for everything standing between it and the coal it wants out of the ground. It’s an apt study as the Obama administration advances its “clean coal” agenda.

“The old pond, the four plum trees, the sorghum and cornfields, the garden, the barn, and the one-hundred-fifty-year-old log cabin were buried in a crater formed before the Paleozoic era,” Biggers writes of his family’s experience with strip mining. “But it wasn’t just our family history. It also included a thousand years of bones of the first natives in the region, the modern Shawnee encampments and farms, the pioneering squatters and homesteaders in our family, and the slave and coal miners in one of the first settlements in the nation’s heartland — all of which had been churned into dust in the race to strip-mine the area.”

All told, the miners hauled an estimated 960,000 tons of coal from his family’s property and the adjacent plots — “enough electricity to supply American demands for approximately four and a half hours,” Biggers writes. “That was the choice we made.”

The book isn’t all. Biggers has also adapted the story for the stage, taking the two-man show — “The Saudi Arabia of Coal” — on a 22-city tour that arrives this week at Busboys and Poets in Washington. The story — about a strip miner and his wife faced with losing their home to the very project providing their income — features Biggers and Stephanie Pistello, a community organizer with Appalachian Voices, a North Carolina-based environmental group. Both are products of Appalachia; both are grandchildren of coal miners. The driving force behind the play, Biggers said in a phone interview last week, was simple: “How do we bring strip mining to people who have never seen it?”

It’s a timely story. For all the scientific warnings about the warming effects of coal combustion, the White House continues to view the fossil fuel as central to the nation’s energy future. Indeed, President Obama last week announced the creation of a new “carbon capture” task force charged with developing new “clean coal” technologies. The administration hopes to have between five and 10 new commercial facilities featuring these advancements up and running by 2016.

“Even if you disagree on the threat posed by climate change,” Obama said, “investing in clean energy jobs and businesses is still the right thing to do for our economy.”

Obama was referring to coal processing, not extraction. But in the eyes of a growing number of environmentalists and human rights advocates, the administration’s alacrity to embrace coal — combined with the mixed signals from the Environmental Protection Agency on mining permits — likely means that coal communities will remain vulnerable to the ravages of strip mining for many years to come.

“We see this as a criminal activity,” Biggers said. “And if you recognize there’s criminal activity taking place, how can you minimize it [instead of banning it]? It’s their mentality that they can regulate this crime.”

Human rights activists are hoping that Congress will step in to eliminate the most destructive forms of strip mining, a method featuring the removal of all materials (rock, soil, trees, etc.) resting on top of the coal. (That contrasts with underground mining, in which tunneling allows the overlying land to remain intact.) Of particular concern in Appalachia is one type of strip mining, known as mountaintop removal, in which the peaks of mountains are blasted away and the debris pushed into adjacent valleys, many of which contain tiny streams representing the headwaters of much larger rivers below. Bipartisan bills introduced in both the Senate and the House would end mountaintop removal by prohibiting such dumping into active streams. There appears, however, to be little congressional appetite to challenge the powerful mining industry in a tough election year when unemployment remains near double digits.

“My miners and the folks who are working and those who are unemployed are very concerned about some of your policies,” West Virginia Rep. Shelley Moore Capito (R) told Obama last month, referring in part to the EPA’s denial of some mountaintop permits. “In our minds, these are job-killing policies.”

At a much-watched debate on mountaintop mining in Charleston, W.Va., last month, Don Blankenship, president of Virginia-based Massey Energy, echoed Capito’s concerns. “The mission statement for coal is prosperity for this country,” Blankenship said. “This industry is what made this country great and if we forget that, we’re going to have to learn to speak Chinese.”

The adverse health effects associated with coal mining have, of course, been known for decades. Biggers’ grandfather was among the tens of thousands of miners to die of coal workers’ pneumoconiosis, or black lung disease. Though the cases of black lung are down considerably relative to historic highs, more than 10,000 American miners died of the disease in the last decade alone.

But health problems are only one part of coal’s dubious legacy, critics argue. Coal communities also suffer from poisoned streams, the noise pollution associated with blasting and the barrage of heavy machinery constantly lumbering along local streets. In short, they just aren’t great places to live.

“Over 1,200 miles of waterways had been sullied and jammed with mining fill,” Biggers writes of mountaintop mining’s effect on Appalachia. “Blasting and coal dust had made life unbearable for anyone in the strip-mined areas. Wells had been busted and polluted with toxic waste. … The history was clear: Coal was not cheap, and coal was not clean.”

