BUT Xcel’s new plan still includes new fossil gas
by Jessica Tritsch
Summary: Xcel dropped its plans to build a big new fossil gas plant in Becker in response to widespread opposition, but the improved plan is undermined by the inclusion of 2 fossil gas plants and no additional commitments on community & rooftop solar or equity. We can’t build new fossil fuel infrastructure in a climate crisis! Join us in calling on the MN PUC to require Xcel to evaluate alternatives.
Earlier this summer we were very excited to share the news that Xcel dropped its plans to build a large, new combined cycle (CC) fossil gas plant in Becker! Thousands of Xcel Energy customers and Minnesotans from across the state have been voicing their opposition to this plant for years. This is a huge victory for climate and economic justice. Sierra Club’s analysis showed that the proposed plant would have emitted more than 3 million tons of carbon each year -- including emissions from extraction, transportation and burning -- and cost $200 million more that clean-energy alternatives. And we know that BIPOC (Black, Indigenous and People of Color) and low-income communities are already disproportionately impacted by the climate crisis and high energy bills. Thank you to everyone who has weighed in over the past few years -- this would not have been possible without you.
What plan?
You may remember that Xcel’s original plan (15 year IRP or integrated resource plan) was proposed in 2019 and included retirement of all its MN coal plants by 2030, significant investments in wind and solar energy, a 10-year extension of the license of the Monticello nuclear plant to 2040, and building the 800 MW Sherco CC gas plant. It also significantly underestimated the need for community solar and distributed generation and did not go far enough to address racial justice
In response, thousands of Minnesotans called on Xcel to drop its plans to build new fossil gas, support and invest in rooftop and community solar, and prioritize racial justice. Three alternative plans were proposed in February by Sierra Club, Clean Energy Organizations, and Citizens Utility Board MN– all of which would reduce costs for customers, maintain reliability, and not include new fossil gas plants.
Sierra Club’s “Clean Energy for All” plan keeps Xcel’s plans to retire its coal plants by 2030 and maximize energy efficiency. Our proposal builds even more wind and solar to meet new energy needs, instead of building a new fossil gas plant or extending the life of the Monticello nuclear plant. It also includes dramatically higher levels of distributed solar and community solar, solar paired with storage, and standalone battery storage. Our experts found that our plan would save customers more than $2.2 billion over the planning period (2020-2034) compared to Xcel’s original plan and would set the utility on a trajectory to reduce its carbon emissions to 100% by 2040 or sooner.
But what’s in Xcel’s NEW alternative plan?
In response to widespread opposition to the Sherco gas plant in Xcel’s original plan, the utility proposed an alternative plan on June 25th that takes out the Sherco gas plant. The plan keeps the coal retirements, plans for the Monticello nuclear plant life extension, energy efficiency, and large investments in renewables. It includes more wind and a small amount of battery storage. Instead of the Sherco gas plant, Xcel proposes two “gen-tie” lines – essentially extension cords from the sites of the retiring King and Sherco coal plants – that will connect new wind and solar to those large transmission lines.
Xcel also expressed willingness to include more distributed solar modeling as part of its next resource plan, although no firm commitments. And while Xcel expressed a commitment to racial equity in its original plan, the alternative plan did not address the many recommendations such as setting diversity metrics for hiring, committing to not renewing their contract with the HERC incinerator in Minneapolis, and ensuring impacted communities are part of developing more accessible solar and energy efficiency programs.
Disappointingly, the alternative plan also includes plans to build 2 new fossil gas plants – one at the end of the Sherco transmission extension in Lyon County, MN, and the other in Fargo, ND. Xcel proposes to build these approximately 400 MW new fossil gas peaker plants around 2027-2029. Xcel also proposes to repower two existing fossil gas peaker plants.
Peaker plants, also called CTs or combustion turbines, are designed to run only when needed – when there is a peak in electricity demand – like on a hot summer day when everyone is using their air conditioners. This is different from the previously proposed Sherco CC (combined cycle) plant, which was expected to operate most of the time. That’s why Xcel’s alternative plan leads to less carbon emissions - Xcel projects an 86% reduction in carbon emission by 2030 compared to 80% by 2030 in its original plan.
However, peaker plants emit more carbon emissions per unit of electricity (ie they are less efficient) and also disproportionately emit health-damaging air pollutants – mainly ozone forming chemicals like nitrogen oxides (NOx) and harmful particulates – that contribute to poor local air quality and harm public health.
Despite the climate, health and cost impacts of fossil gas, Xcel did not evaluate clean energy alternatives for its new plan.
We need 100% clean & equitable energy, not new fossil fuel plants.
This month the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) issued a “Code Red” for humanity. As this report documents, the damage driven by burning fossil fuels is now widespread and severe. The report specifically names methane, the primary component of fossil gas, specifically as an extremely potent greenhouse gas, more than 80 times as powerful as carbon dioxide pollution.
We can’t afford to build new fossil fuel infrastructure in a climate crisis. The proposed peaker plants would burn fossil gas - releasing CO2 into the atmosphere at the plant and leading to upstream emissions of methane, a super potent greenhouse gas, during its extraction (usually by fracking) and transportation of the gas.
These peaker plants are not necessary. Sierra Club’s Clean Energy for All Plan used the same modeling software as Xcel and met energy needs with a lot more clean energy and storage and no new gas plant. As did the other alternative plans proposed to the MN PUC.
What’s next? How can I help?
Sierra Club and other stakeholders are reviewing Xcel’s alternative plan and will be submitting comments to the MN PUC on October 15th. Minnesota law requires utilities to consider non-fossil fuel alternatives before building new fossil gas plants. Specifically, where a utility proposes a new fossil generation resource as part of its preferred plan in its IRP, it bears a high burden of proof: the utility must show that a renewable alternative to meet the need is “not in the public interest,” considering cost-effectiveness, reliability and the state’s greenhouse gas reduction goals (Minn. Stat. § 216B.2422, subd. 4). Thankfully, there is plenty of time before these peaker plants are proposed to be built in 2027-2029. This gives time for Xcel, stakeholders, and the public to evaluate alternatives after this IRP.
Join us in calling on the MN PUC to support Xcel’s Energy’s decision to forego building the Sherco gas plant, not approve new plan to build 2 smaller fossil gas peaker plants, and support additional commitments to community and rooftop solar and racial equity.
Jessica Tritsch is a Senior Campaign Representative with the Sierra Club’s Minnesota Beyond Coal to Clean Energy Campaign.