Coal Creek

ndlongshot

Founding Member
Founding Member
Joined
Apr 13, 2015
Posts
1,780
Likes
118
Points
268
How in the hell did we end up here? Talking about closing one of the flag ship facilities/industries in North Dakota? While at the same time getting pushed around by MN and their green new deal energy policies. I dont understand how regulators didnt see this coming. Another reason to push back against the endless wind farm proposals. They will in no way, shape, or form, replace the jobs and associated tax base, small town communities and everything else that trickles down to a good number of counties that rely on these jobs.

I dont work in the coal industry, but have many family and friends who have. Crazy to see these good jobs being lost and the impacts to healthy small towns. Dont worry though, we will have those beautiful, subsidized wind farms to look at for many many more decades!

- - - Updated - - -

BISMARCK TRIBUNE
In the months since Great River Energy announced that Coal Creek Station faces serious financial problems, anxiety has spread through North Dakota’s coal country.


The Minnesota-based power cooperative is considering installing 800 megawatts of wind energy in the area in the event that it shuts down the coal plant. That amount of electricity is equal to the power capacity of about four average North Dakota wind farms.

Sometime this year, GRE plans to announce what’s in store for the future of Coal Creek, which has operated between Washburn and Underwood for 40 years. With a capacity of more than 1,100 megawatts, it’s the largest coal-fired power plant in North Dakota and supports hundreds of jobs, including those at the Falkirk Mine next door. The facility has operated at a loss amid market challenges, as it competes with cheap natural gas and renewable energy.

While GRE has remained tight-lipped about its plans, co-op president and CEO David Saggau spelled out one option -- to replace at least some of the facility’s output with wind power -- in a recent letter to McLean County commissioners. The letter came in response to proposed changes to the local zoning code, and it explained that GRE is thinking of connecting new wind farms to its existing transmission line that runs from Coal Creek to Minnesota.

“We are aware that GRE’s recent announcement regarding Coal Creek Station has caused great concern in the County and among its residents,” Saggau wrote. “We hope our proposed investments can ease the burden in the event Coal Creek Station is retired.”

The uncertainty surrounding the fate of Coal Creek came to a head late last month at a county commission meeting, where commissioners approved the zoning amendments. The changes put new restrictions on the development of wind farms in the area.

“We have some legacy power lines, and we’re looking at an industry that’s basically saying we’ve got to have a dramatic increase in them,” said McLean County State’s Attorney Ladd Erickson, who wrote the amendments.

As more wind farms pop up in the area, he envisions more power lines criss-crossing the landscape, becoming problematic for industries such as agriculture and recreation. Like coal, those industries are major economic drivers in the region.

Erickson said he’s concerned crop dusters could have trouble spraying fields, and that power lines could impact recreation around the Missouri River. Lake Sakakawea and Lake Audubon, created by the damming of the river, draw visitors from across the country.

“That’s bread and butter stuff for us,” Erickson said. “They’re not going to come here for wind turbines and power lines.”


The new zoning rules require that any transmission lines connected to wind turbines in North Dakota are placed at least one mile away from the lakes and river, effectively preventing them from crossing the water bodies.

The wind farms GRE is considering would include “associated transmission lines that would cross the Missouri River and would not be possible with a one-mile setback,” Saggau wrote in the letter to commissioners.


Wind industry supporters worry the ordinance could drive future wind development out of coal counties to other states, causing North Dakota landowners to lose out on lease payments and sending tax dollars elsewhere.

The group North Dakotans for Comprehensive Energy Solutions estimates that 800 megawatts of new wind power would result in local landowners collecting $5 million in lease payments each year and counties receiving $4 million annually in taxes.

“It would be good to keep 800 megawatts of wind energy in our state and use existing infrastructure,” said Tammy Ibach, director of the group, referring to the high-voltage direct current transmission line that begins at Coal Creek.

GRE recently spent $130 million upgrading the line, completing the work last year.

The zoning debate


The zoning changes extend beyond the rule about power lines crossing the river, and they could soon become the subject of a lawsuit.ad PDF

Saggau, in his letter to commissioners, called the one-mile setback “invalid” and noted that “this type of exclusionary zoning is regularly struck down by courts.”