Backing that argument, Forbes magazine last November deemed West Virginia — the second largest coal-producing state and a hot-bed of mountaintop removal sites — the worst state in the country to live, ranking it 50th in “well being,” “life evaluation,” and physical and emotional health. That’s no coincidence, says Biggers, contending that the tactics employed by the coal industry all but ensure that coal communities will be one-industry towns.

“As long as they keep those communities poor, they can continue to plunder Appalachia,” he said.

For all the wealth that Appalachia’s coal beds have brought to coal executives and corporate shareholders, the money isn’t exactly trickling down to local communities. Indeed, West Virginia ranks 49th in the country in per capita median income, according to the latest figures from the U.S. Census Bureau, with a median household income of $37,989 — well below the national median of $52,029. Only Mississippi families fare worse.

Coal critics say that the message is beginning to sink in among residents of coal towns. Although recent protests have featured the arrests of such prominent figures as actress Daryl Hannah and climate scientist James Hansen, Biggers says the backlash against strip mining is being led by locals fed up with seeing their communities decimated. “We’re all children and grandchildren of coal miners,” he said. “The only people defending coal companies are on their payroll.”

This charge could extend to Capitol Hill, where coal-country lawmakers — backed by considerable donations from the giants of the coal industry — have built careers defending those companies, usually in the name of creating jobs for their constituents.

It’s an argument, critics maintain, designed simply to insulate the industry from stricter regulations on tactics like mountaintop removal, which actually rely more on dynamite and heavy machinery than they do manual labor. Indeed, while U.S. coal production is at an all-time high, the number of mining jobs has dropped off considerably in recent decades. Just 25 years ago, coal mining employed more than 169,000 workers, according to the Energy Information Administration. In 2006, the figure had fallen below 83,000.

“If mountaintop removal disappeared tomorrow we would start creating jobs,” Biggers said, advocating for more sustainable projects. Community groups, for example, are hoping to thwart Massey’s plans to level West Virginia’s Coal River Mountain, pushing instead for a wind farm they say will sustain more jobs and bring in more tax revenue for the state — all without destroying one of the oldest mountains in the country.

Yet Biggers is also aware that numbers and statistics, whatever secrets they might reveal, can never be as persuasive as real stories of human suffering in the face of privation. His play, he hopes, will bring that tale — his tale — to audiences sitting hundreds, even thousands of miles from coal country.

“We all relate to the human story,” Biggers said. “We all relate to a sense of loss. Hopefully, this can change more minds than all the statistics I could rattle off.”

At the very least, he’s provided something to think about the next time we flip on the lights.

“The Saudi Arabia of Coal” is currently touring the East Coast; a Minneapolis stop, date to be announced, will follow the tour’s West Coast leg.

A preliminary artist's rendering of the plant, via BigStoneII.com

Despite a metro-area city backing out of the project, representatives for the proposed Big Stone II power-generation facility say they remain optimistic about  the plant’s future, while opponents are still insistent that the new plant will mean dirty power for the Dakotas and Minnesota.

The proposed coal-fired plant, to be located in northeast South Dakota, would generate between 500 and 580 megawatts of electricity. Five utilities are backing the project, including western Minnesota’s Otter Tail Power and the Central Minnesota Power Agency out of Blue Earth. The project is called Big Stone II because it is a major expansion of an existing facility of the same name near Milbank, S.D.

The municipal utility for Elk River, a western suburb of Minneapolis, has declined participation in the project, citing that taking part could carry considerable risk. “We have to commit a lot of money to something that’s not built,” said city utility board chair John Dietz. “They were asking us to commit $3.4 million by September for our share of the research-and-development costs. They’re going to have a go/no-go vote in September of this year, and next year we would be required to put up more money for construction.”

Dietz said that the ratepayers for the utility would be on the hook if the plant didn’t happen.

Elk River’s decision was the target of Twin Cities area activists who urged supporters to call Elk River officials asking them to turn down the project. At the recent meeting of the Elk River city council and utilities board, council members expressed no dissatisfaction with using coal-generated power, but questioned the price tag the utility would have to commit to the project. The utilities board had previously voted not to recommend the project, and the city council took no action, effectively killing Elk River’s participation.

