St. Paul, MN — The Minnesota Public Utility Commission decided today to delay a decision on the Certificate of Need for power lines leading to the proposed Big Stone II coal-burning power plant in South Dakota. Commissioners found that information currently available is insufficient as to the costs of implementing the project. Commissioners expressed concerns about the likely impact on rate payers in Minnesota should the plant go forward. This comes at a time of growing realization across the region that continued reliance on coal is unnecessary and not worth the health, environmental and economic problems.

"We've been working for years to show the costs of coal. This is dirty power that causes mercury contamination in our fish, asthma in our kids and diverts us from the Midwest's real strength – clean, renewable energy sources like wind. If we let them build Big Stone II it would be like adding a half million more cars in terms of global warming pollution. That's clearly going in the wrong direction," said Clean Water Action's lead organizer opposing the new coal plant, MaryJo Stueve.

The Minnesota Public Utility Commission voted 3 to 2 to delay a decision until they could receive more information on costs from independent experts. The proposed transmission lines in Western Minnesota would bring electricity generated at the proposed 580-megawatt Big Stone II coal plant on the South Dakota side of Big Stone Lake to customers in Minnesota. The timetable for when they will return to the application is uncertain.

"Every day we spend, every penny we spend considering coal as a power source takes us further and further away from the clean energy we need to bring prosperity to the Great Plains and a halt to global warming. This is a sidetrack to progress," said Darrell Gerber, Clean Water Action's Minnesota Energy Program Coordinator.

The ruling comes at a time when Minnesota's governor and legislature have taken increasingly aggressive steps to combat global warming. "The delay is clear indication of the crossroads we are facing," comments Stueve, South Dakota Program Coordinator for Clean Water Action. "The time of our over reliance on coal is coming to an end and the sooner we realize the folly of projects like Big Stone II the better."

Hundreds of citizens attended the MN PUC hearings this week in St. Paul thanks to three years of grassroots efforts in Minnesota, South Dakota and North Dakota by Clean Water Action, Clean Up our River Environment, Dakota Resource Council and Sierra Club-North Star Chapter.

Environmental and clean energy groups arguing the legal case against the plant expansion are Minnesota Center for Environmental Advocacy, Fresh Energy, Izaak Walton League of America, Wind on the Wires, and Union of Concerned Scientists. "We found significant opposition to the Big Stone expansion from the hundreds of thousands of people we have had conversations with over the past three years," said Gerber. "People understand that we need to make a transition and this is not the way to do it. If we are to head off the worst impacts of global warming we can not continue to build new coal power plants that we will be stuck with for decades."

Minnesota took strong steps in 2007 to encourage use of renewable energy with the passage of science-based goals to reduce global warming pollution emissions 80% by 2050 and a Renewable Electricity Standard requiring that over 20% of electricity used in the state come from renewable sources. This, coupled with strong conservation and efficiency measures, set the stage for a transition to a cleaner, more efficient energy system – one that does not include the Big Stone II coal power plant. The Minnesota Climate Change Advisory Group recently found, though, that these efforts are not nearly sufficient to meet Minnesota's global warming pollution goals. "This project would put millions of tons of new pollution into the air at a time when we have to figure out how to remove millions of tons," says Gerber. "Construction of Big Stone II would shift the burden for reducing emissions onto other sectors of our economy making it more difficult and expensive to meet the state targets."

The plant will also have harmful impacts on Big Stone Lake – the headwaters of the Minnesota River. The Minnesota River was recently ranked as the fifth most endangered river in the country by American Rivers. The primary reasons cited by the national organization are mercury pollution and the water consumption of the denied Big Stone II power plant expansion. Coal power plants are the largest contributor to mercury pollution across the Midwest. The decision puts the health of those living near the expansion at risk. They have already shouldered the bulk of negative health and environmental risks associated with Big Stone Plant Unit I.