GRE spokesperson Lyndon Anderson said last week that the co-op is “currently assessing the impact of the county’s decision.”

Erickson, as he was writing the amendments, was already anticipating a legal challenge.

“I informed the commissioners: Just expect we’re going to get sued,” he said.

Saggau has indicated that the county’s zoning decision will not influence GRE’s plans for Coal Creek.

“Closing McLean County to the transmission from wind projects will not keep Coal Creek Station open,” he wrote. “If GRE decides to retire Coal Creek Station, we will do so even if we are unable to complete our projects in North Dakota.”

The co-op offered the county $15 million over five years to help offset lost coal tax revenue if it closes the power plant, but Saggau said it would rescind the offer if the commission approved the zoning changes.


“I’m not saying it was a bad gesture, but it’s not anything that would have us change a decision,” Erickson said. “It’s not going to change the economy or help the schools or cities to any degree.”

The amendments also require that the commission approve a siting plan for new transmission lines. They allow the county to issue a moratorium up to two years on new lines or electrical generation facilities if officials need time to study their impact “on the health, safety, morals, public convenience, general prosperity, and public welfare of the citizens of McLean County.” And they indicate that the county reserves the right to hold up a site permit “until any or all lands that are under mining control are released from their bonds and returned to private ownership.”

State officials like Lt. Gov. Brent Sanford watched the zoning dispute play out.

While he understands where the zoning changes came from, he said they’re “not friendly” toward future energy investment in the county. They could cause a company to think twice about approaching the county with a project idea, he said.

“They might never come to the table and ask if this is something that the local government would be interested in taking part in,” he said.

Looking to the future


The zoning matter served as a catalyst for a number of issues that government officials, energy companies, workers and residents will need to work through as they contemplate Coal Creek's future.


“It really amplified the reaction,” said Sanford, who has been involved in numerous conversations about the plant.

Sanford sees multiple options for GRE that have emerged throughout the course of his discussions since the co-op said earlier this year that it’s looking for solutions to the facility’s financial woes.

It’s possible, Sanford said, that the coal plant won’t need to shut down -- maybe the co-op can find a new owner. He added that a natural gas plant could go in near the site and make use of both the existing transmission line and abundant natural gas from the Bakken oil fields.

Also at stake are two ethanol plants -- one next to Coal Creek and another in Jamestown. Their operations, in part, are based on lignite coal that’s processed at the power plant. Saggau addressed that matter in his letter, saying the co-op could help the facilities convert to running on natural gas.

“This is a very robust conversation, to say the least,” Sanford said.

He hopes to see GRE, and potentially other energy companies, step up to make solutions happen.


“I don’t want to see it be an exit,” he said. “I’d like to see it be a collaborative transition.”

Ibach, with the pro-wind group, suggests that McLean County commissioners and others with a stake in the fate of Coal Creek meet with GRE to ask, “What is it you’d like to do in our county? How can we continue to be business-friendly?”

“I think great conversations can happen and should happen, versus making a statement that makes it appear as though they’re closed for business,” she said.

One group, the Laborers International Union of North America Local 563, hopes to fill some of the jobs that could come if GRE invests in new power generation in the area. Its members work in construction on wind farms, gas plants and pipelines.

“Shutting down new development is not the answer,” wrote Pamela Trhlik, director of governmental affairs and new business development for the Laborers District Council of Minnesota and North Dakota, in a recent letter to McLean County commissioners.

Trhlik used to serve on the commission, including when it enacted its previous zoning ordinances. She urged the board to reject the amendments last month.

“As coal plants retire, we will need to create strong, high-paying jobs,” she wrote. “We can do that by helping organizations like Great River Energy make new local investments as their energy production focus continues to change.”


Another group rallied around the meeting, even streaming it live on its Facebook page.


Faces of North Dakota Coal suggested its followers host watch parties to show commissioners their support for the zoning changes, as public attendance was discouraged because of the coronavirus pandemic.

“I’d like to see more counties bring that discussion to the table,” said Mark Pierce, who founded the group.


Contemplating economic changes


Pierce started the pro-coal Facebook page one year ago “to humanize the industry.”