A spokesman for the Big Stone II, Dan Sharp, said the project can continue without Elk River’s participation. “We could increase the scope of the project to 580 or 600 megawatts, if others were willing to come into the project,” he said. With the number of utilities that are on board, the project will probably be 500 megawatts.

Sharp said that all of the project’s partners are trying to secure their shares of the financing in anticipation of a September meeting of the partners, adding that construction is still slated for 2010, possibly starting as early as May.

Sharp says one factor that could be a benefit to this project would be if so-called cap-and-trade legislation becomes a reality. Then, Big Stone II would be about 20 percent more efficient than the existing facilities and would be in line to receive credits that could be traded on the open market.

The plant's proposed location, just over the Minnesota border (BigStoneII.com)

But, critics of the project contend the project will generate dangerous and antiquated coal-based power when other alternatives are becoming more viable in the region. The Northstar chapter of the Sierra Club, which counts Minnesotans in its numbers, has been active in opposing the expansion project. Northstar member Rich Felming said the project is largely past the point of any significant public input. He found it encouraging that Elk River declined to participate.

”We’re always trying to get letters to the editor in to make people aware of the hazards of this proposal,” Felming said.

In addition to his concern that the plant will create several million tons more of carbon dioxide emissions that could contribute to global warming, Felming has a more personal stake in the project: “I run a part-time business where I make fishing products, and I’m concerned about mercury emissions, the sulphur dioxides and the nitrogen dioxides are an issue also for me.”

Felming said he’s very concerned of the impact of this plant on sport fishing. The plant will withdraw cooling water from Big Stone Lake, which is co-managed by Minnesota and South Dakota authorities.

He said he also finds it odd that these utilities are overlooking a prime source of energy. The Dakotas are “the Saudi Arabia of wind power,” Felming said.

But in examining why utilities still seem wedded to coal-generated power, Felming said. “You want to do something you’re familiar with, you always want to keep going down that path.”

Felming added that groups like the Sierra Club and Clean Water Action in South Dakota will try to keep the public focused on what they say is a continued and dangerous reliance on coal for power.

Despite the pleas of citizens and activists in the hearing room, environmental issues were not deliberated by the PUC.

The Minnesota Public Utilities Commission (PUC) unanimously approved the Certificate of Need for a transmission line project necessary for the construction of the Big Stone II coal-fired power plant in Milbank, S.D.

Despite a room full of citizens, many holding signs and some dressed in animal costumes, opposed to the plant’s construction because of environmental concerns, the PUC did not deliberate the coal-fired facility itself or the environmental impacts that it may have, focusing instead on the cost of the project and its implications for utility rate payers.

The five-member PUC was to issue a final ruling last June, but newly appointed Commissioner J. Dennis O’Brien requested further review of the project, and an inquiry was approved by a vote of 3-2. Boston Pacific was hired as an independent consultant to assess carbon dioxide emission costs, construction costs and fuel prices for Big Stone II.

Dr. Steve Rakow, a rates analyst from the State Office of Energy Security testifying on the commission’s alternative option decisions, stated that because the Boston Pacific report did not concern itself with issues like mercury emissions or water usage that his findings did not take such things into consideration.

“Boston Pacific wasn’t paid to consider more than the three cost concerns,” responded Commissioner Thomas Pugh. The commission proceeded with a primary concern of ensuring ratepayers were not left to carry the burden of the $1.3 billion facility. To that end, the commission attached conditional monetary caps to the construction of the project and future carbon dioxide tax expenses. Since no carbon tax has been established by Congress, there is an open debate as to what those costs will be. Environmental groups expect that global warming concerns will result in a relatively high carbon tax, meaning Big Stone II would be less viable economically. Industry estimates the future carbon tax will be low and the plant will be more profitable.

“We appreciate the the PUC saw the need for these transmission lines and granted the requested permits,” said Mark Rolfes, Big Stone II project manager. “We’ll need to wait until the written conditions are available from the PUC to determine how they affect the project.”

Artist's rendering of the plant with Big Stone Lake, headwaters of the Minnesota River and natural border between South Dakota and Minnesota in the background. Via BigStoneII.com

The PUC also stuck to its limited purview over the project, considering only the merits of the Minnesota portion of the transmission project and not the Big Stone II plant itself. Despite the fact that Big Stone II will be constructed a short distance from the Minnesota-South Dakota border on the headwaters of the Minnesota River and that residents of Minnesota will be the recipient of 45 percent of the electricity generated by the facility, only 12 percent of the entire project fell under the jurisdiction of the PUC.

