Response & Alternatives
Who sacrifices, who benefits, and who decides? The
farmers of Western Minnesota sacrificed so that institutions like the
UPA and CPA could thrive and the insatiable energy appetite of an
energy-fat America could be fed. The utilities planned the
power-line; the government acted like their partners on the
project. The farmers felt like outsiders looking in while
government planners assisted corporate planners in carrying out their
program. When the power companies encountered a hitch, as in Pope
County, the state government was there to overcome the opposition. [1]
Both the CPA and UPA grew enormously as organizations throughout the
process of implementing the CU Project. At a public
hearing in Alexandria, Jim Nelson said, “The best solution would be no
line at all. If the power companies could quit pushing usage of
power and start pushing conservation of power, then they could have a
little extra time off looking into alternatives.” Conservation was the
most popular alternative to the CU Project. Also, Charles Carson,
a well-known environmentalist from Grant County urged committee not to
neglect the question of need: “I know that electricity is a wonderful
thing; it helped rural Minnesota a great deal…But any good thing can be
carried too far…Stripmining Dakota and urbanizing Minnesota are not
boons, and our descendants as well as ourselves will curse the day
these things are done.” [1] Although this may not
have been well-liked by the energy cooperatives, one alternative
strategy to building the project would have been purchasing power from
other utilities in the short term and then reducing demand through
conservation and alternative energy sources. Also, the farmers
proposed an adversary forum to deal with the full range of relevant
issues, with adequate funding for all sides to present their cases
effectively and cross-examine the others’ witnesses. [1] Because the
farmers had limited resources, they were unable to hire lawyers,
research, and organize to their full potential. Most of the
protesters had families and farms to tend to and that didn’t leave a
whole lot of time for resistance. Another factor in the decision
was the science court, a concept developed in 1976 by Arthur
Kantrowitz, a physicist heading a White House task force. The
court: - Identified the significant questions of science and
technology associated with a controversial public policy issue and
leave out political, ethical, questions.
- Had an adversary proceeding presided over by a panel of impartial, objective scientist-judges
- Had a panel of judges issues judgments about scientific facts pertaining to disputed technical questions
The
Ford Foundation gave a $5,440 grant for the science court to examine
the health and safety aspects, one concern of farmers, but the science
court did not have ample time to completely study the scientific and
health effects of the HVDC transmission lines. Another weakness
of the science court is the expert/lay division, and the lack of
politics, ethics, and even community in determining the scientific
questions studied. [1] The Coal Creek Station faced
great opposition, but throughout the last thirty or so years it has
been recognized for its environmental performance. According to the
Great River Energy website, “Protecting the environment has always been
a priority at Coal Creek Station. Since the power plant was built,
approximately $200 million has been invested in environmental equipment
in order to ensure the best available technology. This helps maintain
Coal Creek Station’s status as one of the cleanest coal-fired power
plants in the region. Great River Energy continues to look for
ways to further reduce emissions at Coal Creek Station, and in the
adjacent coal fields, all mined land is reclaimed at a cost of $20,000
per acre, with restored cropland required to equal or exceed original
production. As a result of all these efforts, both the plant and
the Falkirk Mine have been recognized time and again for excellence in
environmental stewardship. [2] Coal Creek Pic
[1]
Wellstone, Paul, and Barry M. Casper. Powerline: The First Battle of
America's Energy War. Mineapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press,
2003.
[2] "Coal Creek Station." Great River Energy April 2008 <http://www.greatriverenergy.com/about/coal_plants.html>.
|
Figure 14: Powerlines in the distance of a corn field.
Figure 15: Coal Creek Station [2]
|