It took off earlier this year after GRE made it clear that Coal Creek was in trouble. The page now has more than 2,300 “likes” as Pierce shares photos of local coal workers and their families, news articles and other items of interest to people who follow coal developments in North Dakota.

He understands the anxiety people in the area feel about the Coal Creek situation as they realize they need to make plans for their own future.

“I have a brother who worked at Coal Creek who has since taken another job,” he said, adding that cousins and friends of his still work at the plant.


Pierce lives in Beulah in Mercer County, where he works at a mine. He said he cannot fathom what his town or others such as Underwood, Washburn, Hazen and Center would look like without coal.

Great amenities exist in his community, he said, such as a recreation facility called the Energy Wellness Center that opened two years ago with an indoor track, weights and a hardwood basketball court.

“It’s the kind of thing that you don’t expect to see in a town like Beulah,” he said.

McLean County State's Attorney Ladd Erickson testifies to a North Dakota legislative committee in 2019.
Tom Stromme
Erickson, the state’s attorney, is also thinking about what losing Coal Creek could mean for the area.

“If the decision is made to close it in the short term, we’re going to have to reshape our economy here,” he said.

People who work there and elsewhere in the coal industry are vital to their communities, serving on city and county commissions, school boards and volunteer fire departments, he said. He doesn’t want to see them leave the region.

One way to keep some of them would be to ensure that mine land, if it’s no longer needed to pull coal out of the earth, is reclaimed and put back into use, potentially for first-time farmers, he said.

“We’re going to have to ensure that we can maximize the agricultural economy, and that’s family farming,” Erickson said, adding that the county will need to focus on enhancing its recreation industry as well.


He said wind farms, even with the money they contribute to landowners and local taxes, do not carry the same sort of economic impact. The jobs they generate are primarily temporary, for the construction of the turbines, and don’t help the region’s housing market or bring more families to the area with kids to fill schools, he said.

“Green energy is a penny on the dollar to those other industries,” he said.

Pierce, as he has followed the latest developments in coal country closely, recognizes that there’s a lot of worry. At the same time, he sees optimism as people come together to talk about the future for Coal Creek and the region.

“If people don’t engage, whatever the result, they’re blindsided by it,” he said. “Getting people engaged in the discussion has been a huge positive.”


 
Last edited:


Bfishn

Founding Member
Founding Member
Joined
Dec 7, 2015
Posts
3,859
Likes
268
Points
333
Are they supposed to continue operating at a loss? People can blame wind all they want, but the reality is dirt cheap NG as a byproduct of fracking has probably had the biggest impact on coal becoming uneconomical.
 

Kurtr

Founding Member
Founding Member
Joined
Apr 12, 2015
Posts
18,326
Likes
2,100
Points
758
Location
Mobridge,Sd
Here is something most don’t realize. Flyash from there is some of the best it is used in redi mix to help workability and also reduces cost. With out access to that here our prices will go up a lot.
 

Migrator Man

★★★★★ Legendary Member
Joined
Feb 3, 2016
Posts
3,961
Likes
22
Points
226
Here is something most don’t realize. Flyash from there is some of the best it is used in redi mix to help workability and also reduces cost. With out access to that here our prices will go up a lot.
There are decades of it buried that could prob just dig up.

- - - Updated - - -

I blame Scott Hennen..... He is a sellout that will take anyone’s side as long as they pay him. He has been propping up wind and ethanol as this great thing but the impact to coal cannot be denied. It’s funny how he wrangles around issues around natural gas, wind, ethanol and coal all which advertise on his show. With coal gone some of the most efficient ethanol will go into the red.

- - - Updated - - -

Are they supposed to continue operating at a loss? People can blame wind all they want, but the reality is dirt cheap NG as a byproduct of fracking has probably had the biggest impact on coal becoming uneconomical.

Yes cheap natural gas has allowed this transition to happen but it is the push of green energy to replace coal with wind that has made natural gas peaking plants necessary. MN mandate for green generation has spelt the end for coal because their utilities can’t buy coal power. PIf you haven’t noticed that replacing coal with NG is not good enough for the greens and don’t want NG make up generation. They want more renewables and storage. MN Power NEEDS a NG plant in Superior WI to cover on days with low renewables to maintain reliable power. The green opposition may block this plant from being built. GRE plant would be profitable if they could run it at 100% without ramping up and down.

The big question is where will wind plants be built if ND blocks them here. It is obviously the best place to put them in ND with good reliable wind and proximity to MN. Can they really put them in other states and still make them profitable? I say if MN wants renewables they can put them in their own state.
 

Up Y'oars

Founding Member
Founding Member
Joined
May 16, 2015
Posts
2,261
Likes
59
Points
278
Location
Bismarck
Wind energy has been subsidized HEAVILY the past decade or two. It is a cheaper day-to-day price when considering the comparisons to coal generation (labor costs), but when you include the overall cost (ex. leases, building, decommission, repairs, days of zero wind, etc.) it is only marginal. The problem is that wind energy cannot produce base LOAD energy; that basic power necessary at any given point of the day/night the consumer demands. Because of not having that base LOAD all of the energy companies will be forced to buy off of the energy market wherever the wind is currently at (given 'x' hour of the day).

In the next five to six years you can count on your electrical rates tripling in cost as each of these coal generators shut down. We'll no longer have the energy here in NoDak and will have to buy it hour by hour which is way more expensive than the day-ahead market.
 


Retired Educator

★★★★★ Legendary Member
Joined
May 4, 2016
Posts
3,233
Likes
192
Points
273
Location
North Dakota
Only thing I know about coal energy is that my lights come on when I flip the switch. Wind energy is less reliable. All the talk about the benefits of wind energy are to me very misleading. I live in a county with a fairly good size wind farm. When proposed it was supposed to provide a good amount of tax income for the county and schools as well as the landowners who had towers on their land. Turns out the landowners are receiving a decent income, but no where near what was projected. The lower payment was due to the original company selling the wind farm to another company who demanded a lower payment in order to make the wind farm more profitable for them.

As far as the schools and county, barely a break-even point. As far as I have been told, the schools were supposed to receive a good tax base but then the legislature decided it needed a chunk of the tax and changed the school funding to deducting the wind tax from the foundation aid formula to the point where it was basically a break-even for the school. Similar for the county. Add in the extra road maintenance and other expenses and they receive very little extra.

If you live in an area where a wind farm is being planned watch very closely. It is true that it can be an additional source of income for the landowner, but not much for the other entities. Times will change and there is no stopping some of the changes but don't be mislead that all change is for your benefit.
 

Kurtr

Founding Member
Founding Member
Joined
Apr 12, 2015
Posts
18,326
Likes
2,100
Points
758
Location
Mobridge,Sd
There are decades of it buried that could prob just dig up.

- - - Updated - - -

I blame Scott Hennen..... He is a sellout that will take anyone’s side as long as they pay him. He has been propping up wind and ethanol as this great thing but the impact to coal cannot be denied. It’s funny how he wrangles around issues around natural gas, wind, ethanol and coal all which advertise on his show. With coal gone some of the most efficient ethanol will go into the red.

- - - Updated - - -



Yes cheap natural gas has allowed this transition to happen but it is the push of green energy to replace coal with wind that has made natural gas peaking plants necessary. MN mandate for green generation has spelt the end for coal because their utilities can’t buy coal power. PIf you haven’t noticed that replacing coal with NG is not good enough for the greens and don’t want NG make up generation. They want more renewables and storage. MN Power NEEDS a NG plant in Superior WI to cover on days with low renewables to maintain reliable power. The green opposition may block this plant from being built. GRE plant would be profitable if they could run it at 100% without ramping up and down.

The big question is where will wind plants be built if ND blocks them here. It is obviously the best place to put them in ND with good reliable wind and proximity to MN. Can they really put them in other states and still make them profitable? I say if MN wants renewables they can put them in their own state.


would be contaminated and needs to have all the certs from each batch to be used in concrete. Some e of the best fly ash nation wide by redi mix standards
 

ndlongshot

Founding Member
Founding Member
Thread starter
Joined
Apr 13, 2015
Posts
1,780
Likes
118
Points
268
The lower payment was due to the original company selling the wind farm to another company who demanded a lower payment in order to make the wind farm more profitable for them.
If they changed the agreement after the fact, I would tell them they can remove the wind tower from my land too.

- - - Updated - - -

I say if MN wants renewables they can put them in their own state.
Exactly.
 

SDMF

Founding Member
Founding Member
Joined
Apr 24, 2015
Posts
10,942
Likes
663
Points
448
I'd love to see Bergum task the Nat'l guard with removing every inch of that brand new energy transmission line, pile it all up on the MN side of one of the bridges over the Red.
 


ndlongshot

Founding Member
Founding Member
Thread starter
Joined
Apr 13, 2015
Posts
1,780
Likes
118
Points
268
The state of ND (PSC) should tell Great River Energy that they are going to operate that coal plant with coal, as planned, or ND will find someone who will. I dont see how they can just pull the rug out from underneath and say just kidding, we're going to put in a wind farm. Get the **** outta here.

Wind isn't their savior, either. Its MN politics pushing it, and ND should stand tall. Go ahead, put in wind, and in 10 years they will be selling the company anyways to let someone else fall on their face.
 

Zogman

Founding Member
Founding Member
Joined
Apr 20, 2015
Posts
4,526
Likes
1,612
Points
538
Location
NW Angle, MN and Grand Forks, ND
SDMF, I have had similar thoughts. Some where there must be a computer with a button that can shut it off. Next 100 degree day with no wind I want to hit that button.:crazythumb:
 

Migrator Man

★★★★★ Legendary Member
Joined
Feb 3, 2016
Posts
3,961
Likes
22
Points
226
The state of ND (PSC) should tell Great River Energy that they are going to operate that coal plant with coal, as planned, or ND will find someone who will. I dont see how they can just pull the rug out from underneath and say just kidding, we're going to put in a wind farm. Get the **** outta here.

Wind isn't their savior, either. Its MN politics pushing it, and ND should stand tall. Go ahead, put in wind, and in 10 years they will be selling the company anyways to let someone else fall on their face.
The PSC can’t make GRE operate the plant at a loss. Since wind comes before coal that is what is making coal cost more and no longer profitable. Changing that rule is the only way.

It wasn’t so bad when wind was a compliment to coal and help meet the increased demand. Now that it is replacing coal we need to jump off this wind train. It is going to be less reliable and cost more in the long run. Banning wind in ND is the only way to help curb but not stop coals decline.

It’s the wind farms owned by the coops that we need to worry about. They can increase their rates if they are not making enough money therefore costing us more. We are screwed once coal is gone and we have no alternative.

The wind farms owned by private companies are a bad investment. If they were a good investment they would be popping up all over the country and would have already replaced coal.
 

BP338

Founding Member
Founding Member
Joined
Apr 25, 2015
Posts
3,472
Likes
22
Points
251
Location
North Dakota
I watched this happen to family and friends in AZ. They shut down two coal fired plants there in the last couple of years. My dad and brother both lost their jobs. Sad deal to see these small rural towns suffer financially. It was already hard to make it by, now it's going to be even harder. People need to start getting creative with what they do to make money...

- - - Updated - - -

would be contaminated and needs to have all the certs from each batch to be used in concrete. Some e of the best fly ash nation wide by redi mix standards

You're exactly right. It takes a bit of testing and redesigning slurries for cement to work with different types of fly ash. They are not all the same. I used to work for an oilfield cement company and they had engineers and labs working around the clock like a bunch of chemists trying to figure out the cure for the coronavirus! It costs a lot of money when cement sets up too soon...or not at all...bad day for everyone then...
 

ndlongshot

Founding Member
Founding Member
Thread starter
Joined
Apr 13, 2015
Posts
1,780
Likes
118
Points
268
The PSC can’t make GRE operate the plant at a loss. Since wind comes before coal that is what is making coal cost more and no longer profitable. Changing that rule is the only way.

It wasn’t so bad when wind was a compliment to coal and help meet the increased demand. Now that it is replacing coal we need to jump off this wind train. It is going to be less reliable and cost more in the long run. Banning wind in ND is the only way to help curb but not stop coals decline.

It’s the wind farms owned by the coops that we need to worry about. They can increase their rates if they are not making enough money therefore costing us more. We are screwed once coal is gone and we have no alternative.

The wind farms owned by private companies are a bad investment. If they were a good investment they would be popping up all over the country and would have already replaced coal.
I dont think it needs to be banned. Let the market decide. Which means putting wind on level playing field with coal. Sounds like our delegation needs to get busy. And lock the lobbyists out of the room while they are doing it.
 


Skeeter

Founding Member
Founding Member
Joined
May 16, 2015
Posts
3,712
Likes
955
Points
403
Location
Beulah nd
This is just the beginning of the end. Our electricity will go from $100 a month to $300 a month, if we can even be able to buy any on the grid. Be prepared for huge blackouts. NG isn’t the answer either. Gas is traded on the open market and the price fluctuates daily. If the plants switch to gas the price will skyrocket because of the demand. The only saving grace that I might have is my company supplies coal to DGS which uses it to make natural gas. If that doesn’t happen I predict In 10 years we will be done. Anybody
gonna want to hire a washed up welder in his mid fifties then? Probably not. Maybe I can be a dog walker then.
 

Bfishn

Founding Member
Founding Member
Joined
Dec 7, 2015
Posts
3,859
Likes
268
Points
333
Correct me if i'm wrong, but aren't most of these coal plants well past their useful life which is also adding to the increase maintenance cost? I mean MDU is retiring their plants and replacing them with NG generators because they claim its half the cost of continuing to run the outdated coal plants.
 

SDMF

Founding Member
Founding Member
Joined
Apr 24, 2015
Posts
10,942
Likes
663
Points
448
SDMF, I have had similar thoughts. Some where there must be a computer with a button that can shut it off. Next 100 degree day with no wind I want to hit that button.:crazythumb:

You're nicer than me, I'd throw that switch the 1st time it hit 0F ambient and leave it off for a week or 10.

It's time for the "Green Energy" folks to live their rhetoric, as well as step-up and pay their own F'n way. There needs to be a box they're required to check that mandates renewable energy only gets delivered to their home. The decision is binding for a 10yr period as that allows for the energy producers to plan the grid infrastructure. The decision stays with the address, so, if the house goes up for sale and it's only eligible for renewable energy, the pending sale doesn't change it. The property/sale value would be potentially tied to the energy choice.

The rates charged to "Green Only" homes must be of a rate that at a minimum covers generation/transmission/maintenance costs. No selling "green" energy at a loss to be paid for on the backs of those who choose traditional sources. "Green" energy users will be subject to the variable availability of said choice. All homes that choose "Green" energy will have any/all wood-burning/fuel-oil/propane/Nat'l gas capabilities dismantled. I'm probably not done, but, this would be a start.

While they're at it, they can set up a "whistle-blower" line so the "green energy" folks aren't huddled around a buddy heater when the winds stops on a nice clear night @ -30F.
 
Last edited:

Retired Educator

★★★★★ Legendary Member
Joined
May 4, 2016
Posts
3,233
Likes
192
Points
273
Location
North Dakota
A while ago my electric bill took a pretty big jump to the tune of about $30-$40/month. There was an additional fee that I hadn't noticed in the past. Further questioning and I found out from an employee of the company that the fee was actually a fee the electric company also had to pay for "green energy"; in this case wind. She didn't want to admit what it was for but she finally did. At the same time, have no proof only her voice, that she was purposely being instructed to not give out much information. She seemed that she was also upset that her bill had gone up for this purpose. Wind might be considered green energy because it's going to cost us all greenbacks.
 

Happycamper

Honored Member
Joined
Feb 27, 2020
Posts
273
Likes
48
Points
85
If the residents of Mn knew how they are getting hosed by the Mpls liberals that might change real fast.
 


Recent Posts

Friends of NDA

Top Posters of the Month

  • This month: 190
  • This month: 153
  • This month: 142
  • This month: 137
  • This month: 113
  • This month: 93
  • This month: 93
  • This month: 88
  • This month: 84
  • This month: 78
Top Bottom