“This is a tremendous disappointment from the PUC, a milquetoast decision that means that if Big Stone II gets built, shareholders and ratepayers will have to bear the extraordinary costs of coal and carbon that Otter Tail Power did not account for, not to mention the pollution,” said Darrell Gerber with Clean Water Action. “It just doesn’t make sense.”

The opposition groups will likely exercise one of their few remaining options and bring the PUC’s decision before the Minnesota Court of Appeals.

“This is certainly not the end of the road,” remarked Cesia Kearns, organizer with the Sierra Club.

“We know that coal is a risky financial gamble — coal plants are dropping like flies around the country, and with a carbon constrained future, it’s likely Big Stone II will join the ever-growing list of abandoned projects.”

The Certificate of Need allows the five utilities involved in the Big Stone II project to construct and upgrade 112 miles of transmission lines in western Minnesota. The plant itself is not expected to be completed and online until 2015.

Continued: Click “Read more”The study only specifically looks at risks associated with the Kansas project, but the Solve Climate blog says the groundbreaking report makes a strong argument against coal there or anywhere else. In Minnesota, opponents of the proposed Big Stone II coal-burner on the South Dakota border have made similar arguments against that project, and I’m sure they’re reading this report with interest.

All three major presidential candidates support legislation to cap and penalize carbon emissions. One of the proposals considered in the Innovest report was coauthored by John McCain. It’s expected Barrack Obama or Hillary Clinton would support more aggressive penalties for carbon emissions.

“The fundamental question regarding the regulatory scenario on climate change in the US is not whether legislation will be enacted, but when,” the Innovest report says. Sunflower Electric Power Corporation, in its attempts to expand capacity at its Holcomb Station power plant, “has not adequately addressed the financial risks associated with the CO2 output” and as a result it “is putting its ratepayers and owners at significant risk.”

Read More:
Carbon regulations to cost coal projects, bank says (Minnesota Monitor, Feb. 13, 2008)
Carbon Regulation Will Cost Big Stone II, But How Much? (Minnesota Monitor, Dec. 6, 2007)
Big Stone II Coal-Plant Debate Turns To Carbon Regulation (Minnesota Monitor, Nov. 13, 2007)

A group of utilities led by Otter Tail Power wants to build a 500- to 580-watt coal-fired power plant near Milbank, S.D., just west of the Minnesota border. Before they can build, Minnesota regulators need to OK a set of new transmission lines that would carry electricity to customers in western Minnesota.

The anticipated cost of carbon regulations, such as taxes or a carbon cap and trade system, is critical because Minnesota law says regulators aren’t allowed to approve new projects if the same amount of energy could be supplied for less money using conservation or renewable energy sources.

In December, a report to Minnesota regulators from Big Stone II investors said they planned on paying $9 per ton of carbon emissions, while opponents argued the real cost was likely to be much higher. Bank of America’s announcement isn’t the first to predict carbon regulations will cost companies in the $20 to $40 per ton range, but it’s likely to cause some conversation because of the source.

Read More:
Carbon Regulation Will Cost Big Stone II, But How Much? (Minnesota Monitor, Dec. 6, 2007)
Big Stone II Coal-Plant Debate Turns To Carbon Regulation (Minnesota Monitor, Nov. 13, 2007)

Citigroup is forecasting the price of thermal coal will nearly double in 2008-09 from its current price of $55 per ton — and that doesn’t reflect the cost of anticipated carbon regulation. The price spike has more to do with weather than climate: A harsh, snowstormy winter is chilling mining activity in China, and flooding has washed out production in Australian mines.

It’s the second batch of bad news for coal to come from the company’s Citi Investment Research division in less than a year. In July, a Citigroup analyst advised against investing in coal companies due to a variety of concerns. It noted that natural gas is grabbing a bigger share of power generation, and that new “clean-coal” technologies have failed to develop and remain a decade or more away.

Citigroup also predicted election-year politics won’t be favorable to the industry:

“Candidates are already stepping up to ‘ban coal,’” the analyst, John Hill, wrote, “while company productivity/margins are likely to be structurally impaired by new regulatory mandates applied to a group perceived as landscape-disfiguring, global-warming bad guys